Loading...
2001-09-18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/18/01) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY ROBERT VOLLARO ANTHONY METIVIER CHRIS HUNSINGER JOHN STROUGH LARRY RINGER PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX SCHACHNER & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES July 24, 2001: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 24, 2001, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: Duly adopted this 18 day of September, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 15-86 MODIFICATION VALENTE BUILDERS, BAYBRIDGE, PH. III PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: DENNIS J. PHILLIPS ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: BAYBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT ON BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN PHASES III AND PHASE IV. PHASE IV WILL INCREASE FROM 18.18 +/- ACRES TO 20.28 +/- ACRES. PHASE III WOULD BE REDUCED BY 2.10 +/- ACRES. THERE IS NO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FOR PHASE IV AT THIS TIME. TAX MAP NO. 62-2-999, 62-2-13 LOT SIZE: 18.18 ACRES, 19.77 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS DAN VALENTE, SR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-There is no public hearing scheduled. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Valente Builders, Baybridge Ph. III, Modification, Meeting Date: September 18, 2001 “Project Description The applicant proposes a lot line adjust between Phase III and lands adjoining Baybridge Development (Phase IV). The modification will reduce Phase III by 2.10 +/- acres and increase Phase IV to 20.28 +/- acres. Project Analysis The area of land within Phase III to be removed was originally proposed as a cul-de-sac with a proposed future connection to adjoining lands. The cul-de-sac is the only feature that will not be continued to the adjoining lands. The applicant has identified the adjoining lands as Phase IV of Baybridge, and as noted in the applicant’s correspondence this Phase has no formal plans. The development of Phase IV would require Planning Board review. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/18/01) Areas of Concern or Importance The modification has been forwarded to the Highway Department for comment on the design of the dead-end at Gentry Lane. The Highway Department has indicated that a turn-around is necessary at the end of Gentry Lane, see letter of September 11, 2001.” MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, before we start, I’m going to recuse myself from this, and step forward to the other side, because of my involvement with Baybridge, at this particular time, and my fellow Board members feel the same way. So I will leave this seat. MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks, Bob. Mr. Valente. MR. VALENTE-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening MR. VALENTE-My name is Dan Valente. I’m the President of Valente Builders. We have a letter that came along with the application from my attorney. Would you like me to read it? MR. MAC EWAN-If you want to. Are you talking about the one dated August 6? th MR. VALENTE-Yes, sir. “Dear Planning Board: Valente Builders, Inc., (“Valente”) is seeking a further modification of Phase 3 – Baybridge on the ground that the most recent modification did not allow for any residential building development beyond the existing end of Gentry Lane, a town road, thus leaving a large amount of land with no use. With the consent of the Queensbury Baybridge Homeowners Association, Inc., Valente proposes to subdivide the unused portion of Phase 3 – BayBridge, as shown on the map, and then merge the subdivided portion with the adjoining property owned by Valente. This adjoining property is Phase 4 of the original Valente master plan, although as of this date no formal approval for Phase 4 has been prepared or presented. Valente will look forward to appearing before the Planning Board and answering any questions that it may have with respect to this proposal. Sincerely, McPhillips, Fitzgerald & Cullum, L.L.P. Dennis J. Phillips” He was referring to, in March we came before the Board, if the Board may remember, we had an approval from ’94, which the Planning Department felt was or was not correct. So we came before the Board in March, and the Planning Department and the Board came to the agreement that they would accept Phase III as to the end of the pavement. Do you want me to put a map up here? MR. MAC EWAN-No, I think you’re all right. MR. VALENTE-So what happened was, if you look at that map, Phase III was larger than the end of the pavement. So when we propose Phase IV, which we plan on doing quite soon, we understand we may have to come in for, we will have to come in for a re-zoning to continue the development as it stands right now, in Phase III, with single family units. So the reason for merging the two pieces was to avoid having a 300 foot gap between Phase III and Phase IV. So that’s why we asked for the lot line modification, and we have the consent of the Queensbury Baybridge Homeowners Association as to that fact, and if anybody has any questions, I’d be happy to answer them. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry, we’ll start with you. MR. RINGER-Okay. The letter from the Highway Department from Rick regarding the turnaround, did you see that? MR. VALENTE-I just heard about it. That’s not a problem. The land is vacant beyond that. They’ve been plowing it since I don’t know when, but it’s, as far as cleaning it up, putting some gravel there, it’s not a problem. MR. RINGER-Okay. If we make that part of the resolution. MR. VALENTE-Sure, no problem. MR. RINGER-It’s very simple. All you want to do is reduce Phase III by two acres and put that into Phase IV. MR. VALENTE-Right. We want to merge into Phase IV and then come before the Board, because, according to the March, I have the letter here, but according to the March decision, we’d have to go for a, I think it’s re-zoning, or a variance, one or the other. MR. RINGER-That would not be this Board, but the ZBA. MR. VALENTE-Well, right. We’d have to go before the Zoning Board for a change of zone. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/18/01) MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. VALENTE-And that will tell us what we’ll be allowed, or not allowed, to do in Phase IV. MR. MAC EWAN-If you were going to do a change of zone, you’d come in front of this Board for recommendation. We’d send that recommendation on to the Town Board. They’re the only Board that can act on it. If you were to get a variance, or seek a variance, then you’d go to the ZBA for the variance. MR. VALENTE-I believe our feeling is that if we continue the development as it is, and the Town sees fit that they want to continue it, and the homeowners want it to continue, then we’d have to come before the Planning Board, then, and see, if you’re thinking in the same veins, and then from that point, we’ll go to the. MR. RINGER-Right. It depends on if you go for the variance or the zone change. Okay. MR. VALENTE-Right. MR. RINGER-I didn’t have anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Now the turnaround, do you have a timetable for Phase IV yet? MR. VALENTE-Well, this was the key. If we could merge the two pieces, then the road can continue straight forward. We already have the hydrant, that 300 feet, because we had planned on paving the next 300 feet for Phase III, but now you’ve got the zone, the Town only would accept up to where the pavement ended. It doesn’t make sense to just go for eight additional units and 300 feet. We might as well find out what the Planning Board and the Town feels as far as the change, getting the change in zone so we can continue the development. It’s already clear, and they’ve been turning around there for years. MR. STROUGH-Well, the reason why I ask is that Mr. Missita said gravel is fine with him for the turnaround, if you plan on doing something with Phase IV. MR. VALENTE-Yes. That’s going to be quite soon, actually. There’s only four or five units that are not built in Phase III. That’s all we have left. So we know it takes time to get a Board approval. So I think this winter we plan, my son really plans on coming in here and seeking the approval of the Town and the Planning Board. So it’ll be very short lived. MR. STROUGH-So four or five more units in Phase III will be completed. MR. VALENTE-That’s all there is. That’s not sold. Everything else is sold. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, what is the current situation with your septic system? Is that going to be adequate for all of this now? MR. VALENTE-The system is, we’ve got to go back to the DEC approval, was 100 units, total. That system is supposed to be able to handle 100 units. I don’t know what the status is of the sewer, as far as, you know, the sewer on Bay Road. MR. STROUGH-Right. MR. VALENTE-All I know is that I’ve agreed to give the easements and the property that they need for the pump station, and the last I heard, they were still in the process of getting all the easements approved, and I know the attorneys have our paperwork, in regards to getting the easements for the continuance of Baybridge Drive and where the pump station goes. So, you’d have to ask Bob if the sewer’s going to get started either in the fall or in the spring. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So what you’re saying though is the septic system was originally designed for 100 units. MR. VALENTE-But it’s strained. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/18/01) MR. STROUGH-And you’re going to be putting in 75. MR. VALENTE-That’s right. That’s all we have. I don’t even know if we’re going to build those other four if they’re not sold. I mean, you know, if they’re not sold, we won’t put them in. MR. STROUGH-So you’re saying the current septic system is ample for everything that you have. MR. VALENTE-Well, it’s strained. I mean, I’m not going to deny that. It’s been strained. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. VALENTE-We’ve needed it for, in my opinion, 10 years. MR. STROUGH-All right. That’s all the questions, I have. Thank you, Mr. Valente. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments from Board members? Anything you wanted to add, Mr. Valente? MR. VALENTE-I have nothing else to add. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff? MRS. MOORE-I do have one more comment. In regards to the drawing, if you look at Building Number 75, it was brought to my attention that that lot line that’s adjacent to that is about five feet. I would just suggest that we move it to the minimum side setback of the MR-5 zone, which is 10, and I think that will actually accommodate the turnaround that Mr. Missita has requested as well. MR. VALENTE-Laura, could you tell me what building number that is again? MRS. MOORE-That building says Number 75 on the drawing. MR. VALENTE-Correct. MRS. MOORE-And if you. MR. VALENTE-You want to shift that another five feet? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. VALENTE-Into the development, into Phase III? MRS. MOORE-Into Phase IV. MR. STROUGH-Into Phase III. DAN VALENTE, JR. MR. VALENTE, JR.-Dan Valente, Jr., Valente Homes, Inc., addressing Building 75, yes, we can pull that in. That’s not a problem. They are floating, those are just proposed at this point, if you want the extra five feet. MRS. MOORE-Right, but if they’re on the drawing, it’s better to represent what the MR-5 zone is. MR. VALENTE, JR.-My understanding was that it’s not a lot line. It’s just a phase line. So, we’ll move it. MRS. MOORE-It’s a lot line. MR. VALENTE-We’ll move it. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. RINGER-How do you want it moved, Laura? MRS. MOORE-It’s, so the side setback of that 75 is 10 feet. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/18/01) MR. MAC EWAN-The line would have to move a minimum of five feet to the west. MRS. MOORE-The west, thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Does someone want to introduce a motion, please? MR. RINGER-Ten feet off the lot line. Is that what you’re saying, Laura? MRS. MOORE-It’s a side setback, so that Building 75 meets the MR-5 zoning of side setback. MR. RINGER-Okay. I’ve got Building listed as Number 75 on the plot will be moved to 10 feet. MRS. MOORE-The property line adjacent to Building 75 should be moved 10 feet. It should be at a minimum of 10 feet. MR. STROUGH-Well, couldn’t you just say all building side setbacks will meet Town Code? MR. RINGER-Yes, that would do it. MRS. MOORE-That’s fine. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. RINGER-Why didn’t you think of that sooner, John? All right. I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 15-86 VALENTE BUILDERS, BAYBRIDGE, PH. III, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of SB 15-86, Valente Builders, Baybridge, Phase III for a boundary line adjustment between Phase III and Phase IV. Phase IV will increase from 18.18 +/- acres to 20.28 +/- acres. Phase III would be reduced by 2.10 +/- acres. There is no proposed development for Phase IV at this time. Tax Map No. 62-2-999, 62-2-13. Lot size: 18.18 ac., & 19.77 acres. Section: Subdivision Regulations. Zoning: MR-5 and; WHEREAS, the application was received 8/24/01; WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 9/14/01; 9/18 Staff Notes 9/11 PB from R. Missita 9/6 Meeting Notice 9/6 R. Missita from L. Moore – transmittal of plans WHEREAS, public hearing was not held 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 as per the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/18/01) 1. A turnaround will be put in at the end of Gentry Lane to facilitate Town plowing, and that all buildings will meet the minimum 10 foot side lot line requirements (MR-5 zoning requirements). 2. 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. 3. 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 18th day of September 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro MR. VALENTE-May I ask one question on this? How do you want us to show it on the drawing? Do we have to re-do the drawing, just shift the building over and indicate? MRS. MOORE-No, not the building, the property line. MR. VALENTE-You want to pull the property line five feet more into the other? MRS. MOORE-Actually, you can use either one, but the property line seemed to be the simplest one. MR. VALENTE, JR.