Loading...
1998-10-08 SP (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/8/98) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING OCTOBER 8, 1998 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT GEORGE STARK TIMOTHY BREWER ROBERT PALING ROBERT VOLLARO MEMBERS ABSENT CATHERINE LA BOMBARD LARRY RINGER CRAIG MAC EWAN PLANNER -LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 9-1998 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED KIMBERLEE GOSLINE OWNER: WILLIAM & MARYLEE GOSLINE ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION: END OF BLACKBERRY LANE, OFF OF BLIND ROCK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 9.30 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 3 ACRES AND 6.30 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 53-1998 TAX MAP NO. 60-7-22 LOT SIZE: 9.30 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MARYLEE GOSLINE;MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT th MR. PALING-The public hearing was held on August 25, and I believe is still open. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 9-1998 - Preliminary & Final Stage, Kimberlee Gosline, Meeting Date: October 8, 1998 “Description of Project Subdivision 9-1998 was tabled for additional information. The Planning Board requested additional detail on the driveway access to the site location. In addition, the Board requested information on the Town Highway Department’s driveway inspection process. Staff Comments Staff spoke with the Highway Department about the inspection of driveways. They have indicated that they will measure the driveway only if a visual inspection demonstrates the need. Staff has received revised maps, and it addresses the concerns of the Board. Staff has no additional comments.” MR. STARK-Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. MR. STARK-Would you like to introduce yourselves. MRS. GOSLINE-Marylee Gosline. MR. STEVES-My name is Matt Steves. MR. STARK-Okay. Any comments as to Staff’s comments? MR. STEVES-None whatsoever. I demonstrated, as to the concern of the Board, that the subdivision of the three acre lot can accommodate a lot and septic and a driveway not exceeding 10%, and where we have placed the house, with a grading plan, we have a four and a half percent driveway, which is quite adequate. If there’s any other questions from the Board, I’d be happy to answer them. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/8/98) MR. STARK-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-This is good. We got what we asked for. MR. STARK-It’s fine with me. Okay. Does anybody want to make a motion? MR. PALING-Wait a minute, George. I think you want to have a public hearing. MR. STARK-I’m sorry. You’re right. I’d like to open the public hearing, if anybody has anything to say on this project, pro or con. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Don’t we have to rescind our motion previously? MRS. MOORE-No, that’s the next two, that’s the next two projects, not for the Gosline project. MR. BREWER-We didn’t pass Preliminary? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. BREWER-I thought we passed Preliminary and wanted this stuff for Final? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. VOLLARO-No, we didn’t do either. We just tabled. MRS. MOORE-For Gosline’s, you have to go through the Long Form. MR. PALING-We do have to do the Long Form? MRS. MOORE-Because that’s what he’s filled out. Otherwise, we would do the Short Form. MR. BREWER-Just because he filled it out, doesn’t mean that we have to do it. We can do a Short. MR. PALING-Mark ruled on that a couple of meetings ago, that we don’t have to do it, just because the applicant filled it out. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. PALING-Do we have to do the Short Form? MRS. MOORE-You have to do one or the other, yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 9-1998 , Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: KIMBERLEE GOSLINE , 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: 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/8/98) 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 8 day of October, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan MR. STARK-Okay. Does anybody want to make a motion, now, for the Preliminary Stage? MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-1998 KIMBERLEE GOSLINE , Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Preliminary Stage application for KIMBERLEE GOSLINE, to subdivide a 9.30 acre parcel into two lots of 3.00 acres and 6.30 acres; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received August 13, 1998, consists of the following: 1. Application with map dated 8/27/87 and waiver request dated 8/13/98 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 10/8/98 - Staff Notes 2. Map S-1 revised 10/6/98 3. 9/28/98 - Meeting notice letter 4. 9/22/98 - Planning Bd. resolution to table 5. 9/22/98 - Staff Notes 6. Map S-1 dated 9/15/98 7. 9/1/98 - Meeting notice letter 8. 8/25/98 - Elizabeth Little comment 9. 8/25/98 - Staff notes 10. 8/25/98 - E. Horgan comment 11. 8/21/98 - M. Swan comment 12. 8/19/98 - Meeting notice sent Whereas, a public hearing was held on 8/25/98 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/8/98) Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to APPROVE Preliminary Stage for KIMBERLEE GOSLINE. 2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 3. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 4. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. 