Loading...
2000-10-24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 24, 2000 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY ROBERT VOLLARO JOHN STROUGH CHRIS HUNSINGER ANTHONY METIVIER MEMBERS ABSENT LARRY RINGER PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 73-2000 TYPE II ROBERT WALL OWNER: SAME AGENT: KEVIN MASCHEWSKI ZONE: WR-3A LOCATION: 15 ANTIGUA ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVERSION OF A SEASONAL DWELLING TO A FULL TIME RESIDENCE WITH THE ADDITION OF A SECOND STORY, ENTRANCE FOYER, A LAKE SIDE ADDITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 79-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/13/00 TAX MAP NO. 1-1-5 LOT SIZE: 0.44 ACRES SECTION: 179-79 MR. MAC EWAN-He has withdrawn that application, pending, I guess he’s going through the variance routine with the ZBA. MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-We have a public hearing that was left open. We’ll close it. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-And they’re going to re-apply. SITE PLAN NO. 67-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED CONNIE GEBO OWNER: CONNIE & WILLIAM GEBO ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 1,248 SQ. FT. DAY CARE CENTER. DAY CARE CENTERS IN SR ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 18-94 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 9/11/00 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/13/00 TAX MAP NO. 138-1-15 LOT SIZE: 0.20 ACRES SECTION: 179- 19 CONNIE GEBO, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing on September 19 was tabled. th MR. MAC EWAN-Any new information? MRS. MOORE-The applicant has submitted a letter and a resolution. Would you like me to highlight the areas of concern or importance? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. STAFF INPUT 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 67-2000, Connie Gebo, Meeting Date: September 19, 2000 “Project Description The application for a 1,248 square foot daycare center was tabled at the September 19, 2000 Planning Board meeting. The applicant was requested to supply additional information. Project Analysis The applicant has submitted a revised drawing and supporting information to address the Board’s concern for the project - The revised drawing shows: ?? the location of the new building on the vacant parcel (requirement of the resolution) ?? the location of the proposed and replacement Elgin septic system (requirement of the resolution) ?? the associated setbacks for both the building and the septic system (requirement of the resolution) ?? the percolation test location The supporting information includes: ?? rear and front elevation drawings (requirement of the resolution) ?? a descriptive loading area map –identifying three loading/ unloading areas for vehicles. ?? percolation test results, see Maine Enterprises Inc letter dated September 26, 2000 (requirement of the resolution) ?? location map identifying property owned by Henry Anable ?? a letter dated September 27, 2000 providing clarification -The applicant has met with the Building Department to review the proposed septic system. The septic system as designed will accommodate the proposed tenant usage. The applicant was informed when filing for a building permit the septic system will need to be designed by an engineer. -The utility meter location is determined by Niagara Mohawk -The building will be built to grade level with handicap accessibility -The play area is the rear yard of the site and will be fenced in. -The applicant is uncertain of the size or location of the sign but does not anticipate the sign to be any larger than 2’ by 4’. -The applicant has communicated with the neighbors in regards to the proposed project. Areas of Concern or Importance The applicant is in the process of completing a grant application that would assist in the construction and operation of the building as a daycare center. The proposed building will have a residential appearance and provide for childcare as outlined in the Department of State regulations. A majority of the immediate uses near the project site are residential, including three dwellings surrounding the proposed project site. The applicant has indicated the neighboring house to the south provides home daycare (The state has indicated local governments are not allowed to regulate a home daycare facility). The applicant anticipates the primary use of the facility will be for those parents commuting to Glens Falls.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. Could you identify yourself for the record. MRS. GEBO-Hi. Connie Gebo. MR. MAC EWAN-And bring us up to speed with where we left off on this, I guess. You asked for request for waivers, right? MRS. GEBO-I did. I did get the perc tests done. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. GEBO-I asked for a waiver on the sign because I’m not sure of the exact location. It will most likely be on the building itself, not in the yard area. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) MRS. GEBO-They had concerns that they wanted me to address. They requested setback distances and I provided a new plot plan to the Planning Board, Planning Department, that shows the property line setbacks. They asked for the setbacks for the septic system. On the plot plan it shows the setbacks for the septic from every property line, the dwelling. They requested an alternate septic location. I provided that. They had asked for a percolation test. I had that done by Charles Maine, and you should all have a copy of that. MR. MAC EWAN-All this is pretty much referenced in your September 27 letter? th MRS. GEBO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. GEBO-They wanted a tax map of the adjacent property owners, I provided that. They wanted elevation drawings. I showed them the drawings for a single family dwelling, which is a three bedroom, which is basically about what this is going to look like. They wanted a more detailed drawing of the drop off zone and driveway. I’ve provided that. They wanted me to provide other means of access to the Anable’s property so that I wasn’t landlocking their property by building on my own property, and I have provided that. There is a resolution, Number 434 of ’95, designated a private road of Anable Drive. That’s on Page Five of the resolution, and I also have designated to have an eight foot strip of property to the south of mine, which would be in the neighboring land, that widens as it goes back through, and that’s to access their properties. You wanted the location of the meter. I didn’t mark the location of the meter. NiMo usually designates where you’re going to put it. Usually they’ll tell you it’ll go on the front of the house near the power pole, not on the front but on the side, near the main source of power, and that’s where I would assume that they would tell me to put it. I have included in the file, in my file there’s an information on the Elgen Septic System, what’s required in that, and the building plans show the main entrance of the dwelling. Do you want me to respond to the objections from the last meeting? MR. MAC EWAN-No, I don’t think that’s necessary at this point. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. John, we’ll start with you. Any questions? MR. STROUGH-Yes, I have a few. Probably foremost in my mind is how is anybody going to get access to the Henry Anable lot? MRS. GEBO-I’ve provided you this tax map. I have my area highlighted if you want to see. MR. STROUGH-Are you referencing that one zone that’s to the south of your lot, and shows that there is some access to Big Boom Road? MRS. GEBO-Yes. MR. STROUGH-How wide is that at the Big Boom Road? MRS. GEBO-At the beginning it’s eight feet. MR. STROUGH-Eight feet. MRS. GEBO-And if you from my property line where I’ve marked it off to the neighbor’s driveway, it’s exactly eight feet. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I’m not real clear if eight feet would be sufficient for vehicle access. The average parking space is only nine. MRS. GEBO-Well, they can’t include my property as part of their road frontage. I mean, if they were to do something with their lots, they can’t include my property and say it’s their road frontage to do something on their own properties. They also have access through Anable Drive. MR. STROUGH-Well, that closes off, it appears from this map that that closes off at. MRS. GEBO-Right at the end of that lot. MR. STROUGH-Right at that 138-1-1.8. That terminates, it goes to zero. MRS. GEBO-It goes behind 138-1-1.8. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) MR. STROUGH-Physically it may, and it appears that it may. That’s a rather rough road, but it appears that, on the tax map, that it goes to zero and doesn’t really provide any access to the lot I’m referencing, which is the lot directly in back of you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re referencing 138-1-1.62? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-It shows access on the tax map. MR. STROUGH-The access that I talked about is the access that goes to Big Boom Road. That’s the only access that it has. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MRS. GEBO-Anable Drive also leads up to that. MR. STROUGH-And that’s the one that has the eight foot width. MR. MAC EWAN-It has access from Anable Drive, too. MR. STROUGH-If you see it, it goes to zero, right at the point of the property. Do you see what I’m saying? It doesn’t go to the property. It goes right down at the corner of the property, but it does not access the property. You see what I would call the south corner of Lot 138-1-1.8? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Do you see where that access road goes to zero? MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. STROUGH-So it doesn’t really provide access to 138-1-1.6. MR. MAC EWAN-No, but the other one does. MR. STROUGH-And that’s the one that I got clarified has an eight foot access. MR. MAC EWAN-Right, it has access. When you think of access, though, it doesn’t necessarily mean it has to be for automobile. MR. STROUGH-Well, there’s people that live in apartments, or could be apartments back there. I mean, that lot, you can’t landlock that lot. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not now. If it was landlocked, then it wouldn’t be, under the Ordinance it would be an irregular shaped lot. MR. STROUGH-Well, I don’t feel that eight foot access is sufficient. Let’s move on. Are you a licensed day care? MRS. GEBO-No, I have to complete the course. MR. STROUGH-And does the design of the house, and you want to have 30 to 40 children in this day care? MRS. GEBO-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And it is a day care? MRS. GEBO-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And if New York State (lost word) rooms and you have to have a minimum of 35 square feet for each child. MRS. GEBO-The State has the regulations as to how much I have to have per child. MR. STROUGH-Have you submitted this plan to the State? MRS. GEBO-No, not yet. The application has to be in in April. It would have had to have been in in October, but when I was tabled last month, I didn’t submit it. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) MR. STROUGH-Have you figured the square footage to see if you have the internal space and the yard space to meet the 35 square feet per child minimum? MRS. GEBO-No. MR. STROUGH-How many bathrooms would this have? MRS. GEBO-Two. MR. STROUGH-If you’re going to have, it requires one sanitary toilet and one washbasin must be available for every group of 15 children or part thereof. So if you’re going to have 40, you’d need three. There was also concern with permeability on this lot. It is .2 acres, and if you take just the non-permeable driveway area and the building, you get a little over 49% permeability. MRS. GEBO-Right, and you have to have 50%. MR. STROUGH-And that doesn’t include the deck, nor does it include sidewalks, but my other concern is you’re approaching a questionable, are you going to be able to handle the stormwater runoff, and there were some concerns shared on behalf of the letter submitted by Jim Lieberum, dated 9/11, a concern about stormwater runoff. Have you addressed that? MRS. GEBO-No. We sent the thing to Warren County for the Soil and. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, I look at your front and rear elevations, and I don’t see a handicapped accessible place. MRS. GEBO-The building’s going to be built to ground level. MR. STROUGH-Well, you don’t really want to put a building on the ground. You want it to be at least eight inches off the ground, so you’re going to have to provide some kind of plan for handicapped access, and I don’t see it on these elevations. Exterior lighting, is the playground going to be used during the evenings? MRS. GEBO-No. We had discussed that at the last meeting, and there would be exterior lighting at both entrances. MR. STROUGH-All right, but, Connie, this is a commercial enterprise, for probably 30 or 40 kids. I think we have to be a little bit careful here. MRS. GEBO-It will most likely be closing at five o’clock. The normal work day is eight to five. MR. STROUGH-Yes, which means some people work until six, and some people might not get there until seven. MRS. GEBO-Right, and there’ll be a light at the main entrance. MR. STROUGH-You’re not going to close the doors at five and say that if you’re kid’s not picked up, you’re out of luck. MRS. GEBO-No. There’ll be a light at the front entrance, and there’ll be a light at the side entrance. MR. STROUGH-It doesn’t show it in the plans. MRS. GEBO-They didn’t ask me to designate where I was putting the lighting. We discussed that at the last meeting, where the lighting was going, and there was no objection to where I told them it was going. MR. STROUGH-How many parking spaces are you going to have? MRS. GEBO-Four, one handicap and three regular. MR. STROUGH-One’s handicapped and three regular. How many employees are you going to have? MRS. GEBO-It depends on how many kids there are. You need one for every 10 children. MR. STROUGH-Well, we have to figure for maximum. Let’s go for the 40. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) MRS. GEBO-Then four. MR. STROUGH-And yourself. MRS. GEBO-And myself. MR. STROUGH-That’s five spots that you’d need. So we’re missing a spot now, and accessibility. Probably the peak time for drop offs and pick ups will be approximately eight o’clock, seven o’clock a.m. MRS. GEBO-Right. MR. STROUGH-Five o’clock, six o’clock p.m.? MRS. GEBO-Right. MR. STROUGH-And I just had a loading concern with your driveway, if you’re using the parking space and now we’re looking for a parking space now. MRS. GEBO-I’ve submitted a drawing as to where the drop off zone would be. You should have that in your file. MR. STROUGH-But my concern is, there’s going to be more than one car there at a time, especially at a.m. and p.m. hours. MRS. GEBO-Right. I have at least three slots reserved for the drop off zone. MR. STROUGH-But that’s going to be even more congested if we’re looking for another parking spot. MRS. GEBO-Actually, I have four parking spots on this plan. There are four on this plan. MR. STROUGH-Your alternate location for your septic system is going to be a parking spot? MRS. GEBO-I had conferred with Building and Codes Department, before I drew the alternate septic system. MR. STROUGH-But you’re going to have a septic system under a parking lot. MRS. GEBO-I don’t know. I talked to them and they told me it would be okay. I went by the Building and Codes Department. I figured they would know what I could do and couldn’t do with the septic system. MR. STROUGH-Who designed the septic system for you? MRS. GEBO-It has to be designed by an engineer before it’s installed. MR. STROUGH-So we don’t know its exact size. MRS. GEBO-Not exactly, but they told me this is the required, this would be enough for 40 children. MR. STROUGH-Who said that? MRS. GEBO-The Building and Codes Department. MR. STROUGH-And did he know that it might have three bathrooms? MRS. GEBO-It doesn’t go by the number of bathrooms in your house. It goes by the number of bedrooms or the number of people. MR. STROUGH-Well, also according to New York State, the younger the child, the more your septic requirements become. MRS. GEBO-I figured the Building and Codes Department of the Town would know the regulations as to what I needed for a septic system. MR. STROUGH-Well, for example, an adult figures 50 gallons per day and a baby 100 gallons per day. So, as you decrease the size, you increase the need for a septic system that will hold that. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) MRS. GEBO-They told me what I’d need, and I drew the plans to what they told me would be the maximum I would need. MR. STROUGH-You see, the zoning in your area requires one acre of land per dwelling, and the minimum lot size for this type of zone, which is Suburban Residential, for clustering, the minimum lot size would be 10,000 square feet, and this is .2 acres. I just get the feeling you’re trying to put too much in too small of an area. MRS. GEBO-As long as I could meet the setbacks, it’s an allowed use. MR. STROUGH-Well, I had a lot of other concerns besides the setbacks that I’ve expressed. Okay. MRS. GEBO-I had talked to the Building and Codes, if the Building and Codes Department of the Town doesn’t know the regulations for the septic system, who else am I supposed to turn to to get the regulations and the size required? MR. STROUGH-I understand. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-No. I had some of the same concerns that were already mentioned, basically sort of the density of the site. There’s really not a lot of room to put in enough room for parking and drop off and everything else. I guess one of the issues that we’ll wait to hear during the public hearing is how the neighbors might feel about the project. Because, you know, those houses are pretty close together, and you’ve shown on your application the distances and everything else. So, you know, in addition to some of the things that were already mentioned, I want to hear what the neighbors might say about the proposed use. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think I have to commend you for such an undertaking. I think our Town certainly can use another day care center. Connie, I think that I want to commend you for your efforts here, and our Town certainly can use another day care center. However, maybe 40 children might be a little bit too much for all the other reg’s that Mr. Strough has brought to our attention, but again, you should be a little frustrated, too, because if the Building and Codes people have, you know, have said that everything is fine, you know, and then there’s some other things that have been brought up, I think there really should be some kind of, something better get resolved, or we better all get on the same page here, you know, because you don’t want to do all this leg work and then have to go back to Square One and not realize it. So I’m just going to just listen and see what other people have to say right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-One of my concerns is the same as John Strough’s, and that’s access. In trying to navigate Anable Drive, the last time John and I were up there, that’s almost impassable with a vehicle, and John’s point is well taken, that that closes on 138-1-1.6. It does not provide access. So the only access is really coming in on to the south of your property. Now, when I paced that off, I got somewhere around seven to eight feet. Is that about what you recollect that is? MRS. GEBO-Eight feet, yes, eight feet exactly. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s an eight foot access off Big Boom Road. MRS. GEBO-Yes, and it widens as it goes back. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I saw the ribbons. Somebody tried to put some ribbons out there to depict your line. I consider that eight feet to be marginal at best, on Big Boom Road. The other thing I was looking at is the letter from Jim Lieberum that goes to Laura, dated September 11, 2000, and Mr. Lieberum gives you a couple of options for your site plan. He says either, one, show drywells. He’s really talking about keeping water on your property and not allowing water to shed off to adjacent properties, and he gives you two options, drywells or an infiltration trench, that really are off the proposed building. They really should be shown on the drawing. I’ve got a number of drawings, Connie. One that I’m using shows the area of the perc test, which I’ve kind of tied to Charlie Maine’s letter. MRS. GEBO-Yes. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) MR. VOLLARO-And I figure that that drawing is probably the latest drawing that I should be looking at. MRS. GEBO-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Is that correct? So all these other drawings are kind of in the past. MRS. GEBO-They were the previous ones, yes. MR. VOLLARO-All right. The other thing I am somewhat concerned about is that, the alternate septic system. Some of these things are going to parrot what John had to say, but I’ll just get them out quickly, the alternate septic system, being an Elgen System or not, being in the proposed drop off area. Now, that drop off zone, the earlier drawings had that labeled as a drop off zone. I’m assuming that your recent drawing is still a drop off zone? Is that correct? MRS. GEBO-Right, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Because it just has “off zone” on it, and I’m not sure what that was, but that’s still a drop off. So that’s not really a designated parking area. MRS. GEBO-No. MR. VOLLARO-People are going to come in, go around. You’ve got a loop there, essentially. MRS. GEBO-Right. MR. VOLLARO-An in and out loop. MRS. GEBO-Right. This striped area would be where they could park for the drop off zone. That’s 20 foot wide. That would leave 10 foot for the drop off zone and 10 foot so they could still pass by. MR. VOLLARO-Now, Building and Codes said that it would be fine to put the alternate site for the septic system right in that spot? MRS. GEBO-Yes, when I had talked to them previously. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, those are the only comments I have. I think John has covered most of the others. So I won’t belabor everything, but those are the three comments that I had. I’m finished, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-Connie, where do you stand now with Anable’s objection and your attorneys, as far as blocking? MRS. GEBO-I have given paperwork to my attorney, and my attorney was working on it. According to the Town of Queensbury regulations, there’s no designation as to how much a person needs for access to their property. MR. METIVIER-And as I recall right now they use your property? MRS. GEBO-Yes, they drive right through the middle of it. MR. METIVIER-How did this end up in this situation? What happened? MRS. GEBO-I don’t know. MR. METIVIER-How long have you had the property? MRS. GEBO-Since ’91, and my attorney had written them letters in the past. MR. METIVIER-Now, prior to that were they using it, or, as it’s being used today? MRS. GEBO-They say they have been, yes, but I have, in the Assessment records, there is a, where it shows the dwelling that was there in 1985, before it burnt, and it shows that dwelling on the book of records, right in the middle of the property, and that would be right where they’re using the driveway. MR. METIVIER-So, basically, after it burned, they just started using it? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) MRS. GEBO-Yes. MR. METIVIER-And you had the property in ’91. So, at this point, nothing’s resolved. MRS. GEBO-No. MR. METIVIER-That’s all I had. MR. MAC EWAN-Laura, do we have on file any New York State regulations for operations of day care centers, guidelines? We do? Are you familiar with them at all? MRS. MOORE-No, because the State regulates those. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have any idea how old this subdivision is, these Anable lots, approximately when they were created? MRS. MOORE-No, I’m not aware of that. Simply, you can base it on the Lot Number 16, the one property behind them, that it must have been created a while ago, we’ll say. MR. VOLLARO-Are you talking about dash sixteen? MRS. MOORE-Yes, I am. MR. MAC EWAN-What do you mean by it was created a “while ago”? MRS. MOORE-A while ago meaning that, you know, it’s pre-existing, nonconforming with no access to Big Boom Road in any such manner. Even if someone were to purchase the other lots named 1.62 or 1.8, or even 1.1, that lot, you know, dash sixteen, is considered a pre-existing, nonconforming. MR. MAC EWAN-Fifteen, sixteen, eighteen and one point eight, I’m guessing maybe one point eight was the original lot, and then the three were subdivided off of that at one point in time? MRS. MOORE-It’s possible. I’d have to look at it, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-But you don’t have any idea about when that was done? MRS. MOORE-Not, I’d have to look at the deeds that are associated with the Anable lots. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else, Connie? MRS. GEBO-I had the Records Clerk for the Town of Queensbury try to access when the subdivision and that was done, and there was no record as to when it was done. All we could find is on 138-1-25, there was a dwelling there, and they had moved that dwelling and put it on top of the dwelling on 138-1-1.62. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So the dwelling was there, then they moved it over to there. MRS. GEBO-On top of the one that was already there. MR. MAC EWAN-And through your research with the Town Assessor, you couldn’t find any documentation as to the creation of lots 15, 16, 18, and 1.8? MRS. GEBO-We couldn’t find anything for the subdivision. So they were figuring that it had to be done back in the late 70’s to real early 80’s. MR. MAC EWAN-Or maybe even before then. MRS. GEBO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? Okay. I’ll ask you to give up the table for a few minutes and we’ll open up the public hearing. Actually, we had it left open, if anyone wants to come up and comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN DEL MULDER 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) MR. MULDER-For the record, I’m Del Mulder, and I represent Marie Anable, and in particular, I’m representing her as owner of Lot 138-1-16, and I expressed my concerns the last time the Planning Board met and this matter was called, and I briefly mentioned them again to you. For this particular lot, it is landlocked. It’s only access to Big Big Road is across 138-1-15, which is the Gebo lot. The Gebo’s bought this lot, if I remember correctly, in a tax sale, and the information provided to me is that a driveway has been used across the Gebo lot for probably 30 to 50 years, and Connie refers to that 8.83 feet access to Big Boom Road as the access for the Anable lot, I’ll just call it 16. If you look at the deed for the Lot 16, it has no easements. It has no rights of way. It has nothing. It has no access in the deed. It is just described as a lot that’s 100 feet by 85 feet. So, as far as that lot’s concerned, if we start developing this Lot 15, the Gebo lot, and the Gebo’s, now, I’ve talked to Marie, and she said she would take a 10 foot easement, or whatever the minimum size would be from the Town of Queensbury as access, along one of the, either the northerly, I guess it’s the northerly boundary or the southerly boundary of the Gebo lot. That’s not been considered, I guess, by the Gebo’s. Again, the issue is particularly this Lot 16, and it will be landlocked, and we’ll be forced to bring some legal action if, you know, if the Gebo’s start to do any kind of construction on that, on the lot they bought. If you’re interested, I have the information that you wanted about the subdivision. It’s all been surveyed. What’s called Lot 16, that was originally in the name of, owned by Vaughn, and it was conveyed to a Margaret Phillips in 1965. MR. MAC EWAN-1965, Del? MR. MULDER-Yes, that’s when that lot was created. There was Vaughn owned a portion of Lot 15, as well, and I could tell you that my research has indicated that the Town of Queensbury or Warren County probably has mislabeled the tax assessment on the Gebo lot and in fact a portion of that lot may still be owned by the Phillips family, but that’s neither here nor there. I throw that out to you. Lot 18, that’s on Big Boom Road. That was created in 1956, just so you know, and this lot which is 1.8 was left over. It was part of another piece of property, and just for your information, it appears to me that John Liapes purchased the so called private road in a tax sale very recently, which is going to cause problems, probably, for everyone else in there. MR. MAC EWAN-But private road is what private road, the one that’s referred to as Anable Drive? MR. MULDER-Yes, and 1.1, it actually has a tax map number, 1.1. It’s for your private road, 14 feet on. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe he plans on charging tolls or something. Now, your research shows that the lot that was created in 1965 by then owner Vaughn was created as a landlocked lot? MR. MULDER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-So I guess my question would be, what grounds would you be able to have legal action if these people knowingly, willingly bought a lot that was landlocked? MR. MULDER-Easement by prescription. They use the driveway 10 years with certain requirements, open, notorious, with a right of overship. MR. MAC EWAN-Even if that driveway goes across another tax parcel? MR. MULDER-That’s what the definition of an easement by prescription is. You gain it by taking it from somebody else by use. MR. HUNSINGER-The tax map that we have in front of us, the applicant has labeled the owners as Henry Anable. Are they the same owners that owned Lot 16 and Lot 1.62? MR. MULDER-Yes. It’s actually, I thought it was owned by Marie Anable, but I spoke with her, and she said it’s actually in the Estate of Henry Anable. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MULDER-And last time I hadn’t done that much research on it, when I came. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is that Marie’s husband? MR. MULDER-Henry Anable, was that Marie’s husband? AUDIENCE MEMBER AUDIENCE MEMBER-That was Marie’s husband. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) MR. MULDER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to just ask one question, then I’ll get off the mike for a minute, and this, did you know whether Mrs. Gebo was able to receive clear title to dash 15 when she bought that lot? MR. MULDER-I don’t think she did. As of today, the research that I’ve done, what had happened was a deed, well, I’ve got a survey map that was done back in 1978, and there was a deed that I believe probably mis-described the property, and in fact, the property went into, well, 35 feet of it went in to one party, and the entire 85 feet ended up being taxed to that one party. It’s a strange situation. I’m working with the tax people now. MR. VOLLARO-That could mean that part of 1-15 is not owned by Gebo. MR. MULDER-That’s what I’m saying. They took a tax deed to it, but they didn’t. MR. MAC EWAN-Did your research indicate to you, prior to this enterprising individual buying the right of way, do you know who owned that parcel? MR. MULDER-Who owned it? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. MULDER-Which? MR. MAC EWAN-The one that was bought at tax sale, it was 138-1-1.1, the one that’s the actual road. You said that someone just bought that recently? MR. MULDER-John Liapes. Everyone knows John, right? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t. I guess I must be in a real minority here. MR. MULDER-He’s bought many, many properties in tax sale, although I’m not sure he’s still alive, but he’s notorious. MR. MAC EWAN-Who owned that parcel before him, do you know? MR. MULDER-It was part of, Witherall owned the entire portion at one time, and they started cutting pieces of with granting easements over, with an easement, and then I didn’t follow that, because it really wasn’t my concern. I was just researching it today and I found there was a tax deed. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, if your argument is correct, then the same principle would apply to these other people who. MR. MULDER-They’ll have an easement. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. What would be the advantage of that individual buying that right of way? MR. MULDER-People, including myself, do that kind of thing for this reason. If these people wanted to sell, a new buyer coming in probably would say, well, I don’t like that. I want you to go into court and establish an easement by prescription, by court order, by judgement, and I would be more than willing to sell an interest in it for a couple of thousand dollars. There’s money in it. That’s why. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. MULDER-But I just wanted to, I got off the topic there, but we are landlocked, as far as that particular lot is concerned, and, yes, the Estate does own other properties, but what’s being asked by us, or by the owners, is that we merge the properties that we own individually now for the purpose of access, and the access is 8.83 feet, and I don’t even know if that’s going to be enough. MR. VOLLARO-You’re referring to the access to the south of the Gebo property when you say that. MR. MULDER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Somebody measured that? It’s eight feet? MR. MULDER-Yes. I have a, McCormack did a survey. He has it surveyed out at 8.83 feet, and this is the same survey that the tax department has been using to create their tax maps, and one last 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) comment. I don’t want to make it appear that I come and run, but I have another seven o’clock appointment elsewhere that I’ve got to run to. Okay. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? Okay. I’m going to leave the public hearing open for the time being. Connie, do you want to come back up, please. I guess I’d like to get some feedback from the Board members. What’s everyone’s pleasure, concerns, and what have you? We’ll start with you, Tony. MR. METIVIER-All right. I think, personally, this easement by prescription is more of a trespassing law or something. The way I understand it, if I decide that I’d like somebody’s property because I want to get access to something else, if I start using it, it’s mine? That’s basically what he’s saying. It makes no sense, and then to say that just because they’ve used this property for 10 years, and it’s not theirs, that they have right to it? I just don’t understand. MR. STROUGH-Well, all your old roads, basically your old roads were set by these standards. Even if they went through anybody’s property, it didn’t make any difference, if they were roads by use. MR. METIVIER-But it’s somebody’s property. So if she put up a Posted sign and they weren’t able to use it,. then we’d have no issue here, but because she didn’t means that they can go ahead and cut a driveway through her, but seriously, that’s exactly how I read into this. MR. STROUGH-That’s the way I understood it, that’s what happens, but Mark maybe can better address that. MR. SCHACHNER-Not unless you tell me what we’re talking about. MR. METIVIER-Easement by prescription. If, this property that she owns, they’ve used the driveway. They’ve used it as a driveway for 10 some odd years, and the gentleman that was just speaking. MR. SCHACHNER-“They” the Gebos or “they” the neighbor? MR. METIVIER-The neighbor, and now he’s saying, their attorney is saying that they’re going to try to use this as, he called it an easement by prescription, which means he’ll take it to court saying that because they’ve used this property for so long, that it’s rightfully theirs to continue to use. It just doesn’t seem to make sense. MR. SCHACHNER-What doesn’t make sense? MR. METIVIER-How they could do that, how they could take somebody else’s. MR. SCHACHNER-“They” the neighbor? MR. METIVIER-Yes, the neighbor. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, keep in mind that, obviously I’m falling into the middle of this particular discussion, and you can educate me however you wish as to exactly the context, but keep in mind that, generally speaking, the private property rights between neighbors are not a matter for our concern. I mean, I can tell you, I’ll tell you a short version of what easement by prescription means, and I can tell you a longer version some time, not during a Planning Board meeting, if you like, but, so I’m going to try to answer your question on how they can do that, but first of all I’m going to ask the question of, I doubt it’s relevant to this Board’s consideration, okay. So that’s why I’m only going to give the short answer. An easement by prescription is an easement that is acquired, not by somebody granting someone a deed, in which an easement is described, but by carrying out use of a particular piece of property over what’s called the required statutory period, and the minimum statutory period is, in fact, 10 years, but I don’t want to mislead the Board or members of the public or anybody else. Merely going across a strip of property for 10 years does not grant somebody an easement by prescription or any other kind of easement. There’s a whole slew of legal requirements that have to be met, and they’re pretty strict, in order to obtain what’s called an easement by prescription, but I guess I’m going to ask the Board the question, and I apologize for being late. I hope that you were told I was going to be late, but why is the question relevant to your, why do you think this question or this issue might be relevant to your consideration of the site plan? MR. METIVIER-Well, the gentleman who just spoke indicated that he would take legal action against the Gebo’s if they were to build on this property because they have in the past, the neighbors, used this strip of land. MR. SCHACHNER-Used this strip of land for 10 years or more, and I guess what I’m going to say to the Board, that’s very similar to the comment that came up when the Gebo’s, or Mrs. Gebo, was 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) last here, last month or whenever it was, and I’m going to say to the Board, that threat may be real. It may be imagined. It may be valid. It may be not valid, but that’s not a concern for this Board in the context of reviewing a site plan. If a neighbor feels that they have a property right that an applicant is infringing on, that neighbor has an opportunity, if they wish, to pursue that right, or that alleged right, through legal action, through a court of law, and through any number of other ways, but we, as a rule, should not get involved in what I’m going to call a private property dispute between or among neighbors. A neighbor can come forward and make all sorts of claims. A neighbor can come forward and say, I’m speaking generically, now, not about this particular application. The applicant doesn’t own the property, I own the property. Well, the deed doesn’t say that, but I own it by something called adverse possession. I’ve used the property for 100 years, and therefore I really own it, not the applicant. As long as the applicant can demonstrate what lawyers call a colorable claim to the property, and I’m guessing that the Gebos have a deed or something to the property, and that I think the tax map identifies them as the owner, does it not? MRS. MOORE-Yes, it does. MR. SCHACHNER-Then that’s as far as we need to go, and we don’t need to go any further, and I would suggest to the Board that you don’t want to go any further, because you don’t want to find yourselves the judge of competing real property claims among civil parties, among neighbors. MR. MAC EWAN-What brought the issue up was, you know, it was brought up by the neighbors that they didn’t have access to this particular parcel that was located behind the proposed site, and the tax map shows that there’s an easement there, albeit it’s only eight feet wide, at Big Boom Road, there’s no definition of how wide an easement must be in our Zoning Ordinance. Is there? MR. SCHACHNER-I doubt it. MRS. MOORE-Not that I’m aware of. MR. MAC EWAN-So, I mean, an easement doesn’t necessarily mean that you can put a car across there, but you could walk across there. MR. SCHACHNER-There are easements that are vehicular. There are easements that are pedestrian. That’s a true statement. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-But, from a practical point of view, an eight foot access off Big Boom Road to a back lot that’s not accessible by automobile is not very practical, in my view. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I guess I’ll say two things. One is, I think eight foot actually is deemed accessible by automobile, typically, but that’s neither here nor there. Correct me if I’m wrong, the lot that you’re referring to, that allegedly only has an eight foot wide easement access off of Big Boom Road is not the Gebo’s lot. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s the lot of some neighbor. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. SCHACHNER-And the application before you is for, as I understand it, is for site plan review of the Gebo lot on which they propose a certain use, and your concern in that regard is principally, does the site plan work for the property for which it’s proposed? Now, you are allowed to take into account, generally speaking, as you know in your site plan review criteria, impact on neighbors, impact on the neighborhood and what not, and if what we’re hearing is that a particular neighbor is objecting to the proposed use because they’re saying that it cuts off the access that they’ve used to their property, I’m guessing that the applicant doesn’t agree that the neighbor has that legitimate access. If the applicant agrees that they’re cutting off the neighbor’s only legitimate access, then I think the Board should not approve the application, but I doubt the applicant has that position. I can’t imagine any applicant would have that position. That being the case, as long as our records show that the neighbor has some other access, which I take it our records show. Is that correct? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. As long as our records show that the neighbor has some other access, then I don’t think we should get involved, “we” meaning the Planning Board, you all, should get involved in the fracas about whether or the neighbor’s better access is through the Gebo’s property 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) or not. That would be a matter subject to adjudication between the parties, if somebody pushes that legal claim. MR. MAC EWAN-I agree with you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I agree. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll take it one step farther, the particular parcel in question, if they own, the same property owner owns another adjacent parcel, they could create their own easement within their own parcel. MR. METIVIER-Don’t you think so? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it would make a lot more sense to me, going that route. MR. SCHACHNER-And again, I don’t think that we should tell the neighbor that’s what you should do. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m just making an observation there. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, concerns? MR. HUNSINGER-The issue on lighting really hasn’t been addressed by the applicant, what kind of lights there would be. I mean, if they were floodlights, for example, I could see where they would be offensive. MRS. GEBO-They would most likely be the motion detector lights, and they would come on when there was a motion. If you want something else, tell me and that’s what I’ll put there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. STROUGH-I still have a lot of my basic questions, along with the exterior lighting, the handicap access, the parking limitations, the septic design that’s being proposed as an alternate site for the septic, stormwater runoff. MR. VOLLARO-I think the plans have to definitely address Mr. Lieberum’s letter from Warren County Soil and Water Conservation on the two options. Because without that, we have no guarantee of stormwater containment on this lot. There are two options that he’s given, and I think one of those options have to be selected and so noted on the drawing, on the site plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Your New York State regulations that you have for day care providers, do you know, off hand, if those regulations give specifics regarding like proposed number of children that are going to be there, and what the requirements are for, like John was referring to, of 10, how many do you have to have how many restrooms? What kind of access do you have, special accommodations? MRS. MOORE-Yes, the Department of State regulations indicate certain square footage size for certain aged children. However, there’s also a variety of day care definitions within that Department of State. So when she goes to make application, she could apply for any numerous day care facility, and indicate any type of number of age of children, number of children, even adult day care. MR. MAC EWAN-Is this a case of us putting the cart in front of the horse? Should she be seeking her license first, and then when the State approves a license for her, then she knows what kind of facility she needs? MRS. MOORE-No, because under our zoning regulations, day care is defined as care for four or more. MR. MAC EWAN-Right, but the concerns that Board members are having, if she’s going to have 40 kids, there’s a difference in what the requirements are by the State, and there’s also a difference in the 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) definition, I’m guessing, what a day care provider is by the State, versus what you need to have to operate that facility. MRS. MOORE-Right, and then the State could also come back to her and indicate, I’m sorry, with the square footage size that you’ve proposed, this is what we can anticipate that you need, how many children you can have in your facility, and that’s my understanding is it’s typically done that they base their square footage, or their determination of how many children you can have, based on the square footage or other items within the facility. MR. MAC EWAN-If we were to say to you, look up the regulations for a day care center, we want to have provisions for 40 kids. What do we need to have? Is there something in those regulations that will give you some guidelines? MRS. MOORE-It will give me some guidelines, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s a start. That’s what she’s looking to do. MRS. MOORE-But it also depends on age of children. MR. MAC EWAN-Pre-school, after school, college, what are you having? MRS. GEBO-A mix. MRS. MOORE-A mix, and a mix could also mean that you could have, once you go into different ages, you can also have different hours, which determines how many you can have. So there’s a variety of options available. MR. MAC EWAN-Answer me a question. Why was the one over by Sokol’s Plaza so easy to do, and why do we seem to be struggling with this application? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thank you. That’s what I’ve been wondering, too. MRS. MOORE-I don’t know, off the top of my head. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think she had her license, and she had submitted everything to the State before she came to us, maybe. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s right. Wasn’t that an existing facility? Wasn’t that the one that was over on Broad Street, and they just relocated it in the City? MR. METIVIER-Everything was already approved by the State. We just had to approve the facility itself. MR. MAC EWAN-It made it easier. MR. METIVIER-So basically what we should do is not be concerned so much with what the State has to say, just approve the facility. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, and if there’s only two bathrooms, and then the State goes in and does their walk through and their. MR. METIVIER-If they say you can only have 20 kids, then you can only have 20 kids. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, and then they say, okay, this is the facility that you have. This is what you can bring in here. MR. METIVIER-Just as if she bought an existing structure. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, one of the concerns that I have with this is that she’s, Connie, how many workers are you anticipating? You said three other people plus yourself? MRS. GEBO-One for every 10 children. MR. MAC EWAN-One for every 10 children. So, if you have 30 kids, that means you’ve got to have three other people, other than yourself? MRS. GEBO-Actually, two. MR. MAC EWAN-Two other than yourself, and that takes up all your parking spots. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) MRS. GEBO-I have four parking spots. MR. MAC EWAN-One’s a handicap. MRS. GEBO-One’s a handicap. MR. MAC EWAN-God knows you don’t want to park there without a sticker. MRS. GEBO-This is true, but I might have a handicap employee there. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s true as well, which would free you up one regular parking spot. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I will tell you this, though. When we did approve this other day care center, the parking, I remember of all the things that we deliberated, that’s the one we spent the most time on, dropping the children off, picking them up, making sure that, you know, that Sokol’s Plaza is very congested at certain times of the day, one of them would be, at the late afternoon when people go in to the store, for, you know, extra food to pick up on their way home, and we’ve really, we did beat that one. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, well, we were worried about the drop off area, more than anything else. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, because we were really concerned about the safety factor, especially, you know, kids and people getting out of their cars, running in to get their kids, other cars driving by. MRS. GEBO-There’s enough room in here for two cars to drive in a 20 foot, and one can pull up along the one side for the drop off , and the other one could travel through the other lane, or they could stop in the other lane. There’s enough room for two cars, side by side. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Back to that lighting, I think that, especially when daylight savings time ends, and you have about two and a half, three months of the year where it is very dark at that late afternoon, and I’m more concerned, not with lighting offending your neighbors as much as I am with the lighting that you need for the people to navigate safely in and out of there, and people to have enough light to walk from the building to their vehicles without falling on ice in the winter time, and things like that, and it’s very, and in the morning it’s quite a start, too. So I was more concerned about the lighting in that respect, more than the offending light. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think it’s both. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, well, it is. That’s another thing, in the site plans, not just day care centers, but the site plans that have been coming to us the past couple of years. The lighting, again, has been a very crucial issue. MRS. GEBO-I can leave the light on until the place closes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I’m talking about, it’s more complicated than that. It’s like the design of the lighting, how tall, I mean, are you going to have a pole, I mean, how much is going to be needed to safely navigate your people and the parents in and out of there? MRS. GEBO-The lights will be attached to the house, and they will most likely be the floodlights that will shine out into the parking lot and shine up the whole front area of where the parking drop off. MR. VOLLARO-Cathy, what you’re talking about is a site lighting plan, is what you’re really driving at here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I am, but I don’t want to, I mean, this isn’t that big of a project, and I don’t want to get into that kind of expense, but I guess it’s the sign of the times, you know. It’s not just an old, a spotlight that you put on the side of your house anymore, but I just am trying to tell you that that’s where some of this stuff has been going lately, the past year or two. MRS. GEBO-If you would like a different type of light, I told you I would put that type of light, whatever you thought necessary. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Your builder might be able to help you out with that. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m looking for some direction from the Board. Have you got more questions, you want to table this thing and get more answers to, or do you feel comfortable to move on here tonight? What’s your pleasure? 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) MR. METIVIER-You said you have to wait until the spring now to apply with the State? MRS. GEBO-Yes, April is the deadline to apply. MR. METIVIER-So, we have time, at this point. MRS. GEBO-Well, they’d like you to have, in the pamphlet that I had received, they’d like you to have all of your applications and approvals before you apply for your grant, and that’s why I was seeking it in September, so I would have it by applied before the October 25 deadline, and that th didn’t work. MR. METIVIER-So, are you saying you can’t apply by the October 25 deadline? th MRS. GEBO-No. MR. METIVIER-Okay. So we have some time now. MR. MAC EWAN-Tomorrow’s the 25. th MR. METIVIER-Well, you know, if she got approval tonight, she could have it done tomorrow. MRS. GEBO-Overnight? MR. METIVIER-All right. So we do have some time if we wanted to address issues with you, it’s not pending against anything at this point. MRS. GEBO-Right, but could I, I know he has told you that it’s not your concern, the property. According to the Town regulations, there is no set as to a minimum road frontage. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re not concerned with that. We’re not concerned with that issue. I think the issue that we seem to be on right now is the proposed number of employees, actually how big, membership wise, your day care center is going to be, lighting, stormwater runoff. MRS. GEBO-Before I was going to put trenches around the house, and you fill it with the pipe and stone for runoff. MR. STROUGH-Are you going to have a basement? MRS. GEBO-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Let me also express concern, if you do that route, you may experience problems with your basement. MRS. GEBO-Right. I have that around my home, and I don’t have trouble with my basement. I have the pipe around mine. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Connie, when did you say you’re going to bring this whole application to the State? MRS. GEBO-It has to be in by April. MRS. LA BOMBARD-By April, and then you would break ground before or after the State gives you approval? MRS. GEBO-I can’t do it until after. I am applying for a State grant for the funding to build this, and they’ll finance 90% of the project, as long as you operate it for 10 years. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, then, I would feel a lot more comfortable if you went to the State and got all that leg work taken care of, and then came back here. I don’t know where there would be any issues. MRS. GEBO-In my State application, it asks for all of your approvals, or site plan and all that, before you apply to them. MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the likelihood of getting the State money? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) MRS. GEBO-In this area, according to my research with Warren County and other area day cares and the poverty level of the people, I have a very good chance of getting it, because there is a need and demand for that in this area. MR. HUNSINGER-Would you build this if you didn’t get the State money? MRS. GEBO-No. I don’t have the financing. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I knew there was a need for this. There definitely is. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Here’s my laundry list. We’ll table this thing, okay, to get these questions answered. The lighting plan on your drawing. It doesn’t have to be elaborate, but indicate where the proposed lighting that you’re going to put on the building, for both your drop area, your main entrance area, and your playground area. MRS. GEBO-Do you have a preference as to what type of lighting? I mean, I don’t want to come back with the wrong type of lighting. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy raised a good point. I mean, this isn’t a high intense commercial use. It’s in a very rural setting, and a neighborhood type setting. So I wouldn’t do lighting that’s going to be like, you know, Lowe’s parking lot kind of thing. MRS. GEBO-Well, I just don’t want to come back with one plan and then have you tell me to do it a different way. MR. MAC EWAN-No, no. I think we’re looking for outside lighting that would be more of a residential. MRS. GEBO-Like the motion detector, flood lights would be. MR. MAC EWAN-Your hours of operation, Monday through Friday, Monday through Saturday, and what hours, whatever. MRS. GEBO-Monday through Friday, 6:30. MR. MAC EWAN-Respond to us in writing. MRS. GEBO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Your proposed maximum number of children you plan on having, along with proposed age groups that you’re going to have. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And, what about alterations in the design of the building, if you’re going to go with. MR. MAC EWAN-Handicapped access for the building has to be shown. I think that’s where I was going with the maximum number of kids, because if she comes back and says 40, that means then the State, you’ve got to have different accommodations for that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and that’ll also give us a handle, as to how many employees she plans on having, and how it will accommodate the parking for those employees. MR. STROUGH-And, it might also give you an indication, if you’re talking about the maximum number of people and age groups, the number of bathrooms this kind of septic system is appropriate for. MR. MAC EWAN-Right, and, lastly, on my list is your letter dated September 11 from Warren th County Soil, Jim Lieberum. His last paragraph said he’d be happy to come out and assess your site as to which option would be most appropriate for you. Have him come and do a site visit, and make a response to us in writing what his recommendations are. Anything else? MR. STROUGH-While we’re at it, that the alternate site will be an acceptable site for an Elgen style septic system. MR. MAC EWAN-Will the alternate site be an acceptable site? That would go to Warren County and/or Building and Codes. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) MR. VOLLARO-Apparently, Building and Codes has already given you that, that this alternate site is satisfactory to this design. MRS. GEBO-That is what I had gotten from the conversation with them. MR. MAC EWAN-Then we don’t need to go any farther with that. MR. VOLLARO-Why go any further. They have spoken. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s fine. Scratch that off your list. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Can I ask one question? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Connie, I have a question. On the side elevations, are there windows? I mean, you have three windows in the front, and you have two in the back, and one looks like a little bathroom window. MRS. GEBO-In the home? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just was wondering if there were any windows on the side. I guess I’m. MR. VOLLARO-There is no side elevation. MRS. GEBO-You have a copy of the building plans, right? MRS. MOORE-They only have a copy of the elevations. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that might enlighten a lot. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Boy, that would be nice. MR. MAC EWAN-Add that to our list. We’d like a set of plans. MRS. MOORE-The internal layout plans? MR. MAC EWAN-Give them right to her, make sure that she copies them. Add that to our list. That would have solved a lot of our problems tonight. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, it would have. That would have been very, very helpful. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Add that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ve got to be honest with you. All this time, I thought that, I didn’t realize that you had some official, those are real, drawn up by a real, real plans. I’m thinking, this is one thing that we’ve been a little bit concerned about, with some applicants, some of the quality of plans that we’ve been getting, there’s no quality very much at all, and I really wish that we had that. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve got them now. MRS. GEBO-I thought they were in there. I apologize. MR. MAC EWAN-What did you want? MRS. MOORE-You questioned a handicap access. MR. MAC EWAN-No, you have to show a handicap access. She has a handicap parking space. She’s got a main entrance going into the place. She’s got to delineate a ramp or something there demonstrate that a ramp can be placed there, physically placed there. MRS. MOORE-And do you want that shown on the elevation drawings, or do you want that shown on the internal layout plans? MR. VOLLARO-Both. MR. MAC EWAN-Both, I would think, yes. Anything else? MR. STROUGH-Yes. Are you going to have a dumpster? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) MRS. GEBO-No. MR. STROUGH-Is anybody going to be living there? MRS. GEBO-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Will there be any meals cooked there for the children? MRS. GEBO-Yes. They have to eat breakfast and lunch. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. That’s what I was wondering, but, I mean, you won’t need anything, any receptacle bigger for the garbage for 40 people? MRS. GEBO-Not if I take it away daily, myself. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. MRS. MOORE-Are you going to make an official tabling motion? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-And you left the public hearing open, correct? MR. MAC EWAN-I was just about to announce that we’re going to leave it open. You guys are getting ahead of me. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The public hearing’s open. We’re going to leave it open. Read that back to me, just so that I have everything. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Thanks. I have six items. I have, Number One is I have a site visit from Warren County Soil and Water, and have a response letter in regards to that visit. Number Two, I have a lighting plan that includes the area of drop off, the employee parking, and playground. Number Three, I have hours of operation. Number Four, I have proposed maximum children, and Number Five, I have proposed age groups, and Number Six, I have handicap access drawing for, elevation drawings and the layout plan, and then I’ve got Number Seven is for the internal layout of the site, or of the building, rather. MR. VOLLARO-And you have Warren County Soil and Water on there? MRS. MOORE-That was Number One. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 67-2000 CONNIE GEBO, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Tabled for the following reasons: No. 1: Clarification from Warren County Soil and Water on site recommendations as based on the September 11 letter from J. Lieberum, th No. 2: That the site plan clarify a lighting plan for the drop off area, the parking area, and the playground area, No. 3: That the applicant delineate the hours of operation, No. 4: That the maximum number of children and their age groups be clarified, No. 5: That handicap access elevations and layouts be depicted on the site plan and on the elevation drawings for the building, No. 6: That the floor plans be incorporated into our next packet. Duly adopted this 24th day of October, 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you, Connie. We’ll get through it. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 74-2000 TYPE II JOHN & KATHLEEN TARRANT OWNER: SAME AGENT: SHAWN CALLAHAN ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 338 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO TEAR DOWN EXISTING OPEN SIDED BOATHOUSE AND REBUILD NEW 630 SQ. FT. OPEN-SIDED SUNDECK AND BOATHOUSE. COVERED DOCKS AND PRIVATE BOATHOUSES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 40-99, LGPC WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/11/00 TAX MAP NO. 13-3-2 LOT SIZE: 0.52 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 SHAWN CALLAHAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 74-2000, John & Kathleen Tarrant, Meeting Date: October 24, 2000 “Project Description The applicant proposes to remove an existing boathouse structure and construct a 630 square foot open sided boathouse with a sundeck. Project Analysis (Section 179-38) The proposed use as reviewed by staff was found to be compliant with Sections 179-38 A, B, C, D and E of the Town Code. The proposed open sided boathouse with a sundeck is an allowed use within the waterfront zone. The applicant has applied for an area variance (10/18/00 ZBA resolution attached). Site Overview The boathouse will be located close to the North property line in the same location as the existing one. The boathouse is proposed to be 12 feet in height and the stairs will extend from the sundeck to the dock. The neighbors to either side and along the shoreline have boat docks.” MRS. MOORE-That’s all. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Could you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. CALLAHAN-I am the Tarrant’s agent, Shawn Callahan. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little about your project, please. MR. CALLAHAN-Basically, they just want to make a change in usage from an open boathouse and open sundeck without changing the square footage, just an upgrade. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. CALLAHAN-That’s pretty much it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Chris, I’ll start with you. Any questions? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think I do. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have a couple of questions. On the drawings themselves, under 179-60(3), you talk about no dock shall exceed eight feet in width. Now that’s just the dock area they’re talking about now? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) MR. CALLAHAN-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-And yet I don’t have any plan view to show what the width of that is here. There’s no way for me to determine that your drawing or your design, is less than the eight feet that’s required under 179-60(3). MR. CALLAHAN-We’re not changing the dock at all. We’re just changing the boathouse. The dock is pre-existing. MR. VOLLARO-But, I don’t know that. There’s nothing in this application, for me, to tell me that you’ve met that Section of 179-60. There isn’t a plan view to show me the width of that, the width of the dock itself. MRS. MOORE-There should be. MR. CALLAHAN-It’s U-shaped. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s right here. Existing treated deck. MR. VOLLARO-That doesn’t tell me anything about how big it is. Most of the time, when we get a plan like this, we get a plan view, as well as these elevations, and the plan view depicts what the width of the dock itself is. MR. CALLAHAN-You haven’t got a plot plan? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. MAC EWAN-One inch equals twenty feet. There’s the width right there. Have you got a scale? MR. VOLLARO-No. I didn’t bring it with me. MR. MAC EWAN-One inch equals twenty foot. There’s the width of the dock right there. So, just scale it off the drawing. MR. VOLLARO-You could scale it off the drawing. If it’s eight feet, it’s eight feet, but that’s not a very good depiction of what this dock is going to look like, Craig, in my view. I’d like to see an elevation drawing to go along with the, plot plan drawing to go along with the elevations, and it would be real simple. You show me what the width is. I don’t want to have to go scurrying around a drawing like that to look for it. That’s my first point. Now the second point I have is that, on 179- 60 (10), the 14 foot, you’ve got a 12 foot high. MR. CALLAHAN-To the top of the dock. MR. VOLLARO-Twelve foot, and that is to the top of the railing, I’m assuming. Is that correct, on this drawing? MR. CALLAHAN-Yes, it is. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now that height, 12 feet, should be measured to the mean water level of 317.74, and right now it’s measured to the top of the dock. MR. CALLAHAN-But it is less than 14 feet overall. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I realize that. You’ve got 12. What you should, and I’m not pulling this out of the sky. MR. CALLAHAN-I understand. I heard it spoke about, at the last Board meeting, that I didn’t go to the water level with it, but it is less than two feet to the mean water mark. MR. VOLLARO-I realize what you’re saying. You’ve got two foot to play with here, and you’re hoping that the mean water level never gets low enough to exceed the overall height of 14 feet. That’s your hope, but it doesn’t state that on the drawing. That’s my concern. MR. MAC EWAN-We can make that a condition of approval, should we get to that point. Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-No, those were the only two things I saw. I would like, very definitely, to see the final drawing. Do you have to submit final drawings with this, or is this it? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) MRS. MOORE-For site plan, that is it. For his building permit application, they may request additional information besides that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We can make it a condition of the resolution that he’s got to show that the dock itself is no greater than eight feet. Okay. That’s it for me. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-No, Bob pretty much answered it. The only thing I have is a Town concern, not necessarily yours. I took a look at the Code, too, 179-60, paragraph 10. Boathouses and covered docks shall not exceed 18 feet in height measured from the water level. What water level? MR. VOLLARO-It should be mean water level. It doesn’t say that, I know. MR. STROUGH-It doesn’t say mean high, mean low, it doesn’t say anything. It says from water level. MR. VOLLARO-By deduction, John, you would think that, if it was high water level, then, the only dimension that makes any sense is low water level. MR. STROUGH-I agree with you, Bob, that would make sense, but it’s something I think we’ve got to take care of. MR. CALLAHAN-I understand the Park Commission asked for mean high water level, and Queensbury, I assume, goes for mean low water level. MR. STROUGH-It depends what part of the dock you’re talking about. If you’re talking about the length of the dock, you’re talking about mean low water level. If you’re talking about setbacks, you’re talking about mean high water level. When we were talking about the height, all we said was water level, but I saw the dock. Everything looks fine. I was there at the Zoning Board when you were there. It looks fine to me. MR. MAC EWAN-The Zoning Ordinance says the mean high water mark, the average annual high water level which is set by the Army Corps of Engineers at the north end of Lake George, at 320.2 feet. MR. STROUGH-That’s not what 179-60(10) says. MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s what the Code says. MR. STROUGH-This is what the Code says. It should clarify that, because in the other direction. MR. MAC EWAN-What number are you looking at? MR. VOLLARO-179-60(10). It says “Boathouses and covered docks shall not exceed eighteen (18) feet in height, measured from the water level to the highest point of the structure for peaked roofs and fourteen (14) feet for flat roofs”. The highest point measured from the water level. They don’t say whether it’s mean low or mean high. They mean, mean low, and they don’t know they mean, mean low, but that’s what they mean, because the mean high would bring the dimension to less than 14 at high water. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, that was my point, but we don’t need to take John’s time up or the Yankee’s time up. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. STROUGH-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, did you have anything? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled for tonight. Does anybody want to come up and comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-I should have asked, were there any letters or correspondence? MRS. MOORE-No, there were not. MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to make a recommendation? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 74-2000 JOHN & KATHLEEN TARRANT, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 74-2000, John & Kathleen Tarrant to tear down existing open sided boathouse and rebuild new 630 sq. ft. open sided sundeck and boathouse. Covered Docks and Private Boathouses require Planning Board review and approval. Cross Reference: SP 40-99. Tax Map No. 13-3-2, and; WHEREAS, the application received 9/27/00 consists of the following: 1. Application materials as outlined in the Official File WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 1. 10/24/00 Staff Notes 10/18/00 ZBA resolution - approved 10/17/00 Notice of Public Hearing 10/11/00 Warren Co. Planning - NCI 10/5/00 Meeting notice 10/5/00 J. & K. Tarrant from M. Gallagher of LGPC 10/5/00 Meeting Notice w/ Project ID marker attached 9/27/00 Pre-Application meeting notes WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 10/24/00 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 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 the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application is approved and is subject to the following conditions: One: That the drawing shows that the height be no greater than 14 feet as measured from mean low water elevation of 317.74, and Two: That the drawing submitted with the application also show a plan view showing that the docks themselves are no wider than eight feet. Duly adopted this 24th day of October 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) MR. CALLAHAN-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. PUD SITE PLAN NO. 8-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LP OWNER: BAY MEADOWS CORP. AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING/JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: SR-1A/PUD LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF CRONIN ROAD – BAY MEADOWS APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION AS PART OF THE PUD TO ACCOMMODATE ONE 27.1 ACRE LOT FOR ELDERLY HOUSING PROJECT AND ONE 70.2 ACRE LOT TO BE LEFT AS OPEN SPACE. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 96 APARTMENTS FOR ELDERLY, FIXED INCOME HOUSING AND ONE MANAGER’S RESIDENCE ON LOT 1. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 18-93, SP 38- 93, SB 21-1993, SB 12-1993, P6-91, P10-89 BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE: 10/9/00 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 10/11/00 TAX MAP NO. 60-2-5 LOT SIZE: 97.3 +/- ACRE LOT SECTION: 179-58 JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, PUD Site Plan No. 8-2000 Queensbury Partners LP, Meeting Date: October 24, 2000 “Application The applicant proposes up to 96 units of senior housing and a single unit office/manager's residence on 9 acres, plus a relocated golf driving range on 2.1 acres, with 4.0 acres of lands proposed for dedication to the Town along Halfway Brook. The total project area is 27.1 acres and the total parcel area is 97.3 acres. This is a PUD project, requiring PUD subdivision and site plan approval. PUD Approval The Town Board approved the PUD on October 2, 2000 via Resolution 395,200 which contains a condition that should PUD Site Plan/Subdivision approval not be obtained, the lands described would revert back to the prior zoning. The applicant must also file a PUD Agreement with the Town. The applicant would provide a proposed Agreement to be reviewed by the Town Board before acceptance. The PUD agreement may incorporate conditions or modification to the plans as recommended by the Planning Board. Sketch Plan The Planning Board reviewed a Concept Plan and made a positive recommendation to the Town Board on February 15, 2000 as per Planning Board Resolution. Site and Subdivision Plans Sheet C-1, dated 9/25/00 contains the Overall Site and Subdivision Plan. Sheets SP-1 through SP-7 contain details as follows: SP-1 Site Layout and Utility Plan SP-2 Site Grading and Drainage Plan SP-3 Landscape Plan SP-4 Site Wetland and Mitigation Plan SP-5 Road Profiles and Details SP-6 Sewer Profiles and Details SP-7 Details Subdivision/Site Plan Review Subdivision and Site Plan Review is a concurrent process for a PUD. The approval process and factors for consideration are outlined in Ss 179-58. Areas of concern or importance for this application follow: Density and Bonus Provisions Refer to the Memo dated September 28, 2000 to C. Round from the applicant's representatives, in addition to C. Round's Memo to the Town Board of September 29, 2000. The number of units proposed meets Town regulations. Note that the Town Board Resolution 325,2000 approves a maximum of 96 units senior housing plus one office/manager's unit. Sewer Refer to Memo to C. Round from M. Shaw of the Town of Queensbury Water/Wastewater Dept. concerning extension to the Central Queensbury-Quaker Road Sewer District and additional sewer connection details needed. Driving Range Pedestrian and vehicular access from the club house to the driving range needs to be shown on the plans. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) Flood Hazard Area Several units to the southeast of the development are located within a flood hazard area. Architecture and Lighting Building elevations have not been provided. Lighting impacts for the entire site and uniformity ratios should be noted. Cut sheets for driveway lighting and lighting details for buildings should be provided. Vehicular and Pedestrian Traffic and Circulation Pedestrian pathway connections along Cronin Road to nearby commercial sites should be discussed. The Planning Board may wish to consider asking for a bus shelter to accommodate non-driving seniors. Traffic impact details concerning trip numbers and level of service with nearby intersections should be discussed. Engineering Refer to C.T. Male notes. Subdivision Subdivision is required for the project area of 27.06 acres +/- from the total area of 97.34 acres +/1. The applicant has not requested a waiver for phasing. Phasing is required as per A183-36 unless there is an approved staging plan as per 179-58(G). Recreation Commission The Recreation Commission did perform a field visit on September 14, 2000. The Recreation Commission met October 3, 2000 to discuss the site. Minutes are not yet available. Town Board approval is required for dedication to the Town of recreational lands as shown on Sheet C-1 and other applicable sheets. Beautification Committee The Beautification Committee met October 9, 2000 and reviewed the SP-3 Landscaping Plan with Jim Miller of Miller Associates. The plan was approved as submitted. Note that tree caliper is less than the 3 inch size used as a standard. The reasoning used was that existing trees along Cronin Road will adequately screen the development from public view. The landscape plan shows plantings for internal enhancement, and there is a large variety and number of shrubs and other plants. SEQRA Findings A Negative Declaration was made via Town Board Resolution 395,2000 for SEQRA, noting no significant environmental impact. Next Steps ?? Preliminary approval must be given with or without conditions before an applicant may proceed with final detailed site plan approval. ?? Approval from state and county officials must be given for other permits and curb cuts.” MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are? MR. LAPPER-Jon Lapper and Tom Nace. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you in receipt of C.T. Male’s letter of October 20, 2000? MR. LAPPER-Yes, we are. MR. MAC EWAN-Considering that, we’re not going to spend a great deal of time on this application tonight, very short, very brief. MR. LAPPER-We are not asking for any approvals. We’re here to respond to that. Tom has just submitted a response to C.T. Male. MR. MAC EWAN-And that’s why we’re not going to do anything with it tonight. MR. LAPPER-Right, and we’re not asking. MR. MAC EWAN-They haven’t even had a chance to look at it. MR. LAPPER-We’re not asking for anything tonight. We’re just going to quickly go through our responses, and we’ll be back next month, hoping to have approval. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) MR. LAPPER-We’ve been to the Town Board. We’ve gotten a PUD approval. We’ve been well received, and we’re just working through the details, at this point. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The floor is yours, if you make it very brief. MR. LAPPER-On the Town comments, sewer, subdivision/site plan review just says that that was, the areas of concern, density and bonus provision, that’s been set by the Town Board. Sewer, Tom will get to in his engineering response letter. Driving range, the next submission for next month we will show vehicular access from the clubhouse to the driving range. Flood hazard area, Tom will show on the map. With the one unit that’s in the flood hazard area, the finished floor will be above the flood zone. So that’s not going to be an issue. Architecture and lighting, at the previous meetings with the Planning Board, I brought the architectural drawings. We didn’t submit copies of them with the submittal because it’s not required. We can probably have a set done, run off by the architect, and get them to you. MR. MAC EWAN-Please do. MR. LAPPER-But they were done the way you wanted other projects, with the different height roofs, and we’re pretty pleased with the design, and you have been in the past, as well. MR. MAC EWAN-If you could submit those. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And the lighting, Tom has described the lighting on the site plan. It’s pretty minor lighting on this thing. He’ll go through that. Vehicular and pedestrian traffic circulation, pedestrian pathway connection along Cronin Road to commercial sites, the Planning Board may wish to consider a bus shelter, and traffic impact details. We certainly are happy to put a bus shelter on. The idea of 1,000 feet of concrete sidewalk to the Stewart’s is something that we’d prefer not to do, but we probably could come up with a sidewalk that would go from this project to the clubhouse, which would allow people to walk through the parking lot at the club house and from Cronin Road over there. If we put a sidewalk in front of this project, we would be impacting this really nice hedgerow in front that everyone has pointed to as a buffer to the residences across the street and giving privacy to the people in this project, but that’s something for your consideration, and, in terms of traffic impact details, trip numbers, this is pretty minor, but we’ll discuss what you want to see. It’s just that because it’s a senior project, and this is 72 and over, it’s not a big traffic issue. It’s day time traffic when it’s not the peak hour, but we’ll defer to your thoughts on that. Subdivision, I talked to Marilyn today. Phasing is not required because this is not like a residential subdivision, where we’re going to be selling lots. So this would be built all at once, the whole apartment project, and it’s not subject to the phasing requirements of the subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve done phasing with other PUD’s. Why not this one? MR. LAPPER-Because those PUD’s were residential subdivisions where you sold single family lots. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. LAPPER-This is just going to, it’s rental. So it’s just all going to be built, and it’s not subject to people coming along and having to buy them or, you know, they may get started and not stop. We’re just going to do the whole thing out at once, one contract, but the PUD, what the PUD Ordinance says is different, in terms of phasing. It says that if you’re not going to build it in 24 months, you have to submit a phasing plan, and this will be built within 24 months. MR. VOLLARO-John, I think Chris’s letter said it very aptly. The whole thing on PUD’s in here and densities and phasing and bonuses are very difficult to interpret. So, he took a very conservative point of view with respect to this PUD. MR. LAPPER-I agree, and I agree that it does need to be fixed, the Code, and I know that that’s something that’s being worked on, but in terms of, Marilyn and I went through this on the phone today. So we’re complying. It’s 179-57, I think. MR. NACE-Why don’t I go through the engineering comments real quick, while he’s looking for that. MR. LAPPER-I found it. It’s 179-58G, Staging. “If the applicant wishes to stage his development, and he has so indicated”, how sexist, “as per 179-57C(2)(b), then he may submit only those stages he wishes to develop for site plan approval in accordance with his staging plan. Any plan which requires more 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) than twenty-four (24) months to be completed shall be required to be staged, and a staging plan must be developed.” MR. VOLLARO-And that was going to be my question. Is it more than 24 months? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Recreation Commission. We have offered four acres to the Town. The Recreation Commission hasn’t voted yet, but this is part of their Halfway Brook corridor initiative, and the Land Trust that the Town wants to own Halfway Brook. We talked to the Town Board about the possibility of land and some money rather than all the money. We’d like to donate the land because, as a senior affordable project, the lower the development costs, the lower the rent is. It all gets factored into the rent, but the Town Board has indicated that they do want the property, and we understand that the Recreation Committee as well, but that process isn’t, hasn’t been completed yet. So we’ll just see how it goes. So it could go either way. MR. VOLLARO-Isn’t the southeast corner of that lot probably the wettest portion of that lot, since that’s starting to get into the flood plane area? Isn’t the one house you want to bring above the flood plane, in that area, the southeast corner there? MR. NACE-Isn’t it, what, a wet area? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. NACE-No, not where that unit is. It’s within the flood plane, simply because of the way the flood plane was defined on the FEMA maps, but it is not within the wetland. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m just trying to take a look at that four acres that is being given over to the Rec Commission, as to just how usable that piece of property, out of my purview, probably not even a question I should be asking as a Planning Board member, but it intrigues me. MR. NACE-Yes. This is the area that is proposed to be dedicated, and I think, you know, they’re looking at it, along with the Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District, looking at it not so much as an active recreation area, but rather a passive recreation and a protection of the stream corridor, which needs to be done. MR. LAPPER-And, now on to C.T. Male. MR. NACE-Okay. Engineering comments, real quick. I’ll just run down through the list. C.T. Male had looked at the plan, and on the plan it looks like there are only six units, or six apartments in each building, but there are really eight because of the two up. So there really are 96 units. They noted that there is construction in the flood plane, but not within the flood way. We’re not doing anything within what’s defined as the area that’s required to pass flood flows downstream. So all that we have to do is get that one unit that’s in the flood plane, keep the floor and any structural component above the flood level and then certify to the Town that that has been done, prior to the CO issuance. We’ve been talking with both DEC and the Corps of Engineers on the wetland issues. We’ve progressed quite far with these. The DEC wetland, let me get the right map up here, the DEC wetland is an area along here, and some of the mapping that was done years ago, some of it’s even questionable whether it would be classified now as wetland, but we will be applying for a permit for disturbance within 100 feet of that wetland. We’re not disturbing the wetland itself, just in what they consider the buffer area. We’ve talked to the people at DEC, and we don’t believe that that will be any problem. The Corps of Engineer wetlands, we are impacting several small areas of Corps Wetlands. They’re mostly pockets and little strips that are just low areas out in what was previously the golf course, and we’ve come up with an idea that has been well received on all fronts, which is the Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District is doing a restoration project along Halfway Brook that will include replanting of wetland areas, trying to get some shade trees over open areas of the Brook, to help the trout habitat, and they need money to do their project. So we’re looking now, and talking to them about a cash contribution to their project along the Brook, in lieu of doing these little on site mitigation areas that we had proposed. These on site mitigation would meet the requirements of the Corps, but the Corps likes better to have, you know, their mitigation done in an area that is more meaningful, and so the Corps is looking favorably upon. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you going to have a response from them the next time you’re here? MR. NACE-Yes, we will. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) MR. VOLLARO-Will that impact the actual housing complex any? In other words, not providing mitigation, but giving cash in lieu of mitigation? MR. NACE-No. We were going to create some wetland areas here. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. NACE-Okay, on the site by dredging out a couple of hot spots, okay, and lowering them. I say dredging out, actually just bulldozing off a couple of spots and trying to establish wetland planting, but it’s really more meaningful to improve the wetlands that are contiguous to the stream, and that’s what the Corps is supporting at this point, and it’s really a better, it’s a win/win situation for everybody. MR. HUNSINGER-Those wetland improvements would be on your property? MR. NACE-Yes, probably would be, okay. Not necessarily. We’re contributing cash. They are going to do wetland improvements in the whole corridor, okay. Whether they would spend the entire contribution within our property or not, I don’t know. MR. HUNSINGER-I think you’re optimistic if you think you’re going to hear back from the Army Corps by the next week. MR. NACE-We’ve had negotiations. They’ve already indicated to us that they like that idea and they would support it. We are just about to the point of submitting a full application, and we’ve gone far enough with them, you know, in our negotiation, that it shouldn’t take them long to review that. MR. MAC EWAN-The rest of your comments, basically five through thirteen, have all been responded to by you and have been forwarded on to C.T. Male? MR. NACE-That’s correct, and I’ve talked to, see, there was one there where they were, the most serious one that I considered was they seemed to request a closed drainage system for the roads and parking lot, and I talked to Jim Houston today about that, and proposed what I have here in the letter, and he was in agreement with that. So we will be able to address that adequately. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Was that your answer to Number Nine? MR. NACE-That is, yes, that’s correct, okay. What we’re going to do is increase the cross drainage of the road and make sure that the water gets off the side of the road better. I don’t like, on a site like this, I don’t like putting in closed drainage, because you automatically lose a couple of feet of head, and it would mean raising the whole site several more feet. MR. VOLLARO-I just had one question, though, on bringing that one house higher in the 100 foot plane, is that going to have a great amount of difference in the height of that house, compared to the average height of the rest of the houses? MR. NACE-No, it’s the same. In fact, it’s lower. The height that we have proposed on the drawings is already adequate. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. is that it? MR. LAPPER-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask you to give up the table here for a few minutes. I have a public hearing scheduled for this application tonight. For those of you who are here for this, bear in mind that our intentions are to table this application. If you want to come up and address the Board with some of your concerns, you’re welcome to do so, but we will continue this review at another time. Does anyone want to come up? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GLENN RODE MR. RODE-Glenn Rode. I’m the little house east of the proposed PUD. I was at the first meeting, and I’m trying to go by memory, but it appears that that site plan is different than the original one shown. Is it? Quite a bit different. It seems like it takes up a lot more area than the original, and actually places it closer in proximity to where I am, in the overall scheme of things. As far as that being a wet area, I can tell you, it is. I live there. It’s, a lot of water overflows the banks of that Brook, and goes basically wherever it can, and raising the closest house to me may or may not effect my yard, as far as water. I’ve 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) got pictures of when we had that heavy rainfall, back in the late spring, early summer, of water flowing over the Brook, out of the Brook and into those fields, I mean a good flow of water, and that was already after a flood in my yard, and that’s kind of the only protection I have is water once it reaches a certain level, going the other way. That’s a major concern I have. They did address a few things I was going to mention, whether or not DEC has been called. Obviously they have. I have concerns over the flow of the runoff. That’s one of the main concerns for me personally, and the houses in the vicinity. As far as traffic, anybody that lives on that road knows that traffic is already a concern. I walk to my mailbox and just about get run over going to my mailbox now. So, that is definitely a concern. So now I want to know what stage of development this project is, as far as approval. I mean, how much further does it have to go for a final stamp of approval? Is it a ways off yet, or is it going to happen next year? Do we have any idea? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a hard question to answer. It could be a month away. It could be five months away, it could be better than a year away. It depends on what we reveal during this review process. That’s why we have site plan review, to address these concerns, from a neighborhood aspect, from an environmental aspect, from a design aspect, and that’s why we’re asking all these questions be answered. MR. RODE-Okay, and I couldn’t help notice in the last hearing about the lighting issue. I mean, right now I’ve got a nice, quiet , dark area at night. Is there going to be street lighting in this development that’s basically going to be shining in my house where I’m going to have to draw curtains. I mean, they’re saying the lighting will be minimal. I’m concerned with what kind of lighting is going to be cast into my area. Like I said, I came to the meeting tonight with the vision of what was originally proposed, at the first meeting, and this is significantly different. So it raises new concerns for me. Originally, it wasn’t going to be that close to me. Now it’s going to be within 400 feet of my residence, if I go by scale. I did go around the neighborhood today, and I got a petition signed. I visited 12 homes, 10 of which gave me a signature on a petition against this. I mean, granted it may be too late for that, too little, too late, but it is not well received by the people in the immediate area, talking the Cronin/Meadowbrook corner, and I would like to submit that petition. MR. MAC EWAN-Give it right to Laura, if you would. MR. RODE-I just see every, I love my little property. In fact, I recently purchased, myself, the old Schermerhorn property along the other side of the Brook, the east side of the Brook, actually neighbor the Town land across the Brook, and there’s only a few concerns I have, or problems or things I don’t like about it, and one is the traffic. Right now it’s heavy, and my yard is a real turnaround spot. People actually do U turns right in the front yard sometimes. If they miss something, they go back, and, you know, any problems I may be having that I’m concerned with, water flow, traffic, noise levels. I mean, obviously when the place is being built, it’s going to be quite noisy, back up alarms, things like that, but that’ll end when it’s done, but I just see anything I don’t like now being amplified, significantly, in the completion of this. So, as far as me personally, and other properties, it is going to significantly impact our way of life as it is right now, mainly for me is privacy, as you can see now. I’m going to be looking right at this thing. It’s going to be right in my back yard, basically. So that’s basically all I have. I’ll turn in the petition. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. DOUG AUER MR. AUER-Good evening. My name’s Doug Auer. I’m a member of the Recreation Commission. We had a meeting about this, one of the items that we talked about at our last meeting, and one of the things that I’m not clear about, and I asked about this, is in the approval that the Town Board gave to this PUD, I mean, I don’t think we have minutes yet from that meeting, but anyway, one of the things that I’m not clear about is, will the Recreation Commission have latitude as to whether we will be able to exercise our option for money in lieu of land, which developers, under the Town Ordinance, are required to make land available, as recreation. It’s one of the things we’re talking about. If we opt not to accept that land, then we are able to receive a fee, I think it’s $500 per building unit, or per occupancy unit, and it was my understanding that since this PUD was approved, that we don’t have that option. That whatever was determined by the Town in that PUD we get. So it’s like a moot point for us even to talk about it, if there’s no option. So I’m concerned because what’s beginning to happen is developers are handing over more and more, or are making available more and more of what I consider junk land, and I’d like you, as a Planning Board, to be cognizant of this. We have been successful in the past of opting not to accept this. Fortunately the Commission members make it a point to go out and look at some of this property and we’ve had things offered to us which we declined to take. They were of no use. We did a survey recently, of the Town residents, as to what they would like to see, as far as recreation goes. Overwhelmingly, people talked about a large recreation facility, and these little pocket things I think are more in the purview of an open space issue or Land Conservation issue than they are in Town Recreation. So, what I’m asking you is if there’s some clarification that you could ask for, as to how the Town Board packages, or how they will be packaging these PUD decisions as they come along 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) in the future. Because we would like to have, at least personally, I would like to have some latitude as to what we do, and it was my understanding, and I haven’t gotten an answer on this, as to, as I say, is this already pre-determined that we get this land and that’s the end of it? At which point, what would we even be discussing it for? So, really that’s my concern. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll give you two short answers, hopefully. One, usually it’s not this Board’s position to routinely or on a regular basis make recommendations to the Town Board for accepting land in lieu of Rec fees. That’s usually done between your Commission and the Town Board. Secondly, regarding this particular piece of property, and the fact that this is an older PUD, I don’t know what the particulars are on that, considering a PUD is a zoning action that’s legislated by the Town Board, not by the Planning Board. MR. AUER-So if this is truly a PUD. MR. MAC EWAN-It is a PUD. MR. AUER-Okay. You understand what my concern is. MR. MAC EWAN-I think you ought to be addressing those concerns to the Town Board, because both those concerns you have are actions that are directly taken by the Town Board, not by this Board. MR. AUER-Well, if they’ve already. They haven’t? MR. LAPPER-They’re waiting to hear from your Committee. MR. AUER-So the PUD has not been approved by the Town Board, then? MR. LAPPER-The PUD’s been approved, but the PUD agreement. MR. MAC EWAN-Jon, let’s hold off on this, because I’m going to have to have you guys on tape. MR. AUER-See, these are the vagaries that, you know, I’ve got to admit, I’m not, the PUD’s been approved, but then. MR. MAC EWAN-Doug, the PUD is a zoning change. It’s a designated zone in the Town. MR. AUER-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-It was already done. There’s a memo sitting right here in our packets that clarifies that it is an existing Planned Unit Development. The question you’re asking, has any decision been made on the acquiring of this piece of property along Halfway Brook for recreation purposes, and the answer to that is, no, a decision hasn’t been made yet. They’re waiting for you guys to tell them whether you want it or not. MR. AUER-Well, we didn’t seem to know that. At our meeting I asked that of Harry Hansen. He didn’t know, didn’t seem to know whether or not this was, so, you know, I’d like the right hand to know that the left hand exists, and we had a meeting, probably about seven years ago, with the Planning Board, just about this type of thing. None of you were on the Planning Board at that time. Maybe you were. Do you remember? Were you there at the meeting? MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve been here as long as dirt. MR. AUER-Okay. Then it might have been eight years ago. MR. MAC EWAN-I remember it, and one of the things that I know that the Town was striving to do was to gain property along this specific corridor because they wanted a continuous piece of land, going as long as it could, because they talked about getting Guido Passarelli’s parcel, the parcels that were over in the Hiland PUD, this parcel came up recently, and there’s been several others. MR. AUER-Yes, and we’ve got quite a bit of it, and it’s very wet. This was wet back years ago. We’ve got lots of land like this. In that period of time, a whole bunch of land has come into the ownership of the Town. So, I’m not sure. I think, as I said, we did a survey recently, and you’re certainly welcome to look at that, and I think your planning function has an interest in knowing the sort of things that we’re having to wrestle with. Certainly, park planning is an issue that we’re wrestling with. We had a budget meeting today and that subject came up. MR. MAC EWAN-But like I said in the beginning, this is not an issue that this Board deals with. When a developer comes in front of this Board and says, you know, we’re going to approach the Town Board 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) about, you know, giving this three acres in lieu of Rec fees, that’s something that they take up with the Town Board, not this Board. MR. AUER-Why does it get touted? You know, this becomes something that becomes a sell point. MR. MAC EWAN-Don’t ask me. You have to ask the developers. You have to ask the Town Board. It’s not under our review. MR. AUER-Why not just block it out and say, this is not something we’re even going to talk about because this is a Rec issue? MR. MAC EWAN-Again, that’s something the Town Board has the authority to legislate and change, not us. MR. AUER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. Anyone else? MR. RODE-I have another question. MR. MAC EWAN-One more. MR. RODE-I was just kind of curious, like I said, it had been changed, this is Glenn Rode, again, by the way, for the record. It had been changed significant from what it originally was. Why did those changes come about? That’s part of that that I don’t understand. MR. MAC EWAN-The change in the wetlands, and just over change in the theme I think where they wanted to go with this. I remember, if it’s the plan you’re referring to, that I’m thinking of, going back maybe three years, four years? MR. RODE-No, no. The first public hearing that I know of, that I got a notice for in the mail, earlier in the spring possibly. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. It’s primarily due to the wetlands. MR. RODE-Okay. I did have one more question. I’ve heard people grumbling about this, and a real concern is when you throw low income housing, that term out there, they think of other areas, Henry Hudson Townhouses, John Burke Apartments, places like that. Is this always going to be strictly designated to seniors, low income seniors? There’s no way that , somewhere down the road they say, hey, we only have this place half full, we’ve got to look at alternate renters here, and, you know, so the door opens. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t believe so. I think the applicant could clarify it for you, but I think it has a lot to do with the financing that they’re getting, the subsidies that they’re also getting from the State. It has to designate that it has to be senior low income housing, and there is a minimum age requirement to get these units. MR. RODE-Okay. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? Okay. For now we’ll leave the public hearing open. How fast can you summarize? MR. LAPPER-I’d like to address Doug Auer’s comments first. The Town Board, when they approved the PUD, left it open for a decision to be made before we signed the PUD agreement with the Town, as to whether or not the Town wants the offered four acres in lieu of the fee. We’ve offered it. It’s out of our hands. It’s up to the Town to say whether they want it. We’ve been told, the reason we’ve been touting it throughout the process, as Doug says, is that we’ve been told by the Planning Staff, and by members of the Town Board all along, that there’s a larger goal, that even though this may not be suitable for putting in children’s playgrounds, that it’s suitable for fishing access to the lake, to the stream, and that that’s what they have in mind, and that’s why the Town wants to have this whole ribbon of Halfway Brook, because it’s considered significant, but that’s not anything that’s our decision. The Town will tell us whether they want it or not and we’ll deal with whatever the consequences are, but it is offered, and it’s also Doug’s committee that they’ll decide whether they want it and make a recommendation to the Town Board. So, that’s the whole story there. In terms of the re-design, Mr. Rode’s questions, Tom did redraw the site plan after we did our Federal wetland delineation, to avoid Federal wetlands, and so it is different, but there have been public hearings, at the Town Board level, where the new plan was shown to everybody, and when the PUD was approved, when we were here last time for your recommendation to the Town Board, it was with this plan, and when we were at the Town Board for the PUD approval it was with this plan. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) MR. MAC EWAN-There was a plan, though, going back three, four years maybe. MR. NACE-Well, there was a plan, yes, about two years ago. MR. MAC EWAN-I remember it was a boulevard. We were very concerned with access in there. MR. NACE-There was a boulevard to the left of this, there was a boulevard coming in here. There was also an arm coming out here with a cul de sac out here, okay, and so the units toward Mr. Rode’s house were about in the same location, but I remember Mr. Rode speaking at one of the previous public hearings, and that plan was this one, or just a very, very minor modification of this one. The question on flooding, we’re well back behind the flood way. The flood way boundary is up in here. So the actual passage of water down the stream, according to FEMA, you know, depends on open area. Here we’re not impacting that. We’re doing no construction within that. We’re well back behind it. So, we’re not in an way, shape or form effecting the downstream movement of water. Lighting is going to be low level. There will be, each of the courtyards are sort of self-enclosed. They’ll have building mounted lights to light the courtyard. There will be some low type of high pressure sodium parking lot lights, and road way lights, but they’re going to be kept to a minimum and very low levels of lighting. I will have cut sheets of those fixtures, at the next meeting, and be able to give you some ideas of light level. MR. MAC EWAN-Will you have a lighting plan? MR. NACE-Yes. The lights are shown on the plan. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m talking with the lumens and stuff. MR. NACE-I can provide that, yes, I will. Traffic, as Jon mentioned earlier, seniors projects historically do not generate very much traffic. A lot of these seniors just don’t drive, and it will be off peak times. They don’t go with the rush hour traffic normally. So, I don’t really envision, during peak periods, don’t envision much, if any, increase in traffic on Cronin Road or the intersections nearby. I guess you already addressed the issue of seniors and whether this housing could revert to other types. Frank could probably add to that. MR. LAPPER-Affordable housing consultant Frank Piazza for the project is here with us. I just want to make one quick comment. This is not a Henry Hudson Townhouses situation because this is for seniors 72 or over, and when you talk about low income for seniors, you’re talking about fixed income. We’ve submitted a detailed report, a market report, as part of the PUD, and what we’re talking about is people on Social Security fixed income. So, while they have low incomes, it’s just not the situation where it’s families and all of the intensity that you have at Henry Hudson. This is just seniors on Social Security, and what the report showed is that there’s a very serious need for this type of housing in the Town, mostly widows. FRANK PIAZZA MR. PIAZZA-My name is Frank Piazza. I’m an affordable housing consultant. Yes, I’d just like to, before answering one specific question, you know, our experience with the seniors and the traffic and those such things are clearly that traffic is not an impact item. With respect to the guarantees that it will remain a senior citizen property or an age restricted property, Federal Fair Housing laws would require that all of the units be occupied by only people who are 62 years of age or older. Even if someone is in there and wanted their grandson to live with them or their son to live with them or daughter, that would not be possible by their current standards and the current Federal requirements, under which this property will be built out. In addition to that, the tax credits that will help to fund this will be secured by a lean against the property. Essentially there’ll be deed restrictions, if you will, that will remain in place throughout the time period of the tax credits, and that’s I believe to be 30 years minimum, if not in perpetuity because of other funding, and they will clearly state the age requirement in there. So it would be virtually impossible, for the foreseeable future, and like our lifetimes, that you’re going to see anything but senior citizens at that property. It’s just something that an owner, a landlord could not change simply, you know, because of occupancy problems or anything like that. There are very strict requirements, and the failure to meet those requirements, at any time during its life, would result in extreme consequences. MR. VOLLARO-What about the maintenance? What are the maintenance requirements for a community like this? Obviously, it won’t be a homeowners association, I don’t believe. MR. PIAZZA-No, no. These are rentals. So it would be maintained by the landlord. It would be the landlord’s responsibility, in conjunction with the management company, either his own or another company, I don’t know that that’s been decided yet. There will be an on-site person specifically living there, and that would be to, there would also be 24 hour pager service and that sort of thing as well. Obviously maintenance and response to maintenance needs are a very high priority, 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) in any situation like this, and you don’t go into doing any rental property, especially one that is geared toward seniors, without being very serious about maintenance responsibilities. Just in general, this property, financially, is built on the premise that it will not generate a lot of cash flow. The cash that we do require, in terms of rent in such a property, for the most part, goes back into the property, because again, the investors here are investing in this property for the purpose of generating tax benefits. They are not looking primarily for cash, and as a result of that, it’s really a win/win situation for tenants. Often, in a typical market rate apartment, just briefly, market rate apartment complex, there is also a tension between the landlord and the tenants, and it has to do with the landlord collects the rent, and for whatever purposes, really has to generate a certain income, because it improves the value of his property. Generating the income either because he wants to sell it and the property is worth more if it’s generating more income, or simply because he wants to take the profit at that time. Again, the primary purpose of this property is to generate tax benefits, not to generate cash, and so what that does is it relieves that tension that often exists in a rental community, and it encourages, it has quite the opposite effect. It encourages then the landlord to put the money back into the property because what the investors are looking for can only be compromised, basically, by two things, either the tenants not qualifying for the program and being let in inappropriately or not being of age, or the rents being over the maximum, not, in other words, breaking a regulatory agreement or, two, having a financial difficulty come and bankruptcy. So what everybody wants to see here, including the landlord or the owners of these properties, that these things are kept as best as possible. They’re very, the financing here, the whole setup is very, very different than what we might have in our mind as a 1960’s, 1970’s type subsidized HUD type house. HUD, basically, would have nothing to do with this. This is not a HUD program. This program is, oddly enough, done by the IRS, but it seems to work out a whole lot better. So the whole factors that go into this really are geared more toward creating a community for these people to live in that is hopefully going to be a model in this community of what a really good property should look like all the time. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much. Anything else? Okay. My laundry list. I come up with three things. We’re looking for the architectural renderings, drawings to be provided, responses from C.T. Male, from Nace’s letter of October 24, and the applicant’s going to provide a lighting plan th which shows illumination. What else? MR. VOLLARO-There was some mention, I think it was probably in Staff notes, concerning the traffic impacts, re: Cronin and Bay and Cronin and Meadowbrook, based on senior driving and all of that. Is that something that we’re not going to do? I think Staff notes touched on it. MRS. MOORE-Yes, they did, and that was my question. MR. MAC EWAN-What are you looking for? MRS. MOORE-Give me a second. Maybe some trip generations. MR. NACE-I can provide trip generation numbers. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I’d like to see something for the record. MR. MAC EWAN-Trip generations, inclusive of the intersections. MR. NACE-Well, trip generation is trips generated by the project, okay. You start getting into intersections, then you’re getting into a full blown traffic study that I don’t feel is necessary. MR. MAC EWAN-What are you looking for, Laura? MRS. MOORE-What I’ll do is I’ll relay the information to Marilyn, and indicate that right now we’re currently looking for trip generations. If she feels that, or if Chris Round feels that we need additional information, we’ll let Tom Nace or the applicant know if we need further information. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s doable. Anything else? Okay. All right. We’re going to leave the public hearing open. MOTION TO TABLE PUD SITE PLAN NO. 8-2000 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LP, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: To file additional information: One: Architectural drawings and elevations, Two: A response to C.T. Male’s review, and specifically to Nace’s letter of 10/24/00, Three: A lighting plan which would indicate lights and illuminations, 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) Four: Trip generations for the development and any other traffic generated information as required by Staff. Duly adopted this 24th day of October, 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Metivier ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. LAPPER-One more question. The whole thing with the Ordinance and the PUD, we’re also asking for a three lot subdivision, the piece that would go to the Town, the residential component and the golf course component. So this is, we didn’t really talk about it, but that, it’s primarily site plan, but this is also a meeting for a Preliminary Subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-Our agenda says site plan only. MR. LAPPER-That’s because the PUD Ordinance is written so that it doesn’t talk about subdivision, but we applied for both. MRS. MOORE-Right. They applied for a three lot subdivision, as well. It’s part of the PUD application through their site plan. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s noted in here, proposed as a two lot subdivision. I’m not willing to want to act on the subdivision tonight, until we get. MR. NACE-Yes, we just want it in the record. MR. LAPPER-Yes, we’re not asking you to. We just want it in the record that it’s part of that. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s noted right on here. Sorry. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2000 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED CATHERINE CANTIELLO OWNER: SAME AGENT: GARY FINGER ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: 0.5 MILES NORTH OF QUAKER RD., ACROSS FROM THE ADIRONDACK ANIMAL HOSPITAL APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVSION OF A 2.92 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF 1.52 ACRES AND 1.40 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 78-2000 TAX MAP NO. 59-3-11 LOT SIZE: 2.92 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MICHAEL CANTIELLO, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 9-2000, Preliminary Stage Final Stage, Catherine Cantiello, Meeting Date: October 24, 2000 “Project Description The applicant proposes subdividing 2.92 acres into two residential lots of 1.40 acres and 1.52 acres. The applicant had received an Area Variance approval (AV 78-2000) at the September 20, 2000 Zoning Board meeting. Study plat (§ A183) (1) Lot arrangement: The existing parcel is a “flag-shape” like parcel, where it has a narrow road frontage and an open rear property. The narrow road frontage is being used as a shared driveway and the open rear property is used to locate the dwellings and associated utilities. The applicant proposes a ten-foot no-cut zone on the boundary of the parcel. The applicant has provided a letter indicating trees less than 6 inches in diameter along with existing vegetation may be removed. (2) Location and design of streets: The applicant does not propose any new streets. (3) Topography: The applicant has requested a waiver from the two-foot contour. (4) Water supply: The applicant proposes to connect the water service from Ridge Road to the dwelling units. (5) Sewage disposal: The applicant proposes a septic system design to be located to the rear of the dwellings. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) (6) Drainage: The survey plan indicates the driveway drainage will flow away from Ridge Road and the proposed structures. (7) Lot sizes: The property is zoned for one-acre development and the proposed lot sizes exceed the acreage requirement. (8) Placement of utilities: The applicant will locate other needed utilities when filing for a building permit. (9) Future development: The lot arrangement and the one-acre zoning would not allow for further subdivision. (10) Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The proposed subdivision is located in Neighborhood 8 of the 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Specific recommendations for residential use were not identified. The residential subdivision is consistent with the residential zone SFR-1A (Single Family Residential one acre). (11) State Environmental Quality Review Act. The applicant has completed a short environmental assessment form Areas of Concern or Importance The applicant has requested waivers from the lay-out plan, construction details, landscape plan, clearing plan, grading and erosion control plan, drainage report, sketch plan, and two- foot contour. Suggestions Staff would recommend the final plat include two notes: ?? a note addressing the no-cut zone and the diameter of trees allowed to be removed as outlined in the applicant’s letter of September 26, 2000 ?? A note should be added to the plans indicating “The plan will comply with the New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control as published by the soil and water conservation society”. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. CANTIELLO-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. CANTIELLO-I’m Michael Cantiello. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little about your proposed application? MR. CANTIELLO-To put a two lot subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s short, sweet, and to the point. Okay. Anything else you want to add? Add it not or answer it later. MR. CANTIELLO-I’ll probably answer it later. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Cathy, we’ll start with you. Any questions? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I’m not ready right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I have some questions on some of the waivers. We’ll never get to look at this as a site plan, I don’t believe, in the future. So there’s a Sketch Plan waiver, a contour plan waiver, drainage and grading plan waiver, clearing plan waiver, construction plan waiver, which I understand, a layout plan waiver and landscape plan waiver. There’s a whole bunch of waivers here, and then in the no cut zone, which is around the entire property, there’s another letter from GRF Recycling. Is that you? MR. CANTIELLO-This gentleman’s with me. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and it states that, “Through this correspondence, we wish to note that in the 10 foot no cut zone, all trees less than six inches in diameter, along with existing vegetation, have a right to be removed, at our option, on the Ridge Road subdivision property”. Well, a no cut zone is a not cut zone, and you’re trying to modify that to say that anything less than six inches is fair game. I don’t know as I can go along with that. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) MR. CANTIELLO-What we were trying to do is just clear the brush out to make it more appealing to the eye of the neighborhood. MR. MAC EWAN-A no cut zone is a no cut zone. MR. CANTIELLO-Okay, that’s not a problem them. MRS. MOORE-Can I just interrupt? Under no cut zones, we’ve allowed, in the past, such as in other subdivisions where there is a no cut zone. MR. MAC EWAN-Dead and diseased? MRS. MOORE-Yes. We’ve included that items less than so many feet in diameter are allowed to be removed and dead and diseased. So that’s inches. I said diameter. Inches, I’m sorry, but at any rate, just to keep that in mind, so that we have allowed that type of removal in other subdivisions. So that’s why it’s included. MR. CANTIELLO-Excuse me. There are quite a few like that, that have fallen over, that we would want to clean up, of course, that were uprooted on the property line. MR. VOLLARO-I think I had more problem with the less than six inches than I do with removal of brush. MR. CANTIELLO-Okay. We can leave the 10 foot alone, other than anything that’s dead or fallen down. That won’t even be an issue. Because there’s plenty of property there to work around. MR. VOLLARO-Since we won’t get to see this as a site plan, I have some concerns with the drainage and grading plan that probably we ought to at least look at that. Is that fairly flat? I couldn’t walk that deep into the property. MR. CANTIELLO-Okay. More than 95% of the property high and flat, and then there’s one area in the back corner that does go down a little bit, but we won’t be building on that part. That’ll be part of a back yard, and that’s why we made the acreage. They’re supposed to be one acre lots, and we made them an acre and a half, to give us the room and stuff, so that we wouldn’t have to do that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Other than that, Craig, I don’t have anything else on here. The applicant’s asked for a waiver from the two foot contour plan as well. MR. MAC EWAN-If it was a bigger subdivision, I probably would be looking for it, for me. I don’t really have any problem with any of the waivers that you’ve requested, other than clarification for the no cut area. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have anything other than that myself. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I had nothing. This seems fine. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-No, other than the same comments that were made. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add? MR. CANTIELLO-I don’t believe so, sir. MR. MAC EWAN-We have a public hearing scheduled. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I do have a phone conversation. MR. MAC EWAN-You have a log there. Okay. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) MRS. MOORE-This is dated October 24. This is between Margery Kennelly, who lives at 75 th Meadow Drive, Margery indicated she is not able to attend due to a sudden illness in her family, but wanted to express that she is against the project. She understood the area was to be a bird sanctuary. She does not have any information to support this claim. She has also indicated her neighbor’s, the Homers, are out of the country and are against the project. MR. MAC EWAN-Margery Kennelly, is that who it was? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. Short or Long? MRS. MOORE-This is the Long Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 9-2000, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: MICHAEL CANTIELLO, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 24 day of October, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. LaBombard ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-Now, would someone like to introduce a motion for Preliminary Stage only? 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2000 CATHERINE CANTIELLO, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Subdivision No. 9-2000, Cathleen Cantiello for subdivision of a 2.92 acre parcel into two lots of 1.52 acres and 1.40 acres. Tax Map 59-3-11. Cross Reference: AV 78-2000, and WHEREAS, the application received 10/24/00 consists of the following: 1. Application materials as outlined in the Official File WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 1. 10/24/00 Staff Notes 10/17/00 Legal Ad published 10/12/00 GIS map 10/5/00 Meeting Notice w/ Project ID marker attached 9/26/00 Meeting notes 9/22/00 Pre-application meeting notes 9/20/00 ZBA resolution - approved 9/15/00 GIS map 9/15/00 G. Finger from L. Moore WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 10/24/00 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision requirements of the Code of the Town 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 the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application for preliminary stage is approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff, with the following note, that the no cut zone shall be preserved, in accordance with the drawing, just 10 feet. However, dead brush and brush that has fallen over may be cleared in that zone. Duly adopted this 24th day of October, 2000 by the following vote: MR. MAC EWAN-Do we want to define a caliper size of? MR. VOLLARO-I would prefer to leave caliper size off and just say that either dead or fallen brush can be cleaned. MR. STROUGH-I agree. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. MOORE-There’s another series of waivers that you were to address as well. MR. MAC EWAN-He did. I thought he mentioned the waivers, with the exception of the one he clarified the no cut. MRS. MOORE-I’m sorry. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Mark? 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. My only comment is that the Staff prepared resolution includes two conditions at the preliminary stage and at the final stage, and the conditions are identical, and they’re very appropriate at the, I believe the motion that’s been seconded is for the Staff resolution as prepared. The conditions that I’m referencing are very appropriate at final stage, but are not really appropriate at preliminary stage. So I would suggest that your motion at preliminary be amended to exclude the two conditions in the Staff prepared resolution at preliminary. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The motion is further clarified by removing the following conditions, one, that all necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent and received by the Planning Department Staff within 180 days, and, two, that the plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approval noted. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, are you still seconding that? MR. METIVIER-I’ll second that. AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Hunsinger ABSTAINED: Mrs. LaBombard ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Now does someone want to introduce a motion for Final? MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2000 CATHERINE CANTIELLO, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Subdivision No. 9-2000, Cathleen Cantiello for subdivision of a 2.92 acre parcel into two lots of 1.52 acres and 1.40 acres. Tax Map 59-3-11. Cross Reference: AV 78-2000, and WHEREAS, the application received 10/24/00 consists of the following: 1. Application materials as outlined in the Official File WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 1. 10/24/00 Staff Notes 10/17/00 Legal Ad published 10/12/00 GIS map 10/5/00 Meeting Notice w/ Project ID marker attached 9/26/00 Meeting notes 9/22/00 Pre-application meeting notes 9/20/00 ZBA resolution - approved 9/15/00 GIS map 9/15/00 G. Finger from L. Moore WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 10/24/00 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision requirements of the Code of the Town 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 the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) The application for final stage is approved in accordance with the resolution as prepared by Staff with the following conditions: 1. That the waivers that were applied for in the letter of GRF Recycling dated September 11, 2000 are accepted, and 2. That the definition of the no cut zone received from GRF Recycling on their letter of September 26 that clearing within the no cut zone shall only apply to brush and th, dead, diseased or fallen trees and shrubs, and 3. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days, and 4. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. Duly adopted this 24th day of October, 2000 by the following vote: MR. VOLLARO-With the following note, that of all the requests for waiver. MR. MAC EWAN-You don’t have to address that. It was taken care of in Preliminary. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-The only thing you need to, I think, worry about is making sure those provisions that were excluded in the Preliminary are included in the Final. MR. VOLLARO-They are by definition, I think, when I said approved according to the resolution prepared by Staff, and that resolution now has those two statements in it. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, that’s appropriate, and what was your other condition at Preliminary? MR. MAC EWAN-The clear cut. MR. VOLLARO-That we were accepting all the waivers, except for the way they stated the no cut zone with respect to six inch diameter trees. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and you’re including that as a condition only of Preliminary approval, not of Final approval? MR. MAC EWAN-No. We can do that as Final. I thought once you did it in Preliminary, doesn’t it carry over into Final then? MR. SCHACHNER-No, in fact, thinking this through, and I should have jumped in sooner, I suppose, it strikes me as that condition is probably more appropriate for Final than Preliminary. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-If it’s a condition of Preliminary approval, then you can’t move to Final until it’s been fulfilled, and I don’t think that’s your intention. MR. MAC EWAN-No. Then maybe what you ought to do is just readdress those waivers, include them again, and the clarification on that clear cutting. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. With the following condition, that the waivers that were applied for in the letter from GRF Recycling, dated September 11, 2000, are accepted, and that the definition of the no cut zone received from GRF Recycling on their letter of September 26, that the no cut zone shall th only apply, clearing within the no cut zone shall only apply to fallen brush, to brush and fallen trees. MRS. MOORE-Dead and diseased, do you want to put in that language? MR. MAC EWAN-Dead or diseased or fallen trees or shrubs. Do we have a second on that? MR. VOLLARO-Fallen is fallen. MR. STROUGH-Second. AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Hunsinger ABSTAINED: Mrs. LaBombard 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/00) ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. CANTIELLO-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Believe it or not you got approved. MR. CANTIELLO-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-In case you got lost in that one. MR. CANTIELLO-No, I was following you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good luck. Anything else? No? Mark, nothing? Anything from Board members? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Could we get our dates for next month? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. The 21 and the 28 are our meeting dates. Site visits are the 18 at nine stthth o’clock, and we’re not going to have a workshop this month, next month, I mean, November. Getting into the Holiday spirit. Any other business? Then I’ll move we adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 42