-I would prefer to move the building. MR. VALENTE-We have to keep that property line there, Laura, because that’s where the pavement ends. So we’ll move the building. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I understand, then. Then that’s sufficient. MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t you work that detail out with Staff. MR. VALENTE-Okay. We’ll move the building. AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. VALENTE-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. Next item. SITE PLAN NO. 41-98 MODIFICATION WOOD CARTE PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: CHRIS CARTE ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 1063 ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SITE PLAN. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO NOT ALTER SOME SITE CONDITIONS AS PROPOSED WITH THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION. THIS INCLUDED RELOCATION OF PARKING AND SIGN, REPLACEMENT OF PAVEMENT AREA, AND ADDITIONAL LIGHTING. TAX MAP NO. 73-1-8.2, 8.4 LOT SIZE: 1.39 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 CHRIS & KELLY CARTE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-There’s no public hearing scheduled. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 41-98, Modification, Wood Carte, Meeting Date: September 18, 2001 “Project Description and Project Analysis (Section 179-38) 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/18/01) The applicant proposes to not alter the site as proposed in the original site plan application as outlined in the applicant’s letter. The Code Compliance officer had met with the applicant on site to review the original site plan (SP 41-98 approved July 28, 1998). The applicant was informed that changes to the approved site plan would need to be reviewed by the Planning Board. The following proposed changes were not implemented: 1. Relocation of free-standing sign and parking spaces at front of building. The applicant would like the free standing sign to remain in the existing location and proposes to remove some paved surface between the sign and Route 9. The parking spaces would remain as existing because the sidewalk construction did not interfere with the parking as thought. 2. Relocate parallel parking spaces from the north side of the property line to the south side adjacent to the building. The applicant has indicated that vehicles parallel parked to the building would open their doors into the building, having the parking on the northside allows for additional spaces. 3. Removal of pavement at the northeast corner of building (closest to Route 9) and install additional sidewalk and curbing. The applicant has installed new planter boxes on the northeast corner of the building. 4. Install concrete pads flush with the North side and rear door. The applicant has indicated these areas have been paved to be flush with the door. 5. Install two new wall lights to the rear of the building The applicant would like to install one high pressure sodium light under the canopy at the rear door. Areas of Concern or Importance The application does not alter the variance granted for setbacks or number of parking spaces. The applicant is able to maintain the 42 spaces as granted by the Zoning Board (AV 41-1998).” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. C. CARTE-Good evening. I’m Chris Carte. This is my brother Kelly Carte. Hopefully you have all received a copy of the letter that I wrote that kind of outlined the changes that we’d like to make to our original plan, and if you have any questions about that. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything that you wanted to add? MR. C. CARTE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, I’ll start with you. MR. METIVIER-I guess I’m confused a little bit about the parking. As it stands right now, it doesn’t appear that you have ample parking at times for the store. You’re not decreasing parking, though, correct? MR. C. CARTE-Correct. We actually are increasing by one parking space. MR. METIVIER-Just one? MR. C. CARTE-Over the original site plan that was approved, before we put our addition on. MR. METIVIER-I guess, I don’t know, I came at a bad time or something when I was there, but it seemed as though people were parking all over the place just trying to squeeze in, but that might have been. MR. C. CARTE-Well, I think that’s partially because we’re not striped adequately. We haven’t gone ahead and done the striping yet because we wanted to make sure that where we were planning on putting the striping was going to be okay with the Board. MR. K. CARTE-Without the stripes that are on the road side of the parking lot, people tend to pull in there parallel and park across what would be two or three parking spaces like that. So that’s 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/18/01) probably what you saw, but that was, as you said, we didn’t put them in there. That part of it is the reason why we want to modify it, because when the State was going to put the sidewalk in, they were originally going to take, I think it was seven feet out of our parking lot on the side of it, and I talked the State engineer into only taking two feet. So we were able to leave the parking the way that we had it before and actually gain one parking space, and believe it or not, I mean, we do, occasionally it gets a little bit crowded in the front, but that’s only because people are resistant to parking down along the side of the building, but there’s nothing we can do about that. I mean, that’s where the parking has to be. MR. METIVIER-I have nothing further. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Nothing. I agree with the assessment of the applicant. I have no questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m fine with everything. It’s just that I had a tough time pulling out. It just seemed when I parked in the front last week, I got a little disoriented and I almost backed in to the sign with the planter on it, around it, and it just kind of all of a sudden appeared, and I was like, oh, my gosh, I just missed that. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that something you want to admit to on the record? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, other than that, I guess we’re okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think, overall, this is a much better arrangement than the original site plan, from what I could see when we were there on Saturday, and looking at it, and so I’d echo what John has to say, I think I have no comments, and I think this looks good to me. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else that you wanted to add? Staff comments? MRS. MOORE-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry, did I forget you? MR. RINGER-I think it looks better, also, than it did before. MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please? MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 41-98 WOOD CARTE, 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. 41-98, Wood Carte. Applicant proposes modification to approved site plan. Applicant proposes to not alter some site conditions as proposed with the original application. This included relocation of parking and sign, replacement of pavement area, and additional lighting. Tax Map No. 73-1-8.2, 8.4. Lot size: 1.39 acres. Section: 179-23, and WHEREAS, the application was received 8/01; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 9/14/01: 9/18 Staff Notes 7/28/98 PB minutes WHEREAS, public hearing was not held concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan requirements of the Code of the Town 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 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/18/01) 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. Duly adopted this 18th day of September 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. C. CARTE-Thank you. MR. K. CARTE-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Next item. NEW BUSINESS: PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE/AMENDMENT PZ 7-2001 RECOMMENDATION GREAT ESCAPE PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: LEMERY, MCKRELL & GREISLER ZONE: SPLIT ZONED – RC-15 & LC-42A LOCATION: GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 179-66 – PARKING, TO ADD LANGUAGE FOR FESTIVAL PARKING AS OUTLINED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/12/01 TAX MAP NO. 74-1-8, 17, 12.2, 12.1, 9, 19.2, 11 36-2-3.1, 3.2, AND 73-1-3.2 LOT SIZE: 311 +/- ACRES SECTION: 179-66, 179-94 JACK LEBOWITZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Petition for Change of Zone/Amendment PZ 7-2001, Recommendation, Great Escape, Meeting Date: September 18, 2001 “Project Description The applicant proposes a zoning ordinance amendment to Section 179-66 - Parking to add language for Festival Parking. The Town Board has requested a recommendation from the Planning Board The applicant proposes two changes to Section 179-66-Parking and one change to the Ordinance Definitions: 1. 179-66(B)(3) will add language to paragraph 2. 179-66(B)(3)(d) will be new language to section 3. 179-7(B) definition of Festival Parking Alternate Design The Planning Board had found during the review of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement that festival parking was an acceptable parking. Three excerpts are provided for the Planning Board to review in regards to the explanation of festival parking. ?? Findings Statement, “Parking” ?? Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement ?? Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement Areas of Concern or Importance 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/18/01) The Planning Board will be provided with an opportunity to review the design and arrangement of festival parking when an application is made for the proposed use. The Planning Board is to provide a recommendation to the Town Board.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. LEBOWITZ-Good evening. Jack Lebowitz, Lemery, MacKrell, Greisler for the Great Escape Theme Parks, LLC. As Staff just said, these recommendations for an alternate parking lot design, in the Queensbury Zoning Code, arose from, as most of the Board members know, the recommendation in the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement and the Findings Statement for a design of parking lots that would eliminate the current requirement that all commercial parking lots that are larger than 150 cars have internal landscaped islands, and as you’ll recall, the Great Escape proposed that landscaped islands be eliminated, the new parking lots that will be built at the Park, as part of the expansion program, for two reasons that really relate to the environmental impacts that the Board looked at during the lengthy review process, and the two reasons being that, without internal landscaped islands, less land area will be required to park the same number of cars, and also without the landscaped islands, the parking, which will be done by attendants, rather than the self parking that’s common at the, at most retail centers in the Town, such as shopping malls, will be quicker and allow the cars to get off Route 9 faster, thus serving a traffic mitigation function. As the Board knows, this recommendation for an alternate parking design is entirely consistent with the recommendations and findings of the Environmental Impact Statement process, and came about because the original proposal, we were informed by Staff during the review process was not consistent with the current Zoning Ordinance, which does require landscaped islands in all commercial parks, or commercial parking lots, and the one thing I would point out, because it came up informally, and I just wanted all the Board members to be aware of this, is that even though the Great Escape was the proponent of this change to the zoning law, so it could move ahead with its own development program, this alternate design will apply uniformly throughout the Town to any applicant which also meets the environmental and operational criteria of wanting a lot that doesn’t have internal islands and uses parking lot attendants to fill lots from a cue, when patrons arrive relatively at the same time, such as, for instance, if a ski center wanted to expand and it also met the conditions in the Ordinance to not have the landscaped islands because it was using attendants, the Planning Board, in that instance would also, at an applicant’s request, be allowed to use this parking lot design. So that came up in the context of somebody coming up to me and seeing the Great Escape on the caption of this zoning proposal, and thinking that it might involve spot zoning. It doesn’t. Otherwise, I really have very little to add to what Staff has detailed and documented in the Staff notes, all the excerpts from the DEIS, FEIS and Findings Statement, so, unless the Board has any questions, I think that the record is complete to allow this recommendation to proceed. MR. MAC EWAN-John, we’ll start with you. MR. STROUGH-Okay. The only thing that I would like to add to this is a, and this is along the lines with what we did with the Great Escape, more or less, we asked for this kind of thing, but considering what future plans coming to us, meeting this definition, criteria, I would just like, when it’s submitted, a festival parking plan also will be submitted at the same time, will be a forest management plan, in other words, a possible prohibition of cutting certain areas and brush on the property that we, as a Planning Board, may have identified as, you know, optimal for maybe aesthetic reasons, something we’d want to maintain or keep for aesthetic reasons. In other words, the forest management plan would describe what parts of the site would be disrupted by putting in festival parking and which parts of the property we would not allow to be disrupted by festival parking. We might want some parts of the area to remain in an as is condition, at the current site or in the current state. We would probably want to know which parts will experience some vegetation change, and then a description of the proposed vegetation change. So basically I like the forest management plan, you know, along with any applicant that might come before us, asking for, or requesting festival parking, also submit a forest management plan. MR. LEBOWITZ-Mr. Chairman, might I speak to Mr. Strough’s concern? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. MR. LEBOWITZ-The Festival Parking Amendment, as it’s been proposed, does not obviate the normal requirement for an applicant to come in and get site plan approval, and we, indeed, will come in for site plan approval for the specific design of the parking lots, particularly the landscaping and planting plans, which I assume your comment is most directed to, and one thing I would note here, that in the Environmental Impact Statement, and in the draft of the legislation as we’ve proposed it, any of the vegetation that would have been required on the internal landscaped islands, the minimum planting schedule of trees that would be required on those concrete islands, will be required to be moved to the periphery. The Board still has the authority to ask for even more planting, but the Zoning Ordinance, as we’ve proposed it, will keep the two features of the current Ordinance, which 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/18/01) requires a minimum amount of planting on the periphery of the lot to screen it from adjacent travel corridors, and will add to that the number of trees that would have been required, had the lot been developed under the normal commercial lot planting schedule that exists in the Ordinance. So this is not a way for people to cheap out on landscaping requirements. The one further thing I’d note is that, at site plan review, all of these things will be reviewed, so that the lot will get acceptable landscaping treatment. The one thing that this legislation does is that it will remove the requirement for an applicant to get a variance, an Area Variance, before coming in to site plan review with any parking lot that does not have internal landscaped islands for functional or environmental reasons. MR. STROUGH-Mr. Lebowitz, my suggestion really doesn’t apply to the Great Escape, and I think you’re arguing for the Great Escape. We’ve pretty much identified exactly, almost exactly, where we’re going to go with the Great Escape. My language really applies to any future applications, and I would like that language added, just because when an applicant comes before us, I think it’s an important part that the applicant knows what we expect. Applicants don’t like it when they get up here and they’ve proposed a festival parking, and then we ask them for a forest management plan. I would rather see it written in to the Code that we expect one at the same time as the submittal of a festival parking plan. MR. MAC EWAN-I think we’d be better off at this point entertaining your idea and having it made part of the site plan application, because that would be the most appropriate time to review it. MR. STROUGH-Well, if I’m reading you right, are you saying that you would like to see it incorporated into the Code so that the applicant will come forward with that already furnished? MR. MAC EWAN-No. What I’m saying is we’ll address that issue at site plan. MR. STROUGH-Well, it runs contrary to, my point is that if the applicant knows that a forest management plan is expected ahead of time, it doesn’t come as a surprise or a setback to the applicant at the time that we bring it up at the Planning Board. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t understand. What Code are you referring to, writing it in to? MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m saying we’re re-writing the language to festival parking here, and I’m not sure exactly where it would go. Mark might have a better idea, if he’s got an idea of what I’m trying to include. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m not sure I do, to be honest. I mean, this Board’s not re-writing anything. This Board is making a recommendation to the Town Board as to whether to adopt the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, and I think the applicant’s Counsel has summarized that proposed amendment reasonably accurately, and I think the gist of his summary, without putting words in his mouth, and he’s free to disagree, is that the festival parking, which was already contemplated in the SEQRA review documents, is not currently allowed under current zoning, and if one wanted to pursue that, one would need to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals and seek and obtain an Area Variance, and the proposal is to amend the Zoning Ordinance so that that would not be necessary. MR. STROUGH-And I’m saying that while we’re amending the Zoning Ordinance, and we’re talking and describing festival parking, we’d also put in the expectation that any submission for an application for festival parking would also include a forest management plan. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and that certainly can be your recommendation, if the Board agrees, you can make a recommendation if this is your inclination. Obviously, I’m not telling you what to recommend. You can make a recommendation that the proposed zoning amendment be enacted, along with language requiring submission of a forest management plan whenever festival parking is applied for. That’s, essentially, what you’re saying. MR. STROUGH-That’s correct. MR. SCHACHNER-You certainly have the authority to make that part of your recommendation, if you wish to do so. It doesn’t mean the Town Board will do it, but you could certainly so recommend. MR. MAC EWAN-Right, and I’m not so sure you’re going to get the support here, just kind of informally I’m asking a couple of other members here, and I think what I’m hearing, and correct me, anybody, if I’m wrong here, if we entertain something like this, we’d rather entertain it at a site plan review level than re-writing the Ordinance and the Code, or suggesting that it be re-written. Is that a favorable consensus? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/18/01) MR. VOLLARO-I would kind of like to just explore this with Mr. Strough for just a second. John, I think that what your proposal does, in my mind, is sort of cloud the issue just a little bit, of the intent of the festival parking, the fact that we can require, and the festival parking requires that plantings be moved to the perimeter, for example, is one of the things that I think helps this, but if somebody comes in and applies for the festival parking, it’s because that’s what they really want to do, and I’m just not so sure we can, on balance, that we can entertain both halves of that, forest management and festival parking at the same time. MR. STROUGH-I think other communities include a forest management plan with their descriptions in town code, and expect an application to submit a forest management plan, and I think with festival parking what you’re basically talking about is allowing an applicant, in certain situations such as the Great Escape, the ease to move traffic in and out, and festival parking does the best job at that, and that’s fine, and we’ve also expressed, during the EIS for the Great Escape, expressed interest in maintaining the borders as natural as they could be. You may want to express an interest in maintaining certain groups of trees, which wouldn’t necessarily interfere with the parking or the flow of traffic, identify those kind of at the onset, rather than during the process. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that could be taken into advisement at the time the site plan is before us and we see a unique condition of wanting to preserve a certain set of trees, a certain type of tree or whatever, and see whether, in the site plan review, we can weave that into the festival parking, without trying to handle, on a general basis, festival parking and forest management at the same time, because I think they conflict with each other, just in concept itself. MR. STROUGH-Well, see I saw it as, when the applicant comes forward with the application for festival parking, they will show, in their application and in their site plan, the trees that will not be disturbed. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s something you can do at site plan, at site plan level, without having to re- do the Code. MR. VOLLARO-Or we can even ask them at site plan that there are certain trees that we would like to see preserved as part of the festival parking application. MR. MAC EWAN-I think he’s on notice already that, when they make application it’s going to be an issue that you’re going to want to talk about and they’ll come prepared for it, I’m hopeful. Anything else? MR. STROUGH-No, that’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Chris, do you want to chime in? MR. HUNSINGER-I just apologize for being late. MR. MAC EWAN-No problem. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have any questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. I think John’s got a, has a good idea, but I think that this has to be, I think it would be a lot simpler to address it later. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have just a question in the wording of resolution, and on Page Two, the second Whereas, it says, “Whereas the Planning Board’s decision and Findings regarding allowing an alternate parking lot design were supported by the FGEIS analysis which determined that the elimination of curbed islands and the use of lot attendants…” and I’d just like to see it say, curbed islands and substituting the use of lot attendants. It seems. MRS. MOORE-I’m sorry to interrupt you. Are you referring to the Town Board’s Resolution No. 350, 2001, or a prepared resolution? MR. VOLLARO-No, no, the Town Board resolution. I’m sorry. I should have made that clear, on Page Two, the second Whereas. “Whereas the Planning Board’s decision….” MR. SCHACHNER-All right. We know where you are. What are you saying or asking? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/18/01) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. In the second sentence will start off, where it says “were supported by the FGEIS analysis which determined that elimination of curbed islands and use of lot attendants…”, and I put in there curbed islands and substituting the use of lot attendants. MR. SCHACHNER-You’re concerned that the word “elimination” could be referred to eliminating of lot attendants? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, sir, I do. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s not, I don’t think that’s generally how people have been reading it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. When I read it, it jumped out at me that way. MR. SCHACHNER-There’s not much we can do about it. This is a Town Board resolution, other than to suggest that I don’t believe anyone else has interpreted it that way. MR. VOLLARO-All right. Fine. I’ll withdraw. It was just a comment. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s it, sir. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-When you read that together, it does sound like what Bob is saying, but I have nothing else, no, but when you do read that sentence. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll defend Mr. Vollaro. I picked up on it the same way. MR. SCHACHNER-That the word “elimination” refers to both of those concepts? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. RINGER-It could. It could. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Larry? MR. RINGER-No. I didn’t have anything. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add, Mr. Lebowitz? MR. LEBOWITZ-I’d certainly have no objection to a recommendation that that resolution be clarified if several people on the Planning Board found it confusing. I think the Town Board might want to re-draft the resolution. MR. VOLLARO-It’s a small change. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything that Staff wanted to add? I’ll ask you to give up the table for a couple of minutes, Mr. Lebowitz. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so. Please come right up and identify yourself for the record, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DWIGHT ILSLEY MR. ILSLEY-My name is Dwight Ilsley. I’m on Birdsall Road in Queensbury, and I believe, I’d like to get a clarification of the comment that Mr. Vollaro just spoke on. If I understand correctly, is the wording stating that changing the parking to festival parking mandates that attendants shall be there? That’s the intent? MR. VOLLARO-That’s the intent, yes. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/18/01) MR. ILSEY-Okay. With that, is there any comment or any wording stating about how many attendants? Any kind of ratio of attendants to numbers of cars or expected numbers of cars or acres available or anything of that nature? MR. MAC EWAN-No, it doesn’t make reference to it in that, in this resolution from the Town Board. MR. ILSLEY-Would that be something that you might want to entertain? MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll explore that. MR. ISLEY-Okay. Those are the only two points I had. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Going once, going twice. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to come back up, Mr. Lebowitz. Is there any reference to the question regarding how many attendants? Is there a ratio that’s been worked out? MRS. MOORE-No, there has not been a ratio worked out, but that may be something that you would approach during site plan review. MR. MAC EWAN-Can we note that, that that’s an issue we’ll look into at site plan? Because it’s a good point. I mean, I don’t think you’d want one attendant for, you know, 1,000 cars. It would make sense to have at least a couple. Okay. Any other questions or comments from Board members? Staff? Anything you wanted to add, Mr. Lebowitz? MR. LEBOWITZ-I would just like to speak to the last recommendation, which is novel. I really haven’t considered it before, but I think on first blush, it would be my thought that that would probably be unnecessary. The reason being that we’ve, at least in terms of the Great Escape, and in terms of the assumptions that went into the Environmental Impact assessment, we were asked to basically adopt performance criteria that would assume that cars could be parked at a certain rate of speed, which flowed from the traffic impact analysis, which, again, was based, and the Board will probably recall the discussion in the FEIS about what would happen, was there adequate space on site for on site cueing of cars, so they could get off Route 9, sit in a line, and not obstruct traffic, which that’s the basic performance criteria for this kind of parking, and we looked at, there’d be a variable number, depending on the traffic loading, of active tollbooths at the entrance of the parking lot, and also the number of attendants that would be required at any one time to fill the lot, and any of you who have been to facilities, sports arenas or things where large crowds are arriving at relatively the same time, will be familiar with the idea that people come in from an entering cue. They’d go, perhaps, through the tollbooths at the parking lot entrance, and then they’ll be directed by a series of cones and people waving flashlights and so forth, or flags, into a certain lot, and I think that it would be very difficult to say ahead of time how many attendants should be there at any given time per how many cars. I think you’re basically going to have to leave it up to the operators to have the right number of attendants on hand, so that the facilities meet the basic performance criteria’s, which are too many cars don’t get bunched up, you know, the cars flow in and they’re not backing up on the highway. So I would, I’d suggest that probably the best approach, in a directive like this, which, after all, is only simply authorizing parking lots without the internal islands, to operate so that the applicant, or the operator at any one time can gauge how many attendants you need to keep people moving safely and quickly. So, I guess I’d say it would be unnecessary, would be my thought. MR. MAC EWAN-Just so note it that, should we get to a site plan review point, that the forest management plan and this topic will probably come up for discussion again, just so that we can discuss it a little bit more in-depth. MR. LEBOWITZ-Certainly. We’ll address it at that time, for sure. MR. STROUGH-Mr. Chairman, I have language that you might find, and the Board might find, satisfactory, and we’re talking about substituting active and adequate management with, we’ll just add the two words, and adequate, after active. MR. MAC EWAN-In the Town Board’s resolution, is what you’re referring to? It’s not for us to change a Town Board resolution. That’s something they would have to do. MR. SCHACHNER-And I guess I want to see if I can clarify the Town Board resolution issue. The Town Board resolution that you’re looking at is the resolution that was adopted merely to schedule the public hearing, which has been scheduled for October 1. The language that several of you find st 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/18/01) confusing, which appears in one of the Whereas clauses, is largely irrelevant, in that what you need to consider is the actual proposed zoning amendment. The actual proposed zoning amendment appears in that same resolution on pages three and four, and if you look at that resolution on Page Three, in Subsection 2D, it clearly states that this festival parking alternate design would be allowed in situations, and now I’m looking at the actual language that appears on the sixth, seventh and eighth lines, would be allowed in situations “where parking in the lots will be managed and filled by parking lot attendants who will direct entering vehicles from an access driveway to a particular parking space…” On the next page, in section three, in the definition of Festival Parking Alternate Design, that definition concludes, you’ll see, with the phrase, “which alternate design is allowable for certain uses where the parking of vehicles will be actively managed by parking lot attendants.” So I think that the actual proposed zoning amendments seem, at least in my view, but I’d welcome any Board members’ input here, they seem to make clear that we’re not talking about the elimination of attendant controlled parking, but that in fact we’re talking about the requirement of attendant controlled parking. As far as changing the Town Board resolution language, we certainly don’t have any authority to change this particular resolution because it’s already been adopted, but all this resolution did was schedule the public hearing. If you feel that this issue, or any other issue is ambiguous, or that you feel that something in the actual proposed zoning amendment, which is the language appearing on pages three and four, should be different than is proposed, then you should so state in your recommendation. MR. STROUGH-Well, then we could add, on the new definition of Festival Parking Alternate Design, which is Number Three on Page Four, just in the last line of that language, we could add actively and adequately managed by parking lot attendants. MR. SCHACHNER-You could do that, although I’m not sure adding the adjective, and adequately, in the definition, does much. I mean, whether, first of all, you can’t decide whether something’s adequate or not, in theory, until it’s actually implemented, and what’s adequate? Adequate is a very subjective word, with no standard criteria. MR. STROUGH-Right, and you could also argue the same thing for active. MR. MAC EWAN-What I would suggest we do here is that, make sure that copies of this particular discussion gets to the Town Board, so they know what our concerns are, and if they feel compelled that they need to change the language in this thing, as they’re entertaining this, let them do that, because I think that we have an opportunity here, when this comes back for site plan review, we have the opportunity, at that level, to determine if things are going to be adequate and we can address it there. So we’ll have a better handle on it at that stage. MR. STROUGH-That’s fine with me. MR. RINGER-I think the commentor had a very good point about the number of attendants, but us trying to address it, but we should let the Town Board know we have some questions on it, and at site plan review we can really address it more thoroughly. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments? Does someone want to move it? MOTION TO MAKE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT THE ZONING AMENDMENT FOR FESTIVAL PARKING TO THE TOWN BOARD FOR THE GREAT ESCAPE PZ 7-2001: Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption seconded by Larry Ringer: Duly adopted this 18 day of September, 2001 by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. LEBOWITZ-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Jack. Good luck. Next item. SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2001 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED HUNT LAKE LAND HOLDING CO., INC. PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: MICHAEL BORGOS, ESQ., MULLER & MULLER ZONE: RR-5A LOCATION: 250’ WEST OF GURNEY LN. & BUCKBEE RD. APPLICANT IS REQUESTING REVIEW FOR SUBDIVISION OF A 46.14 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 LOTS OF 5.92 ACRES, 12.69 ACRES, AND 27.53 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 5-2000, AV 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/18/01) 16-2001 TAX MAP NO. 32-1-32.41, 32.42, 32.43 LOT SIZE: 46.14 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MICHAEL BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Preliminary Stage, Final Stage, Subdivision No. 8-2001, Hunt Lake Land Holding Co., Inc, Meeting Date: September 18, 2001 “Project Description The applicant requests review of a three-lot subdivision. The three lots were created without Planning Board approval. The applicant had withdrawn a previous subdivision (SUB 5-2000) of one of the existing lots to resolve the existing situation. Study of plat (§ A183) (1) Lot arrangement: The lots are naturally divided with a Buckbee Road and an existing power line. (2) Topography: The applicant does not propose any new streets. The drawing identifies areas with a slope greater than 25% slope. (3) Sewage disposal and Water supply: The drawing indicates the proposed well and septic locations. (4) Drainage: The applicant has submitted a stormwater management and grading plan. (5) Lot sizes: The lot size exceeds the minimum five acre requirement for the Rural Residential zone (6) Placement of utilities: Connection of utilities is not noted on the plans. (7) Future development: Two of the lots have the potential for future development. Lot 2 at 12.69 acres may be further developed pending another subdivision review and the same of Lot 1 at 27.53 acres may be further developed pending subdivision review. (8) Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The proposed project is located in Neighborhood #3 of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. There is no specific recommendation to this area. (9) State Environmental Quality Review Act. A long environmental form has been completed.” MRS. MOORE-The only other comment that I have is that Jim Hutchins spoke with me in regards to both proposed subdivisions. He has had discussions with C.T. Male, and Jim Hutchins’ letter of September 17 I believe was passed out to the Board. Do you want me to read that into the record? th MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. MRS. MOORE-This is addressed to myself. It says, “I received comments on September 14, from CT Male as well as your department regarding the subdivisions #8-2001 (3 Lot) and #9-2001 (4 Lot). as you suggested, I did discuss the engineering comments with Jim Houston of CT Male. My client has agreed to provide information addressing all comments. When appropriate responses are received and reviewed, Mr. Houston indicated that he will be able to approve the subdivision map, plans, and drainage report. In light of the receipt of the comments only four days prior to the meeting, I would request the Planning Board consider approval contingent upon Hunt Lake Holding Company providing the details necessary to satisfy CT Male.” MR. RINGER-We didn’t get a copy of that, Laura? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we did. MRS. MOORE-I believe you did. MR. RINGER-That’s what you handed out tonight. Okay. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. BORGOS-Good evening. Michael Borgos for the applicant, Hunt Lake Land Holding Company. I believe the Board is familiar with this property, and as the history was noted, it has been before you in a different form before. I think back in May we were last here. We were trying to resolve the prior conveyance of two of the lots that were adjoining to nearby landowners that were made, I believe, in the Fall/Winter of 1999. The Board noted, at that time, that there was a determination of an illegal subdivision. So we’re back here tonight to make application for a three lot 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/18/01) subdivision, and then I should note at this time that the next application is to divide one of those lots that we were asking for initially into the four lot subdivision that we originally were seeking. So it is hoped that this application will clear up the illegal subdivision that was made in 1999. I’d be happy to address any questions the Board may have. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, I’ll start with you. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you come back to me, please. MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. Cathy, we’ll start with you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just want to hear everybody’s comments right now, but I did have a question, as far as the ownership of two of those lots. MR. BORGOS-That is the, you weren’t here at the Board meeting in May, I believe. I can briefly review the history of that. When the parcel was originally purchased, I believe Warren County had retained this parcel since the 1930’s and 40’s, for use as a sanitarium. They never developed the parcel. They put it up for sale. There was only one bidder at the auction. When the neighbors found out about the land that was transferred, they said, I would like some as a buffer. So, the Brunos and the Millers each purchased the parcel nearest them in ’99, and then the other lots were created and the subdivision was brought here. At the time, there was an understanding between the developer and their attorney at the time, and I believe they consulted with Staff, but I’m not quite sure if that was done at the time, but it’s my understanding that because of the adjoining parcels, the intent was that those owners were going to consolidate these new parcels from this parent parcel, if you will, and that would be acceptable without formal subdivision approval, and that was the understanding at the time, and it went that way for two years. This spring when we presented the original application, there was some concern because the owners had not done that, and there was Staff concern about enforcement proceedings, and we went back and forth between whether it should be a four lot subdivision, as we were seeking, or a six lot subdivision, to include those parcels that were originally transferred, and at the May meeting, it was determined that we should go back to Square One and get the approval for a three lot subdivision, one for Bruno, one for Miller, one for the current owner, and then a second application would be made to divide up the remaining lands of the current owner into four lots that we originally were seeking. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And that was the 27 acres? MR BORGOS-That’s right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I remember now. I brought my students on a field trip down the Hudson River. I wasn’t here. Okay. MR. BORGOS-It was a little bit confusing, because we had six, then four, now three and four. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, not right now, but there probably will be. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I just have one question. In the preliminary stage review, the plat details and requirements, in 183-9, I noticed in both applications, you have it checked, by the way, so that you said you were supplying it, the location and size of any existing sewers, water mains, culverts and drain pipe, most of that’s on there, but the services, electric, telephone and cable lines, are not on any of these. It doesn’t show where any of the utilities are piped in to these lots, and it is a requirement of 183-9 that that be supplied, and I just don’t see it here, unless I’m missing it. MR. BORGOS-I believe that that is one of the comments of C.T. Male as well, and I think that’s one of the things that Mr. Hutchins talked about. I’m not sure. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see it. I didn’t see that in C.T. Male’s comments. I looked at Mr. Houston’s comments pretty carefully, and he did not comment on that, I don’t believe. Let me recheck that, just to take a look and see whether he did or not. MR. BORGOS-I would tend to agree with you that it’s not on the map, but I believe that the existing power lines run through a portion of the land that we propose to subdivide into four lots, although it is not depicted on there, but it is something that we can certainly add to and supplement the maps. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/18/01) MR. VOLLARO-Only because it’s a requirement of the preliminary review, I thought that should be on there, and I know that C.T. Male did not address those points. MR. BORGOS-We would ask that you consider the application, contingent upon the later amendments subject to C.T. Male’s approval of that aspect as well. MR. VOLLARO-I have some problem in my own mind. I don’t know how my other fellow Board members feel about that, but I’d sure like to see C.T. Male’s, like to see your comments answering C.T. Male and have C.T. Male kind of signoff on this. My own personal way of looking at this, I like to see the letter and read it, understand what they had to say about it in their approval, without just leaving it that, you know, provide the details necessary to satisfy C.T. Male. That’s just my own personal way of reviewing these applications. My fellow Board members may have other comments, but I just wanted you to know how I felt about it. MR. MAC EWAN-I would tend to agree with you. I mean, if we had only maybe two or three small items that were overlooked or needed to be added, but when we’re talking 18 items, and some of them are significant, I’m not willing to move this along tonight until we get that cleared away. Anything else you wanted to add? MR. VOLLARO-That’s it, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I have nothing right now. Although I do agree with both you and Bob that 18 items on there certainly isn’t anything that, we’d want to make sure that Male signed off on the whole thing. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I’m in agreement with that, too. I certainly would like to see the map updated especially. I mean, that’s half the first page is just about the map, and simple changes, but if we have to include every one of them in a resolution, they’re going to get lost somewhere. I do agree that I’d like to see it all stated. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. John? MR. STROUGH-Okay, and the applicant does intend to satisfy the C.T. Male comments in the letter dated September 13, 2001? MR. BORGOS-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-Even the percolation, additional percolation tests? MR. BORGOS-Whatever’s necessary. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I seem to remember that one of the issues, when we talked about this in May, was one of the property owners that’s included in this subdivision was opposed to the subdivision? MR. BORGOS-That’s why we’re back here now in September. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BORGOS-We have now secured their consent on the appropriate forms, and that’s why we’re back now. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BORGOS-It took a little time, but we did that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Questions, comments for Counsel and Staff? No? Any other questions or comments from Board members? Anything you wanted to add, Mr. Borgos? MR. BORGOS-Are you going to hold the public hearing? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/18/01) MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to open it up right now. I’ll open up 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 MR. MAC EWAN-If you have letters and such, I’d ask you to give them to Staff. MARTY BUCKBEE-NORTMAN MRS. BUCKBEE-NORTMAN-My name is Marty Buckbee-Nortman, and I live on Buckbee Mountain Road. The Unit 3 of Subdivision 8-2001, Subdivision 8-2001, do I understand, was just granted? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. BUCKBEE-NORTMAN-Okay. This was the first letter that we received, and well my husband and I feel that this subdivision opens approval to the door to rewarding someone for kind of bending and twisting, in our sight, allowing them to further bend things if this subdivision is granted. While we feel that this approval would punish a couple of the people that are good stewards of the land, we feel that the Board should be made aware that this subdivision not only opens the door to subdivisions all along Gurney Lane, but on Buckbee Road also. When it comes to Subdivision 9-2001, this parcel of land was proposed in the subdivision under the application number 5-0. MR. MAC EWAN-Ma’am, may I interrupt for a second? MRS. BUCKBEE-NORTMAN-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-We have two different applications on the agenda tonight. Right now we’re dealing with Subdivision 8-2001. If you have comments that you want to make regarding Subdivision 9-2001, will you please hold those comments until I open up the public hearing on that application which is next on the agenda. MRS. BUCKBEE-NORTMAN-Surely. We just feel that this should be looked into rather strongly, because there are several things within this whole unit of the first subdivision that needs to be looked at carefully. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. BUCKBEE-NORTMAN-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? No takers? I’m going to leave the public hearing open. Any questions, comments from the Board members? MR. VOLLARO-Not any more than we’ve had. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff, do you have anything you want to add? Okay. I think what we’re going to do, Mr. Borgos, and the sense I’m getting from my fellow Board members, that we’d prefer to table this application, pending your compliance with C.T. Male’s concerns in their letter that was dated September 13, so you can address not only your stormwater management plan, I guess there are th some questions in there relative to whether the calculations that you had used in the stormwater management plan are accurate based on the percolation tests. MR. BORGOS-Well, Mr. Hutchins has promised to provide answers to all of that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. BORGOS-And we’ll do that, and he’ll be in touch with Mr. Houston at C.T. Male before the next meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-Great. MR. BORGOS-And we’ll have answers to all those questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. BORGOS-And in addition, I’ll have Mr. Bolster provide an amendment to the map that addresses Mr. Vollaro’s concern. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/18/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Very good. Can I hear a motion to table, please, from someone. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2001 HUNT LAKE LAND HOLDING CO., INC. Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: The reason is because we want to get a signoff from C.T. Male on all 18 items that were noted in the September 13 letter. Tabled until the first regular meeting of next month, October 16. thth Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Next item on the agenda. SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2001 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED HUNT LAKE HOLDING CO., INC. PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: MICHAEL BORGOS, ESQ., MULLER & MULLER ZONE: RR-5A LOCATION: 250’ WEST OF GURNEY LN. AND BUCKBEE RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 27.5 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO 4 LOTS OF 5.04 ACRES, 5.19 ACRES, 5.29 ACRES, AND 12.11 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 5-2000, AV 16-2001 TAX MAP NO. 32-1-31.41 LOT SIZE: 27.5 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MICHAEL BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 9-2001 Preliminary Stage, Final Stage, Hunt Lake Holding Co., Inc., Meeting Date: September 18, 2001 “Project Description The applicant proposes a four-lot subdivision of a 27.5 +/- acre parcel. This lot was noted in the previous 3-Lot subdivision (SUB. 8-2001) as lot #1. Study of plat (§ A183) (1) Lot arrangement: The lots are laid out with the house sites located with the contours. (2) Topography: The plans identify areas with slopes that exceed 25%.. (3) Sewage Disposal and Water supply: The plans identify proposed septic and well locations. (4) Drainage: The applicant has prepared a stormwater and grading plan that shows the driveway development and proposed location of eave trenches. (5) Lot sizes: The lots meet or exceed the minimum five-acre requirement for Rural Residential zoning. (6) Placement of utilities: Utility connections are not shown on the plan. (7) Future development: Lot 4 may be further developed but additional review would be required. Lots #3 and #4 have a previously approved area variance (AV16-2001) conditioned that these lots have a shared driveway. (8) Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The project is located in Neighborhood #3 of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. There were no specific recommendations in this area. (9) State Environmental Quality Review Act: The applicant completed a long environmental assessment form.” MR. MAC EWAN-And we also have C.T. Male’s letter of September 13 referencing this th subdivision, and it has in it 15 items of concern, just for the record. Okay. Chris, we’ll start with you. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess one of my comments was on the Staff notes. MR. RINGER-The problem here is we had decided, when this came before us before, that we weren’t going to entertain it because it wasn’t a proper subdivision until we approved the other one. We’ve still got the same situation. Although we’ve got a public hearing. We may want to hear the public. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I mean, I’m just trying to get the preliminary stuff out of the way, so we can open the public hearing and leave it open. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/18/01) MR. RINGER-I agree. I just wanted to make that comment that we had decided before that this wasn’t a valid application because this wasn’t a valid subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-So noted. I’m sorry, go ahead. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s okay. MR. VOLLARO-That’s until the three lots are approved. MR. RINGER-Until the three lots are approved, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I had a question on Staff notes, where it mentions that the plans identified proposed septic and well locations. On the map that I had, they were not identified. Were they identified maybe on the old plans that were submitted then? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. They only gave us one set. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I really didn’t have anything else, other than to sort of echo Larry’s comments. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. Nothing right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I have the same comment, on the routing of utilities not shown on the plat, detail requirements. It’s the same comment I had before. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I have nothing on it. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? John? MR. STROUGH-The same thing Chris and Bob said. I don’t know, were those plans given that showed the possible location of the septic and well? MRS. MOORE-Right. When the applicant previously submitted for the application that they withdrew, they supplied information about the four lot, in regards to septic and well and stormwater design. With this application, this new one that they submitted, under 9 of 2001, one copy of that was provided so that we could forward that information to C.T. Male. It wasn’t forwarded to the Board, and I didn’t request that unless the Board requests that information. I felt that you had some information prior to this that indicated where that information, where the house location, the septic and well locations were. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you. No more comments. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you wanted to add? MR. BORGOS-Just to address that last comment. We were trying to preserve some paper there. We presumed that you kept all that stuff. If anybody doesn’t have it, we’d be happy to provide as many copies as you need, but since it was part of a prior application, it was exactly the same. We didn’t want to duplicate that, and just the same comments as before. With these comments from C.T. Male, our engineer didn’t have the time in four days to respond to all of them. It’s obviously the position of the Board that you want to have that information first, so we’ll provide that to you, and we request that this be tabled as well to the October 16 regular meeting. th MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’m going to open up the public hearing. I’ll ask you to give up the table for a minute. Does anyone want to comment on this application? You’re welcome, but please note that we are going to table this application tonight. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/18/01) MARTY BUCKBEE-NORTMAN MRS. BUCKBEE-NORTMAN-As you so noted, again, my name is Marty Buckbee-Nortman. As you so noted before, this proposal was withdrawn at the May meeting, but we still have further questions, my husband and I do, as far as the subdivision to go through. We have questions about it. My family settled in this property on Buckbee Road in 1840, and we love the area and how it is, but we have questions. The application shows the lack of respect for the law, and we feel that the selling of this, we understand that there was a lot sold already in this subdivision through a real estate. I gave you a map of it, and we obtained the subdivision map and it showed on it that a lot had already been sold and this was before the subdivision has even been approved, and that’s rather upsetting. It’s possible that they may have taken a deposit on a second lot, from what we’ve heard, but that’s only hearsay also. It’s been affected that the, as you’ve seen in the pictures that I did give you, erosion, there’s a possibility that there’s wetlands over there. My understanding is the last time the land was evaluated was 1990, but there’s cattails growing over there. It’s very marshy. It’s very soft. There’s not complete clear cutting of the trees, but pretty close to it. It opens up an area that’s rather questionable. The traffic on the road will definitely be increased. You figure that there’s going to be two cars per house, at least. This was a one lane, when I grew up and into the 60’s, this was a one lane farm road, and it’s just been widened and pushed back and opened up. It’s never been properly made into a paved road. They only paved part of it, about three to four years ago, and it has no base or anything. Now this road needs to be, of course, worked on, maintained and all. This is going to be the taxpayers that are going to be paying for this, when really the developer should be taking some responsibility to have something to do with this road, because it’s not going to take even the vehicles to build the houses, the concrete trucks, etc. to come up there. It’s going to be a burden to the Town as well. We’re not against a person making a reasonable profit on investments, but we’re a little upset that this piece of property was bought. It’s a good sized piece of property. It was illegally subdivided, which was put off at the last meeting. They came in and pretty close to clear cut the land. The runoff now, when it rains, you can see the damage it’s doing to the sides of the property. According to the map that we were given, the last time, and the one that I have here, you can see on the pictures where the driveways are going in. They’re on blind spots on the road. There’s very high embankments. All these things I know need to be addressed by the builders and all, but they’re things that the Town should be looking at also. We just feel that this whole project needs to be scrutinized, not only for the people that live on the Mountain, which there are very few, but for the Town and the impact that it’ll have, tax wise, the roads and all the, I’m not sure how I want to say it, but the impact to the area because the runoff is Rush Pond and over into Glen Lake. So all these things with sewers and wells and runoff and erosion and wetlands need to be looked at. We are against this. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? I’ll leave the public hearing open. Any comments, questions from Board members? MR. VOLLARO-I just have one. In terms of having a lot already sold, has titled passed to that lot, do you know? MR. BORGOS-No, it has not. MR. VOLLARO-It has not. MR. BORGOS-No lots have been transferred, other than those two in 1999. MR. VOLLARO-Is that road a Town road now, classified as a Town road? Does anybody know? Is it a road by use or a Town road? MR. BORGOS-It’s a road by use. MRS. BUCKBEE-NORTMAN-It’s a road by use. MR. VOLLARO-Is there any intention on the part of the builder to convert that over into a Town road eventually? MR. BORGOS-No. It’s only a portion of the road that their land abuts. The road goes on for at least another mile, probably two or three miles further up the Mountain. So it’s only the short section of road next to Gurney Lane. I believe this gentlemen might have some further comments, as part of the public hearing. I don’t know if the Chairman wants to recognize him. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. JOSEPH GARB 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/18/01) MR. GARB-Yes. My name is Joseph Garb. I live on Buckbee Road. Back to, I have a question of, legally now, are those lots sold to Dr. Miller and Mr. Bruno, are they legally transferred now? I mean, that’s somebody else’s land, even though it wasn’t legally subdivided? MR. MAC EWAN-We’re not aware of, this Board is not aware of any land transactions that have taken place up there, other than what was informed of us back in, when was this, May, April, we first caught wind of this? MR. VOLLARO-It was May. MR. GARB-Right, that was those two parcels of land. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not sure who the parties names were. I don’t recollect their names. MR. GARB-Okay, but those are legally sold, transferred, without a subdivision actually being approved? MR. SCHACHNER-As your Counsel, I think I’m going to suggest that it’s not appropriate for you all, as Board members, or even us as Counsel, to define legal rights among private properties here. As I understand it, there’s an application pending before the Board, as a result of what appears to be an admittedly improperly transacted subdivision. Is that correct? MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. MR. SCHACHNER-That application is pending before the Board, and I don’t think that there’s anything more that we can say about that particular subdivision or alleged subdivision. There’s also a companion application, as I understand it, pending for further subdivision of one of the lots that was previously subdivided. Is that correct as well? MR. BORGOS-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t think we can go any further with helping the commentor, in terms of providing legal opinions as to the validity or invalidity of prior acts of the private parties. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. GARB-Okay, but, legally, without a subdivision, you cannot subdivide the property. Right? MR. SCHACHNER-I think the public commentor can comment as much as he likes, but. MR. GARB-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MR. BORGOS-Mr. Vollaro, was your question answered? I’m not sure if you finished asking it. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I did. I think it was. The major concern was whether or not title had passed between the, apparently they have not. MR. BORGOS-It has not, no. MR. VOLLARO-So that’s my biggest concern. MR. RINGER-There are no wetlands that have been identified on any of the properties? MR. BORGOS-That’s correct. That’s the first I’ve heard of any cattails or anything of that sort. The surveyor and the engineer did not identify any such, and as I recall, the property from my site visits, rather steep and rugged. It’s not conducive to wetlands, as I’m aware, but I didn’t survey the entire parcel. So it’s possible there’s a cattail on there. I don’t think it was identified. MR. VOLLARO-When we viewed it Saturday, it looked, went up, John, myself, and Larry, went up and looked at that. It does display some signs of wetness, but whether it can be classified as a wetlands or not, based on DEC classification criteria, I’m not sure. MR. BORGOS-I have to defer to the experts on that. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/18/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments? Could I hear a motion to table, please. I’ll introduce a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2001 HUNT LAKE LAND HOLDING CO., INC. Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: To give them time to respond to C.T. Male’s letter of concern dated September 13, specifically th Items One through Fifteen, and we’ll table the application to our October 16, 2001 meeting. Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. We’ll see you next month. MR. BORGOS-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Next item on the agenda. SITE PLAN NO. 38-2001 TYPE II WEB GRAPHICS PROPERTY OWNER: TAYLOR CORPORATION AGENT: MICHAEL BUCCIFERRO ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PAVE 57,000 SQUARE FEET OF EXISTING PARKING LOT AREA AND ENLARGEMENT OF THE MAIN ENTRANCE. ALL USES IN LI ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: VAR. 840 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/12/01 TAX MAP NO. 308.15-1-40 LOT SIZE: 2+/- ACRES SECTION: 179-26 TOM NACE & MIKE BUCCIFERRO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 38-2001, Web Graphics, Meeting Date: September 18, 2001 “Project Description The applicant proposes to pave a 57,000 square foot portion of the rear property for parking at WEB Graphics. Project Analysis (Section 179-38) Site Overview The parking area is to the rear of the building. The area to be paved is being used as a parking area but is made up of dirt and loose gravel. The parcel is 12 acres and the building with the existing and proposed impermeable surface takes up 33% of the site. Four new light poles are proposed. The light fixtures are to be twenty-foot poles with cut-off fixtures. Improvements will also be made to the loading dock area that include new curb on either side of the loading dock. Traffic, Circulation, Parking The building is located in the Light Industrial zone where the number of parking spaces required is determined by the number of people on the maximum shift. The site plan identifies 165 spaces with room for additional vehicles if needed. The entrance is being widened from twelve to twenty feet. Utility, Stormwater, Landscaping, Emergency Services The applicant has submitted a stormwater management plan that has been forwarded to CT Male for review and comment.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, my name is Tom Nace, Nace Engineering, representing Web Graphics. Also in the audience with me is Mike Bucciferro from Amsterdam Printing, the parent company of Web. We did receive comments from C.T. Male. I’ll go through those in detail if you’d like. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. Now is the time to do it. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/18/01) MR. NACE-Okay. One of the comments was that there were no spot grades on the plan to show actual drainage pitches, and he’s right, we did not, since this is a big, flat area, we did not do any topo because they’re going to re-grade the parking lot to fit the required grades to get drainage to work. I have added a note to the drawings which requires that the minimum pitch from high point to drywells be one percent. This is fairly minor across the largest drainage length on this site. That’ll amount to 1.25 feet of elevation difference. So that’ll be easy for them to accommodate. One of Jim Edwards’ comments was that he was concerned that we might not be able to get truck movements in and out of the dock within the paved area. I’ve provided a sketch, which you should have, that shows the principle truck movements in and out of the docks, and we do have plenty of space on the asphalt for that. If we do get any super big rigs, there’s also that 15 foot gravel strip at the far end of the asphalt which could be used as extra maneuvering area. He had a question whether there would be any lighting over the docks, and I’ve indicated that there’ll be a 200 watt wall pack security type light near the stairs adjacent to the docks. That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll start with Cathy. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m okay. I have no questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-When we were out there Saturday, I looked at the landscaping, went around the building, and I’m just wondering, looking at this site plan, I guess I just have to ask the question, are all the things that are on this site plan there, as far as landscaping is concerned? I can’t make a one to one transition to that in my mind. MR. NACE-Yes, they did. I specifically went around the entire building and indicated tree line, counted number of trees, and showed them exactly as they are. Dimensionally, it may be within five feet, it may not be exact for placement, but. MR. VOLLARO-I’m just talking for the representation. MR. NACE-The representation is correct. MR. VOLLARO-Is that true for the Corinth Road side as well? MR. NACE-Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. That’s really all I had. This is a pretty flat lot. You’re just going to put some pavement on it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Larry? MR. RINGER-I didn’t have anything. I did have a concern for the parking, or the driveway coming in and out, but that’s not part of this application. It seemed very tight. We were trying to go in as a car was coming out, and it was difficult. MR. NACE-Okay. The existing driveway? MR. RINGER-The existing driveway going in off Corinth Road. MR. NACE-Okay. Right. This application will relocate that driveway a little bit as you can see on the site plan. MR. RINGER-And widen? MR. NACE-Yes, correct. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re talking the side that goes into the office area, though, right? MR. NACE-Correct, yes. MR. VOLLARO-And we’re talking this one right here. MR. RINGER-Because there was a car coming out as we were trying to come in, and it was very crowded. MR. NACE-Yes. It’s tight because of the configuration. They’re going to open it up into a standard configuration with a 24 foot aisle and parking spaces on both side of the aisle, which will be a little more standard. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/18/01) MR. VOLLARO-I noticed you removed those posts from that, there’s two posts, one either side of that. They look like they’re pretty well embedded, either side of that driveway. They’re going? MR. NACE-They’ve got to go. MR. VOLLARO-They won’t move much if you hit them, I’ll tell you. MR. MAC EWAN-There used to be one down at the other entrance. Tractor trailers took those out. MR. VOLLARO-Took those out. MR. RINGER-I didn’t have anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing on this. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Mr. Nace, are you going to submit a grading plan anyway? I mean, don’t they have to? MR. NACE-I’ve just put a note. It’s so flat, and there’s a big sandy area to work with, rather than spend a couple of thousand dollars to get topographic information, and O’Connor’s is going to be doing the work, E & T O’Connor’s, and we’ve given them, the plan will have a spec on it to say minimum one percent pitch on the grade to the drywells, and that’s really all that’s necessary. They can grade from that, and match, they’ve got, you know, existing pavement to match on both sides, and the building and the loading dock to match in the middle. There’s really not a lot of information that’s necessary. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Did you say the spot elevations were going to be between, you said plus or minus one percent? MR. NACE-The difference in elevation required to have that one percent pitch is a foot and a quarter, which is not much. It’s less than that. MR. VOLLARO-I understand. I think it’s flat as a pancake. MR. STROUGH-And the applicant’s requesting a waiver from the location and character of green areas, modification of green areas, buffer zone to remain undisturbed? MR. NACE-The green areas are shown. MR. STROUGH-Isn’t that checked, requesting a waiver on? MR. NACE-Well, good question. MR. STROUGH-Yes, on the checklist, waiver requested, E, item E. MR. NACE-I apologize. The applicant filled out the application with the Planning Staff, and I don’t have a copy of it. I don’t think there’s a waiver required at this point. Because we have shown. MR. RINGER-Right here. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I think it’s just an error that it was checked. MR. STROUGH-Just an error? Okay. That’s all I have. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have any questions, but I may have a potential conflict of interest. I didn’t realize that this project was owned by Amsterdam Printing, and, through work, I’m involved in a project with Amsterdam Printing in Amsterdam. So I may just recuse myself from any official vote. MR. MAC EWAN-You are? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/18/01) MR. HUNSINGER-I will, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ve got one question for you. Your delivery entrance, is there any way we can get you to widen that? Currently, as a regular commuter up and down Corinth Road, it is very difficult for tractor trailers to turn in there. They usually cut that corner, and I witnessed, two days ago, a car happened to be coming out of the parking lot, and you had a 65 foot trailer going in, and he had to cut it really sharp to make it in there, and he came really close to that tree, and you can see where you don’t have a wide enough aisle in there for them to make that radius turn in there. Is there any way we can get that widened to accommodate tractor trailers? MR. BUCCIFERRO-I think one of the things we’re looking to do is, once we get this okay, hopefully tonight, we can widen the entrance by the office. We can then actually have in and out entrance for pedestrian cars. Right now we really don’t have that. So we’d like to really directional the, once we get this area opened up, we can directional the cars one way and the trucks only the other. MR. MAC EWAN-My concerns are with the most western entrance to your delivery side of the building. Right now that opening is not wide enough to accommodate a tractor trailer making a turn. MR. BUCCIFERRO-We can certainly take a look at that, for sure. We didn’t during this project. The key reasoning for it was to get some asphalt. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the width of that now? Isn’t that about 18 feet, 20 feet? MR. BUCCIFERRO-It’s about 21 feet. MR. MAC EWAN-You need to widen that up to, what, a minimum of 24? MR. NACE-Twenty-four is normal. MR. MAC EWAN-Can we get you to widen that to 24? MR. NACE-I think it’s not just the width of it, but mostly the radiuses coming in to it. MR. MAC EWAN-And that’s where the problem is, with the radius turning in to it. MR. STROUGH-If I might add, the last time we met, C.T. Male was here, and they suggested that a 35 foot radius is the most appropriate for a drive. MR. BUCCIFERRO-Are you asking to take a look at widening it during this project or? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, because I see that as an issue, and I only say that because I do commute on the Corinth Road every day, and I see that as a problem for your tractor trailers getting in there. It’s not so much a problem for them coming out. It is a problem for them turning in. MR. BUCCIFERRO-I don’t see that as an issue. We can talk to Mr. O’Connor tomorrow. I don’t see that being a problem, doing it the same time as doing the back part. MR. MAC EWAN-And what I’m seeing here, and if Tom has shown that last tree correctly, it’s going to be a sacrificial tree, I think. MR. BUCCIFERRO-Probably so. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, in the name of safety, though, if we have to give up one tree, I think it’s going to benefit the site as a whole. MR. BUCCIFERRO-Yes, that’s no problem. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. RINGER-What do you want to widen it to, 24? MR. BUCCIFERRO-At least. MR. NACE-Move it 24 plus 35 foot radius. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add? Thank you for accommodating us on that. MR. BUCCIFERRO-No problem. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/18/01) MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anybody want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t need to do a SEQRA on this, do we? It’s a Type II Action. There was a Short Form with the application. MRS. MOORE-It’s a Type II. MR. MAC EWAN-So we don’t need to do one. Okay. There was one filled out. That’s why I was questioning it. Does someone want to introduce a motion, please? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 38-2001 WEB GRAPHICS, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 38-2001, Web Graphics. Applicant is proposing to pave 57,000 square feet of existing parking lot area and enlargement of the main entrance. All uses in LI zones require Planning Board review and approval. Tax Map No. 308.15-1-40, Zone: LI-1A, and; WHEREAS, the application was received 8/28/01; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 9/14/01: 9/18 Staff Notes 9/13 CT Male engineering comments 9/12 Warren Co. Planning - NCI 9/11 Notice of Public Hearing: 7/20/83 PB Minutes re: Var. 840 WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 9/18/01 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, 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 with the deletion of the second to last Whereas in the resolution. With the following conditions: 1. That there will be a minimum pitch of one percent toward the catch basin or storm drain. 2. That the western entry will be widened to twenty-four feet and have a thirty- five foot turning radius. Duly adopted this 18th day of September 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Hunsinger 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/18/01) MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. Good luck. MR. BUCCIFERRO-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you for doing that for us. MR. BUCCIFERRO-No problem. MR. MAC EWAN-Next item on the agenda. PUD SITE PLAN NO. 35-2001 THOMAS FARONE & SON J. BUCKLEY BRYAN PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING/MATTHEW JONES ZONE: PUD LOCATION: FARR LANE/FOX FARM ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES FINAL APPROVAL OF PHASE II OF THE INDIAN RIDGE PROJECT – 25 RESIDENTIAL LOTS. PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR ENTIRE PROJECT WAS RECEIVED ON 1/18/00. FINAL APPROVAL FOR PHASE I WAS RECEIVED ON 2/15/00. TAX MAP NO. 73-1-21, 22.1, 22.3, 22.4, 22.5, 22.6, 22.7 LOT SIZE: 135.15 +/- ACRES (ENTIRE PROJECT) SECTION: 179-58 TOM NACE & MATTHEW JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, PUD Site Plan No. 35-2001, Thomas Farone & Son J. Buckley Bryan, Meeting Date: September 18, 2001 “Project Description The applicant proposes Phase II of the Indian Ridge Planned Unit Development. Phase II is the development of 25 single family dwellings. The applicant has complied with arrangements as outlined in the PUD agreement. These include: ?? Providing an access drive from the Indian Ridge Development to the Queensbury School Property; ?? Obtaining Building permits for 60% of the prior stage before commencement of next phase; ?? Fourteen feet of the access drive is to be paved; ?? The access drive is to contain breakaway gates, ?? The access drive will also contain lighting; ?? The applicant will convey an easement between lots 31 and 32 to allow pedestrian and non- motorized bicycle traffic to travel from the road system within the subdivision to the land conservation area to be conveyed to the Town. Study of plat (§ A183) ?? The plat submitted is consistent with the original Indian Ridge development. ?? Lot arrangement: The applicant proposes 25 single family home lots. ?? Location and design of streets: The plans have been forwarded to the Highway Department for review and comment. ?? Water supply: The applicant proposes to connect to municipal water. The plans have been forwarded to the Water Department for review and comment. ?? Sewage disposal: The plans identify on site septic system. ?? Drainage: The grading and stormwater management plan were addressed for the entire PUD during review of PUDSP15-99 and had obtained RIST Frost sign-off. ?? Lot sizes: The lots range from a half an acre to a little more than acre. ?? Future development: The PUD agreement identifies the amount of development to occur on the site. ?? Town departments: The application has been forwarded to the Highway and Water Department for review and comment.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MRS. MOORE-I’ll just highlight, under “Project Description”, I have six items, and in regards to number one, provide an access drive from Indian Ridge Development to the Queensbury school property, that has been provided. Obtaining building permits for 60% of the prior stage, they’re actually at 61%. Number Three, fourteen feet of the access drive is to be paved. That is shown on the plans. Item Number Four, the access drive is to contain breakaway gates. I don’t know if they’re noted on the plan, but I know that’s in discussion with the School. MR. MAC EWAN-I remember that. They had some concerns about wanting to do that. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/18/01) MRS. MOORE-Right. Item Number Five, the access drive will also contain lighting, and that’s shown on the plans. Item Number Six, the applicant will convey an easement between lots 31 and 32, and that’s currently being drafted. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. JONES-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is Matthew Jones of the Jones Firm in Saratoga Springs. I’m the lawyer for the applicant, and with me is Tom Nace of Nace Engineering, the project engineer. If I might proceed with your Staff notes and address first the business of the access drive with the Queensbury School District, and let me tender to your Counsel a copy of the agreement that the applicant reached on June 12, 2000 with the Queensbury Union Free School District, which addresses those three items, that being the lighting, the breakaway gates, and the pavement, we make provision, in Paragraph Four of the agreement, for a 14 foot wide paved asphalt road running the length of the access parcel, and breakaway gates at the end of each of the parcels, at the end of the parcel on each end, and four cutoff style lights, connected to the School District site, lighting circuitry mounted on 16 foot high poles located on the north side of the access parcel. In addition, we’ve specked out the sidewalk, and you had a question on that issue, and the sidewalk will be six feet wide and four inches in depth, in accord with general construction standards in the Town of Queensbury. Let me tender a copy of the agreement to your Counsel. Your Staff notes make an inquiry as to the easement between Lots 31 and 32. We submitted a draft of an easement to Staff and received comments back today. We’ve made the corrections, or the additions as requested by Staff, and so let me tender to your Counsel now an executed easement in favor of the Town of Queensbury for ingress and egress between Lots 31 and 32 of the project, together with a TP584, sufficient for recording in the County Clerk’s Office of Warren County, and a check in the amount of $21 to the Warren County Clerk for recordation, and let me have Tom Nace take you through the engineering comment letter from C.T. Male and his response, which we provided previously in writing to the Board. MR. NACE-C.T. Male’s letter inquired, they had not reviewed this originally. It had been reviewed by Rist-Frost, as you’ll recall. They inquired about the fact that we need a variance from the Health Department because we’re over 50 lots without public sewers. I’ve attached a copy of our 1995 variance we did receive from the Health Department on that issue. They inquired about the road to the School. Actually it’s an access path. It’s an access path/emergency road. I’ve indicated that we will place a note on the final plans when they’re signed, or before they’re signed, specifying that that road is to be constructed to the same depth and construction material as the actual Town road being constructed with the project. As far as the fencing, they ask, they say, will there be fencing separating the road from the rear lot lines of lots nine through eleven. This issue was discussed with the School District. It was concluded that fencing was not needed. However, individual homeowners abutting the path always have that option of installing fencing along their property lines if they so desire. They inquired about the temporary hammerhead turnaround at the north end of the Phase I road. That’s designed as a 20 foot wide by 90 foot long hammerhead that will allow sufficient room for the snowplow trucks to turn around. It’s a detail we’ve used before on other temporary turnarounds in subdivisions. Number Four was no response needed. Number Five, I will add, again, to the plans before they’re signed a temporary fire hydrant at the end of the road near this temporary turnaround for the purpose of flushing and bleeding the system, and that will be moved when we do Phase III. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that typically a standard hydrant or is it something different? MR. NACE-Well, it’s a good idea. It was a good idea. It should have been there, and of course the final plans will be signed and sealed, prior to being submitted for Chairman’s signature. That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Robert, we’ll start with you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just have one correction, I think, on all of this, and it’s, let’s see where it is. You’ve got to bear with me for just a second here, while I get all these product of all these trees on the table here. I’ll refer you to Page Two, Landscaping Plan, SheetP2-5. Okay. Down on the plan list, under (lost words) Eastern White Pine, quantity 27. That really ought to be changed to 40, to coincide with the 40 White Pines that are listed. See along the back of Lots 10, 11, 12, 9, 10, 11, 12, and even 13, that you have listed 40 White Pines in there, and your planting list says 27. MR. NACE-You’re absolutely right. That, okay, will be changed. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s really all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Anything else? 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/18/01) MR. VOLLARO-That’s it for me. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I only have one question, and it was from the last time, for Phase I, for Lots 72, 73, 74, and 75, do you recall what that no cut zone was there? Phase I, 72, 73, 74, 75? MR. NACE-Okay. If you look at the plan submitted for Phase I, (lost words), if you look at SP-9, I think was submitted with this package, you’ll see the no cut zone. It’s 10 feet on the lots in Phase II, but if you’ll look on the lots around the cul de sac in Phase I, it’s quite wide. MR. METIVIER-I couldn’t remember before, and I guess had an issue with that, but then I was trying to recall. I thought that we had decided that it was going to be almost 50 feet back there, if I wasn’t mistaken, on the bigger lots? MR. NACE-Yes, it is. It’s, in fact, this is 50 scale. In places here it averages almost 150 feet wide. MR. METIVIER-Okay. That’s fine. I was just surprised by the 10 foot, but had a feeling that on the other side of it, it was much bigger than that. So that’s fine. That’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-The side setback is 10 feet? MR. NACE-It was a long time ago that I did these. The side setback, it should be shown on the cover sheet. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, it does give the information, but I’m looking at Phase II layout plan. MR. NACE-Okay. Is the dimension anywhere in Phase II. It looks like 10 feet, but I don’t have a scale. MR. STROUGH-Well, what confuses me is that the back, you see where it says 10 foot wide no clear zone? MR. NACE-Right. MR. STROUGH-And the side setback only has to be 10 feet. It looks like you’ve got almost 20. MR. NACE-Well, let me get the scale. The sides scale at 15. What does the cover show? Side setback, no, okay. If you’ll look, okay, on the cover sheet, the sides are a minimum of 10, the sum of the sides must equal 30. So we’ve shown them at 15, equal on each side. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I’m just saying, you know, visually it wasn’t worked out. I figured most applicants set their, where they can maximize their use. What you’ve said is an additional amount. MR. NACE-No, it’s not additional, okay. MR. STROUGH-Well, the side setback is, what, 10 feet? MR. NACE-Minimum 10, the sum of the sides must equal 30. So in reality it’s 15 and 15 or 10 and 20. MR. STROUGH-All right. Thanks for clearing that up. Now, the only other thing that drew my interest was, between lots eight and nine, and, all right, now we have the access road going between lots eight and nine. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. STROUGH-And you’ve also got the baseball field, which the batter’s box is right there in the corner, okay. I just was wondering if it might be in the interest of the School and the potential buyer to lots eight and nine that there be a no cut zone along the area that’s been identified as the setback. Because there is already quite a lush growth there of natural vegetation that would provide not only a visual buffer zone, but it would also provide a potential safety buffer zone. I mean, the guys do hit 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/18/01) back there all the time, and if there is some kind of vegetation, it might prevent some of those balls going into the property and possibly causing damage. I mean, there might be a liability situation there, and I think it would just be in the interest of the homeowner as well to leave at least some kind of vegetation along that area where that baseball field is, I thought, as an idea. MR. JONES-There’s one piece of information that you may or may not have about the area with the School. The Town has assigned to the School District its option to purchase the senior citizen land which is just to the south/southwest, and we’ve been speaking with the School District about that, over the last several months, and asking them about their intentions with regard to this whole area, and I don’t think those intentions are resolved, in terms of the master plan, yet. So I don’t know whether or not what you see here, in terms of this baseball field, is going to be there indefinitely, and we asked that question of them, can you help us out with that, so that we can kind of plan accordingly, and they’re just not sure. MR. STROUGH-Well, it wasn’t a big issue with me. It was merely a suggestion, and, you know, if I were the homeowners to Lots Eight and Nine, I think I would want to leave some vegetation up there, but, you know, if you don’t want to make it mandatory, that’s no big issue with me, either, on that case. Okay. MR. JONES-I appreciate that. MR. STROUGH-All right, and just a question of interest, I suppose, now the community service area, I kind of forgot what that’s supposed to be used for, and it’s not really part of this, but if you don’t mind refreshing me. MR. JONES-Sure. The PUD agreement which we signed with the Town, following your review, makes provision for the. MR. STROUGH-Is that like maybe a daycare center, in the future, or something like that? MR. JONES-Yes, and that’s what we kind, it’s some professional use, some limited business use, and as we say that I’m looking forward. MR. MAC EWAN-I think as I recall they were associated professional offices, a doctor, dentist, something like that, therapist, but daycare and a community center seemed to be the two that were at the top of the list. MR. JONES-And they are, and that’s exactly right. It’s uses allowed in the site plan, care or instruction for four or more persons, performance of professional occupation, treatment of illness, disease, injury, including rehab activities and community center or retail business. MR. STROUGH-I have no further questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it, John? MR. STROUGH-Yes, that’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Happy? Do you have anything to add? Anything you guys want to add? MR. JONES-No, sir. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-You didn’t have any written comments or anything, did you? MR. VOLLARO-How about Rick Missita’s letter of September 17? Have we addressed that? th MRS. LA BOMBARD-He addressed that. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/18/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. That’s the one he was referring to the hammerhead cul de sacs. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Right? Does someone want to introduce a motion, please. MOTION TO APPROVE PUD SITE PLAN NO. 35-2001 THOMAS FARONE & SON J. BUCKLEY BRYAN, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of PUD Site Plan No. 35-2001, Thomas J. Farone & Son / J. Buckley Bryan, Indian Ridge, Phase II. Applicant proposes final approval of Phase II of the Indian Ridge project – 25 residential lots. Preliminary approval for entire project was received on 1/18/00. Final approval for Phase I was received on 2/15/00. Tax Map No. 73-1-21, 22.1, 22.3, 22.4, 22.5, 22..6, 22.7. WHEREAS, the application was received 8/28/01; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 9/14/01: 9/18 Staff Notes 9/13 CT Male engineering comments 9/11 M. Jones from L. Moore – re: easement to Lots 31, 32 9/11 Notice of Public Hearing: 9/6 Meeting Notice 8/1 M. Jones from C. Round re: required paperwork WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 9/18/01 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, 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 with the deletion of the second to last Whereas in the resolution. Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. JONES-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other business? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, Thursday. MR. MAC EWAN-Thursday’s meeting, are you going to be here, Mr. Schachner? Is Mrs. Radner going to be here? MRS. MOORE-I have information for you. As I notified you earlier, Craig Brown will be here, and it is only a recommendation. During discussions with Staff, we didn’t think that you needed Counsel to be at that meeting, because my understanding. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/18/01) MR. MAC EWAN-In light of my concerns that I have with it, I would prefer to have some representation there or a memo of some kind. MR. SCHACHNER-What’s going on on Thursday’s meeting? MRS. MOORE-Nizolek. MR. MAC EWAN-This is the Takundewide, ongoing. MR. SCHACHNER-I am not available, but I can see if Cathi is. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you please? MR. SCHACHNER-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-And if she is not available, maybe to put a memo together for us on your views of it. I have specific concerns regarding segmentation of SEQRA. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Is there something that we could? MRS. MOORE-There is information that Staff will provide to them. MR. MAC EWAN-All you need to do is review Marilyn’s memo, which cites the ongoing history of that site, and you’ll see, I think, where I’m coming from. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Would you please e-mail me and let me know if she can be there? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Did Marilyn copy our legal counsel on that e-mail? I don’t know. MRS. MOORE-I’ll have to look. I’m not sure if she did or she did not. MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t believe we have any idea what you’re talking about. MR. VOLLARO-I can tell by your expression. MR. MAC EWAN-However, I believe by Thursday you’ll be well in tune. MR. SCHACHNER-We’ll do our best. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. METIVIER-What about Tuesday? MR. MAC EWAN-Next Tuesday. MR. METIVIER-Primary. Do we have this room? MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’re right. MRS. MOORE-It is something I’ll have to look into. I know Chris was. MR. MAC EWAN-Is the primary definitely on for next Tuesday? MR. METIVIER-Yes, it is. MR. MAC EWAN-Then we’re definitely off for next Tuesday, then. Obviously, this is a polling place, and it’s kind of hard to conduct business with the clicking of machines. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I will notify you of what the change is. MR. MAC EWAN-I would guess that, the ZBA meets Wednesday. I would guess we’re looking at Thursday, and you’re going to be making a lot of phone calls. MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/18/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Staff will notify me, and I’ll pass it along to everybody else. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. So we’re going to shoot for Thursday the 27? th MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct, at this point. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And Thursday night’s meeting, the 20, is in here? th MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ve gone through all of that, and I’m not exactly sure if I understand it. MRS. MOORE-If you have an opportunity to speak with Marilyn, set up a time to talk with her. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I will give her a call. MR. SCHACHNER-You won’t be able to have public hearings. MR. HUNSINGER-So we have to meet on Tuesday. MR. RINGER-Where do they have the voting, out in the hall or in here? MR. SCHACHNER-They may be able to split the room. I have no idea. MRS. MOORE-I will notify you if it’s been changed. MR. MAC EWAN-Something’s got to be done, because what I’m concerned about, too, is the Mitchell subdivision is on. There will probably be quite a few people who will want to speak. So if we’re looking at splitting this room in half or something like that, I mean, those are things we need to consider. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And don’t forget to vote for the Board of Education this Thursday. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not Planning Board stuff. Stick with Planning Board issues, please. We’re still on the record. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m sorry, Craig, you’re right. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other business? Okay. I’ll make a motion we adjourn and turn it over to Mrs. LaBombard politicking. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 35