The URL can be used to link to this page

2001-06-26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 26, 2001 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY LARRY RINGER CHRIS HUNSINGER JOHN STROUGH ANTHONY METIVIER THOMAS SEGULJIC, ALTERNATE SENIOR PLANNER-MARILYN RYBA PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. I’ll call tonight’s meeting to order. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 24-2001 TYPE I OMNI HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY OWNER: R. SCHERMERHORN AGENT: L. SIPPERLY & ASSOCIATES ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: LOT 15, BAYBROOK PROFESSIONAL PARK APPLICANT PROPOSES DEVELOPMENT OF A 13.63 ACRE PARCEL FOR AN 80 SENIOR CITIZEN INDEPENDENT LIVING APARTMENTS: 48 APARTMENTS IN A TWO STORY BUILDING AND 32 APARTMENTS IN EIGHT (8) FOUR UNIT COTTAGES. ON-SITE PARKING FOR 112 VEHICLES. ALL USES IN MR-5 ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 9-2000, AV 38-2001 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/13/01 TAX MAP NO. 60-2-4 LOT SIZE: 13.63 ACRES SECTION: 179-18 MR. MAC EWAN- Two applications that we had pending tonight, application, Site Plan No. 24- 2001 Omni Housing Development, which is a senior housing development. We’re going to table that application, pending the ZBA review. I’m going to open up the public hearing and I’ll leave that open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED SITE PLAN NO. 23-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED GETTY PETROLEUM PROPERTY OWNER: GETTY PETROLEUM MARKETING, INC. AGENT: RONALD FORTUNE ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: CORNER OF RIDGE RD. & RT. 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING FACILITY AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW GETTY GAS STATION WITH CONVENIENCE STORE. NEW USES IN HC ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 39-2001, SV 40-2001 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/13/01 TAX MAP NO. 27-3-7.22 LOT SIZE: 2.78 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 MR. MAC EWAN-And the second is Site Plan No. 23-2001, Getty Petroleum. That’s for Ridge Road and 149. Likewise, we’re tabling that application pending ZBA review, and I’ll open up the public hearing on that application and leave it open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-That lightened up our agenda a little bit tonight. SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2001 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED MICHAEL S. HAYES PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 41.48 +/- ACRES INTO FOUR LOTS OF 2.6 AC., 2.42 AC., 2.77 AC., AND 28.67 ACRES FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE. TAX MAP NO. 54-2-6 LOT SIZE: 36.46 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, 179-30 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MARK DEL SIGNORE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 4-2001, Preliminary Stage, Final Stage, Michael S. Hayes, Meeting Date: June 26, 2001 “Project Description The applicant proposes a four-lot subdivision on Ridge Road for preliminary and final stage review. The parcels are two acres or greater and have shared driveways. The applicant is requesting a waiver from sketch plan review. Study of plat (§ A183) ?? Lot arrangement: The lots are bowling alley lots with shared driveways onto Ridge Road. The buildings are subject to the travel corridor overlay zone per section 179-28, as a 75 foot setback. The proposed buildings will need to be adjusted to meet the setback requirement. ?? Location and design of streets: No new roads are proposed and the driveways do not contain significant topography change. ?? Topography: The land contains a NYSDEC and Army Corp delineated wetlands. ?? Water supply: The water will be obtained from wells. ?? Sewage disposal: The plans show raised septic systems will be installed. ?? Lot sizes: The lots exceed the minimum one acre size requirement. ?? Placement of utilities: The plans show where the existing utility poles are on Ridge Road ?? Future development: The wetlands located on the property do not provide for an opportunity for further development on lots 1-3. Future development on Lot 4 may occur depending on wetland issues, and may require additional Town review. ?? Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The project is located in Neighborhood #5 of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. The area is noted for being rural. Lot sizes should be ~ 2 acres. ?? State Environmental Quality Review Act: The applicant has submitted a short form. Suggestions Staff would suggest ?? The zoning information be noted on Sheet S-2, ?? A note should be added to S-2 indicating the size of the wetlands per lot, ?? A note should be added to S-2 indicating lot #4 should not be further subdivided, ?? A note should be added to S-2 indicating the driveways are to be shared. ?? The board may want confirmation that the applicant proposes to construct single family dwellings –note the SR-1A zone allows for duplexes.” MRS. MOORE-Under “Suggestions”, I received a revised plan tonight, and it identifies items under what Staff would suggest. So it’s been revised to reflect those items. MR. MAC EWAN-You have a letter from them, is that what you’re saying? MRS. MOORE-I have a new drawing this evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. MOORE-That’s it with my Staff Notes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening, gentlemen. For the record you are? MR. DEL SIGNORE-I’m Mark DelSignore, from Little & O’Connor. We’re representing Mickie and Jamie Hayes, and also Matt Steves is here, who’s a surveyor. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. MR. DEL SIGNORE-Okay. Well, Laura stole a lot of the thunder, basically. I was just going to say the application before the Board is a four lot subdivision of an approximately 40 acre parcel on Ridge Road, actually located straight back Haviland Road, where it runs into Ridge Road. It’s Tax Map No. 54-2-6. The plans have been presented to Staff. I believe all the concerns have been met. There aren’t any variances necessary, from our understanding of the plan. The property is in the Travel Corridor Overlay zone. We’ve accommodated the 75 foot setback requirement. Also the plan as submitted shows locations of wells, septic systems, and we’re seeking both Preliminary and Final Stage review and approval. I guess, any questions? It’s nothing more than that, I don’t think. MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing more? John, I’ll start with you. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MR. STROUGH-Good evening. MR. DEL SIGNORE-Good evening. MR. STROUGH-Is it 41.48 or is it 36.46? MR. DEL SIGNORE-36.46. MR. STROUGH-All right. Has he, or did the Warren County Planning Board review this? MRS. MOORE-They do not review subdivisions. MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s my question. I see a note from Staff Notes, you guys are probably familiar with this. The 75 foot setback, is that from the edge of the road or from the edge of the property line? MRS. MOORE-The edge of the property line. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you, and so the building locations are going to need to be adjusted. Is that a problem? MATT STEVES MR. STEVES-Matt Steves, again. On the plan that’s in front of you on the board there, and the one that Laura has, I’ve accommodated the 75 foot setback. I’ve also made the other check items that she had in her letter, no, there’s not a problem meeting those setbacks. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Not in this plan? MR. STEVES-The plan that’s right up there on the board, it has the 75 foot setbacks in place, as well as the notes for the shared driveway and the notes that the buildings are proposed to be duplexes, and the area of the wetlands are inside of each lot. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. STEVES-The only note that isn’t placed on there, if you go through the Staff’s checklist, was the note of further subdivision of Lot Four. We have no intentions of further subdivision of Lot Four, except you see the configuration of that lot behind numerous other parcels. There might be some time down the road where one of the other neighboring parcels, it might be a good idea to have a boundary line adjustment with them to extend some of their property back, so we want to leave that option open. MR. STROUGH-Okay. That was another one of my questions, because Lot Four, the bulk of it doesn’t have the stream or the wetlands identified, but I guess we don’t need that for now. You’re only developing the one section of that adjacent to Ridge Road. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now one thing I was looking for is the wells, the location of the wells and the setbacks from the septic systems proposed. I know it’s only proposed. MR. STEVES-Yes. They’re all a minimum of 100 feet, more like 125 feet in this instance. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you, and you’re going to have the raised septic systems there because the water table’s so high? MR. STEVES-Absolutely. MR. STROUGH-The only thing I didn’t notice on the plans was the location, all properties shall be identified by lot, parcel number and names of owners. I didn’t see any names of the owners of the adjacent lots. MR. STEVES-Adjacent parcels, that was required for us to send out notifications. I believe now the Staff sends those notices out. Sheet S-1 is a tax map showing the area of all the lots within 500 feet, and their respective tax parcel numbers. MR. STROUGH-So you don’t have to identify the lots by name on the site plan? MR. STEVES-I can if the Board wishes. I will put that on before the mylar is brought to you. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MR. STROUGH-Laura, isn’t that supposed to be standard, or no? MRS. MOORE-The Board can grant a waiver from that, if the applicant requests that. The applicant has identified the tax map number, so those property owners are identifiable. MR. STROUGH-So we can provide a waiver, but that’s what it does say, though, right? It should give the names of the owners? MRS. MOORE-Right. I understand Matt Steves’ point in regards to our notification, and he has offered, clearly identifies the adjacent properties by tax map, just not by name. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m just saying, that’s what it says here, and I didn’t know if it required a waiver or we’re going to follow by the letter of the law? MR. STEVES-I have no problem either way, if a waiver were granted, at the discretion of the Board. Otherwise, before the mylar is signed, I will have all the adjacent property owner’s names listed on the map. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you. Now the only other concern that I have listed here is that part of Ridge Road, cars fly along pretty well, and the cars of course are going to be facing forward as the enter, or exit I should say, Ridge Road. Do they have enough turning room, given the driveway configuration, to not go on the other person’s property to back out and face forward? MR. STEVES-Yes. The driveways that are shown aren’t necessarily what’s going to be in place, but if you’re asking if there’s ample room on the two acres with the lot width of 150 feet, there’s more than enough room to accommodate a driveway with a “T” so they could back up and pull out onto Ridge Road. Absolutely. I don’t think anybody would want to back out onto that road. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, that was my concern is the way they’re currently, you know, if I didn’t get along with my neighbor, and I set my trash barrels out on by my property line, the way that, they’re here, and I understand that’s not necessarily the way it’s going to be. The way that they’re drawn here, I could see potential problems with not being able to back out and face the cars forward. Okay. That’s all the questions I have, thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I had some of the same concerns that had been mentioned in Staff Notes, and John kind of brought up as well. It’s kind of hard to tell on the sheets that were provided, particularly S-2, how much leeway you have between the proposed driveways and house sites in the adjacent wetlands, but apparently there’s enough room there so you’re comfortable that you’re not going to encroach on those. MR. STEVES-I will gladly put a note on that, for the Board also, which is that all driveways have ample room to provide a turnaround for cars to be able to pull back out onto 9L. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, mostly it’s with Lot Two and Four that seem to have, the way that this is drawn, the houses, or the driveways are very close to a wetland area. The other concern that I have, and it’s really something that is inherent in the site, I’ve never been crazy about these long, pencil shaped lots, but, you know, I understand that that’s what you have to work with in this case, and you’re certainly not going to change the way that that side of Town has been developed. So I’m going to make that comment, but I understand that, you know, you’ve done the best that you can with the proposed subdivision. Those are really the only issues that I had were the wetland and the lot shapes. I think they’ve been addressed. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Drawing S-1, what’s the scale of it? I can’t find where it’s listed on here? MR. STEVES-It says as noted. Typically, the tax map in that area is, I believe a 400 scale, which it is. MR. MAC EWAN-Where is it noted on the drawing? Because I couldn’t find it. MR. STEVES-Good question. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think it is. MR. STEVES-It’s not, but it’s one inch equals 400 feet. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Cathy? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have a question as far as the size of these, just to make sure I have this straight. The apartment complex is going to contain 48 units. Is that correct, and the total of the apartment complex is 26,975 square feet? MR. STEVES-You’re on the wrong site plan. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m on the wrong one. That’s what I get for coming in late. MR. STEVES-We’re on the four lots on Ridge Road. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I’ve got Mickie Hayes, right. I’ve got Hayes in front of me, and I’ve got the wrong thing in front of me. Thank you. I’m sorry, Matt. MR. STEVES-Not a problem. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Go on, Craig, I’m sorry. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-No, I have no questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-Lot Number Four, the balance of that, unless you do sell it to a neighbor, or somehow would have a lot line, he’s going to be landlocked. I mean, there’s no way you’re going to get into that. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. With the lot configurations and the requirements, you’re bound to have the 150 feet, you really can’t, without a variance, anyway. So if we state that on this plan now, that really limits us to, if you have somebody over here, like the lands of Stark that’s up on Chestnut Ridge, that say might want to acquire a piece of this, there’s ample room with almost 27 acres on one lot to accommodate that. So we really didn’t want to block that ability. MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything, Craig, other than. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-What are your plans out in front? Are you going to clear cut or are you going to keep it technically as is? MICKIE HAYES MR. HAYES-We’re going to try to leave, there’s some very nice pine trees in the front which we’re going to try to leave as many trees as possible. We feel it can set the buildings off a lot nicer looking through a natural buffer, because there’s a lot of traffic on Ridge Road and a lot of noise. So as many trees as we can leave will be a positive. MR. METIVIER-And was there reference made to duplexes? There will be duplexes? MR. HAYES-Yes, that’s what we intend, both duplex homes. MR. METIVIER-All three lots, I should say? MR. HAYES-All four lots, yes. MR. METIVIER-Excuse the ignorance, but duplex meaning two? MR. HAYES-Two, yes. MR. METIVIER-As far as the look of the homes, do you have any plans yet? MR. HAYES-We haven’t made definitive plans, but we have a good idea what we’re going to do, and I’ll let you have a look at this. MR. METIVIER-So they will be, obviously, upscale duplexes? MR. HAYES-Yes. They’ll primarily cater to an older clientele, usually age groups that these particular units would rent to probably ages 50 to 80. They’re one level. So the older person can have a more comfortable environment to live, and they have a tendency to stay in the apartments or 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) duplexes, whatever you want to call them, for eight to ten years on average. So really, from our perspective, it’s a good investment, and they’re willing to pay, as long, they don’t want to plow and mow and weed eat and all that. MR. METIVIER-That was my next question. Who’s going to maintain the grounds? MR. HAYES-We are, and the rentals are probably in the neighborhood of $750 to $850 a month. So they’re way up there, where people, they don’t want to have to deal with mowing or gasoline or who rakes the lawn, who fixes my light bulb. We take care of everything. So that’s a trend in the society today, and that’s why we’re doing it. MR. METIVIER-That’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Have you got anything else to add? Any other questions from Board members? MR. STROUGH-Just a comment, that another applicant’s made it very clear to us that trees don’t block sound, unfortunately. MR. HAYES-They don’t? I hope they do. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff? MRS. MOORE-I do have a comment. Based on the drawing and based on the knowledge, it’s a duplex, I have a concern about Lot One, in regards to being 2.60 acres and having a wetland area of .8 acres. If you look at Lot Number One, it’s identified as 2.60 acres. If you subtract the wetlands, according to density calculations, you would need one acre per unit, and that would leave, if you subtract the wetlands out, that leaves 1.80 acres. So he has, he would need one acre per unit, and it appears that he doesn’t have that. MR. STEVES-A question for Staff. Is that per lot that it has to, or is that the density requirements for the entire project? MRS. MOORE-It’s density per lot. MR. STEVES-Per lot? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. STEVES-We could accommodate that by putting a dog leg in the back, you know, and making a lot that has a dog leg back to the north. MR. MAC EWAN-Then we’re creating a flag shaped lot which is, you know, frowned upon in our ordinances. MR. STEVES-And the wetlands, that includes the Federal, Army Corp of Engineers, wetlands, and does the Town recognize that or only DEC? If it’s DEC, it’s exactly .58 acres, on the 2.6 acre lot. So I did include the Federal wetlands in that, and I don’t know if the Town considers that in their. MRS. MOORE-I understand the question, and Cathy and I were talking about that just now. My understanding is that the way that the Ordinance reads at the moment, and there’s been other interpretations, that it does include other governmental agencies. So Army Corps would be included in that. So that’s, it should be both Army Corps and DEC combined, is that way I read it. MR. STEVES-And that’s the way it’s depicted on the plan. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-If you’re going to, I’m assuming you’re going to be landlords and rent this property where you’ve been talking. What’s the purpose of doing a subdivision for a duplex, then? MR. HAYES-Primarily for financing, because it would be residential financing instead of commercial. MR. STEVES-I can accommodate that, instead of a large dog leg, just putting a jog in the back line and just adjusting the next lot over a few feet, and I can accommodate for that two tenths. That’s not a problem. MR. RINGER-You mean making Lot Two less than 2.42, is that what you’re saying, Matt? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MR. STEVES-I’ve just got to take all the lines, as they run to the east, and just put a little bend in them. MR. MAC EWAN-What about going with a three lot subdivision instead of a four? MR. STEVES-Well the amount of land that is up on that property, I don’t see any reason to drop down to three. It’s a swing of a lot line of a few degrees, can accommodate what the Staff’s concern is. It would not significantly change the map that’s in front of you now. It would be the same width. It would just all shift to the north slightly. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, basically on Lot Number One you’d have to pick up about, what did you say, three tenths of an acre? Is that what you’re talking about? MRS. MOORE-A little less than three tenths. MR. MAC EWAN-A little less than. Okay. Anything else to add? I’ll ask you to give up the table for a couple of minutes. We’ll open the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? You’re welcome to come up and address your concerns to the Board. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DAVE JUCKETT MR. JUCKETT-Hi. My name is Dave Juckett. I’m a neighbor to the south of the Hayes subdivision, an I’d just like a chance to look at the survey plans. