Loading...
2002-09-24 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN ROBERT VOLLARO JOHN STROUGH LARRY RINGER ANTHONY METIVIER CHRIS HUNSINGER RICHARD SANFORD, ALTERNATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 45-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED RUSS PITTENGER/WALLACE HIRSH PROPERTY OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: BIRDSALL ROAD EXTENSION APPLICANT PROPOSES CLEARING AND GRADING TO FACILITATE DRIVEWAY, PARKING, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND FUTURE SEPTIC AREA. THE PROPOSED CUT IS 10,000 +/- CUBIC YARDS WITH FILL OF 5,000 +/- CUBIC YARDS WITH A FINISHED ELEVATION OF 135 +/- FEET. SP APPROVED ON 1/16/02 WITH A CONDITION THAT THE EARTH BE TRANSPORTED DURING THE MONTH OF MARCH 2002. REQUEST IS FOR EXTENSION OF PREVIOUS APPROVAL TO MARCH 30, 2003. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 39-98 TAX MAP NO. 40-1-29, 30 LOT SIZE: 0.9 ACRES/SECTION: 179-16, 179-65 RUSS PITTENGER & WALLACE HIRSH, PRESENT MR. HILTON-(Lost words) this is the Highway Superintendent, Deputy Highway Superintendent, and a letter to the applicant. Just summing up the letter, it says the option of hauling on Marley Way should be explored. It has been and it’s not feasible. They don’t have any problem using Birdsall Road commencing November 1, 2002. MS. RADNER-Craig, I had a meeting with Rick and Mike today, Rick Missita, Mike Travis, and asked them to further clarify the Highway Department’s position, with the understanding that it’s 10,000 cubic yards that are going to be removed. They don’t have a problem with it, as they did in the past when they thought it was a greater quantity. It’s their understanding that it’s going to be no tractor trailers. It’s going to be twin axel, tandem trucks, roughly 500 loads, and so they don’t have a problem with it after the November 1 date that’s st in the letter. MR. MAC EWAN-That was 10,000 cubic yards? MS. RADNER-That’s their understanding. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. PITTENGER-Good evening. My name is Russ Pittenger. I’m here with Wally Hirsh. Given the Highway Department’s recommendation, the November 1 date through March 30 would be suitable for us th and we would appreciate that a lot (lost words). MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. John, anything? MR. STROUGH-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Good enough for me. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) MR. SANFORD-I’m fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No problem with it. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-Fine. 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-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please. MR. STROUGH-All right. MOTION THAT WE REQUEST THE EXTENSION OF SITE PLAN NO. 45-2001 RUSS PITTENGER/WALLACE HIRSH, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: In accord with the previous conditions as made on January 15, 2002 with the following change of Condition No. 3. Conditions No. 3 will read, the excavation part of this proposal shall not commence prior to November 1, 2002 and shall be completed by March 30, 2003. [Conditions of previous approval attached]. Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 2002, by the following vote: th MR. STROUGH-And this extension will be to January 30, 2003. Did that make sense? MR. MAC EWAN-No. When you threw in that last date, it threw it off. You’re granting the extension to March 31, 2003. Right? MR. STROUGH-Right, with all prior conditions still applying, with the exception that the prior condition given January 15, 2002, Condition Number Three, has to be changed, and I changed the wording that the excavation part of this proposal shall not commence prior to November 1, 2002, and shall be completed by March 31, 2003. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Or I could change that to March 30, 2003, and that will be in accord to what they’re asking for as an extension. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll second the motion. AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. PITTENGER-Thank you. May I also add a request that it be clarified that it’s the hauling that has to be in those timeframes, excavation (lost words), really it’s just a question of hauling on the road. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the intent’s there, we know it’s going to be hauling. MR. PITTENGER-Thank you very much. MR. HIRSH-Thank you. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2002 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED JEFFREY INGLEE AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES/NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: RR- 5A, LC-10A LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF TUTHILL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 47.71 +/- ACRE PARCEL (31.30 AC. IN QUEENSBURY, 16.41 AC. IN LUZERNE) INTO THREE (3) LOTS OF 5.12 ACRES, 13.95 ACRES AND 12.23 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 3-2001, SB 13-2001, BP 98-554 APA TAX MAP NO. 300-1-40/123-1-40.5 LOT SIZE: 47.71 +/- ACRES [31.30 AC. IN QU., 16.41 AC. IN LUZERNE] SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TOM NACE & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 15-2002, Preliminary and Final Stage, Jeffrey Inglee, Meeting Date: September 24, 2002 “Project Description: Applicant proposes the subdivision of a 47.41 acre property into three lots. The property is zoned LC-10A (Land Conservation 10 Acres) and RR-5 (Rural Residential 5 Acres) and is located in the Adirondack Park. The subdivision proposes to create three lots that will all be accessed by one common drive that currently exists on this property. Study of plat: Lot arrangement: The subdivision shows one lot closer to Tuthill Road (Lot 1) with the other two lots, for the most part, being located behind Lot 1. All three lots would have the required 40 feet of frontage on a town road. Topography: The site contains little slope in the area closest to Tuthill Road, with much steeper slopes near the rear of the property. Water supply Sewage Disposal: Water and wastewater services will be on site systems for all three proposed lots. Drainage: Any increased stormwater must be managed on the lot in which it is generated. The applicant has provided site details which address stormwater management and drainage. Lot sizes: One lot is proposed for the RR-5 zone and it is 5.12 acres in size. The two lots that are proposed for the LC-10A zone are 12.23 and 13.95 acres. All lots conform to the minimum lot area requirements for each zone. Future development: The applicant’s plans indicate future dwellings, septic and wells to be built on the back two lots of this subdivision. State Environmental Quality Review Act: Type is Unlisted, the applicant has submitted a short form. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SB 3-2001; SB13-2001 – Similar applications for subdivision of this property Staff comments: This subdivision represents a different application than previous submissions (SB 3-2001 and SB 13-2001). The applicant proposes three lots which all meet the lot area requirements for each zoning district on this property. The lots also have the minimum 40 feet of frontage on a town road. The applicant’s plans show a single driveway that provides access for all three lots off of Tuthill Road. Staff recommends that any approval of this subdivision should include a stipulation that cross easements be granted and filed that will provide for access of all three lots from this driveway. The applicant has submitted a driveway profile that shows an overall driveway slope of approximately 14%. Some areas of the driveway show slopes of around 24%. Access drives of this type have a maximum slope requirement of 10% as required by the subdivision regulations. The Planning board can allow for increased slopes if the board feels that public safety will not be impacted. Any comments from CT Male should be addressed prior to Planning Board action on this application.” MR. HILTON-This application represents a three lot subdivision up on Tuthill Road. The lots that are proposed all have the required 40 feet frontage on a Town road and meet the minimum area requirements for the zone. The main issue at this point seems to be the access drive that’s going to serve all three lots. There 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) are some steeper slopes in the back, and there’ve been some concerns in the past with similar applications at this location, as far as access for emergency vehicles. So that seems to be the main issue. Any approval by the Board, if there is going to be one, should require some kind of cross access easements that all three lots would be able to gain access off the existing driveway, since that’s shown on the plan and proposed. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. I’m Matt Steves, together with Tom Nace and we represent Mr. Inglee on his application. This is a new subdivision application of three lots on the west side of Tuthill Road. There was a previous submission in front of you previously for a similar type subdivision. We withdrew that, and have come back with a new application at the Board’s request. It is now three lots, all of which meet the current zoning without having to have cluster provision provided for that. The smallest lot being five acres, and the two larger lots being approximately 13 and 12 acres within the Town of Queensbury. Actually the larger one is about 28 acres, but 16 of that is in the Town of Luzerne. This is the same driveway that we had, that you had proposed. The house sites are shown, on the five acre lot, it is the existing structure that is there. Two new structures are proposed. The locations are shown on the plan. There were a few comments that, on C.T. Male’s review, and I’ll let Tom Nace speak to those. MR. NACE-Okay. I’ll just quickly go down through C.T. Male’s letter, and give you our responses. I think Items One and Two don’t really need any response. We agree that, because of the size of the parcel, that what we’ve provided in the way of the mapping scale and the topography is adequate. We have provided some field survey topography with two foot contour intervals in the area of the steep driveway section and in the area of the emergency vehicle turnout area. Their third comment says that the road profile is extremely steep with slopes of 25%. The Town provisions and industry standards suggest a maximum driveway slope of 10%. The safety of an average automobile traversing this driveway is of significant concern. We would recommend that the existing gravel drive width be indicated and made as wide as possible, especially at the four horizontal curves. The driveway as shown and as constructed is approximately 15 feet wide. We will put on the final plans a requirement that it be a minimum of 15 feet wide, and that in the area of the four turns, it would be widened out to 18 feet. I think we have been over the driveway issue before, although it is steep. It is usable with the provision of that emergency vehicle access turnout, and I don’t think we need anything further there. Number Five, the building setback lines they say were not on the map, they are on the map. They’re shown as dashed, light dashed lines. We will label them on the final map, just to make it a little more clear. The final map will also contain the surveyor’s seal, you know, the final map for the Chairman’s signature. The well and septic system on the lot with the existing cabin were inadvertently labeled as “proposed”. They are existing. We will change that labeling so it’s clear they are existing. There is proper separation between the two. Their Comment Number Eight says the gravel road servicing Lots 2 and 3 is shown approximately 15 feet from the existing log home on Lot 1. From a practical standpoint, should this be shifted over to provide additional setback? The gravel road’s existing. It’s already there. The cabin’s already there. The owner intends to retain all three lots within his immediate family, and does not have any real desire to move that road further away from the cabin. Number Nine on C.T. Male’s, the existing slopes in the area where the septic systems are proposed, they say, are up to 30 percent, and DOH and DEC recommend slopes of less than 20%. In actuality, the slope, in the area of the septic system, is something less than 15%. I did the test pit there and the perc test, and looked, mapped out an area to make sure there was adequate space for a septic where the slope is less than 15%, and that 15% is kind of confirmed. If you looked across the driveway on the north side of the driveway, the topo that was done by field survey shows that that existing slope of the land in there is a little less than 15. It’s about 12%. Number Ten on C.T. Male’s letter, with regard to stormwater management, the