5. Recreation Fee is to be paid at the time a building permit is applied for. th Duly adopted this 8 day of October, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-1998 FINAL STAGE FOR KIMBERLEE GOSLINE , Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Final Stage application for KIMBERLEE GOSLINE, to subdivide a 9.30 acre parcel into two lots of 3.00 acres and 6.30 acres; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received August 13, 1998, consists of the following: 1. Application with map dated 8/27/87 and waiver request dated 8/13/98 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 10/8/98 - Staff Notes 2. Map S-1 revised 10/6/98 3. 9/28/98 - Meeting notice letter 4. 9/22/98 - Planning Bd. resolution to table 5. 9/22/98 - Staff Notes 6. Map S-1 dated 9/15/98 7. 9/1/98 - Meeting notice letter 8. 8/25/98 - Elizabeth Little comment 9. 8/25/98 - Staff notes 10. 8/25/98 - E. Horgan comment 11. 8/21/98 - M. Swan comment 12. 8/19/98 - Meeting notice sent Whereas, a public hearing was held on 8/25/98 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to APPROVE Final Stage for KIMBERLEE GOSLINE. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/8/98) 2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 3. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 4. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. 5. Recreation Fee is to be paid at the time a building permit is applied for. th Duly adopted this 8 day of October, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. STARK-Good day, sir. Good day, Marylee. SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1998 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED WEGMAN CO., INC. OWNER: R. GEORGE WISWALL CHARLOTTE WISWALL ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF WOODVALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 22.85 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS, LOT 1 WILL BE 7.38 ACRES AND LOT 2 WILL BE 15.47 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 50-98 TAX MAP NO. 61-1-21.1 LOT SIZE: 22.85 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT ndth MR. PALING-The public hearing was opened on September 22 , continued October 8, and it’s still open for this evening. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 8-1998 - Preliminary Stage Final Stage, Wegman Co., Inc., Meeting Date: October 8, 1998 “Staff Comments: The approval for Subdivision 8-1998 was rescinded because notifications to neighbors within 500 feet were not sent by the applicant as required per §A 183-9 J & § A 183-10D(2). The original subdivision proposal has not changed. A new approval may be granted provided the certified mail receipts are received. Staff has no additional comments.” MRS. MOORE-And I have received the mailings. MR. STARK-Okay. Would you like to introduce yourself, please. MR. STEVES-Yes. My name is Matt Steves with Van Dusen and Steves, and I represent the Wiswalls and the Wegman Companies on this subdivision application. As Laura has stated, we failed to provide you with notifications last month. Unfortunately, all those were sent out to people in the Town of Hadley, which probably had no idea what was going on with Queensbury, but we have sent those out, and she now has those, and nothing has changed on it since the last time it was in front of this Board. I believe the following night, or two days later, it did receive the site plan approval for the Wegman Assisted Living Center. MR. STARK-Okay. The public hearing was left open. Does anybody have any comments, pro or con, on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED LOTHAR BARCOMB MR. BARCOMB-For the record, my name is Lothar Barcomb, and I am President of the Westwood Homeowners Association. My companion is Ted Young who is our Vice President. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/8/98) We both represent the 48 homeowners in our association. I think our faces are familiar to most of you, as we’ve sat before you on many occasions. We are here merely as concerned neighbors whose property borders the proposed subdivision. We are not here as obstructionists, and we wanted to say that basically, which was mentioned at the last meeting, that we are in full agreement with the go ahead on the building. We have no problem with that, and we have spoken with most of our homeowners, and the majority believe that the assisted living center is a good thing, and it’s also needed in the community. So we have no problem with that. The extra traffic that will be generated we can live with also, because we’re getting more traffic now, as you all know, Lowe’s is open, and on Glenwood and Woodvale, it’s sometimes like a thru way, but it works, but the thing that gives us the biggest problem, and when I brought it up at the last meeting, the engineer who came up with all these fancy diagrams really didn’t make me feel easy or secure, and that problem is drainage. As we all know, the whole area where we live, the property next to our place and our property, has a very high water table, and when we have the heavy rains, we have water in our back yards and that whole field is also dripping with water, and as we all know that when a developer puts up a very large building and puts in the required parking for that sized building, it causes a problem, and we also have found out that the fire department has requested that extra large turn arounds be built in also, which makes sense, but it does cut down on the available land that will absorb water. Basically, you have a very large part of that property that’s covered with cement, concrete and asphalt, and this is really a concern for us, because as you know, we are both, we’re all level, and our homes are built on slabs which raise the height of the building above the ground to about six to eight inches, and we’ve had problems in the past with, when we still had that field to absorb a lot of the water, and our property to absorb water, where it came pretty close to the entrance of our homes, and the engineer who came up with the diagram up there talked about a catch basin or a water, I forget the exact expression for it, but a body of, well, a hole in the ground that will absorb a lot of the rain water. He did admit that because a lot of the property is covered by asphalt and concrete, that it would take much longer for that property, should there be a torrential downpour, to absorb the water, and what happens to the water? It goes the path of least return. If that basin is filled with water, it’ll gravitate to us, and this could be a problem, and I left the meeting without a feeling of assurance or security that this wouldn’t be a problem for us. Everything else goes. We are not unhappy, but this is a problem that really wasn’t answered to my satisfaction. I didn’t think it was answered at all. It was just, well, we’ll do this and we’ll do that, but how do we know it works, and how do we know it’s enough? TED YOUNG MR. YOUNG-And what happens if it doesn’t work? MR. BARCOMB-Yes, what happens then? MR. STARK-Okay. We’ll answer the questions. Do you have anything else? MR. BARCOMB-Well, yes. There’s a couple of other things. We have now the Lowe’s construction up, and one of the things that we brought up at a hearing when Lowe’s was being proposed, that they have lights that don’t shine on our complex. Now, a number of people have complained that these high intensity lamps that are on high mounts shine directly in to us. I brought this up at the last meeting, and it was stated that this would happen, but I don’t know if that’s going to be the fact, because it’s not the nicest thing to have these high powered lamps coming right into your bedroom in the evening and here my neighbor and friend, Ted, he has this problem. Please explain, Ted. MR. YOUNG-Well, Ted Young. It’s not a major problem as far as I, personally, as concerned. However, other people may be more sensitive to light shining into their bedrooms at night, and these things, even though we are a fair distance from the Lowe’s project, which is over on Bay Road, but they have a long line of these high intensity lights which are high up, and actually, I mean, it really shines right into my front bedroom which I have, and I’m sure my neighbors, of course. No one, I haven’t heard any major complaints, but I’ve noticed it, and I’m a big city boy, so I’m not overly sensitive to lights. However, my wife had been, and she would have been quite unhappy. We’re not going to do anything about Lowe’s, I don’t believe, at this point in time. However, we just would like, I think for my neighbors who are on the west side of our development, I think they probably would be concerned, if the lights aren’t, you know, shielded in some way, so that they don’t shine into their bedroom windows. Other than that, I think there’s just two minor problems, one is the, you know, make sure the lights are shielded from the people living on that side of the development, and what was expressed before. We’re concerned about the water drainage, because in the spring, or we have a heavy rain, and there’s runoff, and the water from that area there drains into the same area that our drainage goes into, and I’m just wondering 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/8/98) how that will impact our drainage, should we have heavy downpours, because we’re taking away 20 some odd acres of permeable soil and putting in impermeable asphalt or whatever. So it could create a rather heavier influx of water under certain circumstances than would be under normal, existing condition. Other than that, that’s it. We have no objection to the use. We have no objection to anything, and I think that if these two things are addressed, the lights are a simple thing. I mean, you know, anybody can tell, if you put up a shield, that’s no problem. However, I think the drainage is probably a bigger concern, because, you know, where does the water go. Frankly, I don’t know how it would effect us. MR. STARK-Okay. We’ll find out. MR. YOUNG-Right. Okay. Thank you. MR. STARK-Thank you, gentlemen. Okay. Is there anyone else that has anything? LAWRENCE CORBETT MR. CORBETT-I’m Lawrence Corbett, and I reside at 38 Lange Court in the Westwood Development, and I only have two questions, really. The first one’s rather technical, and I hope you don’t think I’m impertinent when I ask it, but two weeks ago, your Board approved the application of Wegman’s for the development of a health care facility. How could the Board do that without a subdivision being acted upon first? MR. STARK-Okay. I’ll get an answer for you. You’ll get the answer tonight. MR. CORBETT-Okay, and my second question is, Van Dusen and Steves sent a letter to each one of our occupants and residents at Westwood, and I’ll read the last paragraph. “Applicant proposes to subdivide 22.85 acre parcel into two lots, 7.38 acres and 15.7 acres for an adult assisted living facility”, and I’ve talked with several people within our development who feel that that last sentence indicates that Wegman is already planning to develop the 15.47 acres into an adult assisted living facility. Does the Board have any comment about that? I’ve questioned George Wiswall. George has known me a long time. We’re woodchuck specialists. I had the woodchuck and George has a cure. Okay, and I don’t mean to be facetious, but we do know one another, and I did question George about it, and he said has not sold the 15.7 acres to Wegman, but I’m bothered by Van Dusen and Steves letter to all the occupants indicating that the entire 22.85 acre parcel is going to be for an assisted living facility. What’s the response of the Board? MR. STARK-Okay. We’ll get an answer on that. MR. BREWER-Just one of the lots is going to be for that project. George is going to retain the other lot. Is that not so? MR. CORBETT-But Mr. Steve’s letter to all the residents of our development doesn’t indicate that is the case. MR. BREWER-Well, it’s a notice of intent. In other words, if they came to the Board, and we denied it, then they wouldn’t be able to do it. That’s why he hasn’t sold it. MR. CORBETT-Okay. That’s the reason that I’m here. I’m here for the reason for that last sentence in that letter. MR. BREWER-I think the sale is predicated on that they get approval. I mean, they’re not going to buy the property, invest the money and the details and what not without getting approval. MR. CORBETT-Well, this is the assurance that I’m here for. MR. BREWER-That’s just my opinion, and I think if you ask everybody else, that would be the answer. MR. CORBETT-All right. I’ll accept that. Okay. MR. STARK-Okay. Now we’ll get your answers. MR. CORBETT-All right. Fine. Thank you. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/8/98) MR. STARK-Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that has any comments? DOUG WRIGLEY MR. WRIGLEY-I’m Doug Wrigley, and I live at 29 Marcy Lane in Westwood. My question is pretty much the same, and I read this last sentence. I’ve been away, and I just got back a week ago, so I didn’t attend the first or second, or whatever. It reads, to me, that the applicant, and the applicant I assume is Mr. Wegman and Company, or is it George Wiswall and Polly, Charlie? MR. STARK-Well, Wiswall is the owner. Wegman is the developer. MR. WRIGLEY-I know Wiswall, I know that he is, or has been, if he hasn’t signed the letter of intent or whatever. Is to subdivide a 22.85, and I’m repeating what Larry has already said, acre parcel into two lots of 7.38 acres and 15.47 acres, for an adult assisted living facility. MR. PALING-That’s wrong. MR. STARK-Okay. I understand what your question is, but we’ll get it clarified. MR. WRIGLEY-So it reads to me, I think I understand something of the King’s English. MR. STARK-I understand what you’re talking about, and we’ll get that clarified. MR. WRIGLEY-And so my question, basically, is since I wasn’t here, you’re going to respond in a moment. Okay. That’s my only question. MR. STARK-Okay. Fine. Thank you. Is there anyone else? Laura, do you have any letters or anything? MRS. MOORE-No, I do not. MR. STARK-Okay. I’m going to close the public hearing, and Matt, do you want to come back? I’ve got a couple of questions here. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STEVES-Again, my name is Matt Steves. I do apologize if there’s any confusion to the public, as far as the intention of that letter. When it comes to subdivision of land, you basically just need to state that you are performing, or are in front of the Board for an application for subdivision. I put into that the statement of the Wegman Assisted Living Center, knowing that the site plan had already been approved, and sorry that I didn’t specify that that’s on the smaller lot of the seven acres. There is no application in front of this Board, other than the subdivision, and the application that has already been reviewed by the Board for the site plan of the Wegman Assisted Living Center on the seven acre parcel. There is no application here for a site plan on the larger parcel. That is to be, at this point, it’s just proposed as it is now, a vacant piece of property. MR. STARK-Okay. Let me ask you a question, okay. That answers that, I think, to these gentleman’s satisfaction. MR. WRIGLEY-Mr. Chairman, since I wasn’t here, where is the 7.3 acres? MR. STARK-Matt will go up and show you on the map, okay. MR. STEVES-The 7.38 acre parcel is this parcel that fronts on Woodvale, up to the intersection with Country Club Road. The 15.47 acre parcel compromises the small piece that remains on Woodvale, and then the rest of the property out back that borders against the Westwood Homeowners. So there’s approximately 790 feet from property line on the Westwood to the property line of the back of the assisted living center complex. MR. WRIGLEY-What does Mr. Wegman plan to build on? MR. STEVES-There is a building, I don’t have the plan in front of me that was presented to the Board last week, I believe it was, two weeks ago, but it’s for a kind of a horseshoe shaped or a “V- Shaped”, I believe it’s around a 70 unit, 80 unit senior housing complex, 84. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/8/98) MR. WRIGLEY-Thank you. MR. STARK-Thank you. Matt, let me just ask you a question. Over at Lowe’s, you’ve been over to Lowe’s yourself, and the lights are, they’re not high pressure sodiums. They are the white lights, and they are very bright. Do you know what kind of lights are planned? I wasn’t here myself two weeks ago. So what kind of lights are planned for this unit here? Are they high pressure or? MR. STEVES-I do not believe so. You can’t quote me for sure. Tom Nace and Jim Miller did the site plan, but I believe they’re the recessed, you know, direct, they’re not the flood lamps. They’re the direct. I don’t know the exact terminology for them, and that’s mainly in the parking area, and on the front of the building, I think they just had a couple of down security lights in the back of the building. That was it, no flood lamps aiming away from the building, whatsoever. MR. STARK-Okay. Bob, do you remember how high those lights were? They’re nothing like Lowe’s, are they? MR. STEVES-No. MR. STARK-I mean, Lowe’s is really bright. MR. STEVES-No. That’s because of a commercial requirement, as far as the foot candles on a parking lot. Nothing like this on a private facility. MR. VOLLARO-If you take a look at some lighting patterns, the lights have regular lighting patterns that you can look at, and how they display the light, whether they put them down close, whether they let them spread, and how much, really, side beam you get out of it. In other words, it would look a little like this, and the side beam is in tight, and the big beam is out wide. MR. STEVES-As far as your illumination pattern, that’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. STEVES-And there was none proposed on this site for flood lamps that would be aiming out. They’re all down, directional flood lamps, directional lighting only. MR. VOLLARO-Right. That’s one thing we want to know. The answer to George’s question, what’s presently at Lowe’s, I don’t know the answer to that. MR. STARK-They’re not high pressure sodium. They’re too white. I think they’re too white, myself. MR. VOLLARO-But what kind of a reflection or what kind of a lighting pattern do they? MR. STEVES-A much wider lighting pattern than what is proposed here. MR. STARK-Laura, how did we approve the building without the subdivision? MRS. MOORE-Chris Round. We reviewed it with Mark Schachner and he said that this was an approach that we could take, that we can do this. MR. STARK-Okay. That was by Mark? Okay. Well, okay, Matt, you’ve answered all the questions I think. MR. STEVES-As far as the drainage, I know that Tom Nace eluded and talked about that to the citizens. I did talk to him again briefly tonight before coming up here, and he reassured us again that they proposed a detention area on, I think it’s the south westerly corner, or southerly corner of the property, and he said in no way would it effect anything to do with the Westwood Homeowners Association. MR. STARK-You’re draining that way. MR. STEVES-And as far as the green area, there was, I believe, considerably more than a minimum requirement, and when they’re saying that the seven acre site is the area that’s developed, and on that there was only the building and a small area of parking, because of the fact it’s not a 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/8/98) facility that stores, you know, all the residents do not keep a car there or vehicle there, and as far as the green space requirement, I think it was about double what was required. MR. BREWER-I just have one question, George. Has our engineer stamped this plan, as far as the drainage goes? MRS. MOORE-Rist-Frost Associates? I believe they signed off on the site plan. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. BREWER-Well, then they reviewed the drainage plan? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. BREWER-So to answer that gentleman’s, Mr. Corbett, our engineer, the Town Engineer, did look at the drainage system that they put on the plan, and they have approved it, and signed off on it. MR. BARCOMB-I’m the one that asked the question. MR. BREWER-I’m sorry. I get mixed up. MR. BARCOMB-I’ve got a question for you. If it doesn’t work, who takes the responsibility if we get flooded? MR. BREWER-From their development? MR. BARCOMB-Yes. Suppose water, if we have a torrential flood. We live in strange times, El Nino, and we have two or three days of torrential rains, and that system doesn’t work, and water creeps on to our property? MR. BREWER-I’m just guessing. I’m not an attorney. I would say that it would be the responsibility of the property owner. If the system failed, similar to Baybridge, their system failed, the owner of that development went in and repaired it. I’m guessing. MR. BARCOMB-You’re saying we have recourse to go after? MR. STEVES-If it’s a direct result from a failure from the system proposed. MR. BREWER-Absolutely, I would think. MR. PALING-I think we’ve got to be very careful about this. MR. BREWER-I said I think. I said I’m not an attorney. MR. PALING-We’ve had a couple of bad lessons whereby all of the conversation that went on was called “feel good” talk, and if it wasn’t in a resolution or the motion, then it wasn’t necessarily something that anybody could be held responsible for. I’m not so much concerned over the short range end of this, but the continued building in that area which has a high water table, and what’s going to result, down the road from this, maybe not this one, but the two or three that follow. MR. BREWER-In my mind, when they come back for review, if they’re putting something there, then we have to be assured that their system works, Bob. MR. PALING-I think the protection for us, mostly for the people around, is to make it part of the motion. MR. STEVES-I think the protection here, if I might speak, is that the design by the engineer who is doing the plan, plus review by the Town Engineer, he can come to you and state that he has no problems, and has signed off on the drainage plan for this project. MR. PALING-Then the principal should come to the Board and say that he agrees with that, and will be bound by it, I guess. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/8/98) MR. STEVES-If I put my professional signature on a plan, then I am bound by that, and Tom Nace has done this, and Bill Levandowski, I believe, from Rist-Frost has also signed off. I mean, you’re responsible for the work, but that’s based upon a lot of different, is it installed the way that it was designed? MR. BREWER-Right, and then that falls back to the Town for the inspections. So, I mean, Mark explained that to us two or three weeks ago, that they’re stamp simply means that system will work if properly installed. Now, if Tom Nace signs off on it, and Levandowski signs off on it, saying that that system will work, and then they hire somebody to go put it in, and they put it in wrong, it’s not the engineer’s fault because they put it in wrong. So you have to go back to that, it’s a real complicated thing, I think. MR. STEVES-Right, and I’m not trying to complicate. I understand you have concerns everywhere regarding that, but, you know, that was why it was reviewed under the site plan. MR. PALING-Well, we had an engineer review it for an application before us before, and make a couple of very strong statements, then when it went to court, they said, well, the engineer, the applicant didn’t realize the engineer was representing him to that extent. MR. STEVES-Right. MR. PALING-So now, what I’m saying is, if this is the case, then let the applicant come forward and say I understand what the engineer has done and I back it up, I agree. MR. STARK-I don’t think that’s part of our province here, Bob. MR. PALING-Well, okay, that’s what we should have done with a couple of others. MR. BREWER-Well, to an extent, I agree with you, Bob. MR. STEVES-We’ve exceeded the standards for the permeability, and we’ve proven, i.e. engineering criteria, that it’ll work, and it has been approved under site plan. I would beg to differ a little bit at this point, is that the site plan is not predicated upon the subdivision, nor one on the other, and the site plan is already approved. I’m here for the subdivision at this point. The approval of this subdivision is in no way going to change the fact that the site plan has already been approved. MR. PALING-Okay, but you’re on record and saying that you are the engineer of record. MR. STEVES-I’m the surveyor of record. MR. PALING-Surveyor. Who’s the engineer of record? MR. STEVES-Tom Nace. MR. PALING-Okay. Then you can’t say for him. MR. BREWER-Yes, but his stamp. MR. STARK-His signature’s on it. That means he okayed it. MR. BREWER-His stamp means that that system has to work. If it doesn’t. MR. PALING-I’ll back off. Maybe in this case we’re okay, but in one case, we weren’t okay. MR. BREWER-Yes. I know exactly what you’re talking about. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. BREWER-I know exactly what you’re talking about, and we had a situation over in Queensbury Forest that they’re trying to fix now, in the Town, but I mean, that’s part of life. I mean, everything is not perfect. We don’t live in a perfect world. MR. VOLLARO-Did we have a water management plan submitted with this application? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/8/98) MRS. MOORE-For the site plan. MR. VOLLARO-And that was, if I remember that, it was for a 50 year flood. Is that correct? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and if Tom Nace put that out, and that was reviewed by Rist-Frost, that’s the best we can do at this Board level. I don’t think we can do anything other than that, really. MR. BREWER-How long do we make them guarantee it for? MR. STARK-Excuse me for a second. The public hearing is closed, but if you’ve got a quick comment, come on up to the microphone and say your peace. MR. WRIGLEY-I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. I’d just like to know again, since I was absent, which is not your fault, mine, where the stormwater is draining from this seven and a fraction acres? What is the plan to get rid of the stormwater? We know where ours goes. MR. STARK-Okay. Well, Matt can answer that, even though he’s not the engineer for the project. Matt, just go up and show him where it drains in the southwest corner. MR. STEVES-I can show him where the current drain is, but I don’t have the site plan in front of me. MR. VOLLARO-There’s a large retention pond, this is all part of the site plan review. MRS. MOORE-I don’t have the site plan with me. It wasn’t given to me. MR. STEVES-The retention pond is proposed right about where, right about in here. MR. WRIGLEY-Okay. That’s part of it, in front of the building. Yes. MR. STEVES-In the south. MR. WRIGLEY-That’s a retention pond. MR. STARK-It’s in the southwest, down by Tyrer’s barn, there. MR. WRIGLEY-Yes. All right. Thank you. MR. STARK-Yes, Mr. Corbett? MR. CORBETT-Well, I’d just like to get back to my very initial question to your Board, and perhaps your Counsel would answer it. MR. STARK-Our Counsel isn’t here tonight. MR. CORBETT-Well, then I’d like you people to at least give me an answer. How can we have a subdivision application tonight approved, when we’ve already approved the Wegman construction? Haven’t we put the cart before the horse? MR. BREWER-No. MR. STARK-Okay. Laura, would you answer Mr. Corbett’s question? MRS. MOORE-Okay. His site plan is independent of his subdivision. If he came in just for a site plan, we could approve that on 22 acres. MR. CORBETT-We don’t need a subdivision, then, before we get a site plan approval? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. CORBETT-Okay. All right. I got an answer to my question I wanted answered. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Okay. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/8/98) MR. STARK-Thank you. Okay. Are there any other comments? Okay. We do need a SEQRA on this. The Short Form. MRS. MOORE-You can do a Short Form, or you can indicate that it’s not. MR. BREWER-No changes have been made. MRS. MOORE-No changes have been made, and re-date it to this date. MR. PALING-No change in the SEQRA, you’re saying, and that will be part of the motion? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. STARK-Okay. Do you want to make a motion? MR. PALING-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1998, PRELIMINARY STAGE, WEGMAN CO., INC. , Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: To approve the subdivision of a 22.85 acre parcel into two lots, one 7.38 acres and the other one 15.47 acres, and no exception has been taken to the previous SEQRA review. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Preliminary Stage application for WEGMAN CO., INC. to subdivide a 22.85 acre parcel into two lots, lot 1 will be 7.38 acres and lot 2 will be 15.47 acres; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 8/26/98, consists of the following: 1. Application with map S-1 dated 8/28/98 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 10/8/98 - Staff Notes 2. 10/1/98 - (rec’d) - Notice of Public Hearing 3. 9/28/98 - Meeting notice letter 4. 9/24/98 - Planning Bd. resolution - rescinding previous approval 5. 9/22/98 - Planning Bd. resolution 6. 9/22/98 - Staff notes 7. 9/1/98 - Meeting notice letter Whereas, a public hearing was held on 10/8/98 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to APPROVE, Preliminary Stage for WEGMAN CO., INC. 2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 3. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 4. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and subdivision approval process. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/8/98) th Duly adopted this 8 day of October, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan MR. STARK-Does anybody want to do the Final motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1998, FINAL STAGE, WEGMAN CO., INC. , Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: As written. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Final Stage application for WEGMAN CO., INC. to subdivide a 22.85 acre parcel into two lots, lot 1 will be 7.38 acres and lot 2 will be 15.47 acres; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 8/26/98, consists of the following: 1. Application with map S-1 dated 8/28/98 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 10/8/98 - Staff Notes 2. 10/1/98 - (rec’d) - Notice of Public Hearing 3. 9/28/98 - Meeting notice letter 4. 9/24/98 - Planning Bd. resolution - rescinding previous approval 5. 9/22/98 - Planning Bd. resolution 6. 9/22/98 - Staff notes 7. 9/1/98 - Meeting notice letter Whereas, a public hearing was held on 10/8/98 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to APPROVE, Final Stage for WEGMAN CO., INC. 2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 3. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 4. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and subdivision approval process. th Duly adopted this 8 day of October, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. STARK-Good day, sir. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/8/98) SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1998 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED QUAKER VILLAGE DEV. CORP. OWNER: SAME ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: CORNER OF QUAKER & BAY RDS. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 25.753 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.604 ACRES AND 24.149 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 63-1998 TAX MAP NO. 59-1-19.1, 19.2, 5.5, 18, 17, 16, 14 LOT SIZE: 24.753 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 11-1998, Preliminary & Final Stage, Quaker Village Dev. Corp., Meeting Date: October 8, 1998 “Staff Comments The original approval for Subdivision No. 11-1998 needs to be rescinded because notifications to neighbors within 500 foot were not sent by the applicant as required per § A183-9 J & § A 183-10 D. A new approval may be granted if the applicant provides certified mail receipts. Staff has no additional comments.” MR. STARK-Have you received them? MRS. MOORE-Yes, I have. MR. STARK-Okay. Would you identify yourself, please. MR. LAPPER-Jon Lapper. I have to apologize for making you go through this again. Unlike most towns, Queensbury sends out its own notifications for variances, and I always have the surveyor send out the notifications for a subdivision, and I didn’t even think about it in this case, because I handled this myself, viewing it as a fairly straightforward project. We went through a pretty detailed review, two weeks ago at the last meeting, got approved, and then two days later, Pam called me and reminded me that this had to go out. So I apologize for having you go through this again, but this was not anticipated at the time that the project was approved and constructed, but the Applebee’s lease was not obtained at that point, and as a result of having these two tenants now, really for financing purposes, it’s requested that the two lots be subdivided, and they completely comply in all respects, except that I had to get a variance for the Applebee’s parcel because there’s only that one bridge, the one access to Quaker Road, and the Applebee’s parcel didn’t have frontage on Quaker Road because of the Niagara Mohawk power transmission line. That was granted by the Zoning Board, and I’m here to again request subdivision approval for the two lots. MR. STARK-Okay. Laura, on this, we don’t have to go through a SEQRA? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. LAPPER-Well, you have to open the public hearing first. MR. STARK-Okay. MRS. MOORE-You have to first rescind your original motion. MR. BREWER-Do we have a copy of that motion? nd MR. STARK-Just rescind the motion that was made September 22 for Quaker Village Development Corp. nd MR. BREWER-That’s what I want, September 22. MR. LAPPER-If you pull it out, you can do it again. MR. BREWER-I’d like to, when we do the motion, copy that motion. MR. STARK-You’re going to make a motion, rescind it, vote on that. MR. BREWER-But then when we approve it, I would like to copy. MR. STARK-Okay, but then I’ve got to open the hearing, close it and all that. Okay. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/8/98) MR. BREWER-Was the combination of the associated parcels as being Lowe’s and Applebee’s submitted to Warren County, Jon? Has that been done? MR. LAPPER-What happened since I was here last was that we had to first pay the taxes because they won’t combine parcels until all the taxes are paid, and this parcel, while it’s in the Town, is in the City School District, and their bills didn’t come out. So we had to get the bills and we just got the bills and got them paid, and actually I think Laura submitted it to the County. MRS. MOORE-Yes, I did. MR. LAPPER-So I paid the taxes, and Laura submitted it. So we’re, they’re in the process of processing it. So that has happened. MOTION TO RESCIND APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1998 QUAKER VILLAGE DEV. CORP. , Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Motion was made on September 22, 1998. th Duly adopted this 8 day of October, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan MR. STARK-Okay. Now lets do the public hearing thing, okay. The public hearing was left open. Is there anyone that wishes to speak about this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STARK-Now, we don’t need a SEQRA on this? MRS. MOORE-You need the determination. MR. LAPPER-Well, what you did last time was to reference the fact that, and you weren’t here, that this was the subject of a Full Environmental Impact Statement, and you were the lead agency, and that, although this particular approval wasn’t contemplated or applied for at the time, that there’s no significant difference in the site development, that the Applebee’s was contemplated, and you know what that use would be, and the size of it, and that the subdivision of this doesn’t change anything significantly from the SEQRA approval that we went through. MR. VOLLARO-Right. The actual words of the motion can be used. That the Planning Board has determined that there is no significant change in the previously determined SEQRA review, and any potential environmental impacts of the proposed subdivision have been adequately addressed in the previously adopted Environmental Impact Statement. MR. STARK-Is that your motion? MR. VOLLARO-No, just the fact that that’s what the motion was predicated on before. MR. STARK-Do you want to make a motion, then, to approve in the Preliminary? MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1998 PRELIMINARY STAGE QUAKER VILLAGE DEV. CORP. , Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: Based on the original motion that was made on September 22, 1998. In the condition of approval is that the combination of the associated parcels, that being Lowe’s and Applebee’s, be submitted 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/8/98) to the Warren County Real Property Tax Bureau, and approved by that Agency. The Planning Board has determined that there is no significant change in the previously determined SEQRA review, and any potential environmental impacts of the proposed subdivision have been adequately addressed in the previously adopted Environmental Impact Statement. To remove the clause of combining the parcels, leaving in the SEQRA determination. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Preliminary Stage application for QUAKER VILLAGE DEV. CORP, to subdivide a 25.753 acre parcel into two lots of 1.604 and 24.149 acres; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 8/25/98, consists of the following: 1. Application Cover Letter and Map - Drawing No. 98-316R dated 8/25/98. Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 10/8/98 - Staff Notes 2. 9/28/98 - Meeting notice letter 3. 9/22/98 - Staff notes with variance resolution attached 4. 8/31/98 - Meeting notice letter Whereas, a public hearing was held on 10/8/98 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE FOR QUAKER VILLAGE DEV. CORP. 2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 3. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 4. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and subdivision approval process. th Duly adopted this 8 day of October, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1998 FINAL STAGE UAKER VILLAGE DEV. CORP. , Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Preliminary Stage application for QUAKER VILLAGE DEV. CORP, to subdivide a 25.753 acre parcel into two lots of 1.604 and 24.149 acres; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 8/25/98, consists of the following: 1. Application Cover Letter and Map - Drawing No. 98-316R dated 8/25/98. Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 10/8/98 - Staff Notes 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/8/98) 2. 9/28/98 - Meeting notice letter 3. 9/22/98 - Staff notes with variance resolution attached 4. 8/31/98 - Meeting notice letter Whereas, a public hearing was held on 10/8/98 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to APPROVE FINAL STAGE FOR QUAKER VILLAGE DEV. CORP. 2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 3. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 4. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and subdivision approval process. th Duly adopted this 8 day of October, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan MR. STARK-Okay. Thank you, gentlemen, you’re all set. MR. LAPPER-Are you going to close the meeting now? MR. STARK-In a couple of seconds. MR. LAPPER-Because I heard you talking about some stuff at the site which I’ll talk to you about after you close the meeting. MR. STARK-About the site? MR. LAPPER-The Lowe’s. MR. STARK-Yes. Okay. If nobody has anything else, I’ll close the meeting. On motion meeting is adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, George Stark, Acting Chairman 18