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. Anyone else? Any other takers? Did you have any comments that you wanted to make? MR. JUCKETT-I’d like to know the boundary of the creek. MR. MAC EWAN-The boundary of the creek. In a way that’s flagged by the DEC wetlands setback. Do you see that marked on the map up there? It shows you where the flagged wetlands are? MR. JUCKETT-I’d just like a little help in reading the survey. That’s all. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Matt, do you want to take a minute and help him, please? MR. STEVES-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-And informal poll. How does everybody feel about John’s suggestion of wanting the names on the plat, property owners? MR. RINGER-Well, you’ve got the one with the tax map. MR. STROUGH-It says here it’s got to be on the plans. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s something you can get a waiver from, though. MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-And he’s requested a waiver from that, in lieu of he put the tax. MR. STROUGH-Or we can just condition it and say that the names will be added to the final plat, and then we won’t have to go through the waiver. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, he’s got other waivers he’s asking for. MR. STROUGH-It’s A183-9, Paragraph Five, or Paragraph Four, Section B. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Can we move this along, please. Did you have any other questions? MR. JUCKETT-No. I just wanted to point out that, in regards to Lot One, on the other side of the creek, there is a rifle range that’s a legal rifle range, and it’s possible that the building in Lot One could be closer than allowed to that range. I just want that as a matter of record. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Appreciate you pointing that out. MR. JUCKETT-I have no problem with the subdivision other than that. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I’ll leave the public hearing open for the time being. Do you gentlemen want to come back up? MR. HUNSINGER-Are we just asking questions? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, go ahead if you’ve got questions. MR. HUNSINGER-How far would you need to adjust the property lines in order to accommodate the minimum requirements for Lot One? MR. STEVES-A third of an acre would be just under 15,000 square feet, and the line being 600 feet long, it’s only got to be a couple of feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STEVES-Because the only wetlands in Lot Two that are within Lot Two are a very small portion in the southeast corner and then along and parallel to the road which is the Army Corps. The State wetland is basically entirely within Lot One, and it really would just be talking a shift of the lines, (lost words) to the road line where they are now and bring them back at about say 15, 20 feet to the north of where they are now in the back. So they’d be the same shaped lot, just slightly shifted to the north on the back lot. MR. HUNSINGER-So who delineated the wetlands on Lot Four? MR. STEVES-That was all delineated by DEC, Allen Koechlien and Charlie Maine, the Soil Scientist that is certified to do is for the Army Corps. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I misunderstood your earlier comment, then. MR. STEVES-I’m saying that there’s no DEC wetlands on Lots Three or Four, but there are Army Corps wetlands on Lots Three and Four. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members? I’m curious about this rifle range situation. Is there anything you can add? MRS. MOORE-I’ve never heard of that. I’d have to look into it and find more information. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Are you familiar with any regulations? MR. STEVES-No, I am not. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? We’re kind of at a fork in the road here, some options we can do. MR. METIVIER-I guess I have a question about the rifle range. If indeed there is one, what types of problems is that going to cause? I mean, if, in fact, the house is going to fall in the line of fire, if you will. I mean, what happens then? That could severely. MR. STEVES-I have no idea. If you have a lot that exists now without a subdivision, that’s not stopping anybody from getting a building permit in that corner of that property at this point. So I don’t know what the difference between an existing lot in the subdivision would effect a rifle range. I had no idea, and if I had known that the Town permits those. PAUL HAYES MR. P. HAYES-I’m quite sure that, even if it is a legal rifle range, that doesn’t entitle them to shoot across our property. I mean, I don’t think there’s anything that I would know of like that. MR. METIVIER-I mean, if you go up Ridge Road to the rifle range on upper Ridge, there’s a house that sits within, I’d have to say 100 feet of the border of it. MR. P. HAYES-Right. MR. METIVIER-So, I just don’t know. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MR. P. HAYES-Yes. I just don’t think there’s a legal existence of a right to shoot across somebody else’s property, even if it’s prior existing. MR. METIVIER-I guess my next question would be, what would you put in place to differentiate the two? I mean, there’s trees there now, obviously. You would keep the trees up? MR. HAYES-It’s heavily forested, plus there’s a stream bed. There’s, maybe he can explain where the rifle range is. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like to keep it flowing this way for the time being. MR. P. HAYES-Well, I think the one on upper Ridge, the one that I’m familiar with, they essentially shoot away from Ridge Road out toward. MR. METIVIER-Right. They shoot into the mountain. MR. P. HAYES-And I think on this rifle range, I would expect, if they were shooting toward those houses, theoretically they’re actually shooting somewhat toward Ridge Road as well, and I’m sure that’s not a condition that really the Town would even. MR. METIVIER-And anybody that would be using a rifle range would obviously not be shooting toward, well, I shouldn’t assume anything, but shouldn’t be shooting toward other residential areas. MR. P. HAYES-No, exactly. MR. MAC EWAN-Laura, did you have something? MRS. MOORE-No, other than just trying to obtain information about the existing rifle range there and why there may be this setback distance that occurs. I’m not familiar with it at all. So, if that individual could talk with me after the meeting, then that’s fine. MR. P. HAYES-To my knowledge it’s all zoned residential in there anyway. MR. DEL SIGNORE-I would also assume, and I’m not aware of any regulation with regard to rifle ranges, although obviously it goes to safety, but if there’s a setback requirement, it would seem that the burden of that would be on the rifle range to keep their setback from the boundary line of their property, not on adjoining owners, putting a building within allowed setbacks. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s understandable. Given the fact, though, we should look into it and see if there’s anything that regulates this sort of thing and how it impacts this subdivision. I guess maybe what we could do, you need to revise the map, obviously, for one. Staff has got some notes on here. We talked about Lot Number Four and further subdivision of Lot Number Four, but you’re looking at that being the potential down the road as being obtained by an adjoining property owner, per say. MR. STEVES-It’s not a subdivision. It would be a boundary line adjustment between two different parcels, because it couldn’t come back in for subdivision without a variance, because of the fact of the road frontage. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, potentially, there’s two lots where you could gain access to it and still have a sizeable parcel to develop. It’s parcels, well, they’re marked as 30 and 33 on your map, and potentially you could also get to it from Chestnut Ridge through Lot 34, that’s on Chestnut Ridge. So there’s certainly potential that that could be further subdivided. I mean, the impact of the Brook in there and how much wetland is taking that up, you know, would obviously play a role as to how much you could develop in there. MR. M. HAYES-We’ll stipulate that we have no intention to further develop that parcel, but we still would like to reserve the right to sell it to an adjacent property owner. We have no intention to build or try to acquire, add any lots on the back for ourselves, and we’ll stipulate that. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I think we can forge ahead here. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s a Short Form? MR. MAC EWAN-They submitted with their application, I don’t remember what they submitted with their application. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Laura, was this a Long or a Short Form? MRS. MOORE-This was a Short Form. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Thank you. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 4-2001, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: MICHAEL S. HAYES, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 26 day of June, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Vollaro MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe the appropriate thing is maybe the consideration of approval of Preliminary only, then resubmit your map for Final, with the lot line adjustments, and it’ll give Staff an opportunity to look into the situation with the rifle range. MR. M. HAYES-Mr. Lapper informed me that in Queensbury, as he understands it, you’re not allowed to discharge a weapon within 500 feet of any residence, in New York . MR. METIVIER-I have to agree with that. I was going to mention the same thing, but, again, if you just go up on Ridge Road, they do, I do, and, you know, but in the State of New York you cannot discharge a weapon within 500 feet. You’re absolutely right. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does the Board feel comfortable approving both of them? MR. RINGER-I like the idea of tabling them until he comes back with a plan showing exactly what he’s going to do. MR. MAC EWAN-What do we have for waivers we’re asking for? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MRS. MOORE-My understanding is they’re asking for a waiver from the Sketch Plan review, and then you discussed whether a waiver should be requested for putting names on the adjoining lots. MR. STROUGH-Yes, that would be a waiver from A183-9, Plat Details and Requirements, Paragraph Four, Section B. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll entertain a motion if someone wants to introduce a motion then, for Preliminary. MR. STROUGH-You mean a Sketch waiver, right? MR. MAC EWAN-If you’re going to consider a motion for Preliminary approval, include that you’re going to grant the waivers in it or you’re not going to grant the waivers in it. I would think you’d have to grant the waivers if we’re doing a Preliminary review. Anybody? MR. RINGER-I don’t have trouble with Preliminary, but I would have trouble with Final. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s do one at a time, because that’s what we have to do. We have to do it one at a time. MR. RINGER-And as far as the waivers, having the lot owners name, I don’t have a preference one way or the other, but if John feels strongly about it, I don’t mind putting it in the resolution. So how do you feel about that, John? MR. STROUGH-I think that’s fine. MR. RINGER-With or without it? I’m asking if you want it in? I don’t have a preference one way or the other. He’s got to do it over anyway. So he can put them in when he does it over. MR. STROUGH-Well, we’ve got to give him a waiver for Sketch Plan. Why don’t we just throw that in right now. Do you want me to? Are you going to make the motion, then, Larry? MR. RINGER-No, you can make the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2001 PRELIMINARY STAGE MICHAEL S. HAYES, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a modification to Subdivision No. 4-2001, Michael S. Hayes for subdivision of a 41.48 acre parcel into four lots of 2.6 ac., 2.42 ac., 2.77 ac., and 28.67 acres. Tax Map No. 54-2-6, and WHEREAS, the application was received 5/30/01; WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 6/22/01; 6/26 Staff Notes 6/22 Notice of Public Hearing 6/6 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 6/26/01 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 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) RESOLVED, that The application for preliminary stage is approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff with two conditions: 1. A waiver for the Sketch Plan has been granted, and 2. A waiver would be for the plat details and requirements, A183-9 Paragraph Four, Section B that says all properties shall have names of owners on them, this waiver being granted. Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Vollaro MR. HUNSINGER-To me the biggest issue with Final approval is if the lot lines were adjusted, even if it’s only a couple of feet, I think that the plan should be definitive in that measurement. MR. MAC EWAN-I agree with you. MR. RINGER-I do, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Unless they can tell us right now what those dimensions would be, I don’t see how we can approve. MR. STEVES-I can say that they’ll be 15 to 16 feet in the back, adjusted, and I mean, I don’t know what the Board’s, I understand what the Board’s looking for, and I guess you’re looking to me if it’s going to be a significant change, and it’s going to be the exact same plan you’re looking at, except the lines are going to be at the same point on the road, and they’re going to be swung to the north on the easterly line, just enough to accommodate, the lots are almost going to remain the same size, except Lot One’s going to increase by .3 acres and Lot Four is going to decrease by about .3 acres. MR. HUNSINGER-So it only impacts Lots One and Two? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I misunderstood. I thought you were going to adjust all the lines. MR. STEVES-So Lots Two and Three will just be sandwiched in between the two, and will move accordingly. They might change a hundredth of an acre. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels. MR. MAC EWAN-The pleasure of the Board. Does someone want to introduce a motion? Do you feel comfortable moving on, or, I’m seeing shaking heads. MR. RINGER-I think I’d like to see it, for one. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I think what I’m hearing is we’re inclined to want to table this to give you an opportunity to revise the drawing. MR. RINGER-And also it would give Laura a little time to see if there is some kind of a regulation on, apparently if there is no one seems to know about it, but. MRS. MOORE-I would say that there’s nothing that we can find in the Town regulation. I’d have to learn more about the actual rifle range, if there was something to deal with a setback issue when the rifle range was implemented. I don’t know that. MR. RINGER-You left the public hearing open. You can ask. MR. MAC EWAN-No, I closed it. I had to close it to do a SEQRA. MR. RINGER-Okay. I didn’t hear it. MR. MAC EWAN-I did. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MR. STEVES-I could stipulate that Lot Three will be, the one will be increased by .3 acres. Lots Two and Three will remain the same size, and Lot Four will be reduced by .3 acres. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the sense is the Board wants to table this for you to revise the drawing, and also it would give the opportunity for Staff to investigate this a little bit further, in reference to the rifle range. MR. M. HAYES-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. We wonder if we could submit site plan at the same time as the Final? MR. MAC EWAN-I suppose that wouldn’t be a problem. MR. M. HAYES-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Can I provide a comment on that? Two things come to mind. Our deadline happens to be tomorrow by 4:30. MR. M. HAYES-It’ll happen. MRS. MOORE-And the second comment is that we may have to juggle when they’re seen. They may be seen at separate times during the month. So just to let them know that they may not be seen at the same time during the month. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, it may be a week apart. MR. M. HAYES-That’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Really, the process what they do is first come, first serve when people submit applications for the following month. MR. M. HAYES-That’s fine with us. MR. MAC EWAN-I need a motion to table please. MOTION TO TABLE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2001, MICHAEL S. HAYES, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: We’re tabling it so the drawing can be revised to show the expansion of the lots to accommodate the wetland area. Duly adopted this 26 day of June 2001by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Vollaro MR. M. HAYES-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-See you next month. SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2001 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED JOSEPH MC MURRY PROPERTY OWNER: JOSEPH ROULIER AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: EAST SIDE QUEENSBURY AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A THREE LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP NO. 109-5-8.1 LOT SIZE: 8.07 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, 179-30 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOSEPH MCMURRY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 5-2001, Preliminary Stage Final Stage, Joseph McMurry, Meeting Date: June 26, 2001 “Project Description 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) The applicant proposes a three-lot subdivision on Queensbury Avenue for Preliminary and Final review. The applicant is requesting a waiver from the sketch plan stage. The lots will have one shared driveway with lot 2 containing the main driveway. Study of plat (§ A183) ?? Lot arrangement: The original lot has about 362 +/- feet of road frontage and has an odd configuration. The lots are configured utilizing the shape and maintaining the minimum one acre lot size. ?? Driveways: The three parcels will share one driveway. The project is located on Queensbury Avenue (County Line Road), which is an arterial road per section 179- 30. The development on this road is subject to either shared driveway and maintaining the minimum lot width, or have double the lot width with separate drives. ?? Topography: The applicant’s plan indicates some topography change but the septic and the proposed dwellings are arranged to be constructed along the contour lines. ?? Water supply: The water is supplied by municipal connection ?? Sewage disposal: The applicant proposes conventional septic systems. ?? Lot sizes: The two front parcels are over an acre in size; lot one –1.03 ac. and lot two –1.12 ac. Parcel number 2 is 5.92 acres and contains the topography changes. ?? Placement of utilities: Utilities are not noted on the plan. ?? Future development: Parcel number 2 may be considered for further development due to the size at 5.92 acres; minimum lot size required for the zone is one acre. However, the parcel has restricted access due to the shared driveway and the topography changes to the rear of the property. Any future development would need further review. ?? Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The project is located in Neighborhood 10 of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. There were no specific recommendations for this project site. ?? State Environmental Quality Review Act. The applicant has submitted a short environmental assessment form. Suggestions Staff would suggest ?? A note should de added to S-1 indicating lot #2 should not be further subdivided, ?? The board may want confirmation that the applicant proposes to construct single family dwellings –note the SR-1A zone allows for duplexes.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Again, I’m Matt Steves with Van Dusen and Steves, and I represent Joe McMurry, who’s also at the table with me tonight on this application. This is a three lot residential subdivision. Yes, to start right off with some of the Staff comments, this is for single family homes. This is located on the east side of Queensbury Avenue, just before the crest of the hill heading toward the airport. The three lots as depicted all meet the required zoning. I think the only other Staff comment was that the, construct single family, yes, and that no further subdivision, we will also agree to that. This is for Mr. McMurry and his family, and he has no problems with that no further subdivision of that larger parcel. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, I’ll start with you. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, obviously we’re going to have that same comment about the names of the adjacent property owners on the final plat, in accordance with the guidelines. I like the shared driveway idea. Because I think it helps cut down on curb cuts and traffic issues and everything else. I really didn’t have any concerns with the proposed subdivision as it exists. Other than comments he already addressed about further subdivision of Lot Two, I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-Nothing right now, other than the comment you were mentioning. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Yes. Okay. Lot Number One, I know these are just kind of laid out as proposals, but the driveway going right into the house, it’s going downhill? MR. STEVES-You could have the garage underneath on a raised ranch? MR. STROUGH-Well, that still doesn’t make any difference. The driveway is going downhill. The water goes down. It freezes up the garage door, you know. MR. STEVES-We would provide for a swale or a low spot in the driveway and come back up to the house, absolutely. MR. STROUGH-You know what I’m saying. MR. STEVES-The Town of Queensbury standard, the erosion control note that all drainage to be directed away from the home, that’s correct. MR. STROUGH-Again, a little deeper water table, but not real healthy. There’s not going to be any basements I assume? MR. STEVES-I would think that, on the upper lots, yes, there could be basements. MR. STROUGH-Well, even on the upper lots we’re getting a (lost word) at less than four feet. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. You will need, for the raised ranch especially, or if you bring in about 18 inches to two feet of fill, you could accommodate a full basement. With your 18 inches, almost two feet of the foundation that remains above ground, you only need to go down about six feet. MR. STROUGH-All right. You might want to make it have a perimeter drain if that was the case, I mean, just to be assured. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. I think that would be absolutely the benefit of the person building the home, that he would want to make sure that he wasn’t going to have water in his basement, and that aware of the situation. That’s why test pits were performed. MR. STROUGH-Are these going to be single family residences? MR. STEVES-Yes, correct. MR. STROUGH-Only? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. STROUGH-What’s the vegetation like in this area? Is this the site that we couldn’t find? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-Because I’m trying to remember the lot, and I can’t bring a mental image of it. MR. MAC EWAN-We couldn’t find it. MR. STEVES-It’s fairly, it’s a mixture of underbrush and woods. This is just south of Al Bair’s property, the Country Mouse, a couple of lots removed from the Animal Hospital on top of the hill. This is just before the crest of the hill. There is one small residence there to the north, as you can see by about that 250 by 100 foot lot, and then Al Bair’s property to the north, and then the, I believe due north of that is the Animal Hospital that’s up there. MR. STROUGH-Was the site labeled? MR. STEVES-I believe so, yes. MR. MC MURRY-Yes, there’s a For Sale sign there. I turned it sideways and put the orange sticker on it. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MR. STROUGH-I guess we just missed it. Are those dotted lines around the property lines, are those like no cut zones? MR. STEVES-That’s the required setback on every lot. MR. STROUGH-It’s rather steep terrain here. I see it drops a good 60 feet within the realm of the three homes there. MR. STEVES-In the back of the property, yes, to the northeast it does drop right off. They’re sitting up on the hill there, as noted. MR. STROUGH-Now that house back in Lot Two, that’ll be about 12 feet below road level? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. Actually, it depends on what road level you’re looking at. As they come in from their driveway, it would be about eight feet below, but running along the contours, those contours do come back out onto County Line Road or Queensbury Avenue at the same grade as the home. The road is cutting across that slope at about a 45 degree angle. MR. STROUGH-So, okay. Is that home going to have like a view to the east? MR. STEVES-Not without removing, I don’t know if there is much of a view to the east. MR. MC MURRY-It’s all woods. Actually, Lot Two is going to be facing back of the driveway. It’s going to be facing west. One house is going to be facing south, one north, the other one will be facing west, right back of the road. The driveway will come right in the front of the house. MR. STROUGH-I’m just trying to get a mental picture of it. Okay, and again, as Chris pointed out, the names of the adjacent property owners aren’t on here. So that waiver’s being requested again. Okay. All right. That’s all I have. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Is there a provision in our Subdivision Reg’s or our Zoning Ordinance regarding shared driveways, and how many lots a shared driveway can service? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-No? So one shared driveway could serve up to 10 or 12 lots if you wanted to? MRS. MOORE-I’d say you’re looking at length, length of shared driveway. MR. MAC EWAN-Length is the key factor? MRS. MOORE-Not necessarily. It’s design. I’m not, I understand your question. MR. MAC EWAN-Something sticks out in my mind from previous applications, that you could have no more than two residents sharing a shared driveway. MR. STEVES-I believe it’s up to three. Other than that, don’t quote me, but I believe after three, you may be required by New York State to have a homeowners association for maintenance of that driveway. MR. MAC EWAN-What do you mean by up to three? MR. STEVES-You can have up to three on a common drive. After that, you must. MR. MAC EWAN-In the Town ordinance? MR. STEVES-No, I believe that’s by State. MR. MAC EWAN-But how does that effect this on a County road? That’s what I don’t understand. MR. STEVES-I don’t think it does at all. I think up to three is fine on a shared drive. If we put in another drive on one of the lots and have two lots share a drive, but it really doesn’t make it the best case scenario for the location. MR. MAC EWAN-I understand your point. I just was curious, because as I recall in previous applications, for some reason or another, that you could have no more than, I don’t know why I’m thinking that. I can’t find anything in the Ordinance that supports it. That’s why I asked the question. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MR. STEVES-Reading through, I have nothing in the Town that I know of that precludes this from having up to three. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. STEVES-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members? MR. STROUGH-Just one more. Did you have a problem with Staff’s suggestion that you add a note to S-1 that Lot Number Two should not be further subdivided? MR. STEVES-No, I stated that at the beginning. MR. STROUGH-I’m sorry. MR. STEVES-I have no problem with that whatsoever. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask you to give up the table for a minute. I’m guessing we might have a couple of questions. I’ll open up the public hearing regarding this application. If anyone would want to come up and ask questions or voice your concerns, you’re welcome to do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NEIGHBORS NEIGHBORS-Could we neighbors look at that with some help from Matt? We’ve not had an opportunity to see it and we live next door to it. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll give you a couple of minutes. Anyone else want to come up and comment? NEIGHBORS-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-No questions? NEIGHBORS-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 5-2001, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JOSEPH MC MURRY, 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 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) 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 26 day of June, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Vollaro MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2001 JOSEPH MC MURRY, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Preliminary Stage for Subdivision No. 5- 2001, Joseph McMurry for a three lot residential subdivision. Tax Map No. 109-5-8.1, and WHEREAS, the application was received 5/30/01; WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 6/22/01; 6/26/01 Staff Notes 6/22/01 Notice of Public Hearing 6/6/01 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 6/26/01 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 as prepared by Staff with the following conditions: 1. There be no further subdivision of Lot No. 2, and 2. The applicant shall construct single family dwellings only, and 3. We grant the waivers requested for Sketch Plan and the names on the Sketch Plan, adjoining lot owners. Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 2001 by the following vote: 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Vollaro MR. MAC EWAN-Do I hear motion for Final? MR. HUNSINGER-Do we need to reference the same waivers? MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t need to do that. Do we? No. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2001 JOSEPH MC MURRY, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Preliminary Stage for Subdivision No. 5- 2001, Joseph McMurry for a three lot residential subdivision. Tax Map No. 109-5-8.1, and WHEREAS, the application was received 5/30/01; WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 6/22/01; 6/26/01 Staff Notes 6/22/01 Notice of Public Hearing 6/6/01 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 6/26/01 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 final stage is approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1. 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. 2. 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 26th day of June, 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Vollaro MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. STEVES-Thank you. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MR. MC MURRY-Thanks. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2001 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED HELEN MITCHELL PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: RR-5A, LC-10, APA LOCATION: LOCKHART MT. RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES 13 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP NO. 23-1-41, 43 LOT SIZE: 141 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JON LAPPER & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 1-2001, Preliminary Stage, Helen Mitchell, Meeting Date: June 26, 2001 “Project Description The applicant proposes a 13-Lot residential subdivision for preliminary review. The project is located on Lockhart Mountain Road. A majority of the proposed lots are split zoned with RR-5A to the front of the lots and LC-10A to the rear of the lots. The setbacks for the dwelling area are within the RR-5A zoning except for lot #10. The Planning Board has seen this application for sketch plan, minutes are provided. Study of preliminary plat (§ A183) ?? Lot arrangement: The lot arrangement has remained as proposed with all lots having separate access to Lockhart Mountain Road. ?? Driveways: The applicant was requested to provide proposed driveway locations and to address any driveways that exceed 10 %. The plans identify proposed driveways with topography. There are no driveways on greater than10% slope. ?? Topography: The topography is shown at 20 foot contours. The proposed dwelling units are not located in areas of excessive slope. ?? Water supply: The plans indicate wells will have to be drilled. ?? Sewage disposal: The plans indicate shallow trench and standard trench systems. ?? Lot sizes: The parcels meet or exceed the minimum lot size requirements. ?? Placement of utilities: Utilities are not shown on the plan. ?? Future development: Due to the split zone of the properties it is unlikely the lots would be further developed. ?? Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The property is located in Neighborhood 1 and Neighborhood 2. The recommendations within these neighborhoods include the need for review of compatible septic locations, stormwater, and steep slope view shed. ?? State Environmental Quality Review Act: The applicant has submitted a long assessment form as requested from the sketch plan review. ?? Adirondack Park Agency: The applicant has applied to the APA for a jurisdictional review. Areas of Concern or Importance The applicant’s plans indicate house, driveway, septic location and clearing limits. The plans also identify the zoning information and compliance with the zoning ordinance. Suggestions Staff would suggest ?? A note should be added to S-1 indicating lot #3 should not be further subdivided, ?? The Board may want confirmation that the applicant proposes to construct single family dwellings –note the LC-10A and RR-5A zone allows for timber harvesting. ?? Combining lots #6 and #7 to increase the road frontage overall on a curved road. ?? Combining lots #10 and #11 to eliminate an “L” shaped lot ?? The plans should identify a bridge crossing the stream.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, my law partner, Bill McIntyre, and Matt Steves. We agree with the conditions, with the exception of combining the lots, and Matt will discuss why this way laid out the way it was, to take into consideration the topography. Laura didn’t read the comments that pretty much says that she signed off on the issues that were raised last time that Matt has now addressed. I’d just like to quickly start out and ask Phil to just give the Board a little bit of background into this property, and the applicant, Mrs. Mitchell, who’s here behind us, in the blue 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) suit, just in terms of the time that she’s owned the property and her sensitivity to the natural resource issues. PHIL MC INTYRE MR. MC INTYRE-Thank you, Mr. MacEwan and Board members. My name is Phil McIntyre. I have been Mrs. Mitchell’s friend and attorney for over 30 years, and her husband Malcolm before that. This property has been in the Mitchell family since the early 20’s. Mr. Mitchell’s mother and father built the a Tudor type home and barn, so forth, down where Mrs. Mitchell lives today, mined, I believe, with stone from this property. To say that this property is almost sacred land to Mr. and Mrs. Mitchell, to Mrs. Mitchell today, is probably not far from the truth. The reasons, I told Jon, I just wanted to address the Board was so that you would get some understanding of the fact that what Mrs. Mitchell is doing today, in terms of this subdivision or has been doing for the past few months, after Mr. Mitchell passed away, in the early 80’s, Mrs. Mitchell was approached by many developers, loggers, who wanted to buy little pieces and bits of this property or big pieces and bits of this property, wanted to log the property, and Mrs. Mitchell’s answer, consistently, was no. This is the Mitchell property. This is something we don’t want to part with. One of the, Top of the World, I can tell you from just representing Mrs. Mitchell, wanted to buy this property and do a number of things to it. She resisted doing anything with this property. I’ll give you an example. Over 10 years ago there was a logger who came and talked to her. We sat in her living room, as we do when we meet with Mrs. Mitchell, in front of a fireplace, and he laid out a very elaborate plan, very well done, of logging this property, and she thanked him and he left, and after he left, she said, I don’t want to do that because I don’t trust him. I don’t believe him. Subsequently, a few years later, she also had a logger come by, and she hired a consultant from Lake George to be her representative, to go over the entire property, all the type of lumber and so forth, type of trees, which she paid for, of course. This was her consultant, and she did contract to have some lumbering done there, but, not only did she have her commissioned sales representative, she had Mr. Pat O’Rourke overseeing him. Mr. O’Rourke has been a family friend for many years, and is very familiar with this property, and the logging did turn out fine. There has come a time when, in Mrs. Mitchell’s life, her expenses of maintaining this property and maintaining her home, have escalated, and what she is proposing now is, we hope the Board, a very reasonable development of this property. She has told me that she wants me to be very critical, in terms of preparing cutting, private restrictions, deed restrictions, including toward the Lake, toward Lockhart Road, and toward her home, which she intends to maintain with some, well, six to ten to thirteen acres, but I can say this. I don’t think I know of anyone in my years of practicing law, who was a better steward of the land that Mrs. Mitchell is, and she is here tonight, ready to address the Board if you so choose. MR. LAPPER-Matt, you’ve already gone through this with the Board the last time, but do you want to just address the issues that Laura has raised? MR. STEVES-Again, Matt Steves, for the record. I think Jon has pointed out that the first few comments from Staff we don’t have any problem with. Combining Lots Six and Seven on a curbed road, as you can see on the scale, this map of a 200 scale, these are large, large lots, and the reason for Lot Six being in the configuration it is, is along that portion of Lockhart Mountain Road, and back around to Lot Four, is your better and your best area, I should say for development on this property, so therefore utilizing the land in its best scenario is to accommodate a lot there. By the time you get back, as you can see with the building setback line is in that zone, by the time you get back a few feet, you’re at about 200 feet in width on that lot. It’s really a beautiful spot to build a home, and lends itself nicely to the building of a single family home in that area. So we don’t see why it would be necessary to merge those two lots. As far as Lots 11 and 12, or 10 and 11, excuse me, there is an existing road that goes down through there, across the stream, and there is an existing barn, if I’m not mistaken, on Lot 11, that could be utilized as, you know, fixing it up for dwelling or become a nice accessory use to a dwelling on Lot 11, and that would allow the use of the property in its current condition. There wouldn’t be a driveway that isn’t already there. MR. MC INTYRE-If I may, if your question is about Lot 11, there is an existing residence there that Mrs. Mitchell has rented for many years to a friend, and, the house, yes, it’s a year round residence, and has, I guess I’m not revealing confidences, has promised that he can eventually have that lot. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Cathy, I’ll start with you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m okay for right now, but I’ll probably have some questions later. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-I guess the one question I would have is with regard to the trees, you had mentioned deed restrictions. Could you give us an example of what that would be? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MR. LAPPER-Well, one of the issues on this subdivision, because of the scenic vistas, is the area of cutting, which is something that Matt has designated on his map, that what we’re talking about, a total of 15 acres, for 13 lots. So it’s a very restrictive cutting area. That’s something that would be on the subdivision map, but that would also be something that would be put into deed restrictions, to make sure that too much logging isn’t done, clearing for the construction of the house. MR. SEGULJIC-So, if I understand, you said about 15 acres would be cut? MR. LAPPER-Approximately, for the whole. MR. STEVES-You’re looking at about an acre to an acre and a quarter per dwelling unit, and in that instance now, Lot 11, and naturally Lot Two, where the existing homes are, take into consideration that back of an acre to an acre and a quarter of existing cleared area for each dwelling unit. MR. SEGULJIC-And so that the future owners would be restricted from cutting any more than that? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I’m all set for now. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MRS. MOORE-I had the same concern when you came in for Sketch, and that’s with Lot Number 10, in that driveway. We never did find that driveway, by the way, Matt. We went up and looked for that. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that the one with the pipe across it, locked? MR. RINGER-I would have liked to have seen Lot 10 and 11 combined, or eliminate Lot 10, I should say, it’s so far back. Other than that, I don’t have any problem with it. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I, too, have issues with, I guess my concern would be clear cutting. I would certainly like to see something in the deed restriction. Also, and I don’t know if it’s possible to do, but what size home, I guess you don’t have an answer for that. MR. LAPPER-There’s plenty of room for good sized homes. MR. METIVIER-I know, but I guess what I’m trying to avoid is, I guess it doesn’t matter. MR. LAPPER-As a condition, I mean, there is no way that she can allow clear cutting, and certainly as a condition that we would have minimal cutting necessary for the house and immediate yard, and that’s what Matt has, well, I guess you didn’t show that. You only showed the setbacks on that map. I’m sorry. Matt has shown that, and we can make that a condition. That is on that, the area. MR. METIVIER-I guess my concern is how to police that, I guess is the word I’m looking for. I mean, people are always striving, and I know it’s a deed restriction. MR. LAPPER-Well, if it’s a condition of subdivision approval, when somebody comes in for a building permit, it’s going to be conditioned. MR. STEVES-Right, you can file the map with that condition, as well as the deed, and there’s a couple of different scenarios that the Board has placed on subdivisions of this kind in the past. I mean, you have an extremely large lot, most of these with about 400 foot of frontage on the road, and I’m showing the typical acre to acre and a quarter of clearing that you would have with a house, a driveway and a septic, and that the only clearing in the setback lines is that to accommodate the access from the road into the buildable area, and as the Board could definitely state in all these instances, that no clear except for the driveway be inside the setback lines, be outside the setback lines I should say. All clearing should be within the setback lines, except for the portion that has to cross for the driveway entrance. I mean, not that, I would hope that somebody wouldn’t be building within 25 feet of the sideline when they have 455 feet, but that does help with the restriction on that, that no clearing will be allowed within the setbacks. MR. METIVIER-Are there going to be any other covenants set in place or is that, this is not the covenant type of? MR. MC INTYRE-Approval of architectural? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MR. METIVIER-That’s what I’m looking for. Yes. MR. MC INTYRE-Mrs. Mitchell has made it very clear that if this Board approves her proposal, I have to get my hiking boots on and go across this property, all the boundaries, with Mr. O’Rourke, so that we know exactly where east and west and north and south are, and where her house is, and we will, we are going to work out considerable restrictions, including architectural review, green spaces, cutting restrictions. This is part of the reason she has not done anything with this property since Mr. Mitchell died in the early 80’s. MR. METIVIER-I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Hi. Okay. I think they did ask you to put the shill of the branch over the stream, which I don’t see on the plan, and is that the New York State DEC stream or Army Corps? MR. STEVES-No, that was reviewed by the APA, Adirondack Park Agency, and there was Judy Ross and Mark Rookes, both of the AP A, have looked at this entire parcel, and the only wetlands that were identified on the entire property was the stream itself, and therefore the setback, as you can see, of 100 feet either side of the stream, but they did say that because it was an existing crossing, they would allow that. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Does the APA have any problems they noted to you? MR. STEVES-None. MR. STROUGH-In the project information, Part I, we have forested area is 136 acres. Okay. It says presently and after completion there will be 135 acres. There’s only going to be one acre taken away from all the development? MR. STEVES-Well, a lot of the, like I say, Lot One, and portions of Lot Two, a considerable portion of Lot Two, is open now. So if you take away for an average of 1.25 acres per dwelling unit, you already have a large portion of Lot Two that’s already cleared, but you’re right as far as the numbers looking at those. You’d probably be looking at 15 acres removed from that, but some of the lots already have the clearing done on those. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but do you know what I mean? MR. STEVES-Yes, just change that number to 121. I’d be fine with that. MR. STROUGH-I didn’t have a problem, it’s just that. MR. STEVES-I understand. MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. So I’ll actually third the support, and you might hear more Planning Board members, having the deeded no cut zones, fairly closely identified to what you’re kind of showing here, at least conceptually. MR. LAPPER-How about no more than an acre and a quarter on any lot, as a restriction? MR. STROUGH-Well, the only problem with that, Jon, is that, I’d almost, there’s some trees up there that I’d like to have identified and maintained and not cut down. I mean, I don’t want to get in the way of somebody’s house, but after the house is said and done, I wouldn’t want somebody clearing a beautiful Oak tree because they’d improve their view, and I think. MR. LAPPER-I think Mrs. Mitchell’s going to feel the same way. MR. STROUGH-And I think we talked about this last time. MR. LAPPER-That kind of a restriction is not going to be a problem. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and is it going to be deeded that tree harvesting be banned on this property? MR. LAPPER-Yes, in terms of no timber harvesting, except, you know, removing dead or sick trees, something like that. MR. STROUGH-And how about Staff’s suggestion for Lot Number Three, that at least be identified on a plat? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MR. LAPPER-That would not be further subdivided. MR. STROUGH-Right. MR. LAPPER-That’s acceptable as a condition as well. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now the only other thing I’m seeing is, I’m having a problem finding that LC-10 acre zone. I’m following it down, north south. MR. LAPPER-Could you point that out, Matt? MR. STROUGH-And then I lose it near Lot Eight. MR. STEVES-You lose it near Lot Eight. It runs along the backs of Lots Eight, Seven, and over to what would be the northeast corner of Lot Seven. MR. STROUGH-Okay. That was my guess, too, but I just needed you to confirm that. MR. STEVES-Actually, I correct myself. It runs along the back of Lots Five and Six. As you can see in the setback line, it runs across back to the corner, because it’s a distance off of Lockhart Mountain Road. You see the setback lines on Lots Six and Seven are quite a ways back from the end of the lots? That’s because that’s where that zone line cuts across. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and I just got a little confused when I was comparing this. Now it does include, there is another lot over here, right? MR. STEVES-There’s the small one that goes behind. MR. STROUGH-Lot One, right. MR. STEVES-Behind the lands of Johnson. MR. STROUGH-Okay. That was just mis-drawn then? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-So the lands of Lockhart, there’s a little jut in there, too. All right. I see it. I’m all right there. There was some concern, on behalf of Staff, if I remember right, of having some kind of stormwater plan for some of the sites. Is that right? MRS. MOORE-The stormwater was in regards to driveway slope, and he’s identified where the driveways are, and he’s indicated that there are no slopes that are over 10%. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So there are no driveways over 10%? MRS. MOORE-Not that I’m aware of, no. MR. STROUGH-Okay. That seems to answer everything I wrote down. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Sometimes I don’t know if it’s easier to review big projects like this or not because the scale kind of throws you off. I don’t really have anything to add, other than what’s already been said. I’m not real crazy about Lot 10. I also wasn’t really sure exactly where the driveway was, and I wasn’t about to start walking across property. I think a lot of the concerns that I had have already been addressed, such as the cuttings and things like that. So I really don’t have anything to add. MR. LAPPER-I think your point is well taken about the scale. When you look at the map, these are really large lots, but just to get them all on one page, it looks like you’re talking about a typical, you know, one acre subdivision, in terms of the size on the map. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the reason why Lots 11 and 10 can’t be combined to make one lot, for safety’s sake? I mean, we’re looking at a driveway that would feed Lot 10, almost 1,000 feet, if not o over. MR. STEVES-Or just because of the fact that the existing building on Lot 11, and the existing access that is there currently with the stream crossing, the size of the two lots, I understand the concern, but 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) again you’re looking at a 200 scale plan, as extremely large lots, and I don’t see any problem with the access to it. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that is the concern, though. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, a 1,000 foot driveway. MR. LAPPER-Mrs. Mitchell wants to give Lot 11 to someone that she’s promised it to, and that was designed, when she came to us and we talked about the configuration, Matt went out, walked it, looked at it and said, this is what I think is the best configuration for subdivision, in terms of slopes, clearing, etc., but her one requirement, when we got started, was that she wanted to be able to do Lot 11 in that configuration, so she could give it to somebody. MR. MC INTYRE-Who is the current tenant there. MR. LAPPER-But the lot behind it is just so big that there is still plenty of room for another lot, although it does have that unusual access. MR. MAC EWAN-Just for emergency purposes, it’s somewhat of a concern. The scale is just under 1,000 feet to where the proposed house is. It’s a long way. MR. LAPPER-More than $35 to plow. MR. RINGER-And if you’ve got a bridge to cross, you’ve got to put an emergency vehicle across a bridge that may or may not hold it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s a road. It’s 60 feet wide. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s wider than the other roads. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not so much the width, Cathy. It’s the length and the fact that you’re crossing a stream. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know. I understand that, but. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m hung up on that. I mean, I don’t have any problems with the rest of the subdivision. I think everything that’s been proposed I’m comfortable with, including the restrictions that the owner plans on putting on development. I have concerns, though, about that Lot 10. MR. MC INTYRE-Mr. Chairman, let me speak with Mrs. Mitchell for just a moment. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, what I’m going to do at this point is open up the public hearing and you can speak with her. Does anyone want to comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so. Come up and address your questions and concerns to the Board. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS FREIHOFER MR. FREIHOFER-My name is Chris Freihofer. I live down on Route 9, right by Mrs. Mitchell’s property. Could I take a look at this for a moment, please? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. MR. FRIEFHOFER-It’s never good to open by apologizing, but I do have to apologize. I didn’t really know anything about this until this evening when I received a phone call. So I’m appearing here unprepared, without counsel. So I was going to ask Mr. McIntyre to sit up here with me, but he was already taken. So, here I am. Have some questions I’d like to ask. I assume this is the proper procedure? I have questions about this. With something like this, I’m going back to other developments, one house in particular that was built right up in that area, I’m concerned a lot about erosion. We had a God awful nightmare when that Kruger house was built over there, with erosion coming down, but you’ll hear from this gentleman, it was over in his area mostly. The septic, what happens to the septic up there on the hill? Where does it go? MR. MAC EWAN-They’re showing where they’re proposed for each lot. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MR. FREIHOFER-Okay. It probably flows down. Now, with regard to this particular project, I was wondering, are these lots going to be developed, bang, that’s it, or could I, for instance, go up and buy one or two of them and leave them undeveloped? Can I go up and buy one or two or three lots and leave them undeveloped indefinitely? Is that the kind of project that we’re looking at here? MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll get that answered for you. MR. FREIHOFER-Okay. Thank you. I think really the main reason I came here tonight is about the impact on my property. I know other properties in the area of further development of this nature, right in that area, and also in the great area, down around that end of the lake and around the lake, for that matter. The reason we, most of us live up there, where we do, is appreciation of the area in its present, or once present form, and that includes the lack of development on the mountains, and the hills. Over where we are we’ve been very fortunate, over the years, through the lack of development on the east side of the lake, mainly thanks to you and your predecessors, and I might add, people like Mrs. Mitchell, who have taken their property and held it, and I say you people because you have stood your ground on some pretty wacky development, around and along the lake, and improvements as well, and I put that in quotes, and I happen to know, from personal experience, how this Town of Queensbury has held the line on some unpopular issues that helped us up there, and I would thank you for that now, and I mentioned Mrs. Mitchell. Her property is something really, I mean, you’ve got to be proud of it. Anyone who can live around that house, she’s a neighbor’s worst nightmare with that lawn. No matter what you’ve got, you’re going to look awful compared to the lawn and the landscaping and so on. It’s just a part of where we live, and I would hate to see all of this gone, and listening to Phil McIntyre earlier, something hit me. We have a lot in common, Mrs. Mitchell, myself, other people there, regarding the preservation. I’ve just got to wonder if there might not be an alternative use for this property, perhaps something in the form of a living trust. I can’t delve into her personal, what she has considered, but there are alternatives, perhaps something even better, how this property could be preserved the way, from what I heard, she would like, and I hope that maybe if those alternative options, if you will, have not been explored, that we might, before we rush into something here, give her an opportunity to consider those. Now, any questions for me? If that’s the way it’s done. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. LIONEL BARTHOLD MR. BARTHOLD-Yes. My name is Lionel Barthold. I live down the hill from this development, on the lake, and I, too, appreciate the stewardship that Mrs. Mitchell has given to this land, and I understand her need to get some value from it. I have really two serious questions with the procedure the way it’s going now. One is the visual impact, and the second is an environmental impact. To the first issue, I received a notice of this just last week, and I saw the list of notices. I suppose there were maybe 20 or so neighbors notified, but the visual impact of this project is to the southern basin, and I seriously question whether a hearing discussing it should be limited to the immediate neighbors. I can’t even see that house from my, I can’t see this property from my house because I’m looking the other way, but there are probably 5,000 houses that will see it and will see the change on that upland, as a result of it. I think all of us have seen over the last five years or so, as the shoreline has been developed, an increase in concern on development of the upland, as Mr. Freihofer mentioned. If you’d like to see where that leads, I suggest, if you haven’t already, some of you look at some of the lakes in Europe and Switzerland, Germany, Italy, Northern Italy, the size of Lake George, Lake Constance, for example, almost the same size, totally different character, because it’s really a village with a lake in the middle of it, and if we’re going in that direction, I think more than the immediate neighbors should have a voice in development of this scale of an upland. To the same point, many of you realize that last year the Conservancy bought 230 acres in the Town of Fort Ann for this very reason, to preserve the vista on the east side of the lake. There were probably 5,000 contributors to that. I was one of them, and it obviously disturbed me to learn, on such short notice, that precisely the same thing was happening on this shore. Incidentally, the house that was on that property, which is the only one that’s prominent on that side, is coming down this summer. So my appeal on that count is that this is unfair to have a hearing on development of this property without advertising it and offering it open to comments to the thousands of people in the southern basin that are affected by the visual impact. The environmental concerns, everything I know about the problems in the lake lead to runoff and problems of that sort. I’m not an expert in what this would do to it, but it sounds like all the bad things I hear about what contributes to lake pollution. That, too, is an issue that impacts more than the immediate neighbors to this property. I called the Conservancy, when I heard about this, and I asked if they had any information on this particular land and what was on it, was there anything endangered and so forth. They referred me to a database that’s put together by the New York Natural Heritage Program. They gave me a map, which I can give to you, if you wish, but it, in this particular development, cites four species, three of which are threatened, and one is endangered, on the New York State level. That suggests to me that there ought to be a pretty thorough environmental impact study, not only of the runoff issue, but of the natural habitat that this land represents. I’m not alone in my feeling. I’ve talked to a number of 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) neighbors that couldn’t be here. They feel exactly the way I do. I would add to Chris Freihofer’s suggestion, I would urge that Mrs. Mitchell speak with someone in the Conservancy about realizing value from the property by giving a conservation easement or simply selling it, as many people on the shoreline have done, either through gifts, through easements, or sale and fee, and I would be willing to facilitate that discussion if that would be helpful. That would realize her dream in keeping the land natural, and give her some immediate value from it. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Let me just quickly, if I could, sir, address a couple of comments you made, just so you can understand the proceedings, as far as notifying everyone who lives within the basin of this proposed action, the way the Town’s Subdivision Regulations are written now, the procedure is to notify people within 500 feet of adjoining property lines. That’s what the provisions are in the Subdivision Reg’s. So everything that she’s done she’s met the requirement of law, including all of legally advertising this meeting here tonight. That’s why you’re here. You got noticed. MR. BARTHOLD-I realize that. I’m not challenging the legality. MR. MAC EWAN-No. I just wanted it to be clear for people in the audience, too, to understand and know how the procedure works, and if you wanted to increase that and say that you wanted to take in everyone who lived within a mile of this vista, it would require a very astronomical effort to do that. MR. BARTHOLD-Excuse me. I don’t challenge, at all, the proceedings. MR. MAC EWAN-I understand that. I’m just clarifying it for the record. MR. BARTHOLD-But this is a very unusual high impact development that should, one way or another, even if it takes a little effort, be open to those who are most effected with it, which are not the people that are 500 feet from it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MS. RADNER-Craig, if I could just add to that. I want to make sure everybody here realizes that this is a public hearing. Anybody in the Town is welcome to speak, and to the extent that there’s been a suggestion that people don’t have a voice, anybody who’s here this evening is welcome to speak, whether they received individual notice because they were within 500 feet or not. MR. BARTHOLD-If they knew the hearing was going on. TOM JABAUT MR. JABAUT-I’m Tom Jabaut. I border the property. I’ve studied the site plan, and I appreciate the comments that were just made, and I sympathize with them a great deal, but I think it’s a good project. I don’t see anything wrong with it, and I would support it if that’s what Mrs. Mitchell wants to do, but I do think the other speakers had some good ideas, but I do support the project as is. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Tommy, excuse me. Where, exactly, do you border the property? MR. JABAUT-I border the property, I guess that would be to the southeast, as you’re coming up Lockhart Mountain Road. MR. MAC EWAN-He’s down in here, some place down in here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Coming up Lockhart Mountain Road from 9L. MR. JABAUT-From Bay Road. MRS. LA BOMBARD-From Bay? MR. JABAUT-Right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. All right. I understand where it is. Okay. MR. JABAUT-I really don’t see much impact on my property, of this project. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) JOHN MATTHEWS MR. MATTHEWS-John Matthews. I have property that borders this property also. I’ve known Mrs. Mitchell since 8 grade. I used to mow her lawn. I painted her barns. I’ve worked and played th on that property since I was a youngster. I also have, once upon a time, talked to Mrs. Mitchell about building up there. I’ve been a builder for 30 years, and my concern is that if the lots are sold, they’re not sold as a group to a large scale developer that’s going to go in there and make mistakes and cut trees and make scars that we have to live with for a long time. I look across the lake, right now, at a big scar that I can see Harris Bay from my lakefront property and it once was huge trees, and as I’m coming down the lake in my boat, I can now see what has grown in on Top of the World, which once was a scar but has kind of healed itself, and I’m also a little bit concerned about the runoff onto my property from the upland because it is quite steep, and I haven’t had the opportunity to look at the plot plan, but I’m sure that if it has to, if the development goes through and they have to follow all the constraints that the Town of Queensbury puts on us as builders, that there probably will be no problem, but I am kind of concerned with the scarring up of the hillside, but if it comes to be, as far as a development, I would like to see it done in a very nice manner, not, and I’d also like to ask, has there been any stipulation as to the size of the dwelling, a minimum size? MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll get that answered for you. MR. MATTHEWS-And is there a contract vendee involved, or is this something that’s just being done by Mrs. Mitchell and her attorney? MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll get those asked. MR. MATTHEWS-Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? Takers? MRS. MOORE-I do have a letter from the Lake George Association. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. MOORE-This is dated June 26, 2001, from the Lake George Association, “Dear Board Members: I am writing on behalf of the Lake George Association, Inc. (LGA) on the above subject matter. I regret that I cannot make these comments in person for the public hearing as I have another meeting this evening. I had the opportunity to review the file for this application last week; the comments here are based on those records. First, here is some background about the LGA so you understand why the LGA has an interest in this application. The LGA has been the leading citizens group advocating a reasoned approach to the management and development of the Lake George Watershed, to insure long-term stability of water quality and the watershed’s economic viability. Since 1885, we have been “dedicated to the protection and conservation of Lake George and its water shed as a clean, beautiful resource, through education, advocacy and broad based community involvement”. LGA is the oldest lake association in the country. We have broad support from over 5,000 members from many groups -- year round residents, seasonal residents, members of the business community and local government, plus other interested individuals and organizations. In examining Part I of the Long EAF, the LGA noticed some inconsistencies and lack of information: Area of Disturbance: The vegetation removal section states that 15 acres will be removed. However, the approximate acreage section only proposes a total of two acres of disturbance between the forest clearing and the building of roads and other paved surfaces. Which is the correct area? Is that correct area a realistic estimation of disturbance? Unnamed Stream: What is the name of the stream in this project area? Does the Department of Environmental Conservation classify this stream as a Class AA Special? Examining the May 26, 2001, Map D-1: Septic Detail, Erosion and Sediment Control Notes, caused the LGA to have some questions: Maintenance of Sediment Traps: The notes indicate that after every storm, each sediment trap shall be inspected for failures or clogging and will be immediately corrected. Who will do this? Stormwater plan: It seems, from these plans, that the erosion and sediment controls outlined are just discussing how the controls will function during the construction phase. What about after construction? LGA believes that Section 9 of the Queensbury Stormwater Management Ordinance classifies this subdivision as a major project. This classification requires a stormwater permit and design of an intensive stormwater management plan by a licensed engineer that deals with runoff from driveways, roads, structures and minimizes or eliminates runoff from these surfaces to the stream and APA, a designated wetland on the property, and ultimately Lake George. The LGA asks that you require a stormwater plan of this subdivision. Here are some questions and issues that become apparent after reviewing the S-1 map dated May 29, 2001: Map Key: There seems to be no key on the map that indicates what the symbols mean on the map for wells, test pits, houses, leach fields, distribution boxes, and septic tanks. Perc Test Results: In the records and on this map there seems to be no record of per tests, even though there are septic systems sited on the map. How can these sites be certain of functioning properly for a septic system without these test results? Vegetative Clearing: Will the only area of 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) vegetative clearing be for driveways and house sites indicated on the map? How visible are these house sites from the Lake? We would ask that cutting be limited on the plans to protect the visual integrity of this area and keep vegetative cover in place to minimize the impacts of precipitation events. The LGA asks you to please consider the issues we have raised above in making the subdivision application for this project more complete and to take into account the natural and aesthetic resources of Lake George. Thank you for consideration of our comments, concerns and suggestions. Sincerely, Heather K. Shoudy Brechko” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-I’m concerned about that letter. Did they have an opportunity to review these plans? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Every question they asked is on these plans. MRS. MOORE-Yes. They did not speak with Staff, that I know of. MR. MAC EWAN-So they didn’t request anything of Staff regarding plans or information pertaining to this subdivision? MRS. MOORE-Right, and the fax was received today. I wasn’t able to call Heather back and provide comment addressing some of the items that are listed. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Just for the record, it should be noted that the author of the letter was asking a lot of information pertaining to this subdivision, and everything is clearly spelled out on these drawings, and I didn’t get where the author was coming from on it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Who wrote the letter? MRS. MOORE-This is Heather Shoudy Brechko. She’s the Planner. MR. LAPPER-She’s the Staff person at LGA . MRS. MOORE-She’s the Land Use Coordinator for the LGA. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Enough on that topic. I have 10 questions, comments that came up. Let’s go through them for the benefit of the audience. MR. LAPPER-I’d like to just make one really brief, general comment. MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. MR. LAPPER-Mrs. Mitchell has kept this in her family for a long time. It is an absolutely gorgeous piece of property. What we’re proposing is an average density of 10 acres, 13 lots on 136 acres, approximately, and what she’s expressed through Phil is that she’s trying to be sensitive, and we came in with these limits of clearing. Obviously, she doesn’t want this to be clear cut. The Board doesn’t want it to be clear cut. It can’t be clear cut. This is something that has to be done carefully, but we’re talking about 15 acres approximately is a very minimal clearing for this size. The gentleman that talked about the Land Conservancy, Mrs. Mitchell is not in a position to dedicate this to somebody, but the land, it is for sale, and if somebody wanted to come and purchase it, it can be purchased. That’s her goal at this point. If the Lake George Land Conservancy or some of the gentlemen on the lake want to purchase it from her, it’s for sale. There’s no contract now. There’s no one who has made an offer, but if they want to purchase it, I mean, probably nothing would make her happier than to have it purchased by the Land Conservancy, but she needs to sell it, and that’s why we’re here, and just, in terms of the stormwater issues, the reason why Matt chose the locations for the lots is because this is where, minimizing construction on slopes, and it’s, the large 35 acre parcel is the parcel where the steep slopes are, and there’s a flat area there, for a home site. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the schedule for lot development, should you get approved? 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MR. LAPPER-As the market will bear. I mean, it could be sold to a developer, like the gentleman who spoke, or, you know, she’d just sell them individually to people that wanted to. MR. MAC EWAN-Looking for minimum house size, square footage size on the houses? MR. LAPPER-Phil, is that going to be something, do you have any idea of how big, 2,000 square feet? MR. MC INTYRE-At least that. MR. LAPPER-At least that. MR. MAC EWAN-Minimum of 2,000. Do you have a contract vendee? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. MC INTYRE-No. That’s (lost words). Mrs. Mitchell has agonized over this for three years, by herself. That’s not to say that she hasn’t had people who have approached her to do this. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I think we have to address the issue of the stream designation, earlier comments. MR. STEVES-From what I have been able to ascertain on that stream, it’s an intermittent stream. It has no designation, no stream name. I haven’t been able to find one. I did have APA Staff at the time right out there viewing the stream, walk the entire. Their only concern was that the wetland was the stream itself and stay 100 feet away from it, and I’ve shown the buffer. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else to add? Any other questions of Board members? MR. RINGER-There was one question on endangered species someone mentioned. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, the three that are. MR. RINGER-I just made, a comment from commenters was one talked about endangered species of wildlife up there. MR. STROUGH-Well, they didn’t say whether it was flora or fauna. I didn’t know. MR. STEVES-As far as I know, with the AP A being on site, Judy Ross from the APA Staff, and Mark Rookes did not bring up anything on those two facts. Also, the plans have been submitted to the APA, and I’m sure Staff has submitted stuff to the APA. We’ve submitted stuff to the APA. I haven’t heard anything back. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you’ve also had DEC investigating this, too, just from the sake of the stream, and that would have tipped off something as well. MR. RINGER-Well, I only brought it up because it was a comment that should have been answered. MRS. RYBA-Excuse me. I was just going to say, APA doesn’t deal with endangered species, or excuse me. MR. STEVES-They send it out to endangered species unit of DEC, and they also send it out to State Historical Preservation Office. MRS. RYBA-Because I just went to a workshop last week where they said that they didn’t do the SEQRA review, although it didn’t prevent them from doing SEQRA. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MRS. RYBA-So that was the conclusion. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Larry? MR. RINGER-No, not from the public comment, but before we opened the public hearing, we were talking about Lot 10. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Cathy? 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. I have a couple of questions here. Matt, you can probably help me out here, but the home sites that are at a higher elevation with, you know, obviously their septic systems have to leach out, and I can see where there’s, it seems like there’s a lot of yardage or distance between the home sites that are downstream or downhill from the ones that are, you know, uphill, I guess you could put it that way, but I guess my question is, what about the wells? I mean, people are going to have wells here. Is there going to be any kind of, is there any kind of guarantee that the septic runoff on the homes that are higher up isn’t going to run into the people’s wells in the homes that are, you know, at a lower elevation? MR. STEVES-Understand, the septic system you’re looking at it is a conventional system that’s about 18 inches deep. As you can see from Charlie Main’s soil tests, they’re good well drained soils. There’s no problem with the filtration of the leachate. As far as yours wells, I’ve checked with Pat O’Rourke. He’s talked with a couple of the neighbors up there, and their wells average a couple hundred feet in depth, and with anywhere from seven to eleven gallons per minute, we don’t anticipate, on reviewing this with Tom Nace, he’s also been on board with this, has no problem with the separation between the wells and the septic with a conventional system because of the soil test reports, and extremely large lot size. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right, and my next thing is, I think Mr. Matthews had a really, it kind of goes along with what he said. As far as, you can’t put the cart before the horse here, but, boy, I sure was, I would like to see those covenants and the things that you’re going to have in the offerings and in the deed restrictions before I give my okay on anything like this, because you can say all you want that you can’t clear cut, and, you know, you might have somebody come in, because I had it, and I’ve said it many times on this Board. My next door neighbor cut every single tree down. It’s their land. They want to cut their trees down, they can cut their trees down, right to my property line. So I have no buffer, and who’s to say that, 10 years from now, somebody just says, I’m sick of these trees. I need more sun. I want to have a view, and they just start cutting them down, and Mrs. Mitchell’s not around, and in the covenants, who’s to enforce? MR. LAPPER-Well, the covenants are really private, and there’ll be some things, architectural things, that really are private and not the interest of the Board, but all of the issues that we’ve mentioned, that we’ve agreed to, that the Board has mentioned, could be put as conditions of the subdivision, so then the Town would have the right to enforce those. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Could you do that? In other words, we, before we pass something like this, could we have some kinds of rules and regulations or conditions for this subdivision? MR. LAPPER-We don’t want the Town to approve the covenants, because those are private covenants, and are beyond the zoning issues, like architectural issues, for instance, but the issues that have been mentioned tonight are zoning issues, and with respect to those my suggestion is that if they become conditions of the subdivision approval, the Town would then have the right to review those, in terms of the clear cutting, certainly the construction soil control and erosion. Those are issues that the Town Code Enforcement Officer would then have the right to enforce if they were conditions of the subdivision, and that goes separate from private covenants which have to be enforced privately, in court. This would be something that the Town would have the right to enforce, because they’re conditions that we’re agreeing to of the subdivision. MR. STROUGH-Well, I had a thought, too. I’m worried about the scarring and everything else. I’m just wondering, you know, when we do lots in a CEA, we have site plan review for each proposal, I mean, if someone wants to build something or put an addition onto their house and they’re on the lake, right? MRS. MOORE-It’s only for additions to nonconforming, pre-existing structures. It’s not brand new homes or anything like that. MR. STROUGH-Well, I know it’s unusual, but I didn’t know if it was possible that we could have these lots and do like a site plan review for them? I mean, each lot is kind of different. I’m having problems with, and I’m sure they are, too, is what would be a good clear cut for this particular lot, because there are 13 different ones. What significant trees, after we get the house located, would we like to remain? What kind of construction and erosion plans will be best? Does the homeowner have to submit construction and erosion plans? MR. MAC EWAN-John, for subdivision it’s not feasible for us to do that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s what John said, but this is a special type of subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we can’t interject zoning ordinances that don’t apply to the regulations. I mean, we’re trying to do something above and beyond what’s required in the zoning. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MR. STROUGH-I just thought it was an idea. I just ran it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think it’s a great idea. MRS. MOORE-Can I identify two comments? The Board, in the past, has reviewed large lot subdivisions and done clear cutting restrictions and had that note placed on a plan. They’ve done no clearing of vegetation within so many feet. They’ve given a diameter width for that type of clearing. MR. MAC EWAN-I can think of where we’ve done a couple of them has been up on the mountain. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-West Mountain area. MRS. MOORE-Right. MS. RADNER-Do you want further clarification of the difference between covenants and conditions? You said you weren’t sure you understood. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’re talking to me, Cathi? MS. RADNER-Yes. Do you want further explanation? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well Jon, I tried to catch everything that Jon was saying, but I didn’t quite get it all. MS. RADNER-Basically, if you have a covenant, it’s an agreement between property owners, and it’s for the benefit of the other property owners. So they are the people who have the right to enforce it. So if these 13 lots have mutual covenants, than any one of the 13 can bring their neighbors to court and sue them privately, but the Town can’t step in to enforce those private covenants. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Gotcha. MS. RADNER-A condition that’s placed on the approval of this subdivision, or a condition that’s placed upon the filed plat, the Town can enforce, and that’s the difference. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I understand exactly what you’re saying, but I think that, for us to make conditions to put in place before approval of this is going to require not something that can’t be done tonight. It’s going to require a workshop time where we’re going to have to get together. I mean, this is, I don’t think I could come up with any kind of a motion tonight to approve this subdivision because there’s too many things in my mind that I’m afraid somebody’s going to come in and really mess this place up, and like you said, you’ve said it many times tonight, this is wonderful, wonderful land, and I’ll tell you, it doesn’t take much to mess up this land. All you need is one contractor in there that doesn’t know what in the world he’s doing, and Mrs. Mitchell can sell her piece of property and those people can go with the cheapest contractor that doesn’t know what he’s doing, just to put anything up there, and another thing I feel is, you know, I mean, you can’t dictate what people’s homes are going to look like, but this is in the Adirondack Park, and I would like to see some kind of a nice, Adirondack type of theme in there, too. MR. STROUGH-And couldn’t we request that the Town Board change the zoning code so that we could do a site plan review for each proposal here? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Could you do a waiver on something like this? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s really, I mean, Cathi can answer that better than I can, but that’s changing Local Law, really, and that’s not something you can do, almost like New York State Assembly. MS. RADNER-You can’t spot zone, either. You can’t come in and change the zoning of this lady’s one piece of property just because you don’t like what she might want to do with it. MR. MAC EWAN-No, you can’t. MS. RADNER- It has to be part of a bigger picture. MR. STROUGH-Well, we just wanted to help her manage it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s the thing. I think there’s nothing wrong with her wanting to sell some, make a nice subdivision out of this. I’m worried about who’s going to get their hands on it, and what they’re going to do with it, and, believe me, contractors aren’t architects, believe me. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MR. MAC EWAN-This Board is limited as to its review process, and being able to, you know, put conditions on applications relevant to what the zoning and the Subdivision Reg’s say. I mean, for us to even toy with the idea of limiting to what developers or who developers could do something like that, would be way beyond this Board’s reach and you’d be really micro managing an application, and I don’t think that’s in the best interest of not only the Town but the applicant as well. MR. LAPPER-Because we’re trying to be cooperative, however, we’re, and I appreciate what the Chairman’s saying, and I agree, but what we’re willing to offer is a limit of no more than one and a quarter acres of clearing on each lot, you know, plus the driveway access to that one and a quarter acres. MR. STROUGH-That’s a lot of clearing. MR. LAPPER-But it’s the house, the septic system, and some lawn area. These are big lots. MR. STROUGH-You take Lot Number 10 and the driveway is going to take up half an acre. MR. LAPPER-These are five to ten acre lots, though. These are big, big lots. MR. STROUGH-Well, I know that, but I’m saying that if you’re going to restrict it to one and a quarter acres of clearing, then the driveway to Lot Number 10 could use up most of your one and a quarter acres. MR. MAC EWAN-Can we jump back on to the issue we were talking about just before we went to the public hearing, in reference to the idea of maybe joining Lots 10 and 11 together? MR. MC INTYRE-Yes, we can, Mr. Chairman. I’ve talked with Mrs. Mitchell. This part of the plan was done for some sort of personal reasons with the person who is living in the barn/year round residence there now. It was not done particularly from a long term planning or marketing point of view. Mrs. Mitchell is willing to make that all part of one and merge Lots 10 and 11 if that would. MR. MAC EWAN-That would set my major concern at ease very much. I’m very concerned, especially in the winter time. Should emergency access ever need to get in there, trying to get to something that’s developed on that back portion which obviously is Lot 10, not only trying to get in there in the wintertime on an icy road, which I’m sure at that point would probably be a dirt road. I can’t imagine somebody would pave 1,000 feet to a driveway, and secondly the concerns with the bridge and the bridge being able to handle emergency equipment. MR. RINGER-It would make me feel a lot better, too. MR. LAPPER-That is agreed. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you want to add? Staff? MR. STROUGH-How about when they go for a building permit, that they have to submit a construction and erosion plan? MRS. MOORE-Due to the fact, and she mentions this in her letter, that it’s in the Adirondack Park, and part of the water shed, our Code Enforcement Officer, it’ll be reviewed and determined if an application needs to be completed for a stormwater permit, either by the entire subdivision or by lot individual. MR. STROUGH-So it’s just a maybe then? MRS. MOORE-No. Whether it needs a permit or not? MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m just wondering about this Kruger property, what happened there. MRS. MOORE-I’m not sure. That’s another case that I’m not familiar with. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. STROUGH-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s do a SEQRA. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s a Long Form. “IMPACT ON WATER Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected under Articles 15, 24, 25, of the Environmental Conservation Law?” MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. RINGER-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I think it will. It will affect Lake George. MR. MAC EWAN-How do you figure? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Runoff. MR. MAC EWAN-How do you figure runoff is going to get to Lake George? MR. RINGER-By the time it got to Lake George, it would be filtered out. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I mean, it’s already running down now. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So then you’re saying to me that all those places around Lake George, that by the time anything gets into that Lake. MR. RINGER-No, no, Cathy, I’m looking at this subdivision right here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Well, what about the people when they fertilize their lawns up there? All that nitrates and phosphates is going to runoff into the Lake, just like the golf course. I mean, I believe that you can’t say no. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy, you need to look at Drawing D-1, which outlines stormwater management. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right, well, then, you tell me where it’s going to be mitigated. Maybe the septic can be mitigated, but, I don’t think that, I mean, there’s, what about the stormwater runoff from this? MR. MAC EWAN-Right here on these drawings. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. It is on the drawings. I know. Well, what about fertilizer, people fertilizing their lawns? Maybe that should be a stipulation. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the impact on this development of anybody fertilizing their lawn is going to be much less than anybody who lives along the lake who fertilizes their lawns. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I’ll tell you right now, I have never put one bit of fertilizer on my lawn in the time I’ve lived on that Lake. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m glad that you feel that way. MR. RINGER-Cathy, you’re looking at 13 lots in a, actually 12 lots, in a 141 acres. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know, but it’s like all this little stuff just keeps building up, and adding up and adding and adding. I mean, I just don’t know how we can sit here and say that there’s no impact on water. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll poll the Board. Impacts to the water, I say no. MR. RINGER-I say no. It’s small to moderate, if at all. MR. MAC EWAN-Two noes. MR. SEGULJIC-I’d have to say there would be impacts. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You know how I feel. MR. STROUGH-Small to moderate. MR. MAC EWAN-Small to moderate. Chris? 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MR. HUNSINGER-I could buy small to moderate, which are controlled by the plants. MR. MAC EWAN-So you need to have an answer for small to moderate then. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, okay. So we’re saying that there’s a small to moderate impact on the Lake by this subdivision. MR. STROUGH-Which can be mitigated if they submit a construction and erosion plan. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And a construction and erosion plan would be for each individual house on each individual lot. MR. MAC EWAN-And they’re right here in D-1. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But that’s not each individual house. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it is. MR. SEGULJIC-But that would just be (lost words) not absorbed materials like nutrients and phosphates get absorbed in the water, dissolve into the water. MR. STROUGH-Yes. I think that’s a point. I have to concur. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I mean, you’re talking oil from vehicles. MR. MAC EWAN-Honestly, I’ve got to tell you, I think that we’re really reaching here. I mean, the impacts that this subdivision is going to have on the Lake, that’s seen about a half a mile away, if not further, at its closest point, is going to be minimal, compared to impacts that you, as Board members, don’t even taken into consideration when we’re dealing with an application that sits on the Lake. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, not only that, but all potential home owners who build up there do have to follow those plans. MR. MAC EWAN-Correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. All right. MR. MAC EWAN-So are we saying small to moderate, mitigated through the stormwater management details that are submitted in Drawing D-1. Does everybody agree on that? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. “Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?” MR. STROUGH-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Sure it will. MR. STROUGH-But it can be mitigated by the same plan, though. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. I’d agree with that, small to moderate, and it’s mitigated by the means that they’re going to use for stormwater management on the plans. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. There’s a lot of examples here. “Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff?” MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Again, small to moderate, and it’s going to be mitigated by plan D-1. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Can this cause substantial erosion? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. MR. RINGER-We could do this on any application. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MRS. MOORE-I’m sorry, did you mention that there was a yes to this question, will action alter drainage flow? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. MOORE-With a yes, and then you indicated that was small to moderate? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. The mitigation is the plans illustrated on Sheet D-1. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-“IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?” MR. MAC EWAN-No MR. STROUGH-Not that we’re aware of. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, they mentioned it, but we never got. MR. MAC EWAN-He mentioned it, but he had a list that was from an agency outside of New York State, and that’s the one we have to go by, New York State’s endangered species list. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Exactly. Okay. MR. STROUGH-All right. So, no. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. “Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species?” MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“AESTHETIC Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources?” All right, visual. MR. MAC EWAN-I say no. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Screening of scenic views. MR. STROUGH-Well, I say small to moderate, because there is going to be an impact on an aesthetic resource. The Lake George area I consider to be an aesthetic resource, but I think limiting the amount of cutting that is allowed on each parcel, and delineating no cut zones, helps to mitigate that. MR. HUNSINGER-I’d go along with that. MR. METIVIER-Miniscule. MR. RINGER-Any time you put up a house you’re going to have some kind of effect. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but this is the hillside of Lake George. I think you do have to be a little bit more careful. MR. METIVIER-Besides Top of the World, and the two houses that sit on the bottom of Lockhart Mountain, you cannot, from the Lake, see any of the houses up there. MR. STROUGH-But what do you have a problem with? I say it’s small to moderate, but it’s mitigated by delineating the no cut zones. Do you have a problem with that? MR. METIVIER-I have no problem with that. I’m just saying that you really can’t. MR. STROUGH-Then that’s all we said. MR. METIVIER-Okay. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’re in agreement on that. MRS. MOORE-My understanding, let me clarify this one, on impact on aesthetics, you have a yes, small to moderate, can be mitigated by the no cut zones. MR. MAC EWAN-By the clear cutting plans, and the conditions that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But where are those clear cutting plans? Where are they? MRS. MOORE-The clear cut zones are identified on the subdivision plat. They’re not labeled, but they are identified on the plat at this time. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right, and who is going to enforce that? MRS. MOORE-If you place that as a condition of the subdivision approval, it’s enforced by our Code Enforcement Officer. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. “Is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. RINGER-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-There really isn’t any public controversy. There’s only three people spoke up. I don’t call that public controversy. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you going to make a motion for a negative SEQRA declaration? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I’m not. There’s things that I just, I don’t know. MR. MAC EWAN-Do I hear a motion for a negative SEQRA declaration? RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO., Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier : WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: HELEN MITCHELL, 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. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) Duly adopted this 26 day of June, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. LaBombard ABSENT: Mr. Vollaro MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll entertain a motion. MRS. MOORE-Before you do your motion, why don’t you identify the list of items that you wanted to add as conditions, and discuss that. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got three that I would ask for, at submission of Final, I’d be looking for. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Delineate the cut zone and so forth, marked very clearly on the map, submit a written cutting plan, combine Lots 10 and 11. Anything else? MR. STROUGH-Yes, plat S-1 will show that Lot Number Three will not be further subdivided. MR. LAPPER-We’ll put a note on. MR. STROUGH-And I just don’t know how to handle the retaining of significant trees. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I asked them to do in their written cutting plan. MR. STROUGH-So that’s going to be part of that written cutting plan? MR. MAC EWAN-Which would be considered as a condition of approval at Final, not a covenant, but a condition of approval. MR. STROUGH-How can they identify the significant? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s going to be up to them. MR. STROUGH-That’s their problem. MR. LAPPER-If there happens to be like a large, 20 inch maple in the middle of where you want to put the house, it may have to come down. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’ve always said other than where you’re putting the house. MR. LAPPER-Yes, that would be part of the plan. That’s fine. MR. STROUGH-And a safety factor, too, anything that might jeopardize the safety of the house. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m looking for a motion, though, for Preliminary. MRS. MOORE-I have one other item that was discussed, that there was to be no timber harvesting. Do you want that also as a condition? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-What was that, Laura? MR. LAPPER-That could be separate, because we’re saying only clearing for the house, and also there won’t be timber harvesting in the future for the owners. We have no problem with that. MR. MAC EWAN-Put it in words, in the written plan. Anything else? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Are there things that you would put in the Final that you wouldn’t put in the Preliminary? I mean, what if we came up with some more in the next, between now and Final? MR. STROUGH-We could always add it to the Final. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s what I’m saying. MR. MAC EWAN-We’d have to bring it up for discussion at the time when they come back for Final. MRS. LA BOMBARD-We can do that? All right. I have a question. In other words, under this Subdivision of Land in our book, under the character of the land, under A183-21, are you saying that all of these stipulations have been met on this plan? I just worry that, like the drawings are nice. Matt did a great job with the drawings, but does that always mean that? MR. MAC EWAN-These are the same provisions that are met with every subdivision we do throughout the Town. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. That’s right. MR. MAC EWAN-This is a requirement. Some of this stuff, you know, I mean, it’s standard, I don’t mean to be undermining you. I mean, they’re standard boilerplate stuff that’s required. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I guess what I’m worried about is that, like if one developer came in, like there’s one developer in Town that has done a wonderful job with some of the subdivisions, wonderful job, the landscaping, with the out lay where the house is, with the architecture, because that one person was in there and there weren’t a lot of people to spoil the pot, you know, make it a hodgepodge. What I’m concerned about is that, you know, everything that’s on Matt’s plans accounts for all the runoff and the septic and everything else, but the aesthetics aren’t on this plan, just the black and whites are on this plan, and the aesthetics is what it really turns out to be after everybody has built their house and starts to live there, and that’s where I have a problem. MR. MAC EWAN-We, as a Board, can’t dictate what any applicant uses or who they should use or could use for a developer for someone to put up homes. I mean, hopefully the decision will be made and they’ll choose a reputable one who’ll take that into consideration, but the safety net we have the ability to put in place with this is the conditions that we put on an approval process that would govern how that land is going to be developed. Hopefully we’ll achieve that by asking for these conditions that we may be thinking for gaining for Final, should we entertain it. I think, you know, I’ve sat on this Board for a long time and have gone through a lot of subdivisions, and I see this Boar taking a very hard look at this one like I’ve never seen them take a look at another subdivision before in the Lake area, and so some of the things that I think we’re asking for are warranted. We’ve had a few, especially in the Lockhart Mountain area. We’ve had a few of them over the last few years. We’ve had a couple right on Cleverdale. So, I mean, I think we’re doing our homework on this. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like a motion, someone put up something for Preliminary, please. MR. STROUGH-Well, you have a list of the conditions? I mean, you were saying. MR. MAC EWAN-I wrote down mine here, and I added yours to it, delineate a cut zone, a written cutting plan, combining Lots 10 and 11, Lot 13 no further subdivision. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Lot Three. MR. MAC EWAN-Lot Three, I’m sorry, Three. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No timber harvesting. MR. STROUGH-All right. MR. MAC EWAN-Which we’re going to get in the written cutting plan. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, given those conditions, I’ll make a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2001 HELEN MITCHELL, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Subdivision No. 1-2001, Preliminary Stage for Helen Mitchell for a 13 lot residential subdivision. Tax Map No. 23-1-41, 43, and; WHEREAS, the application was received 5/30/01; 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 6/22/01; 6/26/01 Staff Notes 6/22/01 Notice of Public Hearing 6/15/01 FOIL request – T. Jabaut 6/6/01 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 6/26/01 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 is approved for preliminary stage in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1. At submission of Final, delineate the cut zone, so forth, marked very clearly on the map, and 2. Submit a written cutting plan, and 3. Combine Lots 10 and 11, and 4. Plat S-1 will show that Lot 3 will not be further subdivided, and 5. It should be in the written plan, in words, that there will be no timber harvesting. Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 2001 by the following vote: MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just wish that there would be a guarantee that. MR. STROUGH-You’ve got the Final, Cath. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I can do that at the Final I suppose. AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Vollaro MR. LAPPER-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d just like to request if we could have until Friday to submit for Final, because we have to prepare the cutting plan. MR. MAC EWAN-When’s our? MR. LAPPER-Tomorrow’s the deadline. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll give you until the close of business Thursday. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Reasonable? MR. LAPPER-Matt can stay up all night Wednesday night. MR. MAC EWAN-He’s going back to do the Hayes and Hayes project, so, what the heck. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MR. LAPPER-Right. Thank you all very much. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 25-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED TREE CARE BY STAN HUNT, INC./FRANK & JIM, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: JAMES W. HUNT ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 53 BOULEVARD APPLICANT PROPOSES EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING TREE CARE BUSINESS TO NEWLY ACQUIRED PARCELS. NEW USES IN LI ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 12-92 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/13/01 TAX MAP NO. 112-1-17.2, 32.2, 20 LOT SIZE: 1.04 AC., 2.97 AC., & 1.47 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 JAMES HUNT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 25-2001, Tree Care by Stan Hunt, Meeting Date: June 26, 2001 “Project Description The applicant proposes to utilize adjoining lands for storage of landscaping material. The bulk of the storage will be woodchips, but other storage includes logs and wood, landscaping equipment, company vehicles, van storage trailer, outdoor racks, and other associated landscaping material/equipment. The applicant had previous approval for parcel 112-1-17.2 to operate a landscaping business, Site Plan 12-92. Project Analysis (Section 179-38) Site Overview The proposed storage area is partly surrounded by residential uses to the north and east. The west side is adjacent to the NIMO Property that contains an easement for the landscaping business to cross over. The applicant also utilizes parcel 112-1-20 to access the main wood chip storage area. The applicant has indicated that the storage of materials may be relocated on the business property as needed. The applicant does not propose any new lighting or signage for the site. The main entrance to the business will remain at the current location. Areas of Concern or Importance The Code Enforcement Officer informed the applicant by letter (May 4, 2001) that the use of the adjoining property with the Landscaping Business would require site plan review. The applicant met with staff to review the planning process and the site plan application material. Staff has contacted NYSDEC and was advised the applicant should confirm with the NYSDEC if the storage of woodchips should be registered. The applicant has met the conditions of the previous site plan including paving the driveway to control dust. Suggestions The Planning Board may request the applicant to combine three parcels into one parcel. In addition the Board may suggest the applicant confirm with the NYSDEC that the current method of woodchips storage does or does not require registration with the NYSDEC.” MR. MAC EWAN-I’m curious about that. Could you lend some knowledge to that? Why would you need to register your wood chip pile with DEC? MRS. MOORE-Can I refer to Staff Notes and you can, I have other notes in the file. MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. Good evening. MR. HUNT-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. HUNT-James Hunt. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little about your project, Mr. Hunt? MR. HUNT-Yes. Should I put the chart up, or do you all have one? MR. MAC EWAN-We have one, but if you want to put one up for the audience, that would be great. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MR. HUNT-Well, if those of you in the audience can make that out, you’re doing better than I am. I’d be happy to explain any of that at any time, but essentially we bought a parcel at 53 Boulevard. The notes call it 112-1-17.2. In 1992, it was site plan approved for location of Tree Care by Stan Hunt, at that time. Subsequently to that, in 1995, we bought current parcels that we own, indicated on your chart as Lot A, a 1.04 acre, Lot B, 1.93 acre, and in 1999, we purchased Lot C, the Murphy property. All this land was adjacent to our land. Lots B, excuse me, Lots A and B and indicated were landlocked before we purchased them. We annexed those to our property, which the entire parcels combined lie within the zoning of LI-1, LI, excuse me, -1A. The current and projected uses mimics or essentially is the same as the original parcel that was site plan approved in 1992. It’s simply on a larger scale, and we’ve proposed no buildings, no permanent structures on the property now or in the future. We do have a roadway. We do have some fencing that we put up as permanent fencing. Those are the only permanent structures that are on the site now. The roadway is a stone driveway. The rest is all temporary, with temporary usage’s indicated for temporary storage of bulk materials, as indicated here, wood chips, logs. I guess you could call some of it firewood, and that is simply the request is to be able to annex those parcels under a site plan approval by the Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom, we’ll start with you. MR. SEGULJIC-I have no comments at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-None now. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Let’s see. All right. Well, one of them already got answered, the registration of the wood chips is going to be needed by DEC, I guess. Right? MR. HUNT-Let me address that. We know of no such requirement. However, in 1996, after we bought those parcels, Officer Timko, whom we all know, came to our property, and I had specifically asked him about utilization of our chips at that time, and if he saw any problem, as a DEC Environmental Officer, and he said no, none whatsoever. So we’ve merely mimicked that, to the extent that we’re able to, in that larger parcel. The intended usage for all those chips, incidentally, is to provide them for the Washington County Sewer District II, for the biodegradation or the composting of sewage sludge. Many of the chips have gone for that purpose already. The rest of these are stockpiled with that anticipated use. MR. STROUGH-A landscaping use? MR. HUNT-Landscaping use is minimal. Jimmy Girard and people like that come down and take what they want at times, but we do not use them for landscaping use. We do not have a landscaping, groundscaping portion of our business. MR. STROUGH-So you just chip up the trees that you cut down, the branches, etc., and this is where you stockpile them? MR. HUNT-That is correct. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. HUNT-But I will point out that this is not the only place that those things go. They go all over the tri county area. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, that’s fine. Just one thing, Laura, how come we’re noticing this rash of Warren County Planning Board denials because of lack of information? What’s the story there? Is there one? MR. MAC EWAN-I can answer that. Warren County Planning Board is asking for material quicker than Staff is receiving it to be able to review it to give it to them. Normally, jump in any time I miss on this, they are looking for information to be turned over to them like on a Thursday, when we receive stuff on a Wednesday, is our close of the month or whatever, and they’re asking for stuff to be submitted to them for review in a timeframe that doesn’t even allow Staff to do an internal review for us. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MR. STROUGH-So we’re going to have to sit down with them and work out a better schedule? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not for us to do. MR. STROUGH-No, no, but I’m just curious. MRS. MOORE-I will interrupt at this point. Just as a comment, the Warren County has established a deadline time for the Town of Queensbury as being the Monday after our deadline date, and the information that they’re requesting is on top of, or in addition to, an applicant’s application, and at the time, between when an application gets submitted to the Town, we do review it, but due to pre- application meeting issues, we do accomplish the task of saying an application is complete for Warren County review. So they’re receiving an application, but they’re asking for additional information besides application material. MR. HUNT-Might it be helpful that we be allowed to attend those meetings at the County level, so they could ask us? MR. MAC EWAN-I’m kind of surprised, because I would assume that applicants who are, have an application in front of Warren County are somehow noticed by the County Planning Board to be there, and I hear often that people aren’t. MRS. MOORE-They are noticed by the Town of Queensbury that there’s a Warren County Planning Board meeting scheduled. An applicant may attend those meetings. There’s nothing that says that they can’t. I do not know whether they are, an applicant is allowed to speak at those meetings. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, do you store pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers or any other chemicals on this site? MR. HUNT-On which site? On our original site in our building, yes, we do. MR. STROUGH-And then the original site, which is just north of Lot A, right? MR. HUNT-Yes. MR. STROUGH-So Lots A, B and C do not, are not, will not be used for that purpose? MR. HUNT-That is correct. MR. STROUGH-It’ll only be in the building? MR. HUNT-Yes, that’s correct. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and Staff suggests that, for the sake of clarity and all, that you think about combining your lots. Any thoughts there? MR. HUNT-Yes, we would prefer if we could do that. It would be swell. MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s all I have for now. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-No, the only question I had was whether or not you desire to combine your lots into one parcel? MR. HUNT-Well, for the purposes of approval we would, but I don’t know if that has other ramifications, and I don’t mean to be ignorant, and I don’t ask you to do business to interpret it for me. I don’t know if it has. MR. MAC EWAN-It would require making an application for subdivision, to put all the lots together, right? Or is that something he could just do administratively? MRS. MOORE-No. If the applicant desires to combine all the lots, there’s a form that he can fill out that’s applied to Warren County. MR. MAC EWAN-Easier than going through subdivision. MR. HUNT-Maybe. MR. MAC EWAN-I covered myself there I think. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MR. RINGER-The reason you asked him to do that, Laura, was in the future, everything would be one? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-He’d have to go see the County Clerk? Assessor’s Office? Where up there? MRS. MOORE-That’s, he could go to the Warren County office. We do actually have some forms in our office to provide to applicants, because this is something that does happen MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Chris, did you have anything else? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? Any other questions from Board members? Mr. Hunt, anything you wanted to add? MR. HUNT-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff? MRS. MOORE-Did you want clarification about the registration from the DEC? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. What have you got? MRS. MOORE-Okay. When I spoke with the DEC, it was in reference to burial of stumps or disposal of stumps, and we discussed wood chips and stumps and things like that, and an applicant or an individual may inquire to the DEC if they need to be registered. It’s more or less a comment, if the Board thinks it’s necessary to be registered or to contact the DEC so that we could have something in our file that says the applicant contacted the DEC. It’s not up to me to represent the applicant to the DEC. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. I mean, but your conversation with DEC was inclusive of burying stumps and debris. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Where they’re clearly not doing this. What they’re doing is a very short term storage process and it’s moving right out. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’m comfortable with that. Okay. Can I ask you to give up the table for a couple of minutes. We have a public hearing. We’ll open it up. Does anyone want to comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so. Please come right on up and identify yourself for the record please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOSEPH SHELOSKI MR. SHELOSKI-Joseph Sheloski. Well, my property lines Jim’s property line, and a couple of months ago surveyors showed up. All this land’s been surveyed before. So they were on my property line, so I asked them, how come you’re surveying again. He said, well, we’re surveying a piece of property for Hunt, and they plan to put a phone tower there, you know, the one’s they are banning, and I didn’t hear Jim mention it. So I was wondering what the story was, and how it’s going to affect the neighborhood, because we have two neighbors that have pacemakers and they claim this will affect their pacemaker. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll get that question asked. MR. SHELOSKI-He explained what he was going to do with the rest of it, as long as it isn’t a sawmill. We’ve got enough noise back there now. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. SHELOSKI-But I would like to find out if this is true, that he’s having a cell tower put there. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll ask the question. Okay. Thanks. Anyone else? RICHARD NORTH MR. NORTH-Richard North. I own property on the northeast side of Mr. Hunt. I was concerned about the noise that will be going on back there with the chainsaws and equipment, and I was concerned about the filling in, there’s like about maybe a 60 foot ravine that’s being filled in with wood chips and logs and stuff, and the wildlife and stuff that used to live there is now become a part of our property, the groundhogs and raccoons and stuff like that. I was also wondering if they were going to have a buffer between the residential and, if he’s going to be storing his equipment and stuff back there. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. NORTH-But there is a ravine that is back there that is being filled in with wood chips and stuff. MR. MAC EWAN-Closer to the Feeder Canal, is that where you’re talking about? MR. NORTH-No, it’s in between my property and the Canal. There’s a piece of land that’s in between the two. It’s on the northeast side. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. I see where your property is. Your property actually borders the corner of his parcel. Is the ravine right between your two property lines? MR. NORTH-Right. Right behind my property there’s like a 60 foot ravine that used to be maybe probably at least 100, 150 foot long, and it’s being filled in with wood chips, which he said he’s storing, and that was another concern of filling in the ravine with the wood chips, what effect that would have on carpenter ants and stuff like that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll get that question answered for you. MR. NORTH-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to come back up, Mr. Hunt. Hundred foot buffer, Light Industrial, 50? MRS. MOORE-Between? MR. MAC EWAN-Between that and residential. MRS. MOORE-Residential zoning. It’s all Light Industrial in that area. MR. MAC EWAN-Including Sullivan/Mulcahy north and (lost words) properties? MRS. MOORE-I would say most of those along that boulevard are. MR. HUNT-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Phone tower. Is there any plans for that? MR. HUNT-That’s not a rumor. That’s truth. The company contacted us in the early part of the winter and asked us if we were interested in leasing a 100 by 100 foot section. MR. MAC EWAN-It requires site plan approval. MR. HUNT-Absolutely, but that’s, we’re not taking care of that. The people who want to rent the tower will take care of it. So that will be a matter coming before the Board in the future. MR. MAC EWAN-Just out of curiosity, do you mind sharing with us who contacted you, what telephone company? MR. HUNT-I don’t remember. An agent for the agent for the agent. I can get that information if you need it, but I don’t remember. MR. MAC EWAN-No, too many agents. Chainsaws, use of chainsaws. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MR. HUNT-Chainsaws occasionally in that area, and only during working hours. We do operate chainsaws in there and wood splitters, for the purposes of cutting up and splitting wood. MR. MAC EWAN-What are your working hours? MR. HUNT-We work from seven to five. We do not allow anybody in there, we try not to allow anybody in there before eight o’clock or after four o’clock, eight to four. MR. MAC EWAN-And what about filling in the ravine? MR. HUNT-Okay. What he’s referring to is, as this wood chip area gets bigger, it’s not a 60 foot ravine. The entire area that he’s talking about is indeed a ravine, but it’s not 60 feet. Our plans are to, you see the footprint on your chart of that area. Our plans are to keep that as close as we can to that, and eventually we’ll have to end up piling the wood chips up. MR. MAC EWAN-On my plan, I guess it’s on everybody’s plan, I’m seeing an area, the area you delineate at the temporary wood chip storage area. MR. HUNT-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-You have around it what looks like a delineated for a forested or a treed area that you’re not in but you’re actually right up to that property line. MR. HUNT-That’s pretty accurate as it’s depicted on the chart. It may not be exactly to scale, but it’s accurate in terms of its location. By the way, I would like, for the record, to note that we have never had any phone calls, concerns, compliments, consternation’s or complaints from anybody at any time in the years that we’ve been there, and the Town Board was very concerned, when we initially bought the property, that they didn’t want it turned into a junkyard, and we took it very seriously. We went before the Beautification Committee. We promised trees. We promised signs. We promised fencing. We promised pavement, and we delivered on all those, and I hope you all visited the site. You’ll find it in decent working order, compared to the abandoned site that was there, landlocked prior to us getting it. MR. RINGER-What you’ve done on your landscaping does really look nice. It really does dress up that area. MR. HUNT-Thank you, but the entire plan has to fit, and we try to be good neighbors and Mr. North’s comments are well taken, and I certainly don’t want to be bothering him with chainsaws or wood splitters or anything, if that be the case. MR. RINGER-I still don’t understand what the squiggly lines are? Are they trees or buffer zone or? MR. HUNT-What squiggly line are you referring to? MR. RINGER-The one that you just said that goes around? MR. HUNT-That’s the imprint of this wood chip storage area. MR. RINGER-So the wood chip is above that or below? MR. HUNT-The wood chip is essentially level with that. In other words, if you were looking down at a birds eye view, that would be the area of where the wood chips are. MR. STROUGH-That’s the extent of the pile? MR. HUNT-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? MR. STROUGH-The house residential, just north of Lot C? MR. HUNT-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Is that where you live? MR. HUNT-No, sir. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MR. STROUGH-The reason why I assumed that is the locked gate going to your property? Because there’s like a path to Lot C, going to Lot B. MR. HUNT-That’s actually a little driveway, and the reason for the locked gate is that children live at 67 Boulevard, and they like to play in the canal, and they use our land to get to the canal, and to the extent we can keep them from going down that property for their own safety, we put the gate up. MR. STROUGH-So they can’t go down to the canal? MR. HUNT-They can go around the fence, but they can’t go through the fence. MR. STROUGH-Okay. The cell tower is interested in, what, Lot C? B? MR. HUNT-They are right about where the letter “L” is on Lot C, 100 by 100. It’s flat, level ground. It’s sand, and they have surveyed it, as Mr. Sheloski pointed out. They’ve done some preliminary work, but they haven’t, I don’t think, come to the office yet, but they will be making their trip up here for the presentation. MR. STROUGH-And you use Lot C currently for wood chip storage again? MR. HUNT-There are basically nothing. There are a few piles of wood chips that are going to get spread out along the western border of that line, which runs north and south along the Niagara Mohawk right of way, and those chips are in there essentially to keep that brush from being brush. I mean, I put that in there with the anticipation that the Board would make a visit, and that’s the representation that they would see or should see. MR. STROUGH-Well, we did visible, but the gate was locked. MR. MAC EWAN-We did our site visits on Saturday the 14. th MR. RINGER-12 or 14. thth MR. MAC EWAN-We do our site visits on Saturday mornings. MR. HUNT-You didn’t walk around the gate, by the little sign? I didn’t know what to expect. MR. STROUGH-I was hoping we could have driven in, but. MR. HUNT-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. STROUGH-Just that I think that, just poll the Board members. I would like to restrict his chemical storage currently. If you ever want to change it, the conditions change, you can come back. I would like to condition it, if it’s okay with you, that no chemical storage occur on what we have identified on this particular site plan, on Lot A, B, or C. MR. MAC EWAN-We need to get through a SEQRA first. I agree with that. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Any other questions or comments? MR. METIVIER-I just have one. How unstable, I guess is the word I’m looking for, are wood chips? My brother lost a house to spontaneous combustion, linked back to wood chips. Is that something you should be concerned with, or your neighbor should be concerned with? I mean, you look at the storage pile, and you drive down the Northway at five o’clock in the morning. MR. MAC EWAN-Exit 13. MR. METIVIER-And you see these wood chips and they’re all smoldering. They’re just smoldering. MR. HUNT-They’re composting. So if we put a pile of chips on your yard today, they’ll be composting tonight, and they do compost to a point, and then they stop composting. So, I’d like to tell you I’m an expert on composting on wood chip storage, but scientifically I’m not. So I have, in the 12 years, in the nine years and however many years we’ve been piling and unpiling wood chips on these properties, as we’ve moved them around from place to place, we have never had a fire, nor have we ever had anything smolder out of control. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MR. MAC EWAN-How often are you turning the pile over? I don’t mean literally turning it over, but, you know, someone coming in and taking a portion of it and taking it off to Washington County or a landscaper? I mean, is it constantly being trucked out of there? MR. HUNT-No. It’s in drips and drabs throughout the season, and the season is April to November. I mean, Danny Irwin takes them out of there. Jimmy Girard takes them out of there, Watkins takes them out of there. I can’t get Dick Mead to take any, but many of the people take them, and when Washington County comes back on line, we’re anticipating some movement. MR. METIVIER-But you’ve been storing them on there for 12 years, you said? MR. HUNT-No. We have not. We have moved them from our original parcel to the back line on our original parcel, to Parcel B, over to where they are now. MR. METIVIER-Right, but the way you store them hasn’t changed? MR. HUNT-No. MR. METIVIER-Right. MR. HUNT-No, push them in a pile. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Tony? MR. METIVIER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members? Let’s do a SEQRA please. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Was this a Short? MRS. MOORE-Yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 25-2001, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: TREE CARE BY STAN HUNT, INC./ FRANK & JIM, INC., 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. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) Duly adopted this 26 day of May, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Vollaro MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 25-2001 TREE CARE BY STAN HUNT, INC./FRANK & JIM, INC., Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 25-2001, Tree Care by Stan Hunt / Frank & Jim, Inc. .for extension of an existing tree care business to newly acquired parcels. New uses in LI zones require Planning Board review and approval. Tax Map No. 112-1-17.2, 32.2, 20, and WHEREAS, the application was received 5/30/01; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 6/22/01: 6/26 Staff Notes 6/22 Notice of Public Hearing 6/13 Warren Co. Planning 6/6 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 626/01 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 WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application is approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1. There will be no chemical storage on what is identified as Lots A, B, and C on the site plan for Tree Care by Stan Hunt, dated November 7, 1994, with pen and ink updated noted by James Hunt, and 2. The applicant will confirm with New York State DEC if the storage of wood chips should or should not be registered. Duly adopted this 26th day of June 2001 by the following vote: MR. STROUGH-And the applicant will combine the three parcels into one parcel. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think that’s necessary to put that one in. If he chooses not to go that route, I mean, it’s something for him to do. MR. STROUGH-Well, Staff suggested it. I thought that it was, what’s the Board feel? Not needed? Larry? 49 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MR. RINGER-Obviously, Laura had a strong opinion on it. I didn’t have a strong opinion on it one way or the other. It might be easier for the applicant down the road, if he ever wanted to make changes. It certainly would be to his advantage. MR. STROUGH-Well, you just want to leave it the applicant would do it? He seems to be interested in doing it. I won’t make it a condition. AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Vollaro MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Mr. Hunt. MR. HUNT-Thank you all very much. Laura, thank you very much. MR. RINGER-Craig, if we could tell the commenters tonight, if there is a site plan for a cell tower there, you will be notified, if you’re a nearby landowner, so you’d get an opportunity to come in and speak to us. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s true. MR. HUNT-Thank you, again. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good luck. PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE PZ 5-2001 RECOMMENDATION KENNETH & CHERIE LUKE PROPERTY OWNER: AMY BRUNO, GARFIELD RAYMOND, KENNETH GREENE, GARY & CARLENE POSTER AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES CURRENT ZONE: UR-1A PROPOSED ZONE: MR-5 APPLICANT PROPOSES REZONING OF THREE PARCELS FROM UR-1A TO MR-5. TWO PARCELS CONTAIN RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND ONE PARCEL CONTAINS THE DANCE STUDIO BUILDING. TOWN BOARD IS REQUESTING LEAD AGENCY STATUS. CROSS REFERENCE: TB RES. 201,2001 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/13/01 TAX MAP NO. 61-1-41.3, 41.2, 42, 43 LOT SIZE: 1.26 AC., 0.23 AC., 0.18 AC., 0.23 ACRES SECTION: 179-94 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Petition for Change of Zone PZ 5-2001, Kenneth & Cherie Luke, Meeting Date: June 26, 2001 “Project Description The applicant proposes to rezone three parcels from UR-1A to MR-5. The adjacent zones include Multi Family Residential, Highway Commercial, a small portion of Single Family, and PUD. Project Analysis 1. What need is being met by the proposed change in zone or new zone? The applicant proposes to utilize one of the parcels for a business use, i.e. Diet Center. 2. What existing zones, if any, can meet the stated need? The Highway Commercial zone, Plaza Commercial zone and the proposed zone Multi Family allow for business office use through site plan review. 3. How is the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones? The proposed zone is compatible to multi family residential zone because it currently surrounds the parcels proposed for rezoning. The proposed zone is considered less intense than the HC-1A or PC-1A because MR-5 allows for multi-residential use versus commercial businesses. 4. What physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone? The parcels are close to the road and are level with no significant topography change. 5. How will the proposed zone affect public facilities? The impacts on public facilities are expected to be minimal, but include Fire, EMS, Highway, and other business utilities such as electric. 6. Why is the current zoning classification not appropriate for the property in question? The parcels involved are surrounded by other MR-5 areas and the HC-1A zone. 7. What are the environmental impacts of the proposed change? There are no anticipated environmental impacts. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) 8. How is the proposal compatible with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use Master Plan? The property is located in Neighborhood 8, and is associated with Neighborhood 9. The recommendation for these neighborhoods along Bay Road includes office use. 9. How are the wider interests of the Community being served by this proposal? The zone change would increase the Multi Family residential zone. Areas of Concern or Importance The applicant has not submitted a site plan for the future use of the property. Suggestions The Planning Board is to provide the Town Board with a recommendation to rezone the property.” MR. STEVES-Good evening. I’m Matt Steves with Van Dusen and Steves. I represent the Lukes on this application. The map that is before you speaks for itself. The two sheets that show the current zoning in that area up and down Bay Road corridor, the predominant zoning to the north and to the northwest is the MR-5 zone. I immediately to the north of this is the portion that was owned by the medical group there, Dr. Bannon and Company. I think that they got an approval for a medical office building, and the reason for the applicant’s petition, I should say, for rezoning is to allow for the professional office corridor up along Bay Road, and we believe it’s consistent with the current zoning in the neighborhood. We also went through Warren County Planning Board and I believe that they gave us an approval on that. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. STEVES-So we’re looking for a recommendation from this Board to go back to the Town Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I have no questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I’m fine. I was just wondering when you were going to become a lawyer, but it’s not relevant to this. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-We’re looking to rezone three lots, four lots, what? MR. STEVES-I believe there are four total parcels there. MR. STROUGH-Yes, the description says we’re rezoning three lots, but, yes, it shows four lots. That’s what I see. MR. STEVES-The cross hatched area should include the three small lots on Bay Road, if I’m not mistaken, and the Dance Studio. MRS. MOORE-It’s a typo. MR. STROUGH-All right, and the other concern by Staff was the applicant has not submitted a site plan for the future use of the property. I guess you’re just looking to get it rezoned and then the site plans will be forthcoming, right? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. I’ll have to confer with my client, but that is my understanding. MR. STROUGH-And we will confirm that Bay Road is pretty much designated for office professional. MR. STEVES-With the small lots that they exist on, except for the one which the Dance Studio is on, they’re all lots that do not conform to the existing Code. So therefore it would make them more conforming to the Code and to the use up and down Bay Road, absolutely. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I don’t see a problem with it. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-No, no questions. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-It makes sense. No, I’m okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-No comments. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff comments? No? Anything else to add? Public hearing. Does anybody want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll entertain a recommendation. MOTION TO APPROVE PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE PZ 5-2001 KENNETH & CHERIE LUKE, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of PZ 5-2001, Kenneth & Cherie Luke proposing rezoning of property from UR-1A to MR-5.for a recommendation to the Town Board for Tax Map No. 61-1-41.3, 41.2, 32, 43, and; WHEREAS, the application was received 5/01; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 6/22/01: 6/26 Staff Notes 6/22 Notice of Public Hearing 6/13 Warren Co. Planning 6/6 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 6/26/01 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The recommendation to the Town Board is approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Vollaro MR. MAC EWAN-Any other further business before the Board? Hi. MRS. RYBA-Hello. Okay. I asked Chairman MacEwan if I could have a couple of minutes to ask Planning Board members if anyone would be interested in working with me and a couple of Town Board members to go over requests for proposals that we anticipate receiving on Friday for the Open Space plan for the Town of Queensbury. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Can I interject a thought here before you go too much further? Just for everyone’s information, the last time we asked for a couple of volunteers, and we didn’t get them, remember what I did? Just to refresh your memory. Go ahead. MR. STROUGH-I volunteered. I did my duty. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, that’s the point. MRS. RYBA-In terms of time frame, this is initially just going over the request for proposals. I really have no idea how many are going to be coming in. I’m pretty sure we’re going to have at least one, because I’ve heard from one outfit that the RFP was sent to. So those are due Friday. I would think that it would be some time first week in July. I know it’s Fourth of July holiday. So it would mean coordinating everyone’s schedules, perhaps even the second week in July, just to look at those initially. I think as time goes on, we’ll be looking for a Steering Committee, and we could change. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re committee that you’re looking to establish is made up of a couple of Town Board members, a couple of Planning Board members. What else? MRS. RYBA-Possibly someone from the Queensbury Land Conservancy, although I’m not sure about that because they have some hesitancy, in terms of, they want to work with the Town, but they don’t want to be perceived as a Town body. So, I don’t think that will be the case. As I said, initially it’s just looking over these requests for proposals, and hopefully that will, or actually the actual proposals. Hopefully that will wet your appetite to want to become involved in the Steering Committee to actually get this in place, which will take about a year. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And this is the site plan review workshop? MRS. RYBA-No, this is an Open Space Planning workshop. I mean, what I did, I made copies, if anyone’s interested in looking at them, of a summary of the request for proposal, because the actual proposal, it’s fairly comprehensive. It was about 12 pages long, but I can give you a quick. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So this has nothing to do with what you just handed us? MRS. RYBA-I didn’t hand you anything. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have stuff here from Marilyn. MRS. RYBA-Those are from workshops. Those are notes from workshops. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I didn’t know that. I was grabbing this and trying to make sense into these papers and what you were saying, and I couldn’t make a correlation. MRS. RYBA-The Open Space plan is something that is a recommendation in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan from 1998. There is quite a bit of interest, now that the Queensbury Land Conservancy is in hand to really work with the Town to figure out what the priorities should be, and this means quite a bit of citizen public participation. So that’s a major element of this. Part of it would be putting together a survey, how exactly that would be done. We’ll see what comes in in the proposals. The other element would be actually getting together the inventory of open space lands, and I’m using open space as a catch all phrase, because the Comprehensive Land Use Plan also looks at the need for greenways, connections between recreational areas and cultural areas and the Town also looks at preserving some natural lands, natural endangered species, perhaps, but there’s so much that’s out there, in terms of, A, getting together an inventory, and, B, actually prioritizing what should be done first, second and third. Really, it takes quite a bit of work and other municipalities that have done this, some of them have even taken up to two years to get through the prioritization process, because I think you’ve heard a number of instances where, if there’s a proposal that perhaps people don’t care to have developed and they want to have it saved , all of a sudden that becomes a priority, but if you jump on every single time someone doesn’t want something developed, that’s not really the way to go about preserving space. We need to find out what’s really important to people. So, there would be policies and recommendations, looking at what we can do to change subdivision regulations, perhaps, or maybe some other programs. We would like to just have some brief outline of the funding mechanisms. Right now, in the New York State Open Space plan in which you have to have, for example, Queensbury has the Great Cedar Swamp as a priority in the New York State Land Use Plan, you have to have some element in that plan in order to get funding. Then you have to apply for the funding. You may or may not get it. So there’s the Great Cedar Swamp and then there’s also some Karner blue sites, and that’s really the only mechanism for the Town to get any funding through the Environmental Protection Fund. So, we need to look at some other areas as well. I know Wilton, in fact, tonight, is having a vote whether or not Queensbury would go in that direction towards taxation. I don’t know whether they would do bonding. I don’t know, but all of those things would be explored. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MR. MAC EWAN-How often would you be meeting? MRS. RYBA-Well, initially, as I said, it’s just going over the proposals. I would say meeting once would be sufficient. Once we get into a Steering Committee situation, I think it would be more extensive, perhaps once a month maybe more than that. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re looking for a couple of volunteers. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, when do you plan to start this? MRS. RYBA-That depends on the proposals coming through. I would think towards the end of summer would be a better time, just because of vacation schedules with everyone. We put together a one year time frame. We did not put a starting date and an ending date, because we didn’t want to prohibit, maybe there’s an organization, engineering firm, planning firm, whatever, that if we put a starting date, it might prohibit them from putting together a good proposal. We didn’t want to do that, but we did want to put together a year timeframe so that we can get this accomplished. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’d kind of like to do that. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve got one volunteer. MRS. RYBA-Thank you. MR. STROUGH-I’ll help. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve got two volunteers. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Two from the Planning Board, you said. MRS. RYBA-And two from the Town Board. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And how about private citizens that aren’t on any formal boards? MRS. RYBA-Well, in terms of the request for proposal, I think just looking at the proposals would be more of an in-house. I would love to be able to speak with Town Board members and Planning Board member and see what they think, but my sense. MR. MAC EWAN-Did you also want us to pick a couple of Town Board members for you, too? MRS. RYBA-No. I have the volunteers. Do you want to know who they are? It’s Dan Stec and Tim Brewer. MRS. LA BOMBARD-They’re on a mission, Dan and Tim. MR. STROUGH-Can we do something about limiting these, can you imagine if we did have the Schermerhorn application tonight and the Getty station application tonight? It’s 10:15, that’s reasonable. MRS. LA BOMBARD-This is reasonable. The others would have been midnight. MR. MAC EWAN-Two comments I’ve got. The first comment is, when we adopted our policies and procedures, we said agenda control is eight. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I never agreed on that. I never agreed on that. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, let me re-phrase this, folks. As a Board, the majority agreed to eight items on the agenda. MR. STROUGH-Well, I think they’re re-thinking that. MR. MAC EWAN-Policies are such that they can always be changed. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Six. MR. MAC EWAN-I suggest that what we’re going to probably do, listen, please listen. August, we’ll have another one of our workshops, and we can hash out some ideas. For the month of July, site visits are the 14. The first meeting is the 17. The second meeting is the 24, and the Special ththth Meeting is the 11. th 54 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s the 11. Okay. All right. Good, not the ninth. th MS. RADNER-For the Special Meeting, did you need counsel? Did you discuss it with Mark? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we have. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And when do John and I go to your morning Planning Staff meeting? MR. MAC EWAN-You will do July’s. MRS. LA BOMBARD-When? MR. MAC EWAN-You have your Staff meeting Friday or Monday? MRS. MOORE-Friday. Actually, do they come on Monday or do they come on Friday? MRS. RYBA-Monday. MRS. MOORE-Monday, the 2. nd MR. MAC EWAN-This Monday coming. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I can’t. I can’t make it. It’s Monday the 2? nd MRS. MOORE-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-What time? MRS. RYBA-Ten a.m. Could you do it on Friday? This Friday? MRS. LA BOMBARD-This Friday, the 30? Yes. th MRS. RYBA-Okay. That’s also at 10 a.m. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, this is the 29 at 10 a.m. I could do it at 10 a.m. this Friday. th MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy, you do August. John, will you be there Monday morning? You be there Monday morning, 10 o’clock. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well then when is it in August? MR. MAC EWAN-You will do it, it will be the end of July you’ll do it for August’s agenda. That’s what I’ll do. I’ll get you an e-mail and let you know when you’ve got to be there. You do it Monday, please. MR. STROUGH-Is it Monday, Marilyn? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MRS. RYBA-Monday, 10 a.m. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And when is August? MR. MAC EWAN-You do it the end of July. MRS. MOORE-She’ll be July 30. th MR. MAC EWAN-July 30, 10 a.m. th MR. STROUGH-And this’ll be Monday, July 2. nd MR. MAC EWAN-Town Hall. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Monday July 30 is when I see you guys. th MRS. MOORE-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Where? 55 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/26/01) MRS. MOORE-At the downstairs Conference Room. MR. MAC EWAN-The Conference Room in Planning. MR. RINGER-We’ve got site visits on the 14, right? th MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And what is this meeting called, Agenda meeting? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And what do we just do? MRS. MOORE-You will listen to us go through the agenda items. If you have questions or concerns, you can identify them at that time. MRS. MOORE-And how long do these meetings last? MRS. MOORE-Two hours. MR. MAC EWAN-From a Planning Board member standpoint, you’re there to participate, to insure that applications are, A, complete, B, that they meet the criteria to be reviewed and to go over them and get a better understanding. I think this is useful for every Planning Board member to participate. Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Wait a second. About the two that we tabled, what do you want us to do with that literature? MR. MAC EWAN-Hang on to it. MRS. MOORE-Hang on to it. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? I move we adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 56