Loading...
2000-02-15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 15, 2000 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY ALAN ABBOTT ROBERT PALING ANTHONY METIVIER ROBERT VOLLARO LARRY RINGER NEW BUSINESS: PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE – PZ 1-2000 CITY OF GLENS FALLS, VETERAN’S FIELD INDUSTRIAL PARK OWNER: CITY OF GLENS FALLS LOCATION: SHERMAN AVE./VETERANS RD./LUZERNE RD. CURRENT ZONING: LI-1A & SFR-1A PROPOSED ZONING: LI-1A/VF THE TOWN BOARD JOINT MEETING PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENT ON THE DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PARK. THE PROJECT INVOLVES ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW ZONING DISTRICT, LI-1A/VF, TO FACILITATE DEVELOPMENT OF A 46 +/- ACRE INDUSTRIAL PARK . COMMENT ON THE DGEIS AND REVIEW OF MODEL SUBDIVISION/SITE PLANS FOR UP TO 500,000 SQUARE FEET OF INDUSTRIAL SPACE. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/9/00 TAX MAP NO. 116-1-7, 8, 118-1-7.1 LOT SIZE: 46.57 ACRES DIANE BARBER & STUART MESINGER, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’d like to pick up on Veteran’s Park just for a minute, whatever the Board’s pleasure is. Do you folks feel like you want to move on it tonight, study the issue a little bit more, how do we feel? MR. PALING-Well, I think we should discuss it. I’ve got a couple of things to talk about. I’ve heard no reference to hi tech on this whole thing. Is there anything being done in the way of, whatever, fiber optics or what not on the site? MR. MAC EWAN-How about we have both of you come right up here to this table, and identify yourselves. MR. MESINGER-Yes, we have talked to the folks about tell lines, and I’m desperately searching my memory banks for what the answer is. They’re nearby. MR. PALING-How nearby? MR. MESINGER-The Northway, and so you talk about, on a couple of occasions, about the possibility of, you know one of the main trunk lines is going to go up the Northway this spring, and so it’s not far off. It’s likely that, at least as the plan is now conceived, that a business who located here who wanted it would do the extension. Okay. That’s not to say that if in the future everybody came to Diane and said, you know, we’d locate in your site except that we don’t have that line, that the City or the Town or some other entity might decide to do it themselves. MR. PALING-Will we have an opportunity review the Manning Engineering review of the traffic impact prior to making a decision on this? MR. MESINGER-Sure, because we’ll have to respond to that in the final EIS. MR. PALING-When you do you we’ll get it? MR. MESINGER-Before the 28. th MR. ROUND-Right. Well, we have the opportunity, even after the comment period’s closed, the Town Board, as lead agency, and the Planning Board as an involved agency, has the opportunity to look at that. We’ll get that. I mean, they’re going to have to respond to it, and you’ll have it as soon as we have it. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Is the Town Board looking for a recommendation from us before the 28? th MR. ROUND-That’s not necessary, no. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-And again, I said earlier, and I reiterate that if for some reason you had a burning desire to make a recommendation prior to completion of the SEQRA process, you can, simply because it’s a non-binding recommendation, but you shouldn’t feel compelled to do that. It would be perfectly appropriate for you to wait until the SEQRA process is completed and you have the Final Environmental Impact Statement, you have that traffic information, you have the benefit of the full range of information that’s presented before you make your recommendation. That’s perfectly appropriate. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else, Bob? MR. PALING-Just one thing. There’s a comment regarding lack of water infrastructure, but I think it relates to residential use. Does that relate at all to the use that we would put these lots to? MR. MESINGER-I’m not sure the specific reference, but the site has limited water service right now. So in order to develop this site, we’re talking about the main water improvement being the extension of a 12 inch line, yes. MR. PALING-Yes. That’s what you talked about before. So that should take care of that. MR. MESINGER-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. That’s all I have for now. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have two things. The first thing is, the other industrial parks in Town, in the City of Glens Falls and the Town of Queensbury, are really off the beaten track. I mean, Carey is in that loop off Corinth Road, and you don’t even know that there’s any kind of industry going on in there. That’s what I like about it. It’s pretty much camouflaged. The other one up by the Airport, that’s where everything is, up by the, you know, it’s all grouped up there, and there’s very few residences, and I think that we really should address the concerns of the people that spoke tonight, as far as, you know, will their standard of living be altered in a negative way? Will the property values go down? I mean, lets face it, I’m not going to sit up here and be naïve and say no. I mean, it’s almost a given that they have a concern there. I mean, if their house is opposite a baseball diamond right now, and ten, five years from now, it’s going to be opposite a major building, a major plant, it’s not going to be very desirable as far as putting it up for sale, and I think that we have to address that in a realistic way, and the second thing is, I’m concerned about the new athletic fields that are on the docket, as far as the Morse Foundation, which is, let’s see, Veteran’s Park, Veteran’s highway comes out, the lots are bordering Veteran’s and Sherman, and then I’d like to know the distance from where Veteran’s goes out onto Sherman, to the entrance, the new athletic fields. Because I think we’re talking about safety. We’re talking about children. We’re talking about families, and I’d like to know the impact that, down the line, when all of this is constructed, we’re going to have some big time 18 wheeler trucks coming in and out of there, and we’re also going to have kids riding their bikes and going to the athletic fields. So those are my two questions, or my two concerns. MR. MESINGER-Let me answer them in reverse. The traffic one is a very good question, and I think that we need to coordinate with the Morse Foundation to make sure that our two access roads are opposite, so that we, and that’s going to result in the safest situation that we can make it there. We don’t think that this site is going to be terribly attractive to 18 wheelers, because it doesn’t have good access for 18 wheelers. If you have a business that has a lot of 18 wheeler traffic, you’re going to go to Carey, or you’re going to go to somebody else who has a better access off the Northway. If you think about how you have to get to this site, you come off the Northway, you’ve got to go down Main Street, and take a left on South Western and take another left on to Luzerne. It’s not easy access for 18 wheelers. So we think that for that kind of truck traffic those people just aren’t, they’re going to look somewhere else. With respect to the first comment, that’s the point of this process, is you guys need to look at the environmental thresholds that we’re proposing and say to yourself, is this protective of the neighborhood? Is it protective of the neighborhood to limit light fixtures to 15 feet in height, and to have a style that doesn’t, you know, shed light off of the property as you heard somebody comment on tonight. Is it protective to, you know, have a decibel standard, what we’ve been saying, and we think it is. We have the advantage because we’re working on the new Zoning Ordinance, and these are the kind of standards that we’re going to propose to you in the new Zoning Ordinance, for not just this District, obviously, but town wide. So we think that they are, but you need to look at them with us and say to yourself, do these numbers work, and if you don’t understand the numbers, that’s okay. Ask, and we’ll try to set up something that explains it. So that’s a legitimate question. I think that’s the point of the SEQRA review. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, but back to your introductory remarks, Diane, or Stuart, I don’t remember who said it, about the accessibility of that particular area to Canada and to Western New York and to New York City and to Western Mass, and up and down and all over. The accessibility for what? To me, I think, shipping. We’ve got to bring the materials in to work with, to put together, and then we’re going to bring those things that we put together back out. What are you going to carry them in, a little van? MR. MESINGER-I hear what you’re saying. I’m simply giving you the opinion, and I think Creighton Manning needs to comment on this, and so forth, but I’m giving you the opinion that a business that generates a lot of 18 wheeler traffic is probably going to look elsewhere, because it will be easier. We have lots of manufacturing businesses around here that don’t generate big 18 wheel traffic. I mean, all our catheter businesses employ a lot of people, have big facilities, but the things that they manufacture and the things that come to them do not predominately come in 18 wheelers. They do come in smaller trucks, and I suspect that’s the kind of business that will be here, and those are desirable businesses, too. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Thanks. MR. VOLLARO-Cathy addressed the Morse Foundation Park. I just have a question on, and it probably hasn’t got a thing to do with planning or either review, but is there a marketing plan in place? In other words, the questions that you just addressed really ought to have a plan in place that focuses on the type of industry that we’re going to attract here, and more than that, there probably ought to be, ongoing at the present time, discussions with those industries. I mean, you know, this is almost an arm’s length negotiation with each of these different industries to see who wants to come in. That’s just my opinion. I’ve been in this position before. MS. BARBER-And that’s a good comment, sir, and I agree with you wholeheartedly, and I will tell you that there is not currently a marketing plan in place because we did not want to give this site exposure until we knew it was close to being ready to go, and we thought at this point it would be very premature and the first thing, we didn’t want to disappoint a potential client by having a delay. So what our plan is, is to wait until we’ve gotten the approvals that we need, and the interesting thing about what’s going on in economic development these days is when we get a referral or we get a direct call, some of these site selectors who are out looking for properties for businesses, and they’ll look, quite often, in the northeast. The client will say to the site selector, find me 10 acres in the northeast, because that’s where I want to go for the productive workforce, etc. So the site selector will come out and kind of pre-qualify some sites, take them back to the client. Once the client decides which location they want, we’re finding that they’re, in 60 days, they’re ready to start construction, and we want to make sure that our site is prepared so that they can start construction on their time schedule and not ours. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think you’ll find that a good way to do this is to do them in parallel, as opposed to a series operation, because it’s going to take you a long time before you’ve got perspective clients focused, I believe, and I’d just make a suggest. Don’t wait for them to come to you. You go to them. MS. BARBER-Understood completely. Yes. MR. VOLLARO-That’s all I have. MR. METIVIER-I guess my only concern is the history of the land and the contaminants, and I know you’ve studied it, and I’ve read up on it, but what type of plan do you have in place, or even what kind of liability will you have or will we have should something more substantial be unearthed once the projects get underway? MR. MESINGER-This is where I wish I had a counsel sitting next to me. We met with, Diane and I had a series of meetings with banks to sort of pitch them the site, and that’s their only concern, too, is the environmental liability, and banks are reluctant to loan money on a property with environmental liability, and they all said to us essentially the same thing, which was, you know, it would really help your cause in marketing this site if you can have the regulatory agencies give you a letter saying that as far as we’re concerned, this site is clean and you don’t have to do anything else. So we are actively pursuing getting those letters. The site is clean and we shouldn’t have to do anything else, but, getting the regulatory agency to give you a letter to that effect is a challenging proposition. I don’t know if that answers it, but those are kind of our thoughts on that one. MR. METIVIER-So you have addressed it. MR. MESINGER-We’re sure thinking about it, because I think it’s fundamental to marketing the site, and I think that any industry that comes in is going to, if they’re going to take title, they’re going 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) to do their Phase I assessment, and it’s going to come back, hey, guess what, you know, you’re next to a PCB cell, and, yes, they did 28 tests on it and they all came out clean. What assurance do we have that tomorrow the threshold for action doesn’t change, and so if we can give them a letter from the DEC and the DOH saying, as far as we’re concerned, the site’s clean and no further action is taken. That’s about the most reassuring I can ever get, and it would not surprise me if some people said, we don’t care, you know, the wind will blow it over anyway and so we’re going to walk, but I also think that there will be companies who will move on it with that level of reassurance. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The sense I got from the Board is that they would like to wait and review the additional traffic analysis before we move on our recommendation. So be it. We’ll table this application. Thank you very much. MR. MESINGER-Thank you all. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s back up and do minutes. CORRECTION OF MINUTES November 3, 1999: NONE November 16, 1999: NONE November 23, 1999: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 3, 16, AND 23 OF 1999, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Abbott: Duly adopted this 15 day of February, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Abbott, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 6-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED GLENN BATEASE OWNER: SAME AGENT: THE LA GROUP ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 71 BIG BOOM ROAD THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO OPERATE A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY THAT INCLUDES AN EXISTING EXCAVATION BUSINESS AND MATERIAL PROCESSING ON THE 7 +/- ACRE SITE. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITIONAL SITE IMPROVEMENTS OF REGRADING, REVEGETATION, AND RE-LOCATION OF PROCESSING MATERIALS TO A DEFINED LOCATION ON THE SITE. THE EXISTING BULDING IS ALSO BEING OCCUPIED BY A COURIER BUSINESS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 71-96, 33-94, SUB. 9-1994, 14-1994, AV 52-1998 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 1/12/2000 TAX MAP NO. 135-2-2.2 LOT SIZE: 7 +/- ACRES SECTION: 179-26 GLENN BATEASE, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-This was tabled last week on February 8. th MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have any additional Staff Notes for tonight? MR. SCHACHNER-Have you reviewed the memo from Craig Brown? I mean, is that additional Staff Notes? MRS. MOORE-Do you want that read into the record? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, please. MRS. MOORE-I have a letter that’s addressed to the Queensbury Planning Board from Craig Brown, our Code Compliance Officer. It’s dated February 11, 2000. It says “Dear Board Members: With regards to the above referenced site plan,” Site Plan 6-2000, “I would like to submit, for your review, applicable definitions and observations regarding the storage of various items. § 102-2. Definitions As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated: JUNKYARD – Any place of storage or deposit, whether in connection with another business or not, where two (2) or more unregistered, old or secondhand motor vehicles, no longer intended or in condition for legal use on the public highways, are held, whether for the purpose of resale of 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) used parts therefrom, for the purpose of reclaiming for use some or all of the materials therein, whether metal, glass, fabric or otherwise, for the purpose of disposing of the same or for any other purpose; such term shall include any open lot or area or the dismantling, storage or sale as parts, scrap or salvage of used or wrecked motor vehicles, machinery, scrap metals, wastepaper, rags, used or salvaged building materials or other discarded materials. According to this definition and a recent inspection of the Batease Excavating site on Big Boom Road, the nature of material storage on the site would allow the site to be classified as a Junkyard. The current application, SP 6- 2000, is not for the creation or maintenance of a Junkyard. Therefore, the keeping of any of the items as listed in the definition would be considered a violation of the Junkyard Ordinance, unless approvals are granted for the storage of specific items as part of this site plan review. However, allowing otherwise discarded materials to be stored on the site would be difficult to enforce unless specifically designated to one or two types of items in a defined, well-screened area on the site. I would not recommend allowing any materials, commonly disposed of at an approved landfill or salvage yard, to be stored outside on the property. Certainly, various types of “earthen” materials; boulders, gravel, topsoil, sand, etc. along with the associated operable processing machinery should be allowed on this site. Scrap metal, I-beams, firewood, discarded used building material, concrete blocks (unless used as fill), “unregisterable” vehicles, truck bodies, inoperable farm equipment, boats, etc. are all items which should be disposed of or stored in other locations.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and we have also a letter from Mr. Batease. Could you read that into the record? MRS. MOORE-Yes. This was received in our office on February 15, addressed to Craig Brown, th and it says “As requested, below is a listing of my vehicles that are kept at my business location on 71 Big Boom Road, Queensbury 8 Pick-ups, plow trucks and utility trucks; 6 dump trucks; 1 tractor & trailer These vehicles are taken on and off the road throughout the year depending upon the nature and season of my business. Sincerely, Glenn F. Batease Batease Excavating, Inc.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is there anything else in the file? MR. RINGER-We’ve got the letter of January 10 from DEC that we didn’t have last week. th MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Realizing it’s rather lengthy, could I ask you to read it in, because it is important to the site, from Mr. Post of the DEC. MRS. MOORE-This letter is dated January 10, 2000, addressed to Mr. Batease. In follow up to our telephone conversations, I have amended the letter I wrote dated December 27, 1999 to allow variations in the approach used to ensure that erosion of sediments is minimized, and that no sediments are allowed to reach the protected streams. Please note that ultimately you are responsible for installing and maintaining erosion controls that accomplish this task. While it appears that your proposal should be adequate, it is your responsibility to ensure that it does. 1. By January 15, 2000 install erosion control that will prevent the escapement of sediments to either stream. Silt fence must be trenched into the ground at least four inches. In drainage areas, low spots and in the area near where the small unnamed trib borders the property, staked haybales shall be placed parallel to, and in front of, the silt fence as an extra measure of protection. The hay bales shall be placed on their sides, ends butted up tightly to each other, and 2 stakes driven through each haybale to pin them to the ground. They shall be placed on the development side of the silt fence and completely through low areas and for 50 feet on each side of where the tributary borders the property. The erosion control must be maintained until the site is fully stabilized. As a further measure of protection, since the site can not be suitably stabilized until spring growing season, a trench shall be dug along the back of the property line, uphill from the above erosion control. The trench shall collect, hold, and transport the water to collection basins. The trench and retention basins shall be of suitable size to collect runoff and prevent it from entering the streams. The berms of the retention basins shall be covered with filter fabric and mulched with 4 inches of mulch. 2. By April 15, 2000 the back of the property, or that area along the back of the property that borders the buffer and stream and extending 50 feet towards Big Boom Road, shall be leveled and graded to no more than a 1 foot vertical to 2 foot horizontal slope. This leveled area must be then covered with jute matting or other soil stabilization fabric, seeded with perennial grass seed, fertilized and mulched. The mulch shall be maintained until the vegetation has grown sufficiently to stabilize the soils. This bank must be maintained as needed to ensure stability.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. BATEASE-Good evening. Glenn Batease, owner of the property on Big Boom Road. MR. MAC EWAN-We left off last week so that you could come up with this list of things that, an inventory, basically, of your site, I guess as it was, things that you wanted to keep on the site. Is that how I remember that? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. BATEASE-You asked for a list of the vehicles that were registered. MR. MAC EWAN-We asked for an inventory of the site, I guess it was. I guess I’ll just open it up to questions from Board members. Any questions, comments? MR. METIVIER-On looking at the site again the other day, I noticed a considerable amount of household trash, and was curious, I understand that you stated last time we met. MR. BATEASE-What do you mean by household trash? MR. METIVIER-There was actually household trash, garbage dumped, and there was a considerable amount, and I was just surprised to see it, because even the time before we were out, it wasn’t there, and it was more than just a truckload full. It looked like really a dumpster load full of trash, and I know that you had. MR. BATEASE-Well, if it’s there, I’m not aware of it. We have a dumpster on site that they come in every Thursday and take it away. MR. METIVIER-This was back toward the land that’s in question, and, I mean, it was a considerable amount, and I was just surprised. MR. BATEASE-See, what happens up there, a lot of times, if I’m not around, like on the weekend or night, people will come in and they’ll dump brush, and they’ll dump whatever, and I don’t walk the property on a daily basis an see what’s out there. MR. METIVIER-Aren’t you concerned, though, that you’re trying to develop this into something for development, and I just think you’d want to have some kind of measures in place to keep the dumping of this type from happening. MR. BATEASE-Well, I can’t keep a locked gate on the property, and I can’t keep a security guard standing there. MR. METIVIER-But if you know or have any idea of anybody that’s dumping, I would hope you’d address it with them. I mean, it was a considerable amount, and I was kind of surprised. It was not there the time before, and it was fresh since the snow. So it just seems. MR. BATEASE-What area of the property, down in where the wood pile is? MR. METIVIER-Well, it was toward the back. If you look at the brown dump truck that was there, right beyond that, and it was a considerable. It wasn’t just a garbage can full of trash. It was a lot of trash. MR. BATEASE-Okay. You know what that is, I’ve spoken to him about it before. One of the people that are in the sweeping business, that sweep the parking lots, you get the papers and stuff that come off of the parking lots, sand. He used to come in there and dump the sand in the spring. MR. RINGER-That would explain it. MR. METIVIER-That would explain it exactly. MR. BATEASE-That’s probably what you’re looking at. MR. METIVIER-That’s exactly what it is. MR. BATEASE-Paper wrappers and cigarette butts. MR. RINGER-That’s what it was. It was plastic bags and boxes, cardboard small boxes. MR. BATEASE-That’s what it is, and I’ll have a talk with him. MR. METIVIER-That would explain what, that’s exactly what it looked like, now that you mention it. It was embedded with sand. MR. BATEASE-Yes. When he started dumping in there, he was just picking up sand, you know, from the spring time, off the parking lots, but now there’s all kinds of stuff in there. MR. METIVIER-That’s fine. That’s all I wanted to know. MR. BATEASE-Yes. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. RINGER-Do they dump there on a regular basis? MR. BATEASE-Well, they usually work at nigh when all the parking lots are closed. So they’re, you know. MR. RINGER-Do they dump on your site on a regular basis? MR. BATEASE-I didn’t think he was dumping this winter, but evidently he is. MR. METIVIER-It was on top of the snow, that’s all. MR. BATEASE-That’s what that is. MR. RINGER-The stuff you list in your letter here of your trucks and your plows, that’s the only stuff you want on your property? We saw the boats and some other boxes. MR. BATEASE-Yes. Well, I didn’t list any bulldozer, back hoes, payloaders. Now, last week you guys were talking about unregistered vehicles. So I took that as a pick up truck that’s, anything that you could register on the road. I don’t register my boat on the road, or, there’s three boats down there. I don’t register my backhoes on the road, the dump, you know, the payloaders, the excavators, the rubber tire backhoes. MR. RINGER-I think we were more referring to junk or unusable materials, old motors, not motors but old vehicles that aren’t used, or loaders that aren’t used. I don’t know what you’d call them in your business, but there seemed to be an awful lot of that down there, particularly in the southern end, near where the boats were, and then to the east of that there seemed to be an awful lot of, again, I don’t want to refer to something that’s yours that’s junk, because it very well may not be, but I was just wondering what it is and what you use it for. There was a lot of rust and stuff. MR. BATEASE-Well, there’s a lot of steel that’s piled down back. MR. RINGER-Well, this was machinery. It looked like machinery. MR. BATEASE-Okay. There’s an old farm tractor back there. MR. RINGER-Yes. That was one of the items. MR. BATEASE-Yes, and there is an old Ford dump truck, or a truck with just a cabin chassis. MR. RINGER-I get the impression that that’s what Craig was referring to in his letter, saying, hey, this isn’t a junkyard, or you’re not applying for a junkyard. A lot of this stuff that you have there gives the indication that it may be a junkyard, Glenn. MR. BATEASE-Well, there’s a lot of scrap steel around, but it’s, I use it in the business, the I-beams, and. MR. RINGER-I just got the impression that we were looking for you to clean up the stuff that you weren’t using, or get it out of there, not just necessarily motor vehicles that were registered or not registered. That was just my feeling on what we had asked, and when I got your letter, I would take this to mean that you’re getting rid of everything else except what shows on your letter. MR. BATEASE-You asked for unregistered vehicles. I took that as vehicles that you register on the road. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you recall that? I recall an inventory of what was on the site. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t know what I recall anymore. This has been going on for six years. MRS. MOORE-Mr. MacEwan, I can read you the tabling motion that you addressed. MR. MAC EWAN-Very good. That would be a good idea. MRS. MOORE-Okay. This is the tabling motion, and I’ll read this verbatim. It says, “So he can give us a list of things that we’ve requested, until the February 15 meeting. (The applicant is to provide th the NYSDEC letter in response to the applicant’s improvements to the erosion control measures. The applicant is to provide a list of materials to be used as fill on the site. The applicant is to provide a list of vehicles that will be used in conjunction with the excavation business).” 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that means you don’t need to put any boats down, because they’re not used in conjunction with the excavation business. MR. RINGER-Yes, but we didn’t ask him for that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And he didn’t put any down. MR. BATEASE-That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-I took the liberty to talk to Mr. Post on the phone, down at New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and I asked him what his opinion was of this thing, because you had said that you had had a phone conversation with him as well. MR. BATEASE-Right. MR. VOLLARO-And I told him that the trench that you dug back there to hold water and so on, that I couldn’t see the collection basins that were supposed to go along with that trench. MR. BATEASE-Did you walk down over the hill, or did you just look from the top? MR. VOLLARO-I looked from the top. I wasn’t going to go down the hill, because take a look at some of these photographs we have here, there was too much of the trash and garbage that Tony had talked about. I wasn’t about to walk through there, but he’s really most concerned about the April 15 position, and based on what he’s seen before, you take a look at what he says about April th 15, or the back of the property, or that area along the back of the property that borders and buffers th the stream and so on shall be level and graded to a one on two foot grade, slope. This level must be then covered with jute and matted or other soil stabilization fabric, etc., grassed, seeded, fertilized. What he wants to do is have that hill firmed up with some kind of growth. MR. BATEASE-We’re not talking about the whole back of the property. As we started this, this was supposed to be done in sections. As the fill came in, we were going to be filling and. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s not what he says, and that’s not what he said to me on the phone. MR. BATEASE-Okay. Well, that’s what the approval was from the Zoning Board. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I read the Zoning Board, and I remember them talking about the one to two, one foot vertical and two foot horizontal slope, but I didn’t hear them. MR. BATEASE-We don’t know how fast this is going to get filled. It depends on what type of fill is coming in and what type of work is going on. MR. VOLLARO-Glenn, when I look at what the DEC has had to say, and what our own Code Enforcement Officer has written, just recently, on his letter of February 11, I just can’t sit up here th and ignore that, as much as a lot of things that you’ve got to say, and I understand all this, but it’s very, very hard for me to turn my back on the facts that are in front of me. I just can’t do it, in good conscience. That’s all I have to say about that, Mr. Chairman. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ve been on this Board for six years, and it just seems like this whole issue is getting so complicated that I don’t know what we’ve asked, what you’ve done to comply. It’s like, I feel like we’re going around in a vicious circle. I do know that you’ve been trying to upgrade your property, Mr. Batease, and you come before us on a regular basis because you have other new things that you want to do. It almost would seem, if I were in your shoes, that we’re picking on you, and you probably are getting a little ticked of at some of our comments. The way I’m looking at it right now is this Environmental Conservation letter of Mr. Post’s, to me he is a neutral party. Just do what he wants, because they’re the governing body for environmental law in this State, not us. We try to make sure that things get carried out the way they’re supposed to be and enforced. That’s why we have this Planning Board here, but we’re not the experts on it. So right now, I’m not going to sit here and say to you. MR. BATEASE-There have been areas that have been jute matted down, down below. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I understand. MR. BATEASE-I don’t know if you’ve seen that. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Like Bob said he didn’t get down there because of the, you know, it’s kind of difficult to walk right, and it’s icy and whatever, but, I mean, I can remember saying something to you years ago about that bus that you stored your electrical stuff in. I mean, do you know how many years ago that was. I don’t even know if it’s still there anymore. MR. BATEASE-No. You’re talking about the neighbor with the bus. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s what I say. The whole issue has gotten to the point where. MR. BATEASE-You’re talking about another piece of property. That’s not even. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, no, I’m not, but the thing is, it’s probably gone now. The point I’m trying to make is, after all these years, it doesn’t seem like things have been completely resolved. The issue has gotten complicated. So my comment is, just comply with ENCON and then we’ll all be happy. MR. MAC EWAN-Not me. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Like I say, Craig, I have gotten to the point where it’s, I don’t know what he’s done, what we want anymore. All I know is I go to that site, and I go, the hole is farther, I mean, we’re now standing where it used to be a hole. This is kind of cool. He’s filling it in, and then I’m like, but all the ramifications about filling that in, and then I see more stuff cut down over here, and every time I go there it’s like, is this the same piece of property. No, it’s not. MR. BATEASE-Well, back in ’94 I bought the property, and Jim Martin and some of the other people that were on the Town, we walked it, when I was logging it off, and filling, and they’d say, look, if you’re going to be burying logs and stumps, we want you to do it this way, and they knew we were filling and they knew what we were doing, but now they get the change of guards coming up and somebody doesn’t like this or that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, it’s not the change of guards. We’ve all been here. That’s the thing. MR. MAC EWAN-I was on that Board in ’94, and the picture you just painted is not anywhere near an approval this Board gave you, not even close. MR. BATEASE-You’re saying that I could not fill? MR. MAC EWAN-We said that you could fill within certain conditions of that site plan approval, and you never met them. You violated that, and then you came back and asked for a modification. The Board gave you a modification, and you didn’t concur with those conditions either. You’ve been through two enforcement actions, I believe, in court. You’ve yet to comply with those. Here we are again tonight asking for a new one. MR. BATEASE-We’re getting closer though, aren’t we? MR. MAC EWAN-No. Really what we seem to be getting here is you seem to continue going on about your business, basically thumbing the Town and this Planning Board for any kind of approvals we’ve granted in the past, and it has to go right back to the comment you made last week to this Board, Mr. Batease, when you said, I’ll give you my word. I’ll comply. Three previous approvals that you gave your word to this Board, and we haven’t gotten compliance out of you yet. Why should we tonight? MR. BATEASE-I never gave my word before. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just would like this to be resolved. MR. MAC EWAN-I would certainly welcome some closure to this application. No doubt about it. MR. ABBOTT-As I understand it, I’ll read what the resolution prepared for us states. “Receipt of Site Plan 6-2000 for Glenn Batease to operate a construction company that includes an existing excavation business and materials processing on the seven plus acres”. Is that accurate? That’s what you’re asking for. How do three boats fit into the use of an excavation business and materials processing? MR. BATEASE-It doesn’t. MR. ABBOTT-Okay. A motorcycle, and parts? The part of an old truck, it’s a food delivery, a part of an old box truck. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. BATEASE-Storage box. MR. ABBOTT-Storage. The tractor you talked about. Two cars, I believe they’re unregistered cars. MR. BATEASE-There’s not two cars there. There were a couple of cars parked there. They’re gone. MR. ABBOTT-They’re gone, and I’m assuming that, I didn’t count all the trucks out there, but there’s a truck with no back window in it. It doesn’t look like it’s been driven for a while. Is that one you put on and off the road? MR. BATEASE-Yes. MR. ABBOTT-Okay. MR. BATEASE-A sander goes on the back of that truck. MR. ABBOTT-I guess the point I’m trying to make is, the stuff that is not necessary to operate an excavation business, a materials processing, doesn’t belong there and shouldn’t be there. MR. BATEASE-I’ve got seven and a half acres of Light Industrial property. If I want to store my boat on that property, where would you, I shouldn’t store my boat on that property? Where should I store it, up in my door yard up in Sunnyside? I mean, I have seven and a half acres of Light Industrial. If I need to park a boat down there, I should be able to. Where would you park your boat if you had one? MR. MAC EWAN-There were two boats, when you first pull into your parking lot, on the left hand side, trust me, if you ever put those things in the water, it would be on the bottom before you could shake your head. MR. BATEASE-Yes, but they’re boats. MR. MAC EWAN-But you’re trying to tell this Board you use them. MR. BATEASE-Actually, they’re not mine. I’m storing them for somebody else. MR. MAC EWAN-See how the story keeps changing here? MR. ABBOTT-So you’re asking for boat storage usage now on this property. MR. BATEASE-No, but if I want to be able to park a boat on my property, or a camper on my property, I should be able to store a boat or a camper on my property. I mean, it’s a Light Industrial property. Should I bring it up to my residential house if I wanted to park my camper there? Come on, I’ve got that property. I should be able to park something there if I want to. MRS. LA BOMBARD-See, this is where it’s confusing. I have no problem with you putting a couple of boats on your property, because you have seven and a half acres. This is why this whole thing has gotten to the point where you’ve got an answer for everything. We’ve got some, you know, we’ve got some questions, and I am totally confused about this now. I’m like six years confused. MR. ABBOTT-The stuff that doesn’t have to do with the excavation business shouldn’t be there. MR. BATEASE-What about the courier service on there? MR. ABBOTT-That’s another use of the property that we’ve talked about as another business being run there. That’s fine. I don’t have a problem with that. MR. BATEASE-My goal down the road is to fill that whole property with buildings and run businesses out of them. I don’t want to keep all that stuff there. I mean, it’ll go as soon as I get more buildings in. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s what you said last time. MR. BATEASE-I didn’t buy that property to make it a junkyard, or just to store equipment. It’s a valuable piece of property, and I want to build on it. MR. ABBOTT-I believe, and someone correct me if I’m wrong, as uses change on the property, in a Light Industrial zone, a certain amount of approval is necessary. Am I speaking right, Chris? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. ROUND-Correct. MR. ABBOTT-All right. So if a machine shop, you put up a building and you wanted to run a machine shop next week, you’d have to come in front of this Board and get a site approval for that. MR. BATEASE-I’m aware of that. MR. ABBOTT-So I do not see anywhere where it says boat storage, motorcycle storage, junk storage, on that property right now. That’s the problem I have right now. You’re asking to run an excavation business and material processing, and that’s it. That’s all I have. MR. PALING-We visited this site several times over the past few years, and each time we’ve come away with the idea that there’s junk there that shouldn’t be, be it garbage or some kind of metal junk at all. You admitted yourself tonight there were some vehicles that are, or what’s left of vehicles, that really shouldn’t be there, and I think you should, once and for all, clean up the site. I don’t think we originally had any problems with you whole vehicles or whole boats, but we see garbage. We see stumps. We see a kid’s motor scooter jammed into the earth. That’s plain junk, and I think that you should clean it up, once and for all, so that we can get beyond this, and I don’t abide by your contention that you’re being dumped on. It’s your responsibility to keep your property clean. It’s not the Board’s, and if somebody’s doing something to make your situation worse, you’re going to have to do something about it, not the Board. That’s all. MR. MAC EWAN-Well said, Robert. As far as your storage trailer, storage box right here, you’d be hard pressed to convince me that that’s a storage mechanism of any kind. That’s an old beat up refrigerated delivery box off a truck that obviously had gotten the side of it ripped off, with some used tires thrown inside it, and if I’m not mistaken, help me out over here, Staff, you need site plan approval for something like that in the really stretched scenario that that’s a storage trailer? As I recall, we did one for NuTech Construction where they had like a versatile office trailer storage box on their property, and it required site plan approval. You don’t have approval for that. I’d like to see that gone. The two motorcycles, gone. The two boats, gone. Farm tractor, gone. What’s the 250 gallon old oil storage tank for? I’d like to see that gone, along with all the metal junk that’s hanging around it. I’d like to see that gone. Do you plan on putting this box, this dump box back on the truck? It’s kind of orange? MR. BATEASE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Is it going to go on that truck right there which obviously hasn’t been moved in about three years? MR. BATEASE-It probably won’t go on that truck, no. MR. MAC EWAN-No? MR. BATEASE-I don’t even know what truck that is. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s have that one gone, then, too, if it’s not utilized in your business. You tell us that you take your vehicles off the road every season, to save yourself insurance and registration fees. This thing hasn’t been moved in probably a couple of years. MR. BATEASE-No, it has been. All that junk was way out in the back corner of that property, if you’ll remember. All that stuff was out by the front of the road. So I moved everything way out to the back where nobody would see it, and it would be out of everybody’s eyesight, and then you guys said, well, we don’t want it there in the back of the property. So then I had to move it all again. So that stuff was on there. MR. MAC EWAN-No, no, Mr. Batease, please. MR. BATEASE-Don’t tell me no. I mean, it was right out by the road. I put it all the way back where nobody would see it. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not what this Board said. MR. BATEASE-And then it was too close to the property line back there, and I had to move it again. So the stuff I don’t use, I’ll get rid of. MR. MAC EWAN-What are you willing to do to satisfy this Board, to remove any and all materials not associated with an excavating business off that site? And how long will it take? MR. BATEASE-I should be able to get it cleaned up by early spring. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. MAC EWAN-You’re still not in compliance with DEC yet either, according to this letter. MR. BATEASE-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, considering this guy sent this letter, there’s been numerous letters over the, and one of the letters I remember seeing was maybe early to mid fall, where they talked about a potential for about a $10,000 $20,000 a day fine. You’d think that would be enough of an incentive to want to bring your site into compliance, and you’re not there yet, and I’d like to know why. I’d like to know why we’ve been chasing after this situation for four years now, and I’d like to bring some closure to it. I’d like to have you be able to develop your site, to attract the industry you want to have on your site, but by the same token, I’d like to see you comply with the same Zoning Ordinances that everybody else in this Town has to comply with, and I think that’s a reasonable request, and I want to know what we’ve got to do to get to that point. MR. BATEASE-Well, the back of the property will be taken care of when it thaws out. I mean, the frost is three foot in the ground. There’s not much you can do down there. That trench has been put in there. So there’s not going to be any erosion problem. So that’s taken care of until spring. MR. MAC EWAN-All right, and you still have to re-do the bales along with the. MR. BATEASE-With the silt fence. MR. MAC EWAN-The silt fence, yes, because that’s got to be trenched and put in. Does DEC have to go back, Staff, can you answer this? Does DEC have to go back and do a final inspection to make sure he’s in compliance? MR. SCHACHNER-We probably can’t answer that. They often do, but I don’t know that there’s any commitment that’s been made. MR. MAC EWAN-I know there’s been some communication between the Town and DEC on this particular site plan. I just want to know if there’s been some casual conversation. MR. ROUND-Right. Craig has spoken to them, and I think that’s the plan, that they want to make sure, I mean, it’s a violation from DEC’s standpoint. They want to make sure they comply. MR. VOLLARO-When I talked to Mr. Post on the phone, it was his intent to stay on top of this. There was no question in my mind about that, or his either. MR. MAC EWAN-And Mr. Paling is absolutely right as far as you enforcing who dumps on your property. That’s your responsibility as a land owner. It’s not the Town’s responsibility. All the Town can do is when we see that there’s a violation of things going on on this site, that aren’t supposed to be there, then it becomes your problem, but whether you have to put up a security gate, you know, put it on a card system so that people from the courier service can get in and out of there, whether you have to hire yourself a night watchman, I don’t know, but that’s your situation you need to rectify, and maybe you need to put bigger signs up saying absolutely no more dumping on the site. Violators will be prosecuted. Maybe that will be a deterrent. I don’t know, but, you know, we just can’t continue going on this way. We left the public hearing open on this application. Does anyone want to speak on this application? You’re more than welcome to do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like to know what the pleasure of the Board is. MR. ABBOTT-Table it until DEC signs off that he’s in compliance, and the property cleaned up of all items that are not involved in the (lost word). MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to comment on that, Alan. I took the time to go back to all of our previous minutes, you know, and I’ll just go over this real quickly. July 20, 1999, tabled this modification for Site Plan No. 71-96 until August 17 for additional info. Info. not received. Mr. Batease not on the th Planning Board agenda for August 17 due to not providing the required information. September th 21, motion to set deadline date of September 29 for the following information: landscape plan and stth stormwater plan by September 29, field delineation, that’s the 370 foot contour. That was not th done. October 19, 1999, motion to deny modification to Site Plan No. 71-96. October 26 motion th to re-affirm a resolution for denial of Site Plan No. 71-96, and this is just a little bit of history about 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) what everybody up on this Board is talking about, just documenting and going down through the record. MR. BATEASE-But you have all the information you need now, right? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t, definitely not. I don’t have it. I’ve got a Code Enforcement Officer that’s out in the field, that writes a letter to this Planning Board, dated February 11, and when I read this, th you know, anybody with any common sense could read this. You haven’t complied with anything. I mean, you know, I’m just taking a look at what the guy on the site has got to say, our Code Compliance Officer. MR. RINGER-Did you get a copy of that letter? MR. BATEASE-I’m not sure. MR. VOLLARO-It’s very hard for us to sit up here, and for me to go back to as far as July, and then even before that, as Cathy said, she’s been on this Board for six years. I haven’t. I’ve only been on the Board for two, but just taking a look at the situation that’s preceded this, there’s just no way that I’m going to even consider tabling this site plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, what would you like to do, then? MR. VOLLARO-What I would like to do is deny it. It’s as simple as that. MR. RINGER-Is there a way, Mark, that we could table this and prevent any further work at the project until he complies with DEC? MR. SCHACHNER-To the extent that the we you’re referring to, Larry, is the Planning Board, the answer is, no. MR. RINGER-Well, I meant the Town. MR. SCHACHNER-To the extent you’re talking about the Town, the Town certainly has certain enforcement capabilities that could be that’s strong. In order to actually prevent him from doing any further work, we might need to get a court order doing that, if it came to that. That would be something that would have to be authorized by the Town Board. There are, you know, enforcement actions that Craig Brown, as the Code Compliance Officer, and Chris Round, as the Zoning Administrator, can initiate. There are court actions that we can initiate with Town Board authorization to do that. Those are a number of steps that could be taken. MR. RINGER-Usually we don’t do those, though, if we’ve got an application pending. MR. SCHACHNER-Generally, not, although I can’t tell you that it’s never happened. If an application is pending for years and it’s just not going anywhere, I think those steps have occasionally been taken, but generally I agree with your statement, Larry. Generally we don’t take those steps if an application is pending, especially if we believe that the applicant is proceeding in good faith to try to fulfill the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. I agree with that. MR. RINGER-See, I’m not happy with tabling it, either, without putting something on there that says we’re tabling it, but you can’t do anymore until you come back. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and technically, the Planning Board doesn’t have the authority to do that. MR. RINGER-That was my question. MR. SCHACHNER-You could certainly ask the applicant’s agreement to that, and some applicants will agree to that, some may not, but you’re correct that the Planning Board doesn’t have that enforcement leverage, although the other Town bodies do. MR. VOLLARO-But certainly the Planning Board has to put, I think, great weight on the Code Compliance Officer’s direction to us, or information to us. MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t see how anything I’ve said could suggest otherwise. MR. VOLLARO-No, I didn’t mean that, but the basis for denial has got to be fairly solid, based on some firm information, and my basis for denial is the letters from DEC and the letters from our own Code Compliance Officer. That’s where I’m coming from. So it’s not just a denial off the wall. I want to substantiate, any time I put a vote down, as to why I do it. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. SCHACHNER-Well, and you know I’m a big supporter of that, Bob. For what it’s worth, my own read on the correspondence from DEC and the memo from our Code Compliance Officer, I’m not sure that I read either of those as specifically recommending denial of the application. It seems that both those indicate that there are certain deficiencies in the applicant’s compliance with the existing, whatever approvals are in existence, and with whatever approvals he seeks, that there are certain steps that have to be taken that haven’t been taken. MR. VOLLARO-True, but in that view, I also look at the historical background of this particular applicant. I’ve got to throw that in. That’s why I went back and looked at the record, all the way back to July, and I can go back to 1998 and just keep looking at the consistent applications that have come before us, table, table, table, table, and then finally we get, in October, where there was a motion to re-affirm the resolution for denial, based on what we’ve seen. I have to couple in to what you said, the historical background of this, as well. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s everybody else think? MR. RINGER-I really don’t want to deny it, but I don’t want to table it without some stipulations. So I really, I think the ultimate goal that he has is going to be good. It’s when the heck’s he ever going to get there, and how is he going to get there is the problem. MR. METIVIER-I just think we definitely shouldn’t deny it. If he stands up here and just, you know, we won’t move on this any further until this stuff gets cleaned up that we ask to get cleaned up. I mean, you have good intentions. You just have to follow through with them, and I think if that were the case then everyone wouldn’t have a problem with this. I mean, it’s in your best interest to get this stuff cleaned up and to move on, and it just seems that it’s taken this long to do it. I just would love to see this thing get passed for you, but we just can’t pass it., going back, time after time, and just seeing the same stuff there. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Glenn, you can’t really do a lot of the cleaning up right now because you’ve said the ground is pretty frozen, and stuff is buried under snow, but we want you to go on, I mean, I think the general consensus is we want you to go on with your project, so you can finally get the place like you want it. However, I think this is going to be an ongoing thing. I think to get it like you want it, if you’re going to be doing this for a long, long time, why don’t, we could maybe pass this with the stipulation that you have got to comply with the DEC letter, immediately, like ASAP. MR. MAC EWAN-You can’t do that, Cathy, because there’s frost in the ground. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because of the frost in the ground, okay, well then the thing is, you could come back to us when the frost gets out of the ground, with the same thing, but what, all right, you know that by law you’ve got to comply with this. MR. BATEASE-Right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. When do you think the earliest possible date could be? MR. BATEASE-As soon as the thaw. The frost is three foot in the ground. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. Okay. Early spring. I mean, like the end of April? Everything is thawed out by April 30. th MR. BATEASE-April, May. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, April 30. th MR. MAC EWAN-Just to back up a minute to the statement you just made regarding you’re okay with the runoff. How did you phrase that, now? MR. BATEASE-The runoff has been taken care of by the trench that goes the back. MR. MAC EWAN-It may not be taken care of, because the silt fence hasn’t been installed properly, and because it hasn’t been trenched the proper way. You may get a significant rain in the spring. MR. BATEASE-It would never fill that trench up. I mean, that’s there until I can get down there in the spring and get everything else set up down there. That’s why that was put in there. The ground was frozen. I spoke with Tim Post from the State, and told him what I was going to do. He agreed to it, just as long as all the water is contained so it’s not going to go over the silt fence and down into that stream. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s what I say, he’ll always have a good answer. So, let’s say we put the stipulation in this that we put a date on, that you’re going to be able to comply. So that’s DEC. Now we have all the other issues that everybody on this Board is concerned with, you know, the other articles and machinery and vehicles and dumping that is on there. MR. MAC EWAN-DEC has given you until April 15 to come into compliance with this letter that th they’ve sent to you of January 10. If not, I’m assuming that that $10,000, $25,000 a day fine will th start being levied. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. That’s a big enough ultimatum. MR. SCHACHNER-Craig, what were you saying about the fine, I’m sorry? MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not assuming anything. In fact, he has a letter here from Timothy Post from DEC, who has given him until April 15 to come into compliance with the previous site visits that th were done by DEC, plus their letter, and in that previous letter is when they said, if you don’t comply…subject to fines of $10,000, $25,000, whatever the case may be. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, I read that one, right. MR. MAC EWAN-So by reading this letter there’s potential that if he isn’t in compliance by the 15 th of April, that he could be subject to those fines. MR. SCHACHNER-Through a DEC enforcement action. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Not by this Board. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now I’m thinking about all the other concerns that my colleagues up here have addressed tonight, and I know that we’re not going to pass anything unless you come back with something that says you’re going to take care of some of that. Now we’ve got to have some kind of compromise. MR. MAC EWAN-What compromise? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, wait a minute, if I had a boat, and I had seven and a half acres of land, I’d put my boat over there instead of keeping it in my back yard. I mean, that’s common sense, but there’s other things, but Craig did say that he doesn’t think those boats would float. So, are those real boats or junk boats? Or are they just? MR. VOLLARO-They look like boats. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy, it doesn’t matter what my personal opinion is of the boats. It’s what the Town Ordinance says, right there. It’s not a common sense thing, well, gee, they’d be better off over there versus in my back yard. MR. BATEASE-What does it say about boats? MR. MAC EWAN-Did you get a copy of this? We already read it into the minutes tonight. Okay. I’ll read the last paragraph to you. It says, “Certainly, various types of “earthen” materials; boulders, gravel, topsoil, sand, etc. along with the associated operable processing machinery should be allowed on this site. Scrap metal, I-beams, firewood, discarded used building material, concrete blocks (unless used as fill), “unregisterable” vehicles, truck bodies, inoperable farm equipment, boats, etc. are all items which should be disposed of or stored in other locations.” That pretty much says it all. MR. SCHACHNER-And, Craig, to add to that, I hate to point out, I think I’m agreeing with some of the Planning Board members, that to some extent we keep having to shoot at a moving target here, but I think I understood the applicant, in response to one of the questions about the number of boats, to indicate that in fact he didn’t own the boats. They were being stored for somebody else, and we’re running into, again, there are other provisions in the Zoning Ordinance that talk about, if you’re using the property on behalf of others, by storing various things like boats on behalf of others, you’re running into a whole different commercial use that is itself subject to site plan review. So I agree with the Board’s sentiment that, you know, the mixed use thing is not appropriate. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. ABBOTT-I could not vote favorably until the DEC recommendations are in effect and they have approved them, and that anything not associated with the operation of an excavation business and material processing is taken off the property. MR. PALING-I have a similar view I don’t want to vote for any kind of approval until the government rules are met and until the land is brought to the Board’s satisfaction, and I wonder if in this situation we couldn’t require a performance bond. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a good question. I’d look to legal for an answer on that. MR. PALING-Could we require a performance bond? MR. SCHACHNER-You’re allowed to condition your approval, you’re allowed to include, as a condition of approval, certain safeguard measures if you feel they’re necessary to make you comfortable that an applicant will make good on some of your conditions. If a monetary posting of some sort is what you need to feel comfortable with the security, if you will, that an applicant will make good on his/her or its conditions, you’re allowed to require a performance bond. MR. PALING-Well, in my opinion, we’d use a performance bond. If there were noncompliance, we’d use it to clean up the site. MR. SCHACHNER-And the nature of a performance bond is exactly that, Bob. That it’s posted for a specific reason, to assure compliance with some condition of approval. MR. PALING-This has been hanging around and hanging around, and now we’re talking about stuff frozen in the ground. It should have been cleared up long before that, and I think that we’ve either got to deny it or have some ironclad way of getting it done, and the only way I can see to do it is get some money on the table, which is enough to clean up the whole site, and then take it from there. MR. SCHACHNER-And again, just to make sure I was clear on my answer, Bob Paling is expressing an accurate understanding of the way the mechanism of a performance bond works. It’s not that if the applicant fails to make good on the condition, the Town then gets the money or something like that. The purpose of the performance bond is for the express purpose of assuring compliance with whatever the condition may be, building a road. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve done it once or twice over the years. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, that’s correct. MR. ABBOTT-But that assumes an approval of the site plan. MR. SCHACHNER-That is correct. The manner in which a performance bond is initially obtained would be as a condition of approval, and the amount is typically recommended by somebody who knows what the appropriate amount would be. It’s not just picked out of the sky, and what the appropriate amount would be to expend to do whatever the condition requires if the applicant fails to do it. MR. VOLLARO-Well, one of the things I’m looking at is the January 10 letter by DEC sets a mark th of April 15, 2000 to have certain things accomplished. What I would like to do, in my view is to deny this application and let Mr. Batease comply with the April 15, 2000 requirements by DEC, and then come back with an application, at that point, saying that this has been done. The property’s been cleaned up. I have a letter from DEC that says I’m in compliance with their requirement, and let's go forward on that application. I cannot go forward, in my opinion, on this application at all. I just can’t do it that way. That April 15 looks like a mark on the ground that we could use. th MR. MAC EWAN-The down side of doing a denial is that that leaves this whole situation unresolved, from our standpoint. It certainly doesn’t get him off the hook with DEC. What I would be inclined to entertain is an approval bringing all of these three things together here. Giving him an approval on this site plan, conditioned that he meets that, obviously that DEC April 15 deadline. th It’s a good date to have a deadline, for a lot of reasons. Then he comes into compliance with the memo from Craig Brown by April the 15, that we attach a performance bond to it, that if it isn’t in th compliance by April 15, then we can take care of it ourselves. th MR. VOLLARO-Does the applicant understand the implications of a performance bond? Do you understand that? MR. BATEASE-Explain it to me, please. MR. VOLLARO-I could have the attorney explain it to you, but you would take out a bond. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. BATEASE-Who puts the dollars on that? MR. VOLLARO-You do. The dollar amount? The dollar amount has to be determined. I don’t know how you establish the dollar amount of a performance bond. MR. SCHACHNER-As I tried to indicate earlier, that’s why I said what I said about the amount not being picked out of thin air. The idea is that the amount should be whatever amount is reasonably determined to be what would be required to perform the task, whatever the task may be, if the applicant fails to perform the task. So that for example, the most common instance would be, if certain road improvements are required. I don’t mean of this applicant. I’m speaking generically. If certain road improvements are required of an applicant, then it’s common for a performance bond to be required, that is in the amount that it would cost the Town to perform those road improvements if the applicant failed to do so. So these are, you know, amounts that are recommended by Staff, if Staff is capable of doing that, or engineers, if it’s something more technical or complex. MR. VOLLARO-That was your answer? The amount would be estimated by somebody? MR. MAC EWAN-You know, yourself, how much time you spent on what efforts you’ve made to try to make the site come into compliance. That’s not just removing the items not associated with an excavating business. That’s doing your site preparation as well, the grading that you need to do. The silt fences need to be up. You’re also supposed to be sodding and landscaping that slope when it’s done. It could be a sizeable amount. MR. VOLLARO-I guess the question that’s on the table in my mind, would you accept a performance bond as a condition of approval? MR. BATEASE-Right now, I wouldn’t accept it, no. I’d have to run that by Bill Nealon, see what the answer is. MR. MAC EWAN-How do we arrive at a figure? Is that something your office can do? MR. ROUND-We can facilitate that with the Town Engineer. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Here’s what I’d like to do, then. Instead of sitting here beating this thing to death until midnight, let’s table this thing until next week. In the meantime, you get a hold of your lawyer on which avenue you want to pursue. In the meantime, you come up with a dollar figure that we need to put on a bond, if we need to go that route. MR. PALING-Let’s be sure that there’s specific reference there to silt fence, to junk that shouldn’t be on the property, to grading, seeding, planting. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. We’re talking about everything associated with this site plan, the DEC letter, the memo from Craig Brown. MR. PALING-Does that cover the silt fence? MR. MAC EWAN-The DEC letter, yes. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-There are several DEC letters, they ought to be referred to, the one with the. MR. ABBOTT-Can that be done in a week? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. PALING-As far as a dollar amount. MR. MAC EWAN-As far as being able to come up with a dollar figure, I’ve got a dollar figure in mind, I think (lost words) I’m not expert at it, but a ballpark figure where I think it’s going to end up. What do I think? You’re probably looking in the neighborhood of somewhere between I would think $20,000 and $30,000. That’s a ballpark. That’s what I think. That’s provided you did nothing. I would hope that your April 15 deadline is enough of an incentive for you to want to work with th this Board and get this site rectified, but let’s table this for one week. Okay. Do we have a motion to table? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 6-2000 GLENN BATEASE, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) So that an amount for a performance bond can be obtained and we can get Mr. Batease’s reply to the possibility of a performance bond being involved, until February 22. nd Duly adopted this 15 day of February, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. .MacEwan NOES: NONE PUD SITE PLAN NO. 51-99 THOMAS J. FARONE & SONS/J. BUCKLEY BRYAN, JR. OWNER: SAME AGENT: MATT JONES ZONE: PUD LOCATION: END OF FARR LANE AND FOX FARM ROADS FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR PHASE I – 25 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, SENIOR HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICE AREA AND ACCESS TO OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION AREA. CROSS REFERENCE: PUD 1- 96/SP 1-97/TB RES. TAX MAP NO. 73-1-21, 22.1, 22.3, 22.4, 22.5, 22.6, 22.7 LOT SIZE: 135.15 +/- ACRES SECTION: 179-58 MATTHEW J. JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there was a public hearing on September 23. This is Final. So the rd public hearing was closed back on the 23. rd MR. MAC EWAN-Staff Notes. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, PUD Site Plan 51-99 – Phase I, T. Farone/Bryan, Jr. – INDIAN RIDGE PUD, Meeting Date: February 15, 2000 “Project Description: The applicant proposes the first phase of the Indian Ridge PUD, twenty-five residential lots and a community facility. The Indian Ridge PUD consists of three phases totaling 75 single family dwellings, a Senior housing facility, a Community service area, and a passive recreational area. Planning Board review and approval is required for Phase I of the Indian Ridge PUD. Staff Notes: Phase I was reviewed and found to be in compliance with preliminary PUD conceptual plan. The information submitted was forwarded to Rist Frost Associates and the Town’s Departments for review and comment. Staff would encourage further discussion on the following comments. Entrance/Access to site - the First Phase defines the entryway to the PUD from Farr Lane and Fox Farm Road. There is a proposed planting plan and sign location to identify the entrance from Farr Lane. There is no entryway definition proposed from Fox Farm Road. The PUD agreement indicates the Town Board has the discretion to make Fox Farm Road a two-way road at a later date. However, the Planning Board should look at this now to assess its functionality. Site Amenities – There are no proposed sidewalks or street lighting proposed for Phase I. Indian Ridge Phase II will have a lighting plan and pathway design for the interconnection to the School. The plans identify a significant amount of no-clear zones. Staff would request a note be added to the drawings defining no-clear zones, such as a limitation to size of vegetation to be removed. The 1999 draft PUD agreement indicates the compliance officer needs 24 hour advance notice to approve such cutting. The Phase I plans identify the septic layout for lots adjacent to the conservation lands to be in front yards as discussed with Planning Board. In addition, the septic layout includes a 50% expansion area (per Rist Frost letter 9/17/99). The PUD draft agreement indicates the homes will have a driveway with a turn around area, final plans should include the location of the turn-around. The Board may wish to determine if a turn-around is necessary and advise the Town Board. Land Conservation Area and Homeowners Association Land - The PUD draft agreement indicates the Land Conservation area is to be used for passive recreational use. This area contains an informal trail system that has been used by the public, but is not shown on any Town maps. The plans identify an area of HOA lands as being an access point to the trail system. The Board should consider if the HOA lands or other access point to the land conservation area need to be improved for access. Improvements would include graveled parking area, bike racks, bathroom facilities, etc. Community Service - The site plan includes an area for community service. The PUD agreement indicates any commercial use would require site plan review. The allowed uses would range from an instruction facility for four or more persons, professional occupation, medical care facility, or a community center or business. The Board should consider what type of business would be beneficial to the Indian Ridge Community and the nearby community and advise the Town Board of such. The Planning Board should note that inviting excessive traffic from outside of the PUD is a concern, so businesses for a community service should be addressed with that concern in mind. Lands for Proposed Senior Housing - Staff is concerned with the purchase option of the two lots totaling ten acres (6.91 ac. and 3.09 ac.). Note these 10 acres in question are for a proposed senior housing facility. The earlier draft PUD agreement outlined a 5 year period for option to purchase by the Town if the facility was not built. The PUD Agreement indicates with the approval of the First Phase a timeline for the purchase of the property 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) starts. The applicant should further explain the new timeline and if there are any conditions attached. Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the First Phase with the condition that all comments are addressed within the PUD Agreement and on the Final Plans.” MR. MAC EWAN-The February 11 letter from Nace Engineering. th MRS. MOORE-Okay. This is addressed to myself. “In answer to your question about the entry signs for the Indian Ridge Subdivision, the details have not yet been finalized. The landscape plans shows the area allocated for the entry sign and indicated that there will be two curved walls with pilasters. These walls will most likely be stone masonry and will be fairly low (2 to 3 feet). The sign(s) will be either mounted on the face of the wall or ground mounted in front or behind the wall. In any case, the signs will be designed to meet the Town Sign Code and a sign permit application will be submitted when the details are finalized.” MR. MAC EWAN-February 8 letter from Mark Hoffman. th MRS. MOORE-This is dated February 8. It’s addressed to the Town Board, the Town Supervisor, th and Planning Board, as well as other departments in the Town. It says, “Dear Sir or Madam: On July 5, 1999, I submitted a letter to the Town Board and Planning Board in reference to the revised Indian Ridge PUD proposal. I indicated that the conceptual sketch plan and draft PUD agreement encompassed three key points of our consensus with the developer: 1. Limitation of residential development to 75 single-family homes and 61 units of single family housing. 2. No lots within the CEA. 3. Extension of protected green space to the Fox Farm access. I also indicated that our consensus was that the project parameters would be otherwise substantially unchanged. At that time, I was concerned about some changes that had been made to the project which were outside the context of our discussion. I provided a preliminary list of such changes. The Town’s negative SEQRA declaration was based on mitigation measures in the original plans as well as their confidence in a thorough site plan review process and carefully crafted PUD agreement. While the Town Board has the authority to execute the PUD agreement, this agreement will be greatly influenced by the Planning Board’s site plan approval. Therefore, the two processes should not be viewed in isolation. Some changes to the previous site plan and PUD agreement may be inconsequential and some may be beneficial. However, I have a few limited residual concerns. As indicated in my letter of July 5, the prior plan had significant “no cut” areas. Specifically, 20 feet at the rear of each lot in the project was to have been “no cut” and 40 feet at the rear of lots adjoining the conservation area were to have been “no cut”. Since my letter of July 5, it appears that some “no cut” areas have been restored. I am not insisting that each and every lot have this “no cut” restriction. However, none of the lots adjoining the land conservation area have either the universal 20-foot “no cut” or 40-foot “no-cut” specifically designed for lots adjoining this area. This is the most aesthetically sensitive area with the most natural, mature forest and there will be an immediate adjacent use consisting of walking/biking/nature trails. Even with the additional protected areas achieved in the revised project, the area suitable for trails is relatively narrow and will be difficult to visually screen properly from adjacent residential uses in order to maintain a natural setting. Furthermore, maintaining this natural wooded buffer could enhance the privacy of the new residents. In fairness, it would be reasonable to provide a reciprocal buffer on the public side of the property line. I think people who are interested in living in Queensbury would be more likely to buy lots that maintain natural features and which are protected from clear cutting. All traffic analysis done regarding this project is based on the assumption of a one way, entrance only access from Fox Farm Road. It was with this assumption that the Town Board approved the project in 1996 and included that stipulation in the draft PUD agreement. To alter this stipulation without further traffic analysis would be irresponsible. Among the advantages of channeling exiting traffic toward a single intersection is that it would facilitate upgrading that access with likely eventual addition of a traffic signal. I would encourage appropriate language in the PUD agreement that defines senior housing in terms of the low impact type of development envisioned by the Town Board, comparable to that at the adjacent Solomon Heights. Future development of this area for other residential uses should also be prohibited. Finally, I would urge all parties involved to make sure their respective reviews are thorough and up to date. As this long process moves toward completion, careful attention to detail will ensure the best possible outcome. Sincerely, Mark Hoffman President, Citizens for Queensbury” MR. MAC EWAN-You have a February 10 memo from the Water Department. th MR. VOLLARO-There’s an attachment to Mark’s letter as well. MR. MAC EWAN-I know. It’s an excerpt from the original Draft PUD. MR. VOLLARO-We should just recognize that it did come with an attachment. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MRS. MOORE-Okay. A memo addressed to myself from Ralph Van Dusen of the Water Department, “The section of water main that now supplies Solomon Heights is scheduled to be replaced with a new 8” line. That will require the water to be shut off to Solomon Heights for more than a day. What is your plan to keep these people in water while work is in progress? Lots 32-37 indicate septic systems in front yards. This will require special precautions to keep 10’ separation from water lines if really installed this way. The hydrant at lots 73, 74 should be placed at the property line. DW-7, DW-11, DW-16 conflict with water main location Detail sheet P1-9 1. Valve installation – no concrete around valve 2. Water main should be 5.5’ deep not 5’ Once these items are addressed, the plans can be approved.” MR. MAC EWAN-You have a February 15 letter from Rist-Frost. th MRS. MOORE-This is dated February 15. It says, “Dear Mr. Round: Rist-Frost has reviewed the th documents received on February 10, 2000 for the above referenced application. The final documents submitted for filing should be signed and sealed by the appropriate design professional and reviewing agencies.” MR. MAC EWAN-One more, a February 14 letter from the Jones Firm. th MRS. MOORE-Addressed to Mr. Schachner. It says “Per our telephone conversation last week, enclosed herewith is the most recent draft of the Indian Ridge PUD agreement. By way of copy of this letter, I am faxing (and e-mailing) a copy to Chris Round. The within draft updates the version I sent to you in July 1999. This version includes the results of the Planning Board review process over the past six months. Among the changes to the draft, is the addition of paragraph 16 which provides for the conveyance of the 30’ access parcel to the Queensbury Union Free School District. It would be my intention to execute an agreement with the School District over the next couple of weeks. I will appear before the Town Board tonight to describe the overall plan and how the agreement limits the construction of the project in accord with the plan. If you have any questions in the interim, please feel free to give me a call.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it, finally? MRS. MOORE-I hope so. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. JONES-Good evening. Mr. Chairman, I’m Matthew J. Jones of the Jones Firm, the attorney for the applicant. To my left is Jim Miller of Miller and Associates, the Landscape Architect, and to my right is Tom Nace of Nace Engineering, the engineer for the project. Would it be the Board’s pleasure to delve into the Staff notes and attack it that way? MR. MAC EWAN-Could you? Just one quick question for you. Last night it was on the Town Board agenda for acceptance of this agreement. Did they act on it? MR. JONES-No, sir. Actually, it was on the agenda to review the substance of the agreement, to take input from the Town Board, and we did that. Specifically, the principal area of input from the Town, from Councilman Martin, was the length of time associated with the option to purchase on the Senior Citizen parcel, and we agreed to extend that from six months, which was in our Draft, to18 months for the option for the Town. Jim feels like there is a legitimate opportunity for the Town to foster the Senior Citizen facility, and he felt like 18 months would be a sufficient time to do that. My sense is the Town wants to be very proactive in that, and may in fact simply exercise its option and sponsor some kind of a senior citizen facility. We worked that out last night. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. JONES-Staff Notes. Let me jump to the issue of the entrance access to the site. The question of the entryway, there’s a proposed, the entryway to the site, as the Board knows, is the Farr Lane/Fox Farm Road. We have always presented as only one way, that being a circumstance where we would not exit out Fox Farm. We believe that that’s probably the best plan. We want to continue that plan. We also recognize that ultimately that’s a Town Board decision which is reversible at some point, were they to do that. So we’re still in accord with the neighbors on that issue. We want it to remain one way, but we recognize it’s not within our power to do that. So I think we’re in agreement on that issue. There’s a proposed planting plan and sign location to identify the entrance of Farr Lane. There is no entryway definition for Fox Farm. That’s actually correct. We don’t look at Fox Farm as the entryway to the subdivision, and I think the landscaping the entry design is for Farr Lane. The Agreement indicates the Town Board has the discretion to make Fox Farm a two way road at a later date, and that’s the law, that’s the Town Board’s prerogative to do that, though we would not anticipate that or encourage or recommend it. However, the Planning 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) Board should look at this now to assess its functionality. We would encourage you to permit us to have that one way at the, at least the recommendation of the Town Board. MR. VOLLARO-Matt, I just have a question on that. When you say, however the Planning Board should look at this, we are not SEQRA Lead Agency here. Now, where do you feel, at least, that we should comment on this, in terms of how that interfaces with Aviation Mall? MR. JONES-My sense is that if you were to conclude that two way on Fox Farm was the appropriate traffic pattern that would be functional, if you concluded that. MR. VOLLARO-Internally on-site. We don’t have authority to go off the site on this plan. MR. JONES-But you do have authority to recommend to the Town Board how it regulates its Town roads, as to one way or two way or parking or no parking, or all those kinds of issues. So if you felt that way, you would certainly advise us and we would advise the Town Board of the Planning Board’s recommendation, and the Town Board would be at liberty to accept/adopt that recommendation or to reject it. So I think that’s where the expertise lies within this Board to say, this is how we think the traffic flow ought to be. We think one way works. It’s always been presented that way, and we would hope that you would agree with that, but if you felt otherwise, we would communicate that to the Town Board. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you. MR. JONES-The site amenities, there are no proposed sidewalks or street lighting for Phase I. Indian Ridge Phase II will have a lighting plan, a pathway design for the interconnection to the School, and that is correct. We’ve worked that out with the School system. The existing Draft of the PUD agreement references an agreement that we are entering into with the School system. We talked about it at some length during preliminary site plan review. It’s that 30 foot. It will be lighted, and so we hope to have that to the, actually to Larry Paltrowitz later this week, and to have that finalized at the time the PUD agreement is signed with the Town, and the School will own it. In addition, the plans identify a significant amount of no-clear zones. Staff would request a note be added to the drawings defining the no clear zone, such as limitation of size of vegetation to be removed. That we will do, and the actual limitations, Jim can provide for you now. JIM MILLER MR. MILLER-Yes. Actually we didn’t designate that. We had talked about putting a clearing limit on either three, the ones we’ve seen in the past are either three inch caliper up to six inch caliper. We’d suggest probably using three inch so they could clear brush, anything below three inch, but trees three inches and larger would have to remain in those no clear zones. MR. JONES-Those no clear zones are laid out and cross hatched on the next map that you’ll see. MR. MILLER-This is the Phase I, and there’s some shaded areas. MR. JONES-And we’ll add a note to the plans with regard to the size of the trees that you can’t remove. MR. MAC EWAN-Put that back up for a minute, would you, please. What about the properties that abut Rush Pond? MR. JONES-The Town will own everything outside the subdivision here, and as you know about 500 feet to the top of the bank. What we propose there is a 150 foot no cut actually on Town property. So we’ll kind of, you will decide, you the Town will decide anything that goes on in this area. It’s going to be your property, but we’ve even burdened it a little bit further by saying for 150 feet, we think the natural area ought to be preserved with a no cut there, and we would use that same three inch diameter as the measure of trees which could not be removed, even by the Town. So that’s how we’ve addressed that. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m just kind of curious. If that is part of your PUD agreement that that property is going to be conveyed to the Town, why wouldn’t you have it as none of it is to be touched? MR. JONES-Actually, on the top of the bank, Craig, that’s where the trail is, and so we would envision that staying, that trail as kind of a natural part of it. It probably would be a good idea to extend it 150 feet, maybe 400 foot, and we’re certainly, that’s a good suggestion. I mean, we had picked 150. MR. MAC EWAN-But that trail has never been “maintained” by anybody. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. JONES-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Why would you want to start now? MR. JONES-I would envision that, and that was the reason that we provided the access over here. We provided the access so that you can get off Fox Farm Road to actually the conservation area, because we though that trail would be used for cross country or hiking or that kind of thing. Actually, it would be encouraged to be used for that purpose, but you’re right. From the trail back to the subdivision line, it would probably be a good idea to have it simply no cut, and that makes sense. We had suggested 150 feet, but it probably makes sense for the entire area. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. JONES-Phase I plans identify the septic layout for lots adjacent to the conservation lands to be in the front yards as discussed with the Planning Board. In addition, the septic layout includes 50% expansion area, for the Rist-Frost letter of 9/17/99, and I’ll let Tom address that. TOM NACE MR. NACE-Okay. The way it currently stands, the septics are shown in the front yards on those lots. It is not necessary, at this stage of the game, since we have pulled all the lots forward, well away from the wetland. The septics were originally put in the front yards when the lots were right back at the top of the bank, okay. Since we’ve pulled the lots forward several hundred feet, there’s no longer a stipulation that the septics need to be in the front yard. We’ve simply showed them there as a carryover and to show that, if necessary, it was feasible. MR. MAC EWAN-Wasn’t the whole concept of the septics in the front yards when this whole PUD was conceived was for two reasons, so that property owners could develop their back yards with pools or whatever, decks and that sort of thing, and secondly, there was talk at one time several years ago of the potential of running sewer up Aviation Road and it would be easier to hook up? MR. NACE-There was some discussion, I remember, of the sewer being easier to hook up, but to make that assumption you’d have to do the whole subdivision that way, and that was never anticipated. There is, and any of these lots are big enough that you can have septic and a pool both in the back yard, okay, and simply the septics along that land conservation area, the septics in the front yard are a carryover from the previous plan, where lots were right back to the top of the bank. So there’s really not a necessity for those to be in the front yard. They’re shown there. They can be there. They can meet DEC or Health Department criteria anywhere on the lot, as long as they’re 20 feet away from the house, etc. MR. VOLLARO-From the standpoint of cleaned, it’s nice to have it in the front when you’re having it cleaned out. MR. NACE-Yes. Very few of them really are at this point. Most of the septic haulers have hoses long enough to get to the back yard. MR. JONES-By pulling, obviously, the subdivision out of the CEA, that was kind of the decision that the septics, then, could go any place on the lot, but we got out of the CEA, and I say entirely, with a small exception in the corner. The PUD agreement indicates homes will have a driveway with a turn around area. Final plans should indicate the location of the turn around. The Board may wish to determine if the turn around is actually necessary and advise the Town Board. What we thought we would do in that particular case is that if the Planning Board determined that a turn around was, in fact, necessary, at the time we do an individual plot plan to go get a building permit, obviously, we’d be required to show the location of the house and the location of the driveway. I don’t know if Chris was getting at actually doing it at this point. MR. MILLER-The question about the turn arounds, right now what we’ve done on the site plan is we’ve indicated a typical home of an average size, just to show the relationship of the home to the septic system. It’s not intended to be a footprint of an actual building. The driveway and the access to the driveway really becomes an issue of the floor plan of the building and how it’s situated on the site, and what the intent was, when we did the first PUD agreement was to provide some kind of, rather than have a straight driveway into a garage where people have to back straight out into the road, that we’d at least provide a little area where they would back around and come out, and that was going to be in the PUD agreement, and would be required, and I guess, you know, from reading the notes here, I think the Staff’s reading into those typical homes that we show for septic reasons that we should do a driveway. I mean, we could certainly add a, on a typical lot we could show a plan showing a turn around, and the intent was to do the turn around driveways, but we didn’t show it on each lot. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Your original concept that was approved by this Board some, what, three years ago, four years ago. MR. JONES-August 1996. MR. MAC EWAN-Showed that driveways had turn arounds in them. MR. MILLER-Yes, well, we intend to, and it would be in the PUD agreement, and it would certainly be added on to the deed restriction, but I mean, we don’t have actual building plans. So we really have no way to show them on the plan. MR. PALING-Why do we isolate this particular subdivision and call for turn arounds? MR. MAC EWAN-As I recall, it was a wish of the previous Town Board, when they originally started working. MR. VOLLARO-Why? MR. MAC EWAN-Just like you say, they wanted the ability for people to be able to turn around in their driveways without backing out into the streets. MR. PALING-Yes, but there’s a downside to that, too, and I don’t see why we should separate this particular subdivision and say it’s got to have a turn around and not have anyone else have a turn around. MR. MILLER-I think because it was a Planned Unit Development there was an opportunity to do that. MR. MAC EWAN-All the garages that you show, the typical dwellings you showed on your original plans were all side entrance garages. MR. MILLER-Well, we had both. We had a mixture. Because some of the lots, because of the narrowness, if you’re in a cul de sac or something, and you don’t have the substantial frontage, it’s difficult to put a side entry garage, but most of these lots would accommodate a side entry garage. MR. JONES-And as you would guess, it does increase the cost to add it. I guess the threshold question is, since it was in the Draft PUD agreement and it remains in our current draft of the PUD agreement, is it something that you’re recommending to the Town Board that they require, or is it something that the Town hasn’t required of other subdivisions, and leave it to our option to do on a house by house basis, as a matter of cost. MR. PALING-Cost and maintenance, too, is on the downside. I suggest we drop it. MR. VOLLARO-I would tend to agree with that, but I’d like to ask Staff, what prompted the inclusion of those words into the Staff notes? What was the driving force there? MRS. MOORE-The only driving force was that I noted it in the PUD agreement, and it wasn’t noted on any of the plans that I saw. So it is addressed in the PUD agreement, and I guess I’ll leave it to the pleasure of the Board if they want to add it to the plans. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Bob, I tend to agree with that. MR. JONES-We’ll drop it. MR. MAC EWAN-The consensus is drop it? MR. RINGER-I agree with that, too. It just takes away a lot of grass. MR. JONES-I think we’re on Page Two. The PUD Draft indicates land conservation area to be used for passive recreational use. This area contains an informal trail system that has been used by the public but is not shown on any of the Town maps, and that’s accurate. I didn’t know if you wanted me to comment specifically or? MRS. MOORE-No, it’s the next part. MR. JONES-Okay. The plans identify an area of HOA lands as being an access point to the trail system. The Board should consider if the HOA lands or other access point to the land conservation area need to be improved for access. Improvements would include graveled parking area, bike racks, bathroom facilities, etc. Certainly in the access area we. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. MILLER-The access is right off of that cul-de-sac, right in here. MR. JONES-We’re not looking to build any parking lots or areas or bike racks and those kind of things. We anticipated, literally, a kind of a natural access into the land conservancy, almost a path kind of circumstance. We were also thinking about some kind of passive recreation picnic area, perhaps, a picnic table, something of a modest perhaps children’s play area, those kinds of things, but something very low key, low scale, but nothing in terms of a formal entryway into the land conservation. MR. MILLER-One other thing, the intent for that access lot in the HOA was really, since that trail system was going to be there, to provide a direct link from this community back to that Town trail. The main access for people outside of this community is down where Fox Farm comes in and the land conservation area butts against the road. So if there was ever going to be a trailhead or identification or something, a public identification, it would probably make sense it would be there, on the Town property, and not over on the HOA parcel. MR. JONES-Community Service – the site includes an area for community service. The PUD agreement indicates any commercial use would require site plan review. So you’re going to get another shot at us at the time that the community service gets proposed. The allowed uses would range from an instruction facility for four or more persons, professional occupation, medical care facility, or a community center or business. The Board should consider what type of business would be beneficial to the Indian Ridge Community and the nearby community and advise the Town Board as such. You may recall, years ago, that this developed out of the planning committee that we were working with with the Town, and they thought that a community service kind of building would be advantageous to the subdivision. Thoughts ranged from a day care facility, some kind of rec room facility, things of that nature. We haven’t evolved beyond that, so we can’t tell you specifically we know what’s going in there because we don’t, but as the opportunity presents itself, we’ll come to you on a site plan review and propose it to you and see if it works. We’re very sensitive to the traffic issue. So we’re not going to propose anything that’s going to generate a lot of traffic. The Planning Board should note that inviting excess traffic from outside of the PUD is a concern, so businesses for a community service facility should be addressed with that concern in mind, and we understand that. The lands proposed for senior housing, the Staff is concerned with the purchase option of the two lots totaling 10 acres, the seven and the three lot acres. Note the 10 acres in question are proposed for a senior housing facility. The earlier draft PUD agreement outlined a five year period for the option to purchase by the Town if the facility was not built. The PUD agreement indicates with the approval of a the first phase a timeline for the purchase of the property starts. The applicant should further explain the new timeline and if there are any conditions, and what we’ve suggested in the current draft, as late as last evening, is that when we get final approval from the Town, we would use that as a commencement date, will then run 18 months, at which the Town has the exclusive option to purchase. Their uses would be limited the same way our uses are. That would be senior citizen facility, recreational uses or educational uses, some thought being given to a library or a possible facility of that nature. If the Town exercises its option, they would have an additional six months to close. So a two year window for the Town to take a crack at it. If the Town were unable or unwilling or disinterested in exercising the option, the use limitations remain, that being we would not be permitted to use it for anything other than a senior citizen housing, recreational and educational. So the uses won’t change. It would just be back in our court to try develop a senior citizen proposal or a recreational use or educational. MR. VOLLARO-I’d just like to address that for a minute. In Dr. Hoffman’s letter of February 8, in th the next to last paragraph, he said, I would encourage appropriate language in the PUD agreement that defines senior housing in terms of the low impact type of development envisioned by the Town Board, comparable to that the adjacent Solomon Heights. Future development of this area for other residential usage should be prohibited. I didn’t get to read this. I just got this PUD tonight, and so I haven’t read. I did search it for one thing, which I’ll talk to you about when we get into that, but I’m just wondering whether we’d want to include some appropriate language in the PUD to further amplify that section, as Dr. Hoffman suggested. MR. JONES-I think we can. I think Mark and I could probably get the language, I think we all know what the intention is, I use senior citizen housing or facility or words to that effect, but I think we can probably do better than that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. JONES-Staff recommends approval of the first phase with conditions and the comments. Maybe just a couple of comments on Mark’s letter, which we covered. So no comments on Mark’s letter. I’ll take your questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do. I have some questions. First of all, I’d just like to call your attention to 179-58, Site Plan approval process, Number Five, where it says, copies of the Certificate of Incorporation of Homeowners Association and By-Laws of the Homeowners Association of Declaration of Covenants, etc., etc., should be part of the submission for that. Now, I searched out, in September 23, 1999, the minutes, and I think at that particular time, Mr. Miller made the following statement. We will have a homeowners association lot assigned with the cul de sac, and I asked a question, in my mind, was this PUD going to be governed by any sort of an HOA. Apparently it’s not, except for specific reasons. However, those reasons are not, I just scanned through your PUD agreement, and I didn’t see any mention of the HOA agreement in there, and it should certainly be coupled into the PUD. MR. JONES-We’ll do that. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s all I have for now. MR. RINGER-The only concern I have on this is that one way street. I’m hung up on that. I believe it should be a two way street, and you’re saying how you really feel it should be a one way. Please tell me why you feel it should be a one way. MR. JONES-I say that. I’ve got the two experts with me. We presented it from the beginning as a one way, with concerns particularly to the Fox Farm neighborhood community, and so we, in 1995 and 1996 and throughout we did. When we sat down with the Citizens group, we talked about the fact that it was still in our minds a one way street. We explained at the time that we don’t control that, nor does the Planning Board. MR. RINGER-Right. I understand that. You said you recommended it, and I was just wondering if you had specific reasons for recommending it. MR. JONES-We’ve done it from the beginning, as basically being sensitive to the neighbors. We’re not as sensitive as we ought to have been all along, but that was basically to address the concerns of the neighbors on that issue. MR. RINGER-I feel it’s much better to have a two way street there because it opens up that entire area where you have six roads in or six roads out, and it seems to me the more opportunities you have to eliminate that traffic on Aviation Road or move it to six places instead of one place, I also feel that Farr Lane is going to become the worst place to come out, because of the way it intersects with Dixon Road. I don’t feel that Fox Farm is going to be effected that much by making that two way or one way. I don’t believe that people are going to come up there to use the Fox Farm. I think they’re going to use, personally, Manor Drive, because they’re not going to want to use Farr Lane. That’s too difficult a place to try to get out of. The other reason that I think that should be a two way road instead of a one way road, and again, I understand that’s not our decision. It’s going to be the Town or the Town Highway that’s going to make that decision, but by making that a two way road, it opens up that whole area, in the event of an emergency situation. If there’s something that happens now, at Fox Farm Road and Potter or Potter and Aviation, I should say, traffic has to be detoured all the way over to Peggy Ann or all the way up to Gurney Lane, coming either way. By making that a two way road, that would eliminate that problem, and there are many accidents at Potter Road and Aviation, and Dixon Road and Farr Lane and Aviation, and this opens it up. Being a fireman who has to direct people and listening to the people in the audience tonight, if they live in that area, have been detoured around there, and it takes a long time, so just an opinion I have that that should be a two way, and not a one way. MR. NACE-Let me add to the conversation here. One thing to keep in mind. The physical construction of that road that we’re going to do is going to be no different for what we’re doing as a two way road. So in the future, it could serve as a two way road, if, at some point down the way the Town made improvements on Aviation or in studying the area decided that it was best to have that two way, or to reconfigure traffic controls out on Aviation, at different points that they wanted traffic to go that way, it would not be any physical modifications to the road that would have to be made at that time. MR. RINGER-I guess my concern was that I have my opinion and I just wanted to make sure there was nothing that you had done in your studies that indicated that that should be a one way road. That’s what I was asking, and apparently there’s nothing that says, in your studies, that one way or two way is better or worse either way, as I take from what you’re saying, other than an agreement you may have reached with a homeowner’s group. MR. JONES-Dr. Hoffman may have been right in his letter, if I heard it earlier, that some of the studies were premised on one way traffic. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. RINGER-The studies were all done with the full build out of this, and now we’re looking at half or less than what we had started at. MR. JONES-I was looking real quickly as you were commenting. I don’t think we made provision for it in the PUD agreement. So it’s not something that’s going to be a contractual obligation of the Town to the developer or vice versa. It’s going to be, I think remain a Town decision, or Town Board decision. So however you all recommend. MR. RINGER-I don’t even know if they would take our recommendation on that or not. Is it a Town Board or a Town Highway that makes that decision, do you know? MR. JONES-I’d defer to Mark. MR. SCHACHNER-I believe it’s the Town Board. MR. RINGER-The Town Board makes the decision. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s subject to Highway Superintendent approval, but I believe it’s the Town Board. MR. RINGER-Yes. I didn’t know if the Highway was involved in that. MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t have a public hearing scheduled for tonight, but we’ll take some brief public comment if we could. LARRY PALTROWITZ MR. PALTROWITZ-Thank you. I’m Larry Paltrowitz. I’m an attorney with Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart and Rhodes, and we represent the School District. I’ll be very brief. As you recall, when we were here last month, we did confirm that there was an agreement, in principle or in concept, with the developer with regard to that 30 foot strip and the various items associated with it. As Mr. Jones indicated this evening, we have not yet received a draft of that document, and all we would request is that if you were going to approve the project this evening, that you make it conditioned upon the fact that there be a written agreement with the School District that incorporates the terms of that conceptual agreement or agreement in principal that we reached, so that there’s some control over that agreement between the School District and the developer. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MARK HOFFMAN DR. HOFFMAN-Mark Hoffman. I’m not going to get into the one way, two way thing, except to say that there were a lot of studies done. They were all done with the premise that it was one way. Fox Farm/Potter/Aviation is virtually non-functional in the current situation. If you allow two way traffic out of Indian Ridge or into Indian Ridge, it would be a completely non-functional intersection, but that’s, again, I’m not sure that’s an issue that has to be solved tonight. I do want to clarify that we’re not talking about making Fox Farm Road a one way road. We’re talking about the junction between Indian Ridge and Fox Farm. That access that, as you move into the project from Fox Farm, that that would be one way into the project. Fox Farm should, and hopefully would remain a two way road at the intersection with Aviation Road. If you’re going to change that now, this is the first time in four years that anybody’s said, make it a two way road. If you’re going to change that now, then I think you need to re-do the traffic studies. MR. RINGER-Mark, I don’t think that when they did the traffic study they looked at, they did a traffic study looking at Fox Farm and Gilmore and all those other streets. I don’t think they really did traffic studies looking at that being a one way. MR. HOFFMAN-Yes, they did. Most definitely they did. I can tell you they did. MR. RINGER-The traffic will not come out of that development coming out onto Fox Farm, not that much of it. Most of Indian Ridge is going to go down to Manor. They aren’t going to come out Farr Lane. It’s too difficult. DR. HOFFMAN-Anyway, I just want to get on to the one issue that I think you do have some authority over, and I would like to see you address it tonight. As I said in my letter, I think some of the changes that have been made are inconsequential. The turn arounds, I think is not of consequence. Whether the septic is in the front or in the back may have some ramifications, but I don’t think it’s a critical issue. From my standpoint, I do feel that the no cut areas should be restored to the properties that border the Critical Environmental Area. The PUD agreement in 1996, which 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) was drafted immediately after the Town Board approved the project, had a 40 foot no cut in the back yards of the people that were in lots that adjoined that land conservation area. My understanding, in the process of negotiation, was that anything that we negotiated was in addition to what had already been granted by the Town Board, in terms of positive mitigation factors, in terms of protecting open space and so forth. If they’re eliminating that no cut, basically you’re taking away 40 feet that we had assumed would be additional protection for that recreational area. I think, I don’t want to, I want to emphasize the importance of that land conservation area as an important public benefit for passive recreation, and in order for that benefit to be protected, we need to protect the natural setting, and I would like to see that natural setting protected from clear cutting of the lots that are immediately adjoining it. Now, Mr. Jones will argue that, well, since we’ve moved out of the CEA, you have all that extra land, and that’s nice, but even with that extra land that they’ve moved out of the CEA, it’s still a relatively narrow strip that borders the wetland that borders the ridge, and there’s not a great deal of separation between the homes and the ridge to keep that natural setting, to make it a useful recreational resource for the community. That’s what I’m trying to preserve, and that’s one of the things that I fought for for three years. It also would not explain why, in the original PUD agreement, there was a restriction that there be no cutting within 20 feet of the rear lot lines of any lot in the entire project, let alone the CEA, the areas adjacent to the CEA. So I think at a bare minimum, those lots adjoining the CEA should have a 20 foot no cut, in the back yards, to protect the public’s interest in that recreational area. Now Mr. Jones has added a 150 foot restriction on the public’s side, which is something that he actually had removed previously from the PUD agreement at our request, and now he’s put it back in, as if it’s some sort of a donation to us. That is nice. I think it’s a plus for the people that live there, but in think in terms of protecting the public’s interest, we want to make sure that the lots that are actually going to be in the development are not clear cut adjacent to the CEA, and I have no problem with having an additional no cut on the public side as well. I think it should be reciprocal. If you’re going to have 20 feet of no cut in the back yards, then you should have 20 feet of no cut on the public side, or if you want to be generous a little bit more, I think 150 feet may be difficult, because I don’t know, I haven’t surveyed that land, but I don’t know whether there might be some engineering obstacles that might prevent a trail from going in if you’ve got that 150 foot restriction. I hope I’m making myself clear. MR. VOLLARO-Mark, let me just clear something up in my head. In your letter you talked either having the universal 20 foot no cut, or 40 foot no cut specifically on those lots adjacent to the CEA. DR. HOFFMAN-That’s what was in the original. MR. VOLLARO-And now what you’re saying is that you’d like to back off, not for a universal 20 foot cut, but 20 foot for the lots that now border on the CEA? Or do you want a universal 20? When I understand universal, that means to me all lots. DR. HOFFMAN-That was the original proposal. I don’t, it’s not show up here. It may be in one of the other maps, and that should be clarified, but I believe that they subsequently did add no cuts to many of the other lots in the development. I’d appreciate it if they would clarify that, but again, I think that the lots bordering the CEA should have at least 20 feet of no cut, if not the full 40 feet. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I’ll close the public comment. MR. JONES-Larry Paltrowitz’s comment, we’re in agreement with that. No problem with the condition that we execute an agreement, as a condition for site plan approval, with the School Board. MR. MILLER-Also, I’d like to point out, that access to the School is actually in Phase II, and we’re here tonight just for Phase I. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Prior to, I would request, on behalf of the Board, that prior to submitting your plans for Phase II, that a copy of that agreement be submitted with the application. MR. JONES-That’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Forty feet and twenty feet, three hundred feet. MR. MILLER-One of the things we talked about on the original plan, and the 40 foot no cut zone, I’d like to point out, the original plan, the lots went to the top of the bank, which is, here’s the back of our lots now. Here’s the top of the bank back here. Well, actually the top of the bank’s way back here. That’s a CEA line, or setback from the wetland. These lots, at the time, were some 260 or more feet in depth. So we felt there was plenty of room for a no cut zone. That’s why we had 40 foot no cut zones, and now we’re dealing with lots that are about 200 feet deep. Because that land has long gone over into conservation area. So if you take a 200 foot deep lot now and put a 40 foot no cut zone, you’re giving people 160 feet of which they can occupy. That’s why that happened, and that’s why instead of, the no cut zones, it was our understanding were eliminated there, and all that land was just going to be given to the Town, for the Town to do with as they please. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. JONES-Where we do need guidance is on how much of the land conservation area ought to be no cut, 150 or 400 feet. MR. VOLLARO-Well, right now I think we’re talking about the lots themselves. Aren’t there two separate issues here, one is the no cut lot, and the other one is the land conservation area. MR. JONES-Absolutely. The no cut’s there, one will be on the Town land and one will be on ours. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Can I make a comment? MR. JONES-Sure. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Usually when a builder clears a lot, he doesn’t, it’s very expensive to cut every single tree on the lot. He leaves quite a bit in the back, and, you know, depending on how much he has to cut down just for the septic, if it’s going in the back. So anything else that comes down would probably have to be at the expense of the homeowner, and again, once you’ve built your house and you have all those trees in the back, so many people don’t care to spend that extra amount of money to cut those trees down. MR. JONES-Sure. MR. MILLER-This plan here, it shows the landscaping, but it also shows the existing trees that will remain on the lot, and you can see, the only clearing that’s going to be done is just the road right of way. So all of those lots are going to be fully wooded. So I think what Cathy’s saying is absolutely true. That people that are going to build in here are not going to come in and clear cut the lot. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s great from the developer’s standpoint. Ten years down the road, when the developer’s long gone, the homeowner’s there, or the second or the third homeowner’s there, you need to have something definitive in your deeds that says how far you can go toward that line or how far you have to stay off that property line. MRS. LA BOMBARD-At $150 a tree, believe me, and the, you know, we’re not talking about that kind of expensive type of house to go in there. I think those homeowners would be pretty hard pressed to finish clearing every single tree off that lot, off their lots. I mean, you’re right. Who’s to say what’s going to happen down the line, but I (lost words) reasonable. DR. HOFFMAN-Then why not put the restriction in, then? What’s the problem? MR. JONES-Just if you think about what it is that we’re actually looking at here. We’re talking about using trees to buffer 500 feet of trees. Usually you talk about buffers between your house and somebody else’s house next door and everything. We’re looking at possibly trees to buffer 500 feet of trees to a land conservation area. This one just doesn’t make any sense. It’s one of those kind of things that, hey, you had it in your original plan. We had it in our original plan for a reason because we were at the top of the bank. Now we have 500 feet of trees, and the reason kind of went away. MR. MILLER-I think what Dr. Hoffman’s talking about is in the original plan, wherever we had lots that butted against each other, we had no cut zones, which we’ve done now. We’ve got that same concept, and the only place it’s changed is where that land conservation area has gotten bigger. This only shows Phase I, and you can see all around the cul de sac is no cut zones where we border the State land, off Farr Lane there is no cut zones, and it actually in Phase II where we border the senior citizens, there’ll be no cut zones, and there’s no cut zones all along the School. So we kept with that intent, and the intent was to maintain buffer between the lots we’re clearing could occur on both sides of the lines, but in this particular case, against the conservation area, there’s no clearing on that side anyway. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the problem with making it 20 or 30 feet? MR. JONES-Cathy’s right. I don’t think it’s going to happen. If the Board wills it upon us, we’ll make it 20 feet, but just understand the rationale, that’s all I’m saying, because it makes sense to do that, other than because we’ve been at this so long. MR. MAC EWAN-The infrastructure you’re putting in Phase I’s only going to that cul de sac, no farther? MR. JONES-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Any questions? 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. PALING-I don’t see any reason for the 20 foot no cut zone. I don’t understand that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-If the developer doesn’t have any problem with the 20 foot, put it in, but I don’t think it’s necessary. MR. PALING-That’s private property. You’re going to have a deed restriction, and what are you protecting, 500 foot of woods? That doesn’t make sense. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s true. MR. VOLLARO-I would just like to ask the question, if that was in the motion, would Bob vote yes or no, I guess that’s what I’m asking. MR. JONES-Let me just clarify our application. The application is without the no cut, that’s pending before the Board. MR. VOLLARO-I happen to agree that the 20 foot cut zone should be in those, the no cut zone should be in those lots. I think it’s in keeping with prior negotiations and I don’t see 20 feet as being detrimental to the back of the lot at all. That’s my opinion. MR. RINGER-I have no comment on any of it. MR. METIVIER-I honestly don’t see why you’d need a 20 foot no cut, if you’re just backing up to land. I could understand it otherwise, but if you moved everything down the way it’s stated, there’s really no need, because it’s people’s land. They should have the right, if they want to cut it or if they want to leave it forever wild. MR. RINGER-You could have enforcement nightmare. MR. SCHACHNER-A question, if I’m the only one unclear about this, I apologize, but the Draft PUD agreement, you’re talking about no cut areas as I understand it right now on the lots themselves, correct, is what you were just talking about? MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-On the one’s that border the. MR. SCHACHNER-What became of the proposed no cut area on the land conservation area to be donated, proposed for donation to the Town? Did you address that? I think the applicant’s PUD agreement proposes a very healthy, healthy meaning large, no cut area of 150 feet, I believe, on that property. MR. JONES-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-Are you aware of that? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. With it being Town property, I don’t understand the rationale, why would anybody go in there and cut it from the Town? Why would anybody from the Town go in and cut it? MR. SCHACHNER-I haven’t the faintest idea. I just don’t know, and I don’t know if this came up at the meeting last night. MR. JONES-It did not. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I don’t have any idea what the Town Board thinks about that. I think Alan is saying, what if the Town wants to build a trail of some sort. I don’t know. I’m just raising this as an issue, because I’m not aware of any Town Board sentiment on this issue, one way or the other. I just wanted to see if the Planning Board had any feel on that. MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion and we’ll address it? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make the motion. I’ll make the motion to approve resolution number 51-99 for Thomas J. Farone & J. Buckley Bryan, Jr. in accordance with the presentation of the proposals made by Staff, and in addition with that, we want to add. MR. MAC EWAN-You need to be very definitive. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, I don’t know what that means, in accordance with the presentation made by Staff. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the resolution prepared by Staff. It doesn’t say Draft resolution on it, but this is a Draft copy of the Indian Ridge PUD, if that’s what you want me to say. This is a Draft copy of the PUD that we’re really approving here, the resolution. MR. SCHACHNER-We’re not approving the PUD agreement, if that’s what you’re talking about. MR. VOLLARO-I have in my hand a prepared resolution for Site Plan 51-99, and it says PUD Site Plan No. 51-99. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-And in that, the contents of those, it says, Whereas the above is supported with the following documentation. MR. SCHACHNER-And you’re looking at Item Three. MR. VOLLARO-A copy of the Indian Ridge PUD agreement between the Town of Queensbury and the applicant. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and don’t leave out the parenthetical. MR. VOLLARO-The parenthetical for reference purposes only, but still and all, what does the parenthetical really do there? I understand that it’s for reference, but it’s part of this resolution, is it not, or do we want to take that out? MR. SCHACHNER-It’s one of the documents that is supporting the application. You’re not a party to that agreement, and if you’re saying that your approval encompasses all the provisions of that agreement, you can say that if you like. I don’t know if that’s where you’re headed. MR. VOLLARO-I’m not headed. When I say I’m preparing a motion in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff, that includes that. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-Now, I don’t know how inclusive it is, whether you’re saying it’s for reference only, or how inclusive is it when we make it part of this resolution? MR. SCHACHNER-I think listing it for reference in the list of the supporting documents means that you’re not bound, unless you specifically state some elements of your approval that are, to the extent you state elements of your approval that are different than that Draft agreement, you’re approval language would control, as long as it’s something you have jurisdiction over, I mean. That is only a draft agreement. It’s not executed. To the extent you want to say that your approval is in part based on the provisions of that draft agreement, that’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Because there were comments made on the agreement during the discussion, one was the written agreement with the School and the developer, concerning the back access. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and I don’t think that’s a comment on the PUD agreement, but it’s certainly a comment on the project. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The no cut zone I’m going to propose in my motion. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-And I’m going to propose the PUD address the HOA per the HOA agreement per 179-58A-5 of our Code. MR. JONES-I think you may want to do, in the form of recommendations to the Town Board, the issues which deal with the PUD agreement, because the Town Board is the only one who can act on that, and there’s actually a review period of another couple of weeks where they’re going to get some advice from counsel on it. With regard to our application tonight for Site Plan approval, there’s some specific conditions that I know you want to propose, Bob, on the 20 foot, for example, but I would try to separate the PUD agreement recommendations that you’re going to make to the Town Board from actually our approval on the site plan. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. SCHACHNER-I wasn’t hearing PUD agreement recommendations, I don’t think. MR. VOLLARO-I’m having a difficult time, now, even accepting that the Draft copy of the PUD be in this resolution, in this. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. You don’t need that to be part of this. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think you do. It’s confusing the issue for me when I make a motion, based on the way this resolution is written, and that’s in it. I have a conflict with that. MR. MAC EWAN-Introduce a motion that you’re feeling comfortable with, that identifies the issues that you want to see identified in this, we’ll get a second on it, and we’ll put it to a vote. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-In the interest of time and moving things along here. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make a motion to adopt the resolution prepared by Staff, for Site Plan No. 51- 99, as written, and adding to this motion, that a written agreement be prepared with the School and the developer concerning the rear access to the lots. That a no cut zone be proposed for 20 foot on the lots bordering the Critical Environmental Area, and that, now I’m getting into the PUD, but I would like the PUD to address the homeowners association in accordance with our 179-58A-5, and it’s not in there. There’s no reference in the PUD document to the HOA agreement, and there should be. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. VOLLARO-That’s it, sir. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m sorry to interrupt. When you talk about the prepared resolution, at least on the copy I have, there’s something in brackets or one bracket and one parenthesis, at the end of the proposed resolution there’s a note from Staff I guess about possibly adding a condition. Is that on your copy? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it is. MR. SCHACHNER-Are you doing that or not doing that? MR. VOLLARO-Well, that parenthetical piece in there is part of this resolution, as I read it. It’s not something that I have to state, is it? MR. SCHACHNER-The note says, please add to resolution. It’s up to you, I just want it to be clear. What you’re saying is, yes, that’s part of your motion, is that correct? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine. MR. JONES-What is it? MR. VOLLARO-It says, contingent upon DOH approval to avoid the expiration of the approvals due to the fact that Tom Nace has indicated that the Department of Health is approximately six months behind on its reviews. MR. JONES-Works for us. MR. MAC EWAN-People thought Town government moves slow. MRS. MOORE-Craig, I have others. When you’re referring to Critical Environmental Area, could we just make a note that it’s land conservation area, as labeled on the map, and then when you’re referring to the access between the Indian Ridge development and the School, be specific. You’ve indicated rear access, and I just would like to include it’s a pathway that connects the Indian Ridge development to the School area, so that when someone goes back to look through the resolution, it’s defined. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to amend your motion to reflect what she just said? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Please note that the motion’s been amended, and note those two additional comments with Staff. Do we have a second? MR. ABBOTT-How about the no cut zone on the public side of the? MR. VOLLARO-That was part of the motion, that the no cut zone be applied to the lots that border the CEA. MR. ABBOTT-No, on the public side, not the lots, but the Town. MR. VOLLARO-The 150 foot? MR. ABBOTT-Yes, per the PUD agreement, the 150 feet. MR. VOLLARO-I would go along with that. Yes, definitely. That is not in the PUD agreement now? MR. ROUND-I would suggest that you leave that to the PUD agreement, that restriction, because you want to give the Town flexibility in what they would propose to do on that site. MR. VOLLARO-Well, based on Mark’s comments, I tried to stay away from the PUD agreement, addressing it, except for the area that talks to the HOA. Now I don’t know how you want to do that, but I’d like to see the Homeowners Association addressed in exactly the way that our 179-58, just to read that off, 179-58 says, copies of the Certificate of Incorporation of Homeowners Association and By-laws of the Homeowners Association, the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, and the Offering Plan where applicable, should be part of the PUD. MR. SCHACHNER-Just a minor point. If you’re including Item Three in your list of supporting documentation, which is the Draft copy of the PUD agreement, we’d like to suggest that you indicate something by way of a date. The document itself is dated. Perhaps you would be comfortable adding to your motion that Item Three on the supporting documentation list, add to Item Three that that’s the document received by the Town on February 14, 2000. The sole purpose being that there’s a lot of Draft copies floating around. We want to make sure we’re referencing the same document. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and as part of the motion, the Draft Indian Ridge Planned Unit Development agreement dated February 14, 2000 is the subject of this motion. MR. MAC EWAN-Have you got all that down? MR. JONES-Clarification on your motion. We’ve got one lot which is an oddball here, 40, because it does back up, but it’s, are you proposing a side yard 20 foot no cut there, because the back yard would actually be? MR. VOLLARO-Does the back of that border on the CEA? MR. MILLER-No. That’s where that existing farmhouse is back in there now. So that’s actually one of the cleared areas of the site. There’s really nothing there anyway. MR. NACE-It’s land conservation. You had modified your motion to read land conservation. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. NACE-And that border of the side of that lot 40 is land conservation. MR. SCHACHNER-As opposed to the rear. MR. VOLLARO-So under those circumstances, there’s probably no need to identify a 20 foot cut zone on that lot. MR. MILLER-Okay. So we could start at lot 37, then. MR. VOLLARO-And work 37 to what? MR. MILLER-Thirty-seven to thirty-two. MR. NACE-Well, for Phase I, yes. MR. MILLER-In Phase I, and we would continue it when we come back for the next Phase. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Have you got that down, right? MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ll just modify the motion that the no cut zone for 20 feet applies to lots 27 to 32, in Phase I. MR. NACE-Thirty-two through thirty-seven. MR. VOLLARO-Thirty-two through thirty-seven. MR. MAC EWAN-As important as this motion is to go through, read it back, because I want to know exactly what’s in it. MR. RINGER-Why don’t we wait until you poll the Board and see if we’re going to get a second on it? MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a second on it? No second, so someone else needs to do a motion, introduce a motion. MR. RINGER-No, I didn’t, I’m saying just poll the Board. I’m not saying. MR. MAC EWAN-I just did. MR. VOLLARO-He did. He asked for a second. That’s polling the Board. MR. RINGER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-No one’s speaking up. So would someone please introduce a motion. MR. RINGER-I’m comfortable with Bob’s motion, with the exception of the 20 foot. That’s the only thing that I’m having difficulty with. MR. PALING-If he eliminates that 20 foot, I’m all set. MR. RINGER-You’ve got 150 feet there. MR. ABBOTT-We don’t know what the PUD agreement is going to ultimately say on the public side. So if we can’t specify on the property that’s going to be given to the Town of Queensbury, then we need to say something here. MR. MAC EWAN-Then someone modify that motion and re-introduce it, please. Just put it up formally. MOTION TO APPROVE PUD SITE PLAN NO. 51-99 THOMAS J. FARONE & SONS/J. BUCKLEY BRYAN, JR.., Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: As written by Staff, to include the DOH condition, and also to include the written agreement with the School, received February 14, 2000, and to develop a pathway, and that the PUD address the HOA per 179-58A(5) Section of the Queensbury Code. Duly adopted this 14 day of February, 2000, by the following vote: th MR. RINGER-To develop a pathway. MR. MAC EWAN-That actually doesn’t need to be in there, because that’s going to be applicable in Phase II. MR. JONES-That’s correct. MR. RINGER-Do you feel we need it in there, Mark? That is Phase II. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s really between the applicant and the School District as far as I’m concerned. It sounds to me like that’s Phase II. MR. RINGER-Let’s put it in. So have it in there. MR. JONES-Could we just put a date that we need to file it by, the time we do Phase II. We could put it in this motion, but a filing date is all we need. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. MAC EWAN-I’d rather make sure that it’s in front of this Board, and that we have an opportunity, in the next public hearing, to get the input from School’s attorney, and make sure we have their blessing on it. I’d like it coming through this Board. MR. SCHACHNER-Let me chime in on that. I understood from the School District’s Counsel, and I thought from the applicant’s attorney, that this was going to happen sooner rather than later, and my sense, I thought I heard something about later this week, a few days from now or something like that. My sense is that the Town Board is likely to want to see that document in writing prior to execution of the PUD agreement, and you’ve got to get your PUD agreement way before you come back for Phase II. MR. JONES-It will be. It’s actually, I made provision for it and Paragraph 16 of the PUD agreement. So it’s, the terms are spelled out there. I’m trying not to go back in front of the Board, that’s all. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, no, if that’s a condition of this Board’s approval, it doesn’t have to come back to this Board to sign off on that. MR. JONES-I’m with you. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier NOES: Mr. Abbott, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. JONES-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 15-86 MODIFICATION LEHLAND ESTATES AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES LOCATION: OFF WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SUBDIVISION. THE MODIFICATION CONSISTS OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AFFECTING THE COMMON BOUNDARY BEWTEEN LOTS 19, 85 AND 86. MODIFICATION OF PLANNING BOARD APPROVED SUBDIVISION REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL. TAX MAP NO. 74-2-19, 85, 86 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there’s no public hearing scheduled. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan 15-86, Lehland Estates Modification, Meeting Date: February 15, 2000 “Project Description: The applicant proposes a lot line adjustment for Parcels 74-2-19, 74-2-86, and 74-2-85 of Lehland Estates. The properties are located on Sara Jen Drive and Jacqueline Drive. Staff Notes: The proposed modification was compared to the original plat of Phase I and Phase III and found to be acceptable. The purpose of the adjustment is to accommodate for the property owner of parcel 74-2-19 to maintain an existing landscaped area. The adjustment will not cause any impacts on the adjacent properties 86 or 85. Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the lot line adjustment.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. My name is Matt Steves with Van Dusen and Steves, and I represent the Michaels Group, Guido Passarelli and the Maille’s as owners of Lot 19. As Staff has stated, this does not effect the minimum lot size of any of the three lots. It is to accommodate the existing landscaping. The only restriction would be as the 10 foot buffer on the back of lots in Phase III that is now incorporated into that Lot 19 still be in effect. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. STEVES-It’s shown on the plan where the Phase line is. So it doesn’t effect anything. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions? Does someone want to put a motion up? MOTION TO APPROVE (MODIFICATION TO) SUBDIVISION NO. 15-86 LEHLAND ESTATES, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: As per prepared Staff resolution. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a modification to Subdivision No. 15-86 Lehland Estates, Lots 19, 85, 86. Applicant proposes modification to approved subdivision. The modification consists of a lot line adjustment affecting the common boundary between lots 19, 85, and 86. Modification of Planning Board approved subdivision requires Planning Board approval; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 1/26/00, consists of the following: 1. Letter from Van Dusen & Steves w/map S-1 dated 1/26/00 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 2/15/00 - Staff Notes 2. 2/4/00 - Meeting Notice sent Whereas, a public hearing was not held 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/or if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary. Duly adopted this 15 day of February, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbott MR. STEVES-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 7-2000 TYPE I THE MORSE FOUNDATION OWNER: KENNETH C. HOPPER/ROBERT SLACK AGENT: JON LAPPER/JIM MILLER ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-PURPOSE ATHLETIC FIELDS INCLUDING BASEBALL, SOFTBALL, SOCCER AND TENNIS COURTS. PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF PARKING FACILITIES FOR 168 VEHICLES, A FIELD HOUSE AND ACCESS ACCOMMODATIONS. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL FACILITIES IN THE SFR-1A ZONE. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/9/00 RIST FROST ASSOCIATES TAX MAP NO. 115-1-1.31, 2.1, 32.1 LOT SIZE: 24.44 AC., 8.00 AC., 4.53 AC. SECTION: 179-20 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 7-2000, The Morse Foundation, Meeting Date: February 15, 2000 “Project Description: The applicant proposes athletic fields with associated parking and accommodation facilities. Of the 38.98 acres, 30 acres will be disturbed. Non-permeable surface area covers 9.6%, and 65% green space will remain. The site contains Army Corps wetlands and is noted to have a seasonal high water table. The development will include improvements to the drainage system, enhancement of the site with landscaping, lighting and use of the site. Staff Notes: The proposed site development will accommodate Glens Falls athletic events. The site is located 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) within a quarter mile of the Glens Falls School. The applicant has indicated the Grant Avenue entrance would be improved for pedestrian access. This would include an asphalt walkway from the entrance to the field house with paths leading to other fields and the Tennis Courts. The vehicle entrance would be from Sherman Avenue about a ½ mile from the school. The vehicle access is defined with significant landscaping and parking to accommodate busses and cars. The applicant has indicated some type of agreement would be reached between the school and applicant in regards to the route from the school to the Grant Avenue access. Details for the field house were not provided, it is assumed there will be drinking fountains and bike racks associated with the field house. The field house is to be used to store equipment and as a bathroom facility. The lighting plan shows two type of fixtures a pedestrian light (12.6 feet) and a parking area light (25 feet). Placement of parking lot lighting poles within green space should be considered. The plans indicate 4 vehicles will be able to abut the lighting poles in the parking area. Lighting features for other than the parking areas, walkways, and field house should also be considered if there will be nighttime events. The plans show a substantial amount of vegetation to remain and athletic field areas to be maintained. The vegetation to remain appears to be an adequate buffer to noise and sight to the adjacent homes. The plans do not address if there will be any chemical applications on the fields (other than lime for markings) for fertilization, pesticide or herbicide purposes, this should also be addressed. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the site plan.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We have a Rist-Frost letter of February 15. th MRS. MOORE-Okay. I’ll just read through the comments, one through five. “1. The westerly access road location should be coordinated to be opposite the access roadway to Lots 7 and 8 of the Veteran’s Field Industrial Park. 2. No information was submitted regarding the lighting levels, however it appears that the lighting proposed should not adversely affect adjoining properties. If it is proposed at a later date to provide lighting for any of the playing fields or courts, that lighting should be subject to site plan review. 3 The applicant should submit the design rationale for the number of parking spaces proposed and the 120 vehicular trips generated per hour. The response to Question C-12 of the EAS form should be substantiated. 4. The design basis for the number of toilet facilities proposed should be submitted as well as justification for the resulting sewage flows. 5. The approval of the municipal entity that owns the existing storm drainage on Grant Avenue for accepting site storm overflows should be documented. Apparently, this will be limited to the capacity of an 8 inch pipe at 1.3 percent.” MR. MAC EWAN-And Warren County Planning. MRS. MOORE-It was approval by default. MR. MAC EWAN-As a matter of fact, that entire evening’s agenda was approved by default. MR. LAPPER-There was no quorum last week. MR. MAC EWAN-Some 20 some odd applications. MR. LAPPER-There were 47 on the agenda. MR. MAC EWAN-I stand corrected. It’s late. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, I’m Jon Lapper, on behalf of the Morse Foundation and the Glens Falls Schools, from the law firm of Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart and Rhodes. With me tonight are Tom Nace, from Nace Engineering, Jim Miller, from Miller Associates, and my partner, Larry Paltrowitz, who is counsel to the Glens Falls City School District, and Tom MacGowen, the Superintendent of the School District. Tom’s here to answer any questions that you might have of him. I want to make a couple of very brief preparatory comments, and then I’ll turn it over to Tom and Jim to talk about the site design and engineering. In general, we think that this is really a wonderful project, because the School District has a need for additional athletic fields. The fact that this land became available on the market and the Morse Foundation, charitable foundation, agreed to purchase it to construct improvements and to donate it to the City is something that is very important to the School District, the School District’s taxpayers who would otherwise have to pay for this, and also to the residents of the Town of Queensbury, because of the location of this parcel in an area of the Town where there are a lot of Queensbury residents right across the Northway. It’s viewed as being very useful to both the City residents and the Town residents. So this is another example of inter-municipal cooperation. As part of the process, Chris Round and I have talked to the Town Recreation Committee, and we think that there may be some ability in the future for the Town Recreation Committee to do some improvements on the site as well, because it will be used essentially as a park for Town residents. One issue that is not in the planning right now, just as a cost factor, is lighting of the tennis courts, and that’s something that we may be able to coordinate with the Town Recreation Committee to provide lighting. That’s one of the engineering issues that we’ll get to in the Rist-Frost letter. It’s not something that’s proposed now. It’s something that 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) we’re hoping to be able to propose later, and at that time we would come back to talk to the Planning Board about the design of those lights, to minimize any impact, if that does arise. As part of the process, we started out by having a meeting where we invited approximately 50 neighbors that were adjacent to the property to the Glens Falls Middle School at the beginning of January, I guess, about a month ago, when we unveiled the project, so that we could explain it to them, get their input. Many people, at that meeting, were very supportive, saying that they would like to see a park in their back yard, if you will, rather than a residential subdivision. Only a handful of the people who were there at that meeting are here tonight. I presume the people that are here are the ones that are still concerned, and I think that, in general, this is an older neighborhood that’s been there for a while, and I think that the people that are here have some concerns just about change in general, but the idea of having a park behind them is something I think is something that will improve their property values, and we’ve tried to design the project, as Tom and Jim will show you, with buffer areas and with vehicular access in ways that stay away from the residential area on the Grant Ave. Extension to minimize any impacts. Conceptually, what we’re trying to do is to direct the school kids, so that they would walk up the Grant Ave. Extension, so that there would be access from the school building, from the school complex to the athletic field complex that would stay off of Sherman Ave, which we think, because of the traffic on Sherman Ave., we think it’s better to encourage people to use Grant Ave. for pedestrian access. At the same time, we want to encourage vehicles to stay away from the residential area, and that’s why the parking area has been designed to be only accessed from Sherman Ave., and the center of this site, if you will, which will eventually have a field house and where the parking is and the tennis courts, is in an area that is away from the majority of the residents. So that was, in terms of the site planning, that was what we were trying to get to, and to leave substantial buffer areas to protect the residents. With those comments, I’d like to turn it over to Tom and Jim. Just one other thing, in terms of the design. Stormwater, because there’s a high water table here, this had to be designed with stormwater in mind. That’s the main constraint to developing the site. So much like a golf course gets designed where it’s really a stormwater management plan in total, this project was also, and we think that as a result of the design, the stormwater situation is going to be improved from the current uncontrolled stormwater situation now. So we think that that’s a benefit to the neighborhood. JIM MILLER MR. MILLER-Good evening. The plan, at the bottom, we’ve brought along for reference, this was the original colored plan that was presented to the neighbors at the public meeting at the School, and it was also the plan that we presented for conceptual review with this Board a few weeks back. The site plan package that we submitted is very similar to what was presented. The proposal is for a complex, a field which, for springtime use, would include two softball, two baseball fields, and two LaCrosse fields, with a small practice area. For fall sports, it would include five fields, which would be a combination of soccer fields and field hockey, still with a small practice area. So we’ve pretty much kept the same configuration as we had presented. As Jon talked about, access to the site will be from Sherman. We front on Sherman in two locations. One is just to the east of Veteran’s Road. So we would access from there with a loop, and the come back out, further to the west, and one of the concerns we heard or comments we heard was looking at that intersection relative to the industrial park, and we certainly are willing to do that. We’re somewhat limited. We have some wetlands to the east of this, and we were concerned not to come too far up. As we get to this location, we start to come up to the road overpass. So we will end up with some grave problems, but there is some flexibility there. The field house, the concept has stayed the same. There will be restrooms, storage for sports equipment and maintenance equipment, and possible concession stand. It’s the intent that part of that will be open, so it serves as a shelter, inclement weather, people come off the fields and come into that area. Water will be brought in from Sherman Avenue to the filed house, and there’ll be an on site septic system to the rear of the field house. The pedestrian access, as Jon talked about, we proposed connecting, as we had previously, to Grant Avenue, and we’ve proposed some screen planting along that adjoining neighbor on that side, and the same thing where we come in with our entry drive, where we came close to those residences. We propose putting in a cedar hedge along that property line, to provide some buffer, but the other comments that we had heard about was, on the old plan, was the necessity of this practice area, and we talked that we would look at that and we’d look at the buffer area. Most of the site, because of the wetlands around the northern edge of the site, most of the site we have a minimum of 50 foot buffers to the property lines. In this area we proposed about 25 to 30 feet. We’ve increased that. If you look at the plan here, it shows a clearing limit. We’ve pulled back substantially from these properties, and stayed out of this area. Actually, this is a low area back in here now, that collects water, and we also pulled back, so we’re about 60 feet away. It’s not a consistent setback, because the grading, we’re about 60 feet from the rear of those properties. So we’ve increased that buffer, which, you know, we’re putting in a 60 foot buffer, industrial buffer, when it only requires 50 feet. So we even exceed what would be required if it was an industrial use abutting a residential use. The grading plan. As we had talked about, we developed the grading plan, the stormwater management plan, if you’ll recall, we talked about, right now, this area sheet flows easterly, that in between the fields we would locate low areas, which essentially would be holding basins which would collect water and prevent it from just sheet flowing down through the bottom of the property as it does now, and as you can see from the 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) grading plan, that’s what we’ve done. The upper fields we’ve crowned. So actually we’ve pitched some water, and it’s being collected toward the Northway. So it doesn’t drain into the Northway, but it’s being collected in low areas, in that particular case, and then there’s basically long swales and depressions between the fields, and then what we did, I don’t know if you recall, but one of the test pits we did that groundwater was from two to five feet deep. So it sort of prohibited the use of deep drywells as we would like to use. So instead what we’ve proposed is a system of shallow inlets and shallow infiltration trench, where we’ll have pipe that’s maybe two feet deep, laid in a stone trench, to collect this water and infiltrate it, rather than have it hold, or rather than have it drain off. So you can see we’ve developed a system between these fields where we’ve done that. In the areas where we have pavement and tennis courts that sheet into the existing low areas now, to collect that water before it drains into the wetlands, there would be a three foot wide stone trench along the edge of that pavement, that would essentially collect that water as it flows off of the pavement and would infiltrate it, to help infiltrate more and decrease the direct flow into those wetland areas. The other area we talked about, up in the east side of the property, the lower area, where now there’s substantial water collecting, and which we’ve heard from the neighbors and we’ve looked into, right now there is a storm drain in here that’s on the corner of Ripley and Grant, that connects down to the City of Glens Falls storm sewer on Western Avenue, .and what we propose doing, now this area, you know, water kind of finds it’s way there, but it’s very dense cover and very irregular surface. So by developing this access way, we could increase the flow of water into that drain, and in addition to that, we’re going to tap into that catch basin, and come back with, again, some shallow yard drains, similar to what we use in the other area of the site to help collect some of that water and gradually drain it down. So the water that’s now trapped in that area, we’re suggesting a positive release to the City sewer, without putting a big drain in that’s going to overtax the sewer. The grading plan also shows a sedimentation fence and erosion control where we border the wetlands. We also provided details plans of the parking and arrival areas. You can see the eight tennis courts, the one thing that changed is we’ve pulled those apart to accommodate the drainage in that area across the wetland. There’d be an identification sign, there was some discussion about lighting. The only lighting we have indicated is cut off lights around that bus loop, primarily for security and safety. Events are getting out, it’s twilight. As Jon talked about, there’s some talk that if any of the facilities get lit in the foreseeable future, it might be the tennis courts, for which we’d have to come back. You can see, the way the loop works, it facilitates the distribution of parking to the various fields, with a bus drop off and parking area for visiting teams right at the field house, adequate parking for handicapped accessible spaces. One of the comments was about the parking and the number of spaces. We have 168 spaces, and actually a facility like this, you really control your parking demand by how you schedule your events, and the 168 fields, we figure we have five, depending on the season, we have five or six fields available. So if there were something like a soccer tournament where there’d be three games on going, we’d have enough parking for 50 cars per game, and these aren’t like, this isn’t like the football games where there’s a high attendance. The soccer games typically are, you know, parents are coming. So the 50 cars per event we felt was adequate, but that again, that could be handled by scheduling. Obviously, you’re not going to schedule six games all at once. That would be handled by the scheduling. You may have some modified games or some practices and that type of thing while other games are going on, but that would be unlikely that they would all be used, and the same thing was the way the bathrooms and the septic was figured on that same basis. With that, I guess we could turn it back over for any questions you might have, if I’ve left anything out. MR. MAC EWAN-As far as, obviously, the Rist-Frost comments that came today, you’ve not addressed them at all. MR. LAPPER-We’re fully prepared to do that right now or after the public hearing. Whatever you prefer. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I’m just looking at it from. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Let’s go through them. MR. MAC EWAN-I see things that you’re going to have to do homework on, quite frankly. I mean, I don’t see an approval tonight, based on what their comments are. I mean, you have to supply some documentation, but, Item Number One, which basically you’ve already addressed. You’re going to try to re-align that so it’s. MR. LAPPER-Well, I talked to Stu Mesinger tonight, we came here, and he feels that he’s got some flexibility to move his over a little bit toward us, toward the east. MR. MAC EWAN-Which one is he trying to link up with, the one closest to the Northway? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MILLER-Yes, it’s this one right here. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. LAPPER-They’re very close. You see where that access is right now at the bottom on the floor? They’re going to move that over to the east so we’d be talking about moving ours a little bit over to the west, and that’s something that we feel we can coordinate with him. MR. VOLLARO-I was looking at the other one. MR. RINGER-I was, too. That’s the one I was looking at. MR. VOLLARO-Veteran’s Road, I had to put a circle on the drawing on that, when I reviewed this, and those are the two that I was concerned about, more than I am the ones on the west of it. MR. LAPPER-That can’t be done because of existing residences. There’s a house right across the street. MR. MILLER-What we’ve tried to do there, Bob, is tried to maintain as much separation as we can. So if we don’t own the property directly across from it, we can’t align them. So we tried to give them as much separation as we could. MR. VOLLARO-What I did, I had drawn on your map just my own idea, if you have to use this this way, you have a turn around at the end here, eliminate this altogether, and be able to have a turn around at the end that you can come back out, if this is the one that’s got to be used, but I’m concerned about a playground interfacing with all of the industrial park that’s being proposed. That’s really what’s on my mind. MR. LAPPER-We’re not concerned about that, and Rist-Frost wasn’t either. We think the separation distance is enough. MR. VOLLARO-Is the School concerned with it? MR. LAPPER-Well, in terms of 168 cars, we feel that we need to have the two entrances for safety. Otherwise, you’re going to have everybody stacked up on the one closest to the west side, and that’s not good planning either. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that was the idea of a big turnaround at the end, where people could come down and go right back out again, but, you know, we could talk about it. MR. MILLER-I think part of the concern there was we’re going to be having busses, visiting team busses and things like that, coming in, that the loop made it very easy for them to come into the drop off. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I can see the internalization of traffic with this loop. I’m just concerned about the interface with the industrial park and a large playground like this. TOM NACE MR. NACE-I think from a traffic safety standpoint, if we had the option to line them up, it would certainly make sense, but the off set that is there is far enough that it’s not a no go type situation as far as traffic safety goes. It may not be the most desirable, but it is usable and workable. MR. LAPPER-And it can be handled with stop signs. MR. MAC EWAN-Now are we ready to move on with Number Two? MR. NACE-Sure. MR. LAPPER-I already addressed, Jim addressed the lighting levels, in terms of what we’re proposing now, and that’s it, just along the perimeter of the parking lot, which would be low cut off lights, and if we do anything else in the future, which would really be a financial issue, we’ll come back as a modification. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have some documentation as to what kind of specific lighting design you have in mind? MR. MILLER-Yes. We’ve actually provided details of it. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m looking for that information. MR. MILLER-I think they may have been concerned that we’d have some field lighting or. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. LAPPER-Yes. I think that’s what they were getting at. MR. MILLER-We had cut off, a round top cut off light in the parking areas, and we used a shorter pedestrian version along the walkways, the driveway area of the field house. MR. MAC EWAN-No information was submitted regarding the lighting levels. MR. LAPPER-Except, however it appears that the lighting should not adversely effect. MR. VOLLARO-It depends on your reflectors and what they look like. MR. MILLER-These are all cut offs. MR. MAC EWAN-They’re listed on the drawing. That’s what I don’t understand. MR. NACE-If you’ll read further down their letter, I think they were really headed toward, what about field lighting,, okay. They’re saying that, however it appears that lighting proposed should not adversely effect adjoining properties. MR. MAC EWAN-And the only future lighting that you may consider down the road is lighting those tennis courts, which would require you to come back here. MR. LAPPER-That’s the only thing we’ve talked about. That’s not to say that in the future somebody could decide they’d like to light a baseball field, which is certainly not a proposal now, but that would require coming back. So if anything changes, it would be a modification. MR. MAC EWAN-Number Three? MR. NACE-I think Jim addressed the number of parking spaces proposed. The vehicular trips per hour is an offshoot of that, and the number of fields that would be in use at any one time. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, usually there’s a, what’s the manual that you guys use to pick your numbers out of? MR. NACE-When we get into something like this, it’s the Institute of Traffic Engineers, the ITE Manual, Trip Generation. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. How did you come up with the numbers that you came up with for required parking spots? MR. NACE-The same way I came up with sewage flows, was to take a rationale look at how many people would normally be using the facility during a tournament, and that’s the way Jim came up with the parking, and look at the same thing and figure out with that tournament, how it might be staged and during a period of the most active hour, how many people are going to be coming and going. We did the same thing with the toilet facilities. I figured for a four hour period, that most of the fixtures or all of the fixtures in the facility were used as frequently as possible. That’s how I came up with the sewage flows. There are, when you get to something like this, it’s so particular that there really are no studies that tell you exactly how much. MR. MAC EWAN-What do you mean by a four hour period they’d be used at the maximum? Four hours out of a? MR. NACE-Taking a tournament time, okay, when a tournament’s scheduled. The most intense use, okay, or the normal span of the intense use during that tournament would be about four hours, and for that period, I said, what’s the worst case, you know, how many times can the restrooms be used, and came up with the number of gallons. MR. PALING-I’ve got a question in that regard, I’ve wanted to ask my whole life, and now’s my chance. Are you going to design these so that the women stand in line and the men can whistle in and whistle out or what? MR. NACE-Jim was going to address that issue. MR. MILLER-Actually, you know, part of the problem with that used to be is the Health Department Code would say if you had a crowd of 200 people, you would assume 60% were men and 40% were women. So the women’s facilities typically had fewer facilities in it, but they’ve since changed their thinking on that now, and they make it equal. MR. PALING-Most ballparks and sports events and other theaters you go to, they’ve got a lot. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. MILLER-Well, that’s why. MR. NACE-And again, it’s one of those boondoggles. You can’t design for the peak onslaught at intermission. MR. PALING-Well, what are you doing here, in this one? MR. NACE-It’s 50/50. There are four water closets on the women’s side and two urinals, two water closets on the men’s side, which is a reasonable number. There are a lot of these types of facilities that operate with nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess getting back to these two questions here maybe on three and four, I mean, do you have some sort of calculation/documentation to back up where you’re coming from? Has Rist-Frost received that? MR. NACE-I just received this letter this afternoon. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. LAPPER-What we’re saying is that’s not so much a matter of science. So there’s nowhere that they can go to look at a book. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, typically, I mean, when they review these things, they’re going to want to know where you came from with your calculations, as to how you arrived at those numbers, and whether they’re going to want to agree with it or not or ask for something a little bit more definitive, that’s all. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Can I make a suggestion? Due to the fact that there aren’t locker rooms, the athletes that are going to be using these facilities, and being the mother of three athletes, I will tell you that I’ve been going to ski meets this winter where we’re talking about 11 colleges participating in ski races using the facilities in the lodges, and we are totally overcome by the athletes, and at that stage of their, before they’re ready to compete, believe me, they have to use the facilities and I think that four is going to be totally inadequate for the number of people that you think that you’re going to be putting on these fields. I think that’s something you should really look into because you’ve got to remember, there’s no locker rooms here. If you’re playing at a basketball game in a gym, the athletes use the facilities in the locker rooms. The public uses the other ones. So you’ve got two things there to consider. MR. NACE-Yes, we have looked at that, and the best I can tell you is that we’ve taken that into consideration and if you look at some other facilities, similar facilities, for other schools, look at the little league fields in Queensbury. There’s one inadequate men’s and one inadequate women’s facility for the entire little league complex. It’s one of those things, like I said before, you can’t design for intermission time. You’ve got to design to an acceptable level of comfort in between. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I would not put little league on the same level as young adults, eight and nine year old kids. MR. MILLER-All the Glens Falls students obviously have their locker room, and they will, the field’s a little removed. It’s a few blocks away, with all their gear. They’ll change. They’ll prepare and come down from the locker room. It typically would happen, if you’re talking about soccer, you’re talking about field hockey, baseball, softball, these athletes change at their home school. They get into their uniforms and typically come on to the bus and the bus takes them to the site and they come off ready to play. They may have jackets or things. Obviously, they may want to use the bathrooms, but, you know, I do a lot of work on different schools, and I’ve never seen a high school facility where locker room facilities are provided for the visiting teams. They come ready to go. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Question Five. MR. NACE-Okay. I have been in touch, trying to meet with Don Coalts. I’ve talked with Rick Missita, and other guys at the Highway Department. The pipe on Grant Avenue that we’re going to be tributary to with the storm drainage is a Town pipe. However, it does dump into the City system. We are dumping, because of the way, as Jim described, the way the fields are designed to store runoff in low areas between the fields. We’re really not dumping any appreciable amount of water into that storm drain. It’s more of an overflow, when that area does get wet down at the bottom, that it can alleviate some of the high groundwater and ponding that presently occurs there. The volume is fairly low. I’m confident, based on the pipe size out in Western Avenue, that the City system can take it, but I am trying to meet with Don Coalts to get his concurrence. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So you are planning on dump into that, what was it an eight inch? MR. NACE-Yes. We’re taking an eight inch pipe into an existing catch basin. The existing Town pipe is a 12. The existing City pipe is a 24 and very shortly goes to 30. MR. MAC EWAN-And the 24 that you’re tying into for the City is the one on Grant Avenue Extension? MR. NACE-No, that’s the one on Western Avenue. MR. MAC EWAN-Western. MR. LAPPER-So it gets bigger as you get closer to the City. We would ask you to consider, just in terms of that number five, making it a condition of an approval, that obviously, we’d have to get Town Highway and City sewer approval, but we don’t see that as a big deal. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else that you wanted to add? MR. LAPPER-Not at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions from the Board? MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to get a clearer pictures of the site plan that shows the swales. The intent of that is to keep the water from sheeting across. Right? Now are they sloped in any way, Tom, or are they dead flat? MR. NACE-Okay. It depends on which one you’re looking at. The soils, let me preface first. The soils out there, although they do have a high groundwater table, the soils are relatively pervious. They’re sandy. MR. VOLLARO-Do you have a perc rate to go with that? MR. NACE-Yes. The perc rate, up in the top it’s going to be less than a minute. MR. VOLLARO-And the depth to groundwater is? MR. NACE-Well, depth to groundwater, up on the higher end of the site, is around five feet. Down to the very low end of the site, it was around two feet, and that’s to seasonal high groundwater. When we dug holes in December, the actual water table was anywhere between a foot and a half and three feet below that, but the swales, for instance, this one is connected to an inlet over here, and this is all perforated pipe running between the two. These, the only outlet these swales have is through the pipe into another swale over here, which outlets through a pipe down into this swale. Now this swale outlets, drains gradually toward the back, and will flow down along the back of the fields, continue on down, sheet eventually through these very shallow swales, eventually down into this low area, where again, it would be picked up and taken off, but everything is very shallow, very low pitch, much less than a percent with most of the swales. So any water that’s on the surface will have time to filter in as it moves along, plus we’ve, by putting quite a few feet of perforated pipe and stone trench, we’ve increased the percolation of the soils. The actual stormwater calculations that I’ve done for the site show that in a 50 year storm, there is actually no additional water pocketed down here or taken by the storm drain. MR. MAC EWAN-The way the water exits the site right there at Grant Avenue Extension, that’s where it’s going in to a Town drywell? MR. NACE-There’s an existing Town catch basin right here that runs through a 12 inch pipe on down to Western, and on Western, it dumps into a 24 inch City pipe. MR. MAC EWAN-So that’s a City sewer pipe. MR. NACE-That’s a City storm pipe. MR. MAC EWAN-A storm pipe. Okay. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. PALING-There’s a couple of items in Staff Notes I think you might clarify. The type of agreement that would be reached between the School and applicant in regards to the route from School to Grant Avenue access. It indicated there would be an agreement reached. Is that coming? Under Staff Notes, the last sentence of that first paragraph. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. LAPPER-Of the first paragraph, the applicant has indicated some type of agreement would be reached between the School and applicant in regard to the route from the School to Grant Avenue access. I think what they’re talking about is that we want to encourage people to stay off of Sherman. So the back entrance of the School is Grant Avenue, coming along Grant Avenue, crossing Western and going onto Grant Avenue Extension, just in terms of School protocol, how they will move the students during the day, when they’re going out to intramural or gym class. MR. PALING-Well, they’re asking for an agreement. MR. LAPPER-It’s not a. MR. PALING-It said you would be reaching an agreement. MR. LAPPER-The School and the applicant, the applicant being the Morse Foundation. This is all going to be turned over to the School. So it’s all going to be the School’s decision. MR. MAC EWAN-Is there some sort of policy that the School has right now, as to how far they’ll let students walk from the School property? No? Okay. MR. MILLER-Actually now they have some fields that the students have to walk to, also, not contiguous to the School property. They’re a block away. MR. LAPPER-Behind the Broad Street (lost words). MR. PALING-So what is it you’re saying? Is there going to be an agreement or no? MR. LAPPER-No. Maybe Staff can elaborate on what that means. MRS. MOORE-It is a misquote. I was reading through Jon’s letter and it indicates (lost words) and the second paragraph it says, “I expect that we will be able to reach an agreement with the Planning Board.” I mistook that for being an agreement between the applicant and the School. MR. PALING-All right. We’ve got two more items, then. Drinking fountains and bike racks. Will there be such things? MR. MILLER-Yes. Typically with a restroom facility like that, it’s required that there would be drinking fountains and the type of facility it is, we would have bicycle racks available. MR. MAC EWAN-No concession stands, anything like that? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MILLER-Yes. There is plans for a concession stand within the field house building. MR. LAPPER-Like at the Queensbury Little League complex where it could be run by intramural, parents kind of thing. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. The last thing I have is the last sentence in there, regarding chemical application, pesticides, fertilizers and so on. MR. MILLER-Well, typically with turf field like that, there’ll be seasonal treatments of fertilizer. It’s been my, I don’t know, maybe someone from the School could talk about what they do now. Typically, what I’ve seen at most schools, the uses of herbicides and pesticides is fairly limited. Their typical application is three or four treatments of fertilizer a year, and I would say that the treatment here would be consistent with that. MR. PALING-Who would be responsible for the treatment? MR. MILLER-The School. MR. PALING-The School. They’d probably treat it the same as they would everything else. MR. MILLER-The other fields, that’s correct. MR. PALING-Okay. That’s all I have. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’d ask you guys to give up the table for a few minutes. I’m guessing there’s probably a couple of people who want to speak. So we’ll open up the public hearing. If you have any questions, please come right on up and identify yourself for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHUCK THORNE MR. THORNE-My name is Chuck Thorne. I live on the Grant Avenue Extension, down toward the end. I went to the high school meeting, the few people that were invited, and voiced my same opinions that I’m going to have now. I guess the biggest concern I’ve got is the drainage, Number One. Before they didn’t say anything about tapping in to the storm sewer. Twenty-five years ago, we all had water in our cellar, and like Bruce said, Mike Brandt made a deal with the City and dumped into the sewer line, but the water lays right, in the spring, it lays out on like a lake right behind Mr. McGarr’s back yard there, and living on Grant Avenue, Number Two, is the access. Everybody knows how many people are going to go to the parking lot and how many people are going to park up and down our street, which has no sidewalks. It’s kind of a narrow street, nice quiet little street we’ve lived on all our lives, and now every time there’s some kind of sports, all we’re envisioning is, and we’ve all been around the high school when there’s something going on. There’s cars parked all over the place. We don’t have curbs. We don’t have sidewalks. Several years ago, there was a development or some type of housing, I’m not sure, that went before the Planning Board that got turned down because of the wetlands. I asked about that, and I don’t know whether anybody’s looked into that or not, but it did go before, there was some kind of a housing development that was planned off of Sherman Avenue in a part of that land that was turned down, I think because of wetlands, but I’m not sure. This is just something I’m hearing from a woman that got a petition up, that presented it before the Town Board, but I’m not sure how long ago it was. Maybe somebody here does. The other thing I brought up was the wildlife that’s over there. There is a lot of deer, fox, you know, they’ll go somewhere else and eat somebody else’s shrubs, I guess, but they’re out and about our yard. These are all the concerns we have. I don’t want to be the bad guy and try to shoot down, it’s a nice gesture to donate that, but I’m concerned about living on a quiet street, for the last 25 years, and then all of a sudden we’re looking at maybe a lot of traffic and parking right in our front yards. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? PAT MC GARR MR. MC GARR-My name’s Pat McGarr. I live on 5 Ripley Place, which borders the access from Grant Avenue. I have a number of questions. The first one deals with the drainage. During the meeting at the School, they hadn’t even looked at the drainage, and now of course they’ve got some runoff areas. I talked to Rick Missita last week and he said that that storm drain that’s located at the corner of my property there, there are no Town records of when that was put in, and he told me that it was just capped off, but there’s too much water going in there. So I do believe it goes down Grant Avenue to the City line, but that flows for probably at least three months solid at two feet deep into that thing, from that area out back, what they call the practice field. There’s also a ditch that the Town dug from the wetlands where, just beside the parking lot there. The Town dug a ditch from the wetlands. There’s a little pond in there that runs into that also. They’ve never mentioned that ditch. It’s not shown there. It’s cut off by the tennis courts, but that draws a lot of water out of wet areas. So they’re saying that they’re going to focus this stuff into the wet areas, but they don’t show any drainage going out of the wet areas. So, I didn’t know, is there supposed to be an Environmental Impact Study on this? You don’t have to have one? MR. MAC EWAN-No. I don’t know that we don’t have to have one, when we do an environmental assessment form and we’ll either do a pos dec or a neg dec. MR. MC GARR-I know the water table, two to four feet they told us over at the School. They’ve changed their mind tonight, a number of times, on exactly what it is, but two to four feet taken in December is pretty low, or pretty high, the water table, I mean, and I wanted to ask this question. I don’t know if this is true, but I’ve heard that there may be a State law that regards off campus facilities for School access, for safe access, and the School’s going to be having the kids walk out, walk down Grant Avenue, a quarter of a mile, no sidewalks, a skinny road, but I’m not sure about that either, but I’ve heard there may be a State law that guides that, that there has to be safe access to the off campus facilities. The next question I had for the Board is what about a traffic impact. Does there have to be a traffic impact study on this, especially considering the project off Veteran’s Field? MR. MAC EWAN-There have been some recent studies that, actually we’re waiting on a study for Veteran’s Park that you heard earlier this evening, and we could see how that would incorporate. I don’t know exactly the areas of that that traffic analysis is. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. MC GARR-And they did mention 120 trips per hour. That’s two cars a minute flowing out of there, along with the rest of the traffic, and the proposed development that they were talking about, that got turned down by the Board, I think it was like eight years ago, it was for a cul de sac coming off approximately where the first entrance is there, going in, it was only going to have eight houses, and I’d heard it was shot down because of traffic on Sherman Avenue. They didn’t want to have another road on Sherman Avenue, and that’s just for eight houses, which would probably be 16 cars. The buffer area, if they went with this. They told us 50 feet at the high school last month. Tonight they say 30 feet, out to approximately 60 in some areas. I’d like to know, really, what that is, and if that’s set in concrete somehow in this, or if we can suggest it be 100 feet right straight across, from the back of the houses on Ripley Place, anyway. The stuff about the bathroom and the flows to the septic area, two to four feet. I’m wondering where all that’s going, too. You can’t really put a septic system in, when you hit the water table at two feet, unless you’re in a high area there. I would think that they could get some drainage off on to Sherman Avenue. I know there are some storm sewer lines there, but I’m not sure where they go. That’s all the concerns I had. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. BOB HAVENS MR. HAVENS-My name is Bob Havens. I live at 21 Seward Street. I built my house 45 years ago. This property is directly behind mine. What I’m concerned about first is water. We’ve always had a problem, and I suspect you’re still going to have one. Now, it’s been 15, 16 years they wanted to build five story apartment homes back there. They could have had no problems with water. I happened to be a contractor. I set my transit up, went over, we dug down a foot and a half, in July, and hit water. Now that’s close to the top of the ground. When they were higher than we were. Then they put a storm sewer on Sherman Avenue, like they’re talking about, and they cut into the storm system that the CCC put in, the City of Glens Falls did not own, and the City of Glens Falls would not have let us tap into it, but it was a government sewer, a drainage system. It goes up Sherman, past Western, and between George Hoffis, I don’t know if you know where he lives, and then next door, it goes across that field to the river. I saw it done. I was a contractor at the time. Another thing that I’m very concerned about, you know how noisy these things can be. The back of my house, I have a two story house. The bedrooms are all in the back, which I can’t do anything about now, but I think the noise and the light at the back of my house is going to be terrific. Now I don’t want to cut it out for kids. They need these things today. It does keep them off the streets from doing the wrong thing, but it’s going to put an awful hardship on us that live on that side of the street, no two ways about it. I know, I feel nothing’s going to be done, but I felt I had to come up and say something. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Don’t ever feel that nothing’s going to be done. MR. HAVENS-But as far as hydrants and stuff, they’re talking about, I don’t know where they’re getting all that. They’ve got the best hydrants in the Town of Queensbury than anybody’s got. Being a fireman, I know it. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? MARY HOLCOMB MRS. HOLCOMB-I’m Mary Holcomb and I live on Sherman Avenue, and I would like to know what the distance is from the westerly corner to where the parking lot is going to start, because I can’t see it on the map. MR. MAC EWAN-The distance from the westerly corner of what? MRS. HOLCOMB-My property line right there. May I show you? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. HOLCOMB-I’m right here. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. HOLCOMB-And I haven’t heard anything said about what’s going to be done about the wetland behind my property, or about a buffer zone there, and something was also mentioned about controlling traffic with stop signs. Where? And I also have to put up with the new roads that are going to be put in for the light industrial park. Is that also going to be controlled by those stop 45 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) signs? Are we going to get a traffic light? And are they going to do anything about the wetland behind my property line, behind the parking lot? MR. MAC EWAN-Between your property line and the parking lot, the wetland in there? MRS. HOLCOMB-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll get those questions answered. MRS. HOLCOMB-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Anyone else? HANS HANSEN MR. HANSEN-Hans Hansen. I live on Seward Street. My property goes right over to Sherman Avenue. One thing these gentlemen didn’t know, the pipe that goes on Grant Avenue, on Sherman Avenue, the drainage pipe they’re talking about is all perforated pipe. I saw it when they put it in. It’s laid in a bed of stones. In other words, he’s going to drain it in, bring water into that perforated pipe, and then it’s going to make it wetter, wherever they bring that into, unless they bring the pipe right up from Western Avenue, right there is solid pipe, and they’re talking about catch basins, and this. My house is low. It was built too low. I’m going to be in trouble here. I can see this, and I don’t think anybody cares. It’s up to you gentlemen to save us here. You’ve got to do something here. I wasn’t invited to their little meeting they had there. I don’t know why. I probably have more property on there facing where they’re building this than anybody else has, but I don’t know why I wasn’t invited. Maybe it was the way they want it or something, I don’t know. So it’s up to you gentlemen to save our rear ends here. With this water, this is not going to work, catch basins. They’ve got to do something more permanent than that. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? BRUCE LUNDGREN MR. LUNDGREN-Bruce Lundgren. I just want to reiterate and substantiate the fact that that’s a true wetland out there. I’ve walked it. I walked it before the snow was there. I walked it right after the meeting of the high school. I could see where they dug their test holes, but we’ve had a drought for four years, and anybody that goes, and is familiar with that area going back five, ten, fifteen or twenty years, we know what the water table is, and I charge the Board, the Town of Queensbury, you people, to make sure, if this development goes through, that we don’t all have wet cellars again. Secondly, I live next door to Charles Thorne, and I agree with Charles, that the entrance way down Grant Avenue Extension for all these children to be walking, cars to be parking, I think you’ve got to take a very close look at that also. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Thank you. Anyone else? JANET ABBOTT MRS. ABBOTT-Thank you for having us here. Janet Abbott. I live on the end of Barber Avenue. I’ve lived there close to 40 years, a long with some other lovely neighbors. We’re all growing old together. We’re all concerned about our neighborhood. We’re interdependent upon one another. We help take care of one another to the best of our ability, and that includes watching out for our neighborhood, which we consider our children also. We think it’s wonderful if they have any free fields to do whatever is necessary, like they said, to keep them off the street, but I also object to the access at the end of our street. I am concerned, as they state, about the wetlands we’ve all had. I’ve had dogs that have come down from there, all their life. Know what that looks like, also know what the drainage area is like because we’ve had a few ducks floating around out in front of our yards quite often, but to get down to it, I did have a question which I’m not sure, do we have a land use law in this State, or is that just in certain other states? I understand like Vermont has a land use law that has a very strong environmental impact, and aesthetic impact, and also of course the traffic impact, within a residential area, or is this just State? MR. MAC EWAN-That would be the SEQRA law, State Environmental Quality Review Act. MRS. ABBOTT-Okay. It’s not what they call a true land, does it encompass all these features, your traffic, and your? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. ABBOTT-That’s good. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Surprisingly, we do, normally in the course of a meeting, do probably three or four a night, and we’ve yet to do one tonight. MRS. ABBOTT-Well, I also, I guess because of the access, am concerned about the traffic, and considering the route, if it’s for the convenience, like it was stated before, do we need sidewalks built on Grant Avenue, if they do decide to go through with this? You mentioned a half mile walk both ways. Would you consider sidewalks on Sherman Avenue with maybe a bike, or is there room enough? That I don’t know. What’s the liability by New York State laws? Are they going to be in effect for school responsibility, like who’s in the crosswalk, maybe, from Western to Grant Avenue will have to be put in. I would imagine there’s going to be numerous things, and is this going to be, you said, open to the community, and if so, well who’s going to be the total supervision of all of this, if it’s going to be community, when you allow people to go up there and use these facilities? Are they going to be open? Will the access be having a gate? Will there be a lock? Will there be children just being able to go up there on their own freewill? And I worry about the, we have a couple of elderly people right in that corner area near the McGarr residence that are, you know, two of them, both of them in their 80’s. They’re very worried about vandalism and traffic and, you know, maybe things they shouldn’t be, but when you get on in age, these things are a concern, especially if you’re a widow, and I know you all appreciate that. I guess that’s about all. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much. MRS. ABBOTT-You’re welcome. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? Anyone else want to speak? SARAH HUSSA MRS. HUSSA-I’m Sarah Hussa, and I live at the east end of the property on Ripley, next to the McGarr’s, and I don’t think it needs to be said again that water is a concern of all of us, that we have sump pumps in order to survive, and I guess I should have spoken with my neighbors first. Maybe I’d like some sort of buffer zone, but maybe not 100 feet. I’m not sure I want to have woods where it’s woods. I’d rather have some of it open. I think that’s almost a safer situation when you have teenagers than too large a buffer zone, where it’s easy to congregate, but certainly we would want some sort of buffer, because our back yards really do abut it more than most, anyway, some of the people on Seward I guess, and I guess also that obviously this is a very generous gesture, and as everyone else said, that it’s an asset to Glens Falls Schools, obviously, but to Queensbury as a community. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Could we get you to read that letter in? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This is dated February 15, 2000, and this is from Gwen Ingalls and J. Mark Alphonse, Jr. “Because of illness, we are unable to attend this evening’s meeting regarding the above matter. However, we would like to go on record as opposing the new sports field at this location. We strongly feel that the increased traffic, parking problems, littering, safety, security, noise, night lights, etc. is an invasion of our privacy and we are strongly in opposition. I strongly believe that our property values, the well-being of the property owners, and our quality of life will be affected. Look at LaRose Street, when events take place there, there is nothing but traffic, littering, noise and complaints. I should know. I work for the City and I receive these complaints. I don’t want this to take place in my neighborhood. Some consideration should be given to us the taxpayers of this area. I realize that this is a generous gift to the City School District, however, it is short term for the participants. They will use the field for a finite time, maybe four years, and we will still be here. I feel that this needs much more discussion before you make a final decision. Look at the larger picture, maybe keep some of the wooded area intact to use as a buffer zone, additional parking off of Sherman Avenue. More thought is definitely needed. Thank you for your time and consideration.” MR. MAC EWAN-Any other letters? For the time being, I’m going to leave the public hearing open. Could I get you to come back up to the table, please. Two overwhelming things seemed to come out of that public hearing. Drainage, drainage, drainage, and impact on neighborhood, neighborhood, neighborhood. MR. LAPPER-Drainage, drainage, drainage. Unlike most projects that you see, where the impervious areas are going to be for the footprint of a building, a large parking lot and other structures, this site is going to be left primarily open, the way it is now, permeable. There’s a parking lot, tennis courts, and the field house area, and the driveway which is at most 10% of the site. So we’re not really changing the percentage, the calculation in any way significantly. At the same time, we’re opening up the site by taking out the trees, which will allow it to dry off, but the stormwater plan, this has been carefully engineered, reviewed by Rist-Frost, and the stormwater plan. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Rist-Frost is asking for more information. So I don’t believe they’ve reviewed it in its entirety. MR. LAPPER-I don’t think they asked on drainage. MR. MAC EWAN-Item Five. MR. NACE-They’ve simply asked about, we meet the (lost words) and municipal drain on Grant. MR. MAC EWAN-“Avenue of accepting site storm overflows should be documented.” So they’re asking for more information. MR. LAPPER-Avenue meaning, Grant Avenue meaning that we have to get a written agreement from that Town that we can hook into that, from the Town Highway Department. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that what they’re referring to by that? MR. ROUND-They’re looking to make sure that this applicant has the authority of the City to tie into the, basically a permit for administrative. MR. MAC EWAN-They’ve reviewed all the stormwater calculations and signed off on them? MR. ROUND-Yes. MR. NACE-One way to look at the storm drainage on this is like a big black box. We’re not changing the amount of rainfall that falls on this area. Okay. We’re not increasing, in any way shape or form, the amount of rainfall into that black box. Okay. We are putting some impervious area in there, but we’re taking the rainfall off that impervious area, and putting it back into the ground where it presently goes. What we are doing is down at the lower end of it, where there’s an area that right now doesn’t have a well defined outlet to that storm drain, we are providing a much better definition for an outlet and allowing that low area to drain off, rather than sit there and gradually filter through the soil, until it gets to the pipe over at the end of Grant Avenue. So in that respect, I believe we’re actually going to be helping the existing situation. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I was looking for in the data, is really how much of the original water that was on the site prior to this, that remains there, would be drained off? MR. NACE-We’re not changing the drainage patterns. Okay. All of the drainage, all of the rainfall that hits the site now eventually heads down through the soil and through runoff to the low end of the site, okay, which is over adjacent to the lots on Ripley. Okay. We’re not changing that. What we’re doing is providing pockets to sort of store that water in between the fields, as it gradually goes there, but what we are doing is down at the lower end, we’re providing a better way for that water to get to the storm drain, certainly slowly, but it will get to the storm drain better. MR. VOLLARO-I followed your idea before where it’s finally going to be coming out at the Grant Avenue area. There’s where you tend to put it now into a storm sewer. MR. NACE-Right, and a lot of it goes there now. It just goes there very slowly, because it has to filter through the soil before it can get to that storm drain. Okay. What we’re doing is taking that stuff that pockets on the surface in behind those lots on Ripley and giving it a small diameter pipe where it can get off more rapidly than going through the soil. MR. VOLLARO-It’s a tough piece to develop. MR. LAPPER-It’s a tough piece to develop if you were to put in buildings. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you’ve got to get some sort of septic in there. I don’t want to even get into the septic. MR. NACE-Well, let’s get into the septic. MR. VOLLARO-Do you have a building inspector or somebody who could put a stamp on the septic system? MR. NACE-I designed it. I did the soil. MR. VOLLARO-I’m not going to sit on this Board anymore and discuss the septics. I’m out of the septic business, after a couple of nights ago. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. NACE-I did the test pits. The soils, even though we looked at them in December, we weren’t looking just at where the water level is now. We were looking at mottling, which is an indication of where the water level has gotten to some time in the geologic past, okay, and stayed at for any length of time. MR. MAC EWAN-The calculations that you’ve made to move the drainage off the site into the Town drywell there and the pipe that eventually ties in the City’s stormwater, how did you find out what the information was and how that thing is designed, the existing Queensbury system? MR. NACE-The existing? I talked to Chuck Garb in the Highway Department, to Rick Missita, and there was one other guy, I don’t know his name, or recollect it. MR. MAC EWAN-No drawings, no engineering drawings? MR. NACE-Exist. MR. MAC EWAN-Because during the public hearing, there were a couple of people that commented that, you know, existing, what’s there seems to lend, to their recollection, different from what is being discussed. MR. LAPPER-I think what they’re all saying is that they’ve been there for a number of years, and there aren’t any drawings. It was done back in the days of put a pipe in the ground, before it was engineered. So there are no drawings. MR. NACE-Right, plus I’ve looked at it. I’ve gone out to each of the catch basins along the way. The catch basin that we’re talking about tying in to is filled pretty well up with silt, and that needs to be cleaned out, but the rest of the system I was able to inspect. MR. RINGER-We had a comment that one of those storm lines was basically three quarters filled. MR. NACE-That’s the catch basin we’re going to be tying in to, and it’s not. MR. RINGER-Are you going to overload that any? I mean is it capable of handling what you’re going to put in there? MR. NACE-It’s silt. We’re going to clean the silt out before we tie into it. MR. RINGER-But if there’s water going in there now, and say take a figure of 60% filled already with water going into it, the added water that you’re putting in. MR. NACE-You say filled with water. Again, I go back to the black box. We’re not putting anymore water to that piece of land than goes in now. MR. RINGER-I understood you were pushing water back to that, so that it would go in there. MR. NACE-No. Presently, if you look at the grading, there are pockets back in here where the water stays and doesn’t have a good defined drainage channel to get over to the inlet that exists over here. Okay. What we’re doing is putting a drain over here and a pipe that will pick that water up where it naturally pockets here and convey it over here with a pipe. Okay. Presently I’m sure what happens is this whole piece of ground in here gets saturated. Eventually, that water filters through the pervious sand and gets over to that pipe, but it takes a long time to do that, and it may sit there for weeks before it gets there. MR. RINGER-So you’re going to move it quicker, but not put more water in it? MR. NACE-Correct. An eight inch pipe doesn’t carry a whole lot of water, but we’re allowing it to go out a whole lot quicker than it does now. MR. LAPPER-That’s where the ducks are also. MR. RINGER-Are there any plans for a sidewalk for the children that are walking from Grant Avenue? MR. LAPPER-We’ve had some discussions about that. There is, we’ve determined that there is enough right-of-way between the edge of pavement and the residential property lines. So that’s something that sounds like it may make sense. The project sponsor would be willing to put in a sidewalk if the Planning Board thinks that that’s appropriate. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Who maintains them afterwards? MR. LAPPER-The Town. MR. RINGER-That would go from Western? MR. LAPPER-From Western. MR. RINGER-Down Grant right to the? MR. LAPPER-Yes. It would be within the Town right-of-way. It wouldn’t be on residential property. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you clarify that, my question regarding sidewalk maintenance, who maintains them? MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t know how much you want to get into this. MR. MAC EWAN-I really just want, is it the Town’s responsibility or is it the property owner’s responsibility? MR. SCHACHNER-It depends on the circumstance of who puts in the sidewalks and what kind of road it’s along. MR. MAC EWAN-Pretty involved? MR. SCHACHNER-I warned you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. RINGER-There’s already a sidewalk from the School to Western, right? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. RINGER-Which is maintained by, probably, the School. MR. LAPPER-Probably the City. MR. RINGER-No. They’re shaking their heads. MR. ROUND-Within the City, it’s the private property owner’s responsibility. MR. MAC EWAN-The street that’s behind the high school’s football fields, athletic fields. From that street to Western Avenue, there are no sidewalks. MR. LAPPER-The far side? MR. ROUND-I’m relying on my records and there’s not a sidewalk on the School property. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s not a sidewalk on Sherman Avenue. MR. ROUND-On the Grant Avenue Extension side of the School property, there’s not a sidewalk. The next block between Clayton Avenue west to Western, there is sidewalk in front of people’s homes. MR. RINGER-So the property from the School building to Clayton, there’s no sidewalk, and then the sidewalk starts Western. MR. ROUND-Clayton to Western there is a sidewalk, and then Grant Avenue further on, again, there is no sidewalks. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m just curious because there’s a lot of concern regarding the character of the neighborhood, worried about the added pedestrian traffic, potential for people parking cars there for sporting events and using that walkway access to the area. Why was consideration given to Grant Avenue, using that as an access, instead of coming straight up Sherman Avenue? MR. LAPPER-Purely because of safety of the kids, that the traffic moves too fast on Sherman Ave., that that is somewhat of a direct connection between the other side of the Northway and the City. So it we just want to keep the pedestrian kids away from Sherman Ave., because it’s just a busier road 50 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) than the Grant Ave. Extension. In terms of the character of the area, this is sort of a not in my front yard issue. What we’re trying to do, someone, one of the neighbors, talked about cars parking on Grant Ave. If you can see the way the site is designed, where the center of action is, it’s not over by Grant Ave. We don’t think people are going to want to park on Grant Ave. They’re going to drive into the parking lot, off of Sherman, be right heart and center of the site, and they can go wherever they want. So we don’t think that that’s really a concern, but we do want to direct the kids to walk from the School property along Grant Ave., because it’s just quieter and safer for them. MR. MAC EWAN-Coming from an observation, from having an office over on Western Avenue, I routinely see the football team, baseball team and the cross country track team running from Sherman Avenue throughout the year. MR. LAPPER-They run all over the place. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, if you’re talking about, you’re worried about pedestrian and safety hazard, I mean, here’s the School allowing these teams to run on these roads. If it’s such a concern with the potential for injury and such, why doesn’t the School dictate, these are the areas that these teams are going to be running in? MR. LAPPER-All I’m saying is that it’s better to encourage people to walk on roads that have less traffic. The fact that they run all over, I see kids from the. MR. MAC EWAN-I see two sides to this scenario as well. MR. LAPPER-You think you’d rather have them on Sherman? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you could potentially develop Sherman with sidewalks on Sherman, but, you know, you also have to take into consideration you have a neighborhood there, too, and what are the impacts, what can you do to try to mitigate the problems here? MR. LAPPER-I guess in terms of the character of the neighborhood issue, building a park in someone’s back yard is something that people could look at as an amenity, to have tennis courts, in terms of property values. Having a park next door is something that some people think is positive, and there were plenty of people who showed up at the School meeting who unfortunately didn’t decide to come and sit around tonight, only the people who are concerned, but the newspaper reported that there were people who came to the meeting and said very positive things about having a park there, rather than having a residential subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-I could see both sides of the story. I mean, our job up here is to try to work out all these issues, and try to mitigate them. MR. LAPPER-Absolutely, but I guess what we’d ask you on that issue is that, in terms of the benefit analysis here, that there is just such a substantial community benefit to the community at large, in terms of the school kids from Glens Falls, and the residents of the Town to be able to use this, that we think that that should weigh heavily. At the same time, the site designers are trying to design the site to mitigate, in terms of the buffers, when we first met with the neighbors, we were talking about 25 and 30 foot buffers, and now we’ve got a minimum of 60 feet, you heard tonight. MR. MAC EWAN-But through the process of this review, hypothetically, if the Board determined that maybe the pedestrian access off Grant Avenue Extension wasn’t doable, we’d rather see if come off Sherman Avenue, is that a deal killer for you? TOM MC GOWAN MR. MC GOWAN-Tom McGowan, Superintendent of Schools in Glens Falls. It’s strictly the safety issue and the access of having that roadway, or the walkway down Grant Avenue so that the students come out of the back of the School, right across the fields, up the street, the shortest distance into the field, without having to go out Sherman, all the way up Sherman in front of the property there, and in through the roadway as it’s listed on the first entrance site. It would be more convenient and safer for the students to come right out of the back, down Grant Avenue, into the access area right to the fields. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you respond to the comment that I made to Mr. Lapper regarding all the sports teams that routine run on Sherman Avenue? MR. MC GOWAN-Probably the team that you’re talking about is the cross country team, which I’ll agree. I don’t think you’ll see our football team run too far up Grant Avenue. MR. MAC EWAN-I have, toting their helmets. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. MC GOWAN-Generally, they run on the track and in the field. The cross country team does run up Sherman Avenue, when they’re running out to West Mountain, that’s true. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. LAPPER-That’s another issue, Craig, is just that four way intersection, as we all know from driving there, and I know your office is there, that’s somewhat of a congested intersection to begin with. So to direct pedestrians there is probably not the best place to go, at the corner of Sherman and Western. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s move this along a little bit. The lady on Sherman Avenue wanted to know what the buffer distance was going to be from the corner of her parcel, or the distance from the corner of her parcel to that parking area. MR. MILLER-That was this site here, Craig? MR. RINGER-That was Holcomb. MR. MILLER-From the corner of her property line to the corner of the parking lot would be 30 feet. This area she also asked about is existing wetland. It’s Federal wetland, and we’re not disturbing it. We have to leave it the way it is. MR. LAPPER-In between her property and the parking lot, Army Corps wetlands. MR. MAC EWAN-Right between the corner of the parking lot and her property, it looks like the wetland goes through a portion of her property. Does it? MR. MILLER-Yes, it does. We did not map wetland off of our own property, but based on that drawing, I would assume the wetland encompasses the rear of those lots, to some degree. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. People who lived on Ripley Place, those three properties, you have between two presentations, varied the width of the buffer. MR. MILLER-This is the drawing that we presented, which is why I brought it, so we could have a comparison, and we talked about the 50 foot buffer and I think, you know, most of the area we were talking about was to the north. As you can see, what was shown here was substantially less, was around 30, and that was the area where we’ve said, since neighbors expressed some concern at the meeting, we increased that to what you see here, which is approximately 60, it’s about 40 on this corner, only because of some grading we had to accomplish there, but we could increase that to 60, and even plant that corner, but that one corner was the only area that’s not 60, it was down to 40, and it was because there was an existing mound there that we graded to improve the drainage. MR. MAC EWAN-Trip generations. MR. NACE-We talked about that before. What are you? MR. MAC EWAN-I see it on here, let’s see, Item Three there were a couple of questions about it, and you said 120 vehicular trips generated per hour, based on, you’re going to supply documentation to Rist-Frost to support that, right? MR. NACE-I’ll supply documentation for Rist-Frost on the trip generation, the parking and the septic. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. MILLER-One thing on the traffic, you’ve got to look at the uses. I mean, the peak uses there are spring and fall when school’s in session. Winter there’ll be nothing, and summer will be sporadic, mostly any community use, if there’s a community teams using it. So the 120 trips might be a Saturday afternoon, a one time event. It’s not like a business where it happens every morning, happens every night. It’s typically going to be off peak. It’s not going to conflict with necessarily people going to work. Maybe some evening games, there may be some overlap, but. MR. MAC EWAN-I could potentially see that park being used pretty heavily during the summer months. You’ve got the potential to have softball leagues in there. MR. MILLER-You could, but that would be driven by the community, not the School use. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Well, I mean, one question was raised, regarding the two communities, are the School and the Town sharing the usage of these fields. So it could evolve into something that is pretty heavily used from May to October or November. Yes, no? MR. MILLER-Possibly. I mean, there’s nothing scheduled for that right now. MR. LAPPER-But likely that would be off peak, in terms of the road. It wouldn’t be in the morning commute, and it probably wouldn’t be in the evening commute. MR. MAC EWAN-Someone asked a question regarding supervision, access, gates, hours of operation. MR. LAPPER-It would be treated like any other Town of Queensbury park, where there’s not going to be supervision. I mean, if there’s a problem, it would be the County Sheriff or the State Police, but there’s not going to be an employee of the School District on site. It would just be open to the public. MR. MILLER-And the intent is also that the Grant Avenue entrance, that there would be bollards or a gate with a narrow opening to prohibit vehicles from getting in there. So that wouldn’t be open wide enough to allow vehicles in. MR. MAC EWAN-Any though for signage on Grant Avenue and Ripley Place for no parking signs, that sort of thing? MR. LAPPER-We thought about that, and it could be that the neighbors use it for parking, so that they might not want to have that, but certainly that’s something to consider and to talk about. MR. PALING-I’ve got the same concerns I think everyone else has, and I think drainage we’re going to have to trust to the engineers. I’d like to see a sidewalk on Grant Avenue. I think that would be a good contribution to that that would carry them right to that access, and then I also want to see the combination on the traffic from this site and from the new Veteran’s. MR. LAPPER-Well, Veteran’s Field, they’re talking about 500 trips peak hour, and that’s something that could happen never or over a lot of time. So we really don’t want to have to study their traffic, because that’s not something that, we have their report, that they’ve done. MR. MAC EWAN-Which one? MR. LAPPER-The Draft EIS. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re waiting for a traffic analysis from. MR. ROUND-They’re providing a critical analysis of the Chazen impact statement. MR. MAC EWAN-Who was the consulting engineer? MR. ROUND-Creighton Manning Engineering. MR. PALING-That’s for the Veteran’s only. MR. ROUND-That’s for Veteran’s Park, right. MR. PALING-You may not want to look at it but I think we have to look at the combination. MR. LAPPER-Well, we’re looking at being in first. So, I mean, in terms of us taking into account 500 cars which would be significant but could happen in 10 years or 15 years. MR. MAC EWAN-What do you mean by you being in first? MR. LAPPER-We would like to start construction in the spring, in terms of the, this is a project that is a current project. The Veteran’s Field project is something, as you’ve heard, that involves marketing to hopefully entice a future business, and thresholds, that that would be the worst case, that there could be 500 trips per hour, if it’s built out fully, which may never happen, but we certainly don’t want to include traffic mitigation in our proposal to accommodate their project. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think that’s what we’re asking you to do. MR. LAPPER-What are you asking? 53 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. MAC EWAN-We’re kind of looking at this thing from a, I guess, you know, you look at the potential for impacts, and looking at these things as a cumulative type of thing, because you’re dealing with two potentially rather significant projects in a very tight area, in very close proximity to each other. MR. LAPPER-This is nowhere near the traffic generator that that is. MR. MAC EWAN-But, right, you’re saying that, okay. We’d like to see some documentation as to where you drew those numbers from to support that, and then we’ll take it from there. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think sidewalks on Grant Avenue would be nice, and I also think that there could be some kind of signage up that would direct people to the park, and let newcomers know that there is a parking lot around there, so they don’t tend to park on the streets. MR. LAPPER-Sounds good. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re looking for signage? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m looking for, yes, some kind of signage, that, yes, there is parking on the facility, on the grounds, so they don’t have to park in front of all the neighborhood’s homes. Because people that are coming in may not know that. MR. LAPPER-That makes sense. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, it does, thanks. MR. VOLLARO-I would like to see, at least on the southern boundary of that property and on the northern boundary of Veteran’s Park, that that interface be looked at, primarily, for safety reasons. MR. LAPPER-Which one are you talking about? MR. VOLLARO-The southern boundary of your property, and the northern boundary of. MR. LAPPER-There’s two. That could mean two intersections. MR. RINGER-The first one is Veteran’s Road. MR. VOLLARO-Right, where Veteran’s Road comes in on Sherman Avenue. That interface between Veteran’s Park and this operation here, I’m still concerned about the interface between those two, from a safety point of view. Since most of this is going to be. MR. MAC EWAN-But, Bob, you can’t do anything about that because there’s a house right there. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. MR. MAC EWAN-And you certainly don’t want that access being one way. MR. VOLLARO-I wasn’t saying a one way. What I was talking about was a loop that people could come around. MR. MAC EWAN-But it would still be one way. You only have one ingress/egress. You need to have two. If that other entrance, for whatever reason due an emergency was blocked, you couldn’t get out. MR. LAPPER-School buses also have a wide turning radius. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Do you still want to pursue the issue of the drive? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. RINGER-I think the use that they’ve got here is better than putting in a housing subdivision. So I think if you’re going to use the land, that’s probably a better use more than anything else. I would like to see sidewalks though, definitely, on that Grant Avenue, right to the entrance. MR. LAPPER-Okay. We’ve looked into that, there’s enough right-of-way. MR. METIVIER-Have you asked the residents if they want sidewalks? 54 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. LAPPER-Some expressed you heard tonight, some people said that maybe we should. Other people said maybe not, but it wouldn’t be on their property. So we wouldn’t be taking any part of their lawn. It would be within the Town right-of-way. MR. METIVIER-It’s just to convince somebody that the land that they’ve maintained for 40 years is not theirs, and the lawns that they’ve maintained for 40 years. Do you know what I’m getting at? MR. LAPPER-We can go either way. We’re looking at the Board to direct us if you want sidewalks. MR. METIVIER-Right, and I agree with the sidewalk issue, but here you’re taking these residents and you’re putting this behind there and then the next thing you do is you’re taking the lawns away, even though they, rightfully the Town owns the land, I was just curious about that. I just wanted to get feedback on that. MR. MAC EWAN-Just out of curiosity, on this sidewalk issue, will the School put sidewalks along their property if it doesn’t currently have them? MR. RINGER-That would be part of. MR. MAC EWAN-That would be part of our approval. MR. RINGER-Yes, absolutely, from the School over. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know how we could do that, because it’s not in our Town. MR. MC GOWAN-We’ve discussed putting those in on Grant Avenue, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, on the School property on Grant Avenue? MR. MC GOWAN-On the School property on Grant Avenue. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. METIVIER-And what about the extension? MR. LAPPER-You’re talking about the extension. MR. METIVIER-Yes, that’s what I’m talking about. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. METIVIER-Grant Avenue isn’t really an issue, is it? MR. LAPPER-That was a separate issue. MR. METIVIER-All right. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Well, what I see is four or five items that we could table this for tonight, that should be addressed. MR. LAPPER-Would it be possible to table this and let us to come back next week? MR. MAC EWAN-I would tell you, no. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Only because we have several things that were held over from last week to next week, and we have a real full agenda next week. MR. LAPPER-The issue for us, we’re under some time constraint because of contractual obligations from the seller, which is something that we can’t control, and just because of the importance of this project to the community and the School District, we’d ask you to consider squeezing us in, since it’s only a few issues. MR. MAC EWAN-Jon, I normally would, but we really have a full agenda, and here we’re sitting here at midnight. We still have two more items on tonight’s agenda that were partly held over from last week as well. So it would just make for a very, very late night. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. RINGER-If it’s that critical, perhaps we could have a special meeting, if it’s really that critical to them. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m open to that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. LAPPER-We think that we can handle these issues quickly and give you satisfactory answers. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you know, how soon is this Creighton Manning report coming out? MR. ROUND-I don’t know. MR. MAC EWAN-Because that’s one of the things we’re going to be looking for. MR. ROUND-Before the 28, before the end of the comment period was our direction, and it’s not th a report. It’s going to identify the deficiencies in the Chazen Impact Statement and give them direction, what they have to do to complete it. I just want to make sure you know what that product is. MR. LAPPER-And that’s really not in our area. My understanding is that’s between Main Street, primarily. MR. ROUND-Most of the major concerns. I mean, there is trip generation data in the Impact Statement that says how many vehicles are going to be turning on and off of Sherman Avenue. They may comment on the validity of those assumptions in that report, and we can share that with the applicant. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s one of the things we’re looking for. The other thing we’re looking for is items three, four and five in the Rist-Frost letter to be supported and addressed. MR. LAPPER-We can take care of that immediately. MR. MAC EWAN-Actually, it’s probably four items, at this point. For myself, sidewalks, the issue of sidewalks on Grant Avenue Extension. I would like the Staff to research that. We talked about here a few minutes ago. I’d like to know, ultimately, who’s responsibility it would be to maintain those sidewalks if they were put in. You have some time to research that. You said it varies depending upon the situation. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m a lot more familiar with the Town Code than I am the Glens Falls City Code. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I’m talking about, the Town. MR. SCHACHNER-And everything we’re talking about is in the Town? I mean, the property is, but all the sidewalks we’re talking about are in the Town? MR. MAC EWAN-On Grant Avenue Extension, right. Okay. This is also for Staff, the drainage on Grant Avenue Extension, from that drywell. Can you research that and find out exactly what we have on hand, if there’s any documentation to support that, or if it’s just, I don’t recollect what we put in the ground in 1964. MR. ROUND-We can verify if there’s any records. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I’m looking for. Is there anything else that anybody wants to add to this list? MR. VOLLARO-Traffic lights and stop signs. Is anybody going to look into that? MR. RINGER-We’ve got the stop signs already. There’s already stop signs at Grant and Western. There’s already stop signs at Sherman and Western. MR. VOLLARO-I’m just saying that that was put out by the general public. MR. MILLER-We would put stop signs at our exits, and we also would have some other signage along crosswalks and things like that. We could add those to the plan if you want to. MR. LAPPER-We will. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Could we ask that this be on the agenda for the first meeting in March, and if we really get in trouble and request a special meeting, we’ll come back and tell you about that. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not a problem. Our first meeting in March is the 21. If it’s a problem, st contact the office and we’ll see if we can’t do something different than that. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion to table? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 7-2000 THE MORSE FOUNDATION, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: So the issues that Craig just brought up will be addressed, as follows: The Planning Board is looking for the Creighton Manning report for the Veteran’s Park traffic analysis, done by Chazen. Two, staff is going to review the existing drainage on Grant Avenue Extension to determine if there’s any documentation to support what’s existing. Three, the applicant is going to respond to Items 3, 4, and 5 in the Rist-Frost letter of 2/15/2000. Four, Staff is going to research the issue of sidewalks on Grant Avenue Extension and whose ultimate responsibility it would become to maintain after they’re installed. Duly adopted this 15 day of February, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbott MR. LAPPER-Thank you. PUD SITE PLAN NO. 1-88 MODIFICATION HILAND PARK – OVERLOOK OWNER: MICHAELS GROUP AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED OVERLOOK TOWNHOUSE PUD SITE PLAN. THE PROPOSAL IS FOR SIMILAR TOWNHOUSE STRUCTURES AS OUTLINED IN THE PUD WITH A REDUCTION OF UNITS FROM 34 TO 26. MODIFICATION OF APPROVED PUD SITE PLANS REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL. TAX MAP NO. 46-6-1 THROUGH 8, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, 27, 28, 35 LOT SIZE: 9.36 ACRES SECTION: 179-58 JON LAPPER, DAVE MICHAELS, MATT STEVES, REP. APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there’s no hearing scheduled tonight. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, PUD Site Plan No. 1-88 Modification, Hiland Park – Overlook, Meeting Date: February 15, 2000 “Project Description: The applicant proposes to modify the number of townhouses in Overlook from 34 units to 26 units. Modifications to previously approved Site Plans require Planning Board review and approval. Staff Notes: The proposed modification will complete the Overlook project of the Hiland Park PUD. The applicant has indicated the structures will be compatible with the existing homes. The applicant has included information about the homeowner’s association reviewing the proposed modification. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the modification for reduction of units from 34 to 26 to construct townhouses similar to the existing “Overlook Development”.” MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Dave Michaels, and Matt Steves. As you know, we’ve postponed this, with your consent, thank you, twice, and the reason that we did that is because this is a situation where there’s an existing 10 homeowners that live on Overlook Drive that have been there for about 10 years, since the beginning of the Hiland Park project, and they had some concerns, there are empty fields. The project sort of has been languishing for all this time, and they had some concerns about having construction take place on their, adjacent to their property. So I can report that, since then we have met with them a number of times, and reached agreement, and they’re now very supportive of the project. This is reducing the number of units. Laura received a letter from their attorney, Wayne Judge today, expressing their satisfaction with the process and with the project. I just have to clarify one thing, as we get started. It’s actually 28 units because there are two units that were not owned by Family Golf, because they were purchased by one of the property 57 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) owners, and we’ve now added a note to, Matt’s added a note to show this, that, we weren’t changing that. We just didn’t show it on the plan because, and it wasn’t our intention to drop it. It’s just that that’s owned by somebody else. So it would actually be 28, but what Dave is buying from Family Golf is going to be reduced from what could have been there by a total of eight units, six units fewer than what was already approved by the Town, in the PUD. So it’s a matter of more green space and fewer units, because Dave thinks it’s going to make it a better project. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. MICHAELS-When we contracted with Family Golf to finish the build out, as you know, the 10 units that have been there, there really hasn’t been any construction there at least in a couple of years that I know. MR. MAC EWAN-Longer than that, I think. MR. MICHAELS-Yes. They’ve been faced with a deficit on their HOA budget. They’re still fully mowing and maintaining all the common areas where those footprints are. Family Golf was not able to do anything. We came in, contracted with them. We laid it out. As Jon said, we thought it was better for two unit buildings, large, they’re 2,000 to 3,000 square foot buildings, or units is what we’re offering. MR. MAC EWAN-Each living unit will be 2 to 3,000 square feet? MR. MICHAELS-Yes, and all within the confines of the covenants and restrictions that are already established, that are part of the HOA. Because we had a lot of experience with the HOA budget, we came in and helped them with that. Anyway, it’s been about three months of working with the Board, showing them drawing specifications. We finally have a letter from Wayne Judge, their attorney, that affirms that everything’s worked out and agreed to. It was probably worth the extra couple of months. I think all the uncertainties they had, they feel pretty good about everything, and so we are reducing the density, but I think that’s going to be a positive to the site, and like I said, the exteriors are going to be all in keeping with what’s there, architectural styling. We’ve had to do design studies and everything for all those existing residents to approve, and that agreement got very particular to all aspects of anything that could happen. MR. LAPPER-Natural materials. MR. MICHAELS-So, with that in mind, the way it would work now, at this stage, is if we were to be granted approvals to revise site plan, we would have to re-file, do an amendment to the budget with the Attorney General’s Office. The Michaels Group has to take over as the sponsor of the project, which they want us to do. We’ve already agreed on a revised budget based on the new unit count, and then basically take over as sponsor to finish the build out. MR. MAC EWAN-Good deal. Any questions? MR. PALING-Dave, clarify the corner lot, to the south of 16. That’s not going to be built on? MR. MICHAELS-That lot is owned by Ray Mahoney who lives in the building next door to it, and Ray bought that lot from either Family Golf or the Bank. MR. PALING-It’s not in your plan at all. MR. MICHAELS-No, it is not, but under the, he has to fall within the same guidelines established by the HOA document. So if he proposes a building there, it has to meet with the architectural approval of the architectural control committee for the HOA, and it has to fit within that footprint that was already pre-approved, and he’s responsible for his portion of the budget as we would be for the units we’re proposing. MR. PALING-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think it’s great. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to put a motion up? MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO PUD SITE PLAN NO. 1-88 HILAND PARK – OVERLOOK, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: The reduction in townhouse units will be from 34 to 28, as per the draft resolution by Staff. The new map has the note about the townhouse that was already there, dated February 15, 2000. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a modification to PUD Site Plan No. 1-88, Hiland Park – Overlook. Applicant proposes modification to the previously approved Overlook townhouse PUD site plan. The proposal is for similar townhouse structures as outlined in the PUD with a reduction of units from 34 to 28; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 11/23/99, consists of the following: 1. 11/23/99 – Letter from J. Lapper w/maps R-1 dated 11/18/99, Layout Plan dated 5/17/88 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 2/15/00 - Staff Notes 2. 1/18/00 – Staff Notes 3. 1/18/00 – J. Lapper to C. MacEwan – request to table 4. 1/6/00 - Meeting Notice 5. 12/21/99 – Fax to J. Lapper, Staff Notes 6. 12/21/99 – Staff Notes w/12/20/99 letter from J. Lapper to table 7. 12/2/99 - Meeting Notice 8. 5/17/88, 6/21/88 – Minutes from Preliminary & Final Stg. Approval Whereas, a public hearing was not held 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/or if t he application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modifications do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary. Duly adopted this 15 day of February, 2000, by the following vote: th MR. RINGER-Before we vote, though, we probably should have Laura read in the letter from lawyer for the. MR. MAC EWAN-I forgot all about it, thank you. It’s getting very late. MRS. MOORE-This is dated February 15, it’s to Jon, “As you know, we represent the Hiland th Overlook Homeowners Association which has an agreement with the Michaels Group to amend the subdivision plan. You are authorized to convey to the Queensbury Planning Board the fact that the Homeowners Association consents to the amendments to the subdivision plan proposed by the Michaels Group and supports its application to the Board. Sincerely, Wayne Judge” AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbott MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Sorry for the very long wait. PUD SITE PLAN 8-2000 TYPE I RECOMMENDATION QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, L.P. OWNER: BAY MEADOWS CORPORATION AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING/JONATHAN LAPPPER ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: CRONIN ROAD – BAY MEADOWS GOLF COURSE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 96 UNIT SENIOR APARTMENT PROJECT AND RELOCATION/CONSTRUCTION OF GOLF COURSE DRIVING RANGE. PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN BOARD FOR PUD DISTRICTING IS THE PRELIMINARY STEP IN THE PUD PROCESS. CROSS REFERENCE: TOWN BOARD RES. 61,2000, SP 18-93, 38-93, SUB. 21-1993 TAX MAP NO. 60-2-5, 10 LOT SIZE: 97.35 ACRES SECTION: 179-57 JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And no public hearing tonight. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 8-2000 – Sketch Plan Stage, Queensbury Partners, L.P., Meeting Date: February 15, 2000 “Project Description: The applicant proposes a 97.35 acre planned unit development. The site will be developed with a 96 unit senior apartment facility on 70.29 acres and the remaining portion 27.06 acres to be utilized with the adjacent golf course. The applicant is requesting a favorable report for the Sketch Plan of the proposed PUD from the Planning Board according to Section 179-57 of the Town Zoning Code. The applicant has submitted this information as a sketch plan, and the Planning Board may want to ask questions and address any deficiencies in the proposal. Staff Notes: Site History - The site has a history for proposed development from 1991 to present. The site was the subject of a petition for zone change, P6-91 from Single Family Residential (SFR-1A) to Suburban Residential One Acre (SR-1A). the development considerations for this property have been for apartment units and connection with the Golf Course in some manner. The files indicate the previous site plans and subdivisions for this site have lapsed and are no longer applicable. Site Environment - The proposed project is located near many neighborhood necessities. There is a Stewart’s Store, the Harvest Restaurant, a Home Improvement store, doctor’s offices, and an exercise facility within less than a ½ of a mile from the apartment units. PUD Sketch Plan Objectives - The applicant has submitted a market research study and a concept plan for the proposed PUD. The application was reviewed and found to be conceptually compliant with Article VIII of the Town Code. Staff reviewed the plan according to Section 179-57 and has the following comments: The applicant has filed a letter of intent with the Town Board to develop a PUD on Cronin Road. The PUD function is to provide affordable housing within Queensbury. The Town Board reviewed the request and established themselves as the lead agency according to Section 179-57 per resolution 61-2000 (1/24/00). The plans should include additional detail of the various uses in the immediate area and the acreage they encompass, such as the Stewart’s Plaza, Harvest Restaurant, the Social Security Building, and the golf course, 179-57(C)(1)(a). The open space area should be defined in acreage, access, and suggested uses, 179- 57(C)(1)(d). The plans identify Halfway Brook and some wetland areas, the drainage system should evaluate how these areas will be impacted, 179-57(C)(1)(e). The increase demand on the Town’s utilities and services should be reviewed for adequacy , 179-57(C)(1)(h). The project area should be evaluated for any historic or preservation issues. In addition, the project is considered to be a Type I action under SEQR and a full environmental form should be completed for review. PUD Purpose and Objectives - The PUD proposed meets the Purpose in § 179-51 A in that a portion of a neighborhood is to be developed with residential and non-residential uses, and building sites and common property. This proposal also serves as a step in meeting the housing needs for a lower income economic levels of segment of Queensbury’s population. The PUD meets the Objectives and Intent in § 179-51 B concerning choice in rent levels as compared to market area apartments; 27.06 acres of land will be in open space/recreation areas; and there is efficient land use as evidenced by the clustering of buildings, roadways, and subsequent utilities. The development pattern preserves existing land features. Recommendations: A recommendation to the Town Board is made based on a favorable report from the Planning Board to forward the PUD to public hearing for rezoning. Findings are to be included as part of the report. Staff finds that the development pattern is in harmony with land use intensity, transportation facilities, and the community facilities objectives of the Comprehensive Plan – detailed in the narrative concerning Neighborhood 9, pages 2-4.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, Tom Nace. With us is Tom Gestler, who’s sitting behind me to my right, who’s the principal of the developer, who’s an experienced developer of senior affordable housing, and Frank Piazza, who is his consultant, who is an affordable housing consultant. They’ve worked together to do other projects similar to this which have received awards in the past, and I’ve submitted some of that information to you with the original packet. Very simply, because of the hour, we’re here, we will be back to deal with the detailed site plan in the future. This is here for your conceptual review for the PUD. If I could just explain the sort of silly technicality of why we’re here with a PUD. MR. MAC EWAN-I really got lost when Mr. Round explained it to me. MR. LAPPER-Okay. We had tried, we had always anticipated, as this was being planned, that we would do this as a cluster subdivision, and what we’re trying to do is to preserve the open space with the golf course area, because the golf course used to be 18 holes. Now it’s nine holes. So to use the density to do 96 units, which actually is 97, because it’s 96 plus a site manager, but to use the density from the site for the senior apartments, and then to restrict the rest of the site. So that would be open space. That would always be a nine hole golf course, but it would never have any development 60 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) rights associated with it, and that could be done very simply for the Board as a cluster subdivision. T The problem with that is the golf course, which is grandfathered use, is no longer a permitted use in the zone, and the area where the housing is going to be, which, by way of aside, is the area where it can go which would require the disturbance of the least amount of wetlands. So it’s the best place to put it, best access to Cronin Road also. That is the area where the driving range is now, and as part of the contract with the owner of the site, he requires relocating the driving range, because his nine hole course needs a driving range to be a complete course, and the relocation of the driving range to a part of the site which was previously the back nine and is no longer and has not been the back nine for eighteen months, that use has now lapsed. So that is not a permitted use. So we can’t simply take the driving range and move it over to a vacant area and put this in without dealing with the zoning issue, and once we realized that, the only flexible zoning that the Town has is PUD. So for that reason, to re-locate the driving range, we have to deal with the Town Board on a PUD, but the only use is going to be this use and the golf course use. So the PUD here is very simple, and the issues are really site plan issues, and with that, I just want to quickly show you the diagrams and then Tom can go through the map, but what is really unique about this, the senior housing, I’ve submitted the study in terms of the great demand for senior affordable housing in the Town of Queensbury, but the unit itself, which is sort of in keeping with what I’ve heard from you in the past on other projects of what you’ve wanted to see for residential, this has two story in the middle and then these two wings that are one story. Let me just go get the layout. So all of the units sit like this. MR. MAC EWAN-Can I ask a silly question? Is this a standard type? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Was this done with the anticipation of coming before this Board, I mean, this design, because of the way we’ve felt about previous projects? MR. LAPPER-No. They hired a Connecticut architect who really knows his stuff, who they’ve used before. He came up with this and sent me the drawings, and I said, boy, I know this Board, and they’re going to love it, because it’s what you’ve told me in the past you were interested in, in terms of rooflines, in terms of how this thing sets up. So I knew I had a winner in terms of design, but also it’s just in terms of the caliper. Sometimes when you have affordable projects, they don’t look that good. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It looks homey, compared to the other one. MR. LAPPER-Senior affordable are not people on welfare. They’re people who are 62 and 75 years old that are on social security. So they’re on a fixed income, and they qualify, but they’re mostly our moms and dads who are living in the community with their kids because they can’t afford to live on their own, and this, at a sliding scale based upon income of like $350, $340, $350, up to $500 a month, they can afford to live independently, and that’s the goal. So we’re pretty excited about the design, about the location. It seems to make a lot of sense for a senior project, in terms of the transportation corridor, the shopping corridor, but it’s also a very quiet, private place. As part of this, we’re going to talk about donating the Halfway Brook area to the Parks and Rec, which they may or may not want, but I talked to Chris Round about this, because of what they’re doing with the Hiland Park trails. MR. MAC EWAN-They’ve been trying to get that whole corridor. It’s been piecemeal. It’s been coming. MR. LAPPER-So we can now offer this whole piece here, and I think that Rich Schermerhorn has a piece that he offered them in the past, that they didn’t want, by itself, behind his units, and that probably can come in, I think, on the other side of Meadowbrook, and then they’ve got the Hiland piece. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s huge. MR. LAPPER-Yes. So it’s starting to come together. So that would be another aspect of this. Let me just have Tom walk you through the site plan, and we’ll answer questions. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Before you start, Tom, the entranceway is, where’s Bay Road? MR. NACE-Bay is over, okay, here is the Clubhouse for Bay Meadows. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. That’s what I thought. MR. NACE-Here’s the bridge, okay, right here’s Halfway Brook and a bridge. There’s one house there that sits down low on the other side of the bridge. So Bay is over about here. 61 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. NACE-The site if you remember, I don’t know if any of you were on the Board when the Dick Morse project, Garth Allen project for development in here was before the Board. They had the same number of units, but they were townhouse type units, bigger units spread out, and they were, in essence taking most of this site and developing it. They were impacting quite a bit of wetlands. We’ve, because of the design of the units and the fact that we want to keep everything small and centralized, and try to cluster it, we’ve been able to draw everything in and try to get it into a fairly small area, and design it so that we have the units laid out so that they aren’t in a row, they aren’t lined up with each other, and hopefully most of them will have good views out over the golf course or out into the woods. Real simple, just a cul de sac and a turn around on the other side. We’ve provided for some area for community gardens. Each of the units will have parking directly in front, so that it’s most convenient for the elderly people to get to their units, a little courtyard in front of each, a bus drop off area and handicapped parking. Drainage we’re going to take care of with some low swales running off toward the low areas of the site. We’ll put just some low berms for temporary impoundment, the storm drainage. We’re going to be doing, we will have there’s a little corridor through here, and some over here, of existing federal wetlands that were mapped with the previous project. We’re just starting to work with the Corps now to get a mitigation plan in place where we can replace those wetlands that we are going to be impacting, we are going to be taking. We’ll probably be doing some enhancement of wetlands down in this area to make up for those. Sewer, there’s an existing sanitary sewer out on Cronin we’ll be tying in to. I’ve already talked to Mike Shaw about it, and water, we’ll be connecting to the existing water main on Cronin. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And all those units are six units? MR. NACE-All the buildings are eight. There are four in the center, two up, two down. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I thought the two in the center had upstairs. MR. NACE-The units are eight, yes, they’re eight. I’m sorry. These are up down, and these are side by side. So there’s eight. Four single story and two down, two up. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I thought the upstairs was just a continuation of, it was a double. MR. NACE-There’s the floor plans of the upstairs units. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ve got it. I understand. I didn’t see the kitchen and. MR. RINGER-With the water table there, Tom, two or three months of the year, that’s a lake there. MR. NACE-Well, the units are going to be built up a little bit. They’re going to be slabs on grade, no basements. Okay, absolutely no basements. MR. RINGER-So you’re going to be putting blacktop in there. How are you going to affect the drainage and everything? MR. NACE-Well, actually, the soils are fairly tight as it is. So what I said before, we’re going to take the impervious areas. We’re going to run it off. We’ll have some swales that run out this way. There will be, probably, a culvert across here and a swale back into here, and store the water on the surface, allow it to very gradually go the way it does now. Most of it ends up in, in fact all of it ends up in Halfway Brook now, and we’ll just try to emulate the way it works now. MR. RINGER-It generally doesn’t end up in Halfway Brook until after it sits for a couple of weeks right where it is. MR. LAPPER-I just want to clarify one more thing. The 100 acre, 97 acre site, it’s actually 27 acres that are devoted to this site, and it’s the 64 acres that are recreation/open space. It’s a switch from the Staff Notes. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? MR. PALING-I heard a forever wild. Did you say forever golf course? MR. LAPPER-No, what I said was never residential units. So it’s always going to be open space. The use right now would be golf course, because a PUD is a very specific, I mean, could somebody come back and do some other open space use like a cross country ski park? Probably, but it won’t have houses, because that use will, that will already be legislated away. 62 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. PALING-It all looks good except where you’ve got the driving range. I don’t think that, it’s going to be pretty hard to even see it over there. MR. LAPPER-You get to the driving range by going to where the Clubhouse is now, the parking lot, and then you’d go around the back of this to get to it. MR. PALING-Yes. I don’t see a road or anything to do it. MR. NACE-No. I’m sure that’ll be accommodated on the golf course side. The relocated range is in one of the old fairways. (Lost words). MR. PALING-It’ll be a trail, though, it won’t be a paved road. MR. NACE-No. If you’ve observed their driving range now, it’s a very informal sort of, it’s not a commercial. MR. PALING-Not used much. Why don’t you not have it? MR. LAPPER-It’s not us. MR. NACE-It’s not our call. It’s what the property owner wants. MR. LAPPER-It’s in the contract that we have to provide it because he feels he has to have it to have a nine hole course. MR. NACE-There’s people that play Bay Meadows. There’s some of the elderly crew, and they’ve developed their routine. They like to go up and hit a few balls before they go play nine holes. That’s kind of the way it works. MR. PALING-Not too much, on the course, not on the driving range. I don’t think that driving range is utilized very much at all. MR. NACE-The couple of days I’ve been there walking around the place, there’ve been maybe two or three guys each day. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, does someone want to introduce a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE PUD SITE PLAN 8-2000 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, L.P., Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: For a positive recommendation to the Town Board for the conversion of this property to a 97 unit senior apartment project. Duly adopted this 15 day of February, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbott MR. MAC EWAN-I apologize for keeping you gentlemen here for such late hours. MR. LAPPER-Likewise. SITE PLAN NO. 9-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED KONOVER PROP. TRUST “FACTORY STORES OF AMERICA” OWNER: SAME AGENT: RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF RT. 9 SO. OF 149 AT FSA APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A CROSS LOT ACCESS ROAD AT THE REAR (EAST SIDE) OF THE SITE TO INTERCONNECT PROPERTIES. PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATIONS TO PLANNIING BOARD APPROVED SITE PLANS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 17-86, SV 84-1989 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/9/00 RIST FROST ASSOCIATES TAX MAP NO. 36-1-34.3 LOT SIZE: 4.51 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-There is a public hearing tonight. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 9-2000, Konover Prop. Trust Factory Stores of America (Boats By George), Meeting Date: February 15, 2000 “Project Description: The applicant proposes to develop a service road to be utilized for transport of boats. Staff Notes: The service road construction is part of an agreement between Boats by George and Factory Outlet Stores. The plans have been forwarded to Warren County Soil and Water District for comments on stormwater and erosion control. The road is to be used for transportation of boats to an adjacent parcel for storage. The road is not intended for customer travel. Staff would suggest a gate system be installed to deter customers taking this route to view boats. Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the site plan for construction of a service road.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-I have a letter from Warren County Soil and Water, and then I have a response letter from Rist-Frost. The letter from Warren County is dated February 14, addressed to myself. It says, th “Dear Laura: As per your request we have reviewed the stormwater plans for the new construction site at the Factory Stores of America. There are several questions that should be checked before proceeding with the final design. a. According to Appendix B., the runoff coefficient from Appendix A for a 6% + slope, greater than 25 year storm and open space, is 0.20. The number used in the calculation is 0.11, essentially reducing the cubic feet per second (cfs) by ½. Also the parking r/o coefficient used is 0.95, and according to Appendix A, should be 0.97. Note in the calculations, a rainfall intensity number of 1.9 inches per hour is used, it is for a 50 year – 1 hour storm. Is this standard practice for the Town of Queensbury or Rist Frost? b. The total acreage listed in Existing Conditions is 0.70 acres. The total Post Developed acreage is 0.65 acres, a difference of .05 acres. Where is this difference accounted for? c. On blueprint C-2, west of the proposed road, the topographic lines indicate that there is a roadside drainage. According to the Typical Roadway Section diagram, there is not a roadside ditch, but a terraced edge. An explanation is needed as to what will actually be in place. If there is a stormwater ditch placed, where does the stormwater runoff from this go? We see no outlet located on the diagram. d. We would also suggest that filter fabric not be used in the stone trench design. There is no advantage to this, since the stone is acting as a particulate filter. Using the fabric will reduce the rate at which the stormwater is infiltrated into the ground, thereby increasing the detention time and reducing available storage area during storm events.” MR. MAC EWAN-What letter did you just read? MRS. MOORE-Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. We’ve got that one, I’m sorry. Now, before we go any farther here, the next letter you’re about to read is from Rist-Frost who reviewed this, correct? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-No? That’s the letter I’ve got right here. Was this sent to Rist-Frost for their review? MRS. MOORE-No, it was not. MR. SCHACHNER-I hope not. MRS. MOORE-And Rist-Frost responded to the Warren County Soil and Water today, simply because that was when we faxed them this letter. So their letter is dated today as well. MR. MAC EWAN-Just out of curiosity, how did Warren County end up getting involved in this? MRS. MOORE-Because I asked them. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Response from Rist-Frost, dated February 15. “In response to the Town of th Queensbury Planning Board Staff Notes and the Warren County Soil and Conservation District’s comment letter dated 2/15/00 and 2/14/00; respectively, we offer the following responses: 1. A gate system will be provided at the entrance to the access road and also guide rails will be provided along both sides of the road where needed. 2. There was a typographical error in the calculations for the runoff coefficient for “open space”. The correct r/o should be 0.20 and there is no change to the resultant trench volume. We agree that the runoff coefficient for the paved surfaces should be 0.97 and have corrected the calculations. The change has no effect on the resultant storage volume. Also, it is our experience with past projects of the same magnitude, that utilizing a 50 yr. – 1 hour 64 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) storm duration is acceptable for sizing storm water management systems with small areas. 3. There was a 0.05 A discrepancy in the calculations and this was corrected. This caused no change to the resultant runoff storage volume. 4. The Typical Pavement Detail should show a ditch/swale. This ditch/swale is to direct existing stormwater around the existing septic system leach field and will direct stormwater into the existing onsite stormwater drainage path. This ditch/swale does not increase the existing stormwater runoff. 5. Our trench design uses the filter fabric to increase the longevity of the stone trench drain. Admittedly there is a minimal reduction in the infiltration rate but this is outweighed by the reduction in fines that accumulate in the stone and reduce the storage volume of the trench over time.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-I think so. Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-That letter came today? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. CENTER-Tonight, this evening, I brought it with me this evening. MR. MAC EWAN-How are we going to verify whether their responses are accurate or not? What’s our procedure now, at Staff level, considering our Town Engineer is now representing an application? MRS. MOORE-My comment is just comparing what the notes were and talking with Warren County, their number calculations, and what Rist-Frost has indicated that it doesn’t change the entire, you know, it doesn’t change their plan and design, and I think the Warren County Soil’s comments are the same. They recognize that the design’s not going to change. They just knew that there was a calculation error. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess I’d ask you, why did you pick Warren County Soil and Conservation versus Chazen or somebody else to look at it? MRS. MOORE-Because it’s free, and I know they do this. MR. MAC EWAN-But there’s a provision in our Zoning Ordinance that says if we have to go out and seek additional advice, we can ask the applicant to pay for it. MRS. MOORE-I’m sure we can. MR. MAC EWAN-We can’t demand the applicant, but we can certainly ask. MRS. MOORE-My only response is that I did this because I knew there may be some issues in regard to the way the steep slopes in the back. So I referred it to the Warren County Soil and Water. MR. MAC EWAN-Does Warren County Planning Staff up there allow for any kind of services that we could take advantage of in this case, in reviewing applications? MRS. MOORE-This project was referred to Warren County. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. It was probably on their list of 42 items that got default approval. MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. MR. SCHACHNER-You’re asking for technical review, I guess. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-And I’m going to sit here and say that’s not what Warren County Planning Office does. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Good evening. Good morning. MR. CENTER-Tom Center of Rist-Frost Associates, representing Konover. This site modification is by contractual agreement between Konover Trust. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not a modification. MR. CENTER-It’s not a modification? 65 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. CENTER-We took it as. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a site plan. MR. CENTER-A site plan. MR. MAC EWAN-A different horse. A different color. Can we get that cleared up? This isn’t a modification. This is a new site plan. MRS. MOORE-It’s a new site plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Okay. MR. CENTER-Okay, a new site plan for the addition of an access road to allow the property owner of an unaccessible piece of property through an easement to access that property. We do not plan on changing any of the existing stormwater for the site. We are going to correct a fault in the existing stormwater which runs down, and I can show you on the drawing. Right now, they tried, over the last few years, to place sand and they also have some rock fill in here with some washed out areas. They had an asphalt berm that was washed out. They tried to put timbers in to direct the flow of stormwater around that. We are going to correct that by removing this area, and re-installing an asphalt berm, which on C-2, will direct the stormwater back into the catch basin as it was properly designed, which should minimize, it will minimize, the outflow that was coming over the edge, which was not the way the system was designed. The roadway is designed, after that we are going to take the stormwater from the roadway and shove it down into a trench drain, and we’ve calculated the actual stormwater that would come just from the road, across, filter through the grass and also filter through the stone trench, and take care of the stormwater that way. There is no change or increase to the existing stormwater. We are merely going to filter out the first flush, or any contaminants coming from the roadway through the trench drain. The ditch on the west side of the roadway is simply to direct water that will fall on this area only, around the septic system, so that we don’t have any infiltration of stormwater into the septic system, and that’ll follow the normal drainage path, and it’s a minute area of stormwater that will flow that way, and we also have maintained the areas for the outlets. Our project is away from those areas. The existing stormwater in the drainage paths will remain the same. So, again, we’ve maintained stormwater flow away from those areas, and recovered anything that we have created. I believe it was the last comment on the Soil and Water Conservation, it is our practice and our understanding that filter fabric around a stone trench will enhance the life of the stone. Without that, yes, the filtrates and the contaminants and the fines will lock up in your stone, and that storage line, that fines and contaminants will get in there, and you will lose your storage. We propose that that, we will lose some infiltration rate, but that will be minimal compared to the advantage of, we want to maintain the stormwater infiltrating into the ground, and that’ll keep that in there for years to come. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. CENTER-In regard to the easement, I don’t know if, there were copies. I don’t know if you have them in the packets, of the actual legalese, if you will, of the easement between the property owners, and that the roadway is only to be used for access of boat storage. There was also a letter from Mr. Pensel, stating his use would be to store boats, and that would be the use of this roadway. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I guess I wanted to know where the Moose Creek building is, you know the furniture store there? Where is that located in relationship to this road? MR. CENTER-I’m not familiar with Moose Creek. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s right next door to Boats By George. MR. CENTER-On the Route 149 property? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. It’s on the south side. It’s right next door, and I just was wondering where it was, because I see the Log Jam, and I’d like to know where the old Syd and Dusty’s was, and where that other place is. MR. CENTER-Is that the Valente lot behind the Dunham’s lot? Is that right adjacent? I mean, I have an old. 66 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, Craig kind of gave me a, that’s kind of where I, I didn’t think it was out that far, but, yes, there you go. Okay. I’m better off on this. MR. CENTER-This is 149 right here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. I don’t have that little map. MR. CENTER-This is on the back of the agreement, the easement agreement. This access road would be right in there. This is Mr. Pensel’s property. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ve got you. I appreciate that. MR. MAC EWAN-Two questions for you, from me. The property to the east, is that owned by the Boat Company? MR. CENTER-The property to the east? MR. MAC EWAN-I’m looking at Drawing C-2. MR. CENTER-Yes. This property right here? This is owned by, yes, that would be the property that he would be accessing. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. What is the drop in elevation of that road from the top of the hill to that adjacent property, where it meets the property line? MR. CENTER-From here to here? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. CENTER-It is approximately 40 feet or so across. The purpose of the road is so that he can trailer boats and we had extensive conversations with Mr. Pensel to ensure that we had the proper angle and elevations of the road, and degree of pitch, if you will, so that he could get his boats down there and into the property. We had looked at going this way. It just wasn’t, there would been a hairpin turn. This allows him a straight means of access to come from his property down around here, an easy, a gentle curve for him to be able to trailer a boat and get it down into his piece of property. MR. MAC EWAN-And what’s that elevation again now? MR. CENTER-If I’m correct, it’s 40 feet. MR. MAC EWAN-Forty feet from top to bottom? MR. CENTER-From top to bottom, with, I believe it’s a 315 foot. MR. MAC EWAN-And his intent is to store boats on the adjacent property? MR. CENTER-To trailer boats down on to the adjacent property. MR. MAC EWAN-For the purpose of storage. MR. CENTER-For the purpose of storage. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you the owner? Do you realize that you need site plan approval to do that? Are you going to come back with another application or something? MR. CENTER-Again, we’re representing Konover Property, which owns Factory Stores, which is legally responsible to provide and maintain the access road for this purpose, and that’s, I believe it’s Mr. Pensel’s wish that this road be built, and that’s why we’re up here in front of the Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Just as a side note, when we did site visits, I probably shouldn’t put this on the record, but one way or the other it’s going to come out. Where that trash compactor is in the back, follow your finger right back up off the driveway, you’ll see a drywell right there, way down, right near the trash compactor, right about where the corner of that building comes out, right in there. There’s a drywell, a catch basin in there. Well, we almost sunk the Town van in there. You might want to tell them that they need to repair that, because it was not functional. MR. CENTER-Okay. 67 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’m concerned by the steep grade of the road, I guess, and I’m also concerned about, although it’s not part of this application, what wants to be done on that adjoining property. MR. CENTER-Again, this is strictly from property line to property line, that we’re building this road, through the contractual easement agreement, which we have through the lawyers, it’s been channeled back through us, and Mr. Pensel has requested that that be executed, and that’s, again, why we’re up in front of the Board for this site plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to come up and comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DAVID KENNY MR. KENNY-David Kenny, for the record. I own the property to the south of this proposed site. My concern is the stormwater. We’ve had problems there for years. I find it a little inadequate for them to come in at a site plan review and not do a total site plan review. All the water from that total site dumps in that piece of property. The septic system for that system is down in that hole. We’ve had the septic systems fail twice. It’s been re-done two years ago. The stormwater mixed in with it. I think the stormwater has to be looked at as a whole, not just on this roadway. It’s one site. Now they say it’s existing. They’re not changing. Well, the existing doesn’t meet what it should meet, and they’re putting more stormwater in the same location, they’re changing it. I mean, we don’t know what’s there today, and if that is failing, they should be correcting it, as long as the site plan is going forward. I mean, I put a small addition to the restaurant, they make me do a full site plan, not just a site plan for the section I’m doing, the total site plan. I mean, this stormwater should be re- calculated for the whole property, and be adjusted so it works. I believe right now the stormwater, I know, and the septic system are right together back there, right in this area, this whole area. There’s a septic field down in here some place, and then there’s, the stormwater comes through pavement, comes through pipes. There’s three pipes that dump all the water down in here. It all gets mixed together. It should be addressed. MR. MAC EWAN-That area just below the heavy contours right there? MR. KENNY-Right in here. MR. MAC EWAN-Right there, it says right there, it’s labeled. MR. KENNY-Right here, but this is where the stormwater also runs from the site, down in here. I mean, there’s no drainage at all on this top property. They never put drainage. What they did was put drywells in and pipe everything, that’s why this one you’re talking about, where you almost flooded, the stormwater, it failed, and to look at it and say, okay, we’re not doing it in here, we’re just doing this, I mean, I’ve got a problem. I’m not against it. I have no problem with the road going in. It’s a contract agreement. I’m not trying to be, I just think the stormwater, with Glen Lake and all the problems we’ve had with stormwater in that area, it should be looked at. It shouldn’t just be said, okay, because it may not be. It’s a total site plan. I don’t know how you can segment this off from this. It’s one site. So when they give a stormwater management plan, this has to be effecting this. The whole stormwater system should be addressed. MR. VOLLARO-You said there was a failure in that system? MR. KENNY-Well, the system, the septic field was re-done two years ago. MR. VOLLARO-Did the Health Department get in on it then? MR. KENNY-Sure. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s all documented? MR. KENNY-Yes. Dave Hatin went up there. It was backing out onto, across my property, and my other concern with this road, like you mentioned, this water is going to run down this road at that slope, it’s going to come over. How are they going to stop it? I mean, they’re going to put swales and this and that, but I mean, they’re cutting off, this roadway is cutting off this piece of property from this, and right now the stormwater comes down and gets to use it all. I’m not an engineer, but I just think all the water that’s going down into this area should be calculated on top of what little additional they’re putting in. MR. VOLLARO-How long did that septic system, two years, you said? 68 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. KENNY-I’m going to guess two years, three years, yes. I’m sure it’s a matter of record, the County has records on it. It had to be re-done by an engineer, but they were stuck with what they had. MR. VOLLARO-And it’s functioning now in that environment? MR. KENNY-No comment there. I’m not an engineer. I mean, it backs up constantly. These catch basins back up constantly, because they go to this, what they did was take this whole total site, and never put any drainage in it, years ago. They used this back that was never going to be developed as a dumping area, to dump all the water. It may have been fine back 15 years ago when the site was proposed. Would it meet today’s standards? I doubt it, and that’s my only concern. If it can be addressed, at least I think it should be looked at. I don’t know what the green space is and the other requirements for the total site, you know, what they have, you know, on the whole total site, but it’s a site plan. It should be one site. We’re not talking about this site plan. We’re talking about site plan for the whole piece of property, I believe. The whole piece of property should be presented to you, not just a single piece of it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? I’ll leave the public hearing open for the time being. Mark, I guess I’ll ask a procedural question of you. Because it’s kind of been made public here that the intent is to eventually store boats on the adjacent property, is there a mechanism we can do to maybe incorporate this and the next potential project that’s coming down the road, into one? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I mean, I’m pretty concerned that appropriate SEQRA review, if nothing else, take into account what the ultimate use of that property is. It seems to me, at least, that the current application is, in part, to facilitate whatever is going to happen on the property in the future, and it would be appropriate, and to fulfill your SEQRA obligations, you’re going to have trouble doing that without getting more information from the applicant about that proposed use I think. MR. MAC EWAN-I look at this, and I see, in my mind, probably the appropriate thing to do would be to ask you to withdraw this application, and resubmit a new application that incorporates the intent of what you want to do on that adjacent property as well. MR. CENTER-Our client, again, as stated before, is Konover Property, and our scope is directly for the road only. We are not, in any way, obligated to Mr. Pensel, except for the legal requirement of the easement to Konover to provide this road. So to do that would require us having to be hired by Mr. Pensel. We have consulted with him as to how the road needed to be built, so that he could properly trailer his boats across the property. MR. MAC EWAN-Whatever agreement you make with Mr. Pensel, that’s your business. MR. CENTER-As far as, the Board wants us to consult with someone who isn’t our client. I mean, our client, you know, we’re restricted to a specific scope of work, which is Konover Property, which is contractually obligated to provide a road for Mr. Pensel. Now as far as his use and what he needs to do, that’s his business. He needs to associate himself with an engineer. He needs to come up and do that. Yes, it is connected with this project, but it’s not connected with this site plan, as I’m here to represent. MR. MAC EWAN-You just said it, for SEQRA purposes, you just said it. It’s connected with this project, but it’s not. MR. CENTER-Well, so you’re directing us that we need to consult with Mr. Pensel? MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s not what we’re saying. What we’re saying is that you have cumulative. I don’t want to say cumulative impacts. That’s not the right word to use. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s not even, you don’t even need to get to cumulative impacts. You need to just even look at the impacts of development of this site. Cumulative impacts typically involves impacts on other sites. The same site that the application is, or that the applicant is seeking review for, obviously has other development things going on on it, and I agree with the Chairman. It’s hard to fulfill your SEQRA obligations, knowing that that’s the case, but without knowing what those development things are, and again, just to echo the Chairman’s point, it’s not the Planning Board’s position to tell this applicant’s representative or anybody else’s representative with whom to consult, for whom to be hired, or anything else. I think at least the Chairman is just indicating that in his opinion, the Planning Board can’t proceed with this level of information. A fair statement? MR. MAC EWAN-A very fair statement. Does the rest of the Board feel that way? MR. ABBOTT-Yes. 69 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. CENTER-So what information, specifically, would you like? MR. MAC EWAN-You’re more than welcome to comment, but I can tell you that that’s the Board’s position. GEORGE PENSEL MR. PENSEL-My only comment is that, I’m George Pensel, owner of Boats By George. I need acceptable engineering for the road in order to put my engineers to work, as to how my site plan’s going to look. MR. MAC EWAN-Then it would probably be a good decision to have your consulting engineers coordinate their efforts with this person, because we see these two projects as being, as one. For the purposes of SEQRA, we’re not going to sit here and do a SEQRA on this, and come up with one determination and turn around next months, two months or three months down the road, turn around and do another one, when we already know there’s an intent to use this road for some other purposes, other than stopping at that property line. You’ve already said you plan on, your intent is to store boats on the next property. So those two projects should be reviewed together, simultaneously. Okay. Now, for this application, we have two routes we can do. We can either table it. No, I don’t think we can do that, can we? MR. SCHACHNER-You can table it if you like. I’m not sure that’s the appropriate thing, but. MR. MAC EWAN-No. I think I would be more inclined to see him ask to withdraw this application and submit a new application that incorporates both sites. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s appropriate, too. MR. MAC EWAN-I wish we could have found this out about 7:30 tonight. It would have saved you a very long wait. MR. CENTER-That’s, I believe that was part of the reason we submitted Mr. Pensel’s letter for use of the land. I mean, we consulted with Staff. I’m just getting, we knew that there was a possibility. We know both sites, that this was by an easement, I guess, and I just didn’t see where we would be required, other than a letter stating Mr. Pensel, what his use with Bill Levandowski and myself. We thought that the Board would require to know what it was going to be used for, but seeing that the Board would, it would have to be a separate site plan for Mr. Pensel’s piece of property, since they’re not co-owned by the same, we didn’t see where, now I understand your position. We can withdraw it, but in the same sense I guess I need to go back to the client and explain that to him also, and come back to you, I guess. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re more than happy to get you the minutes of this meeting. MR. CENTER-I guess then that point we’ll have to withdraw it and bring it back with more information. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. CENTER-That would be on the next, what meeting would we be able to come back to? MR. SCHACHNER-The first meeting in March is March 21, I think. st MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but deadline for submittals is what? Next Wednesday? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-So you’d probably be looking at more like April. Okay. MR. CENTER-Thank you. MR. KENNY-When they come back with a new proposal, are they going to be required to do a drainage plan for the whole site, or just for the road? MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll have to look at the two of them. MR. KENNY-I’m talking about the entire Factory Store site, the way it exists today. 70 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/15/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Well, when they submit their application, Staff will go through to make sure the application is complete. It’ll be on my mind because of the concern of the Board. We’ll make sure that those things are answered, or at least addressed prior to coming here in front of the Planning Board. So, I guess I’m not really fully answering your question. MR. KENNY-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Their stormwater management plan has got to incorporate this road, access road, plus the site next door. MR. KENNY-What about the existing site where the buildings are? That’s part of this site. MR. MAC EWAN-If there’s documentation on file with the Building Department or Staff, Code Enforcement, that there has been a history of problems with stormwater and septic on here, then we’ll ask them to probably re-address that. MR. KENNY-I mean, I guess my other question would be, how do I know whether this additional water is going to affect stormwater, unless I document what’s there beforehand? MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t know. We can’t answer that tonight. MR. KENNY-That’s why I would think they should have to do a total stormwater management plan. I think that’s the only way you can know. I mean, you can’t do half. How much water’s going there, it’s not a virgin site anymore. There’s water being dumped there. To me, that should be a requirement, and I don’t want them to come back next month and say, well, the direction of this Board wasn’t to look at the total stormwater plan for the total site. That’s all I’m asking. I mean, they’re going to leave now and come back with the same thing, and I’ll be back next month objecting to the same thing unless a total stormwater site is done. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. PENSEL-I submitted to the Town the letter stating my long term intended use for that road. That use for the road, obviously, is not going to be for boat storage, unless I come to get site plan review. It’s not permitted without site plan review. In the meantime, who’s to say that I can’t have that road put in, with site plan review, for the purpose of walking down to that piece of land? MR. MAC EWAN-Because you already told us that your intent is to eventually store boats on there, and I don’t think it would be fair to turn your story around now, and say that you’re going to do something else. You’ve already put it on the record that your future intent is to store boats on that property, and that’s what we want to look at, site plan for doing that. MR. PENSEL-I guess I disagree. It’s okay. I disagree with the philosophy that the two are connected. MR. MAC EWAN-State SEQRA law. Okay. Thanks. I’ll close the public hearing now. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Not that it was really even opened. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I thought the application was withdrawn? MR. MAC EWAN-Withdrawn, yes. Okay. I will also tell you, should you come back with an application, a joint application, from my personal perspective, I’m going to ask for an independent engineering firm to review this. MR. CENTER-Understood. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. Any other Board business? I’ll make a motion to adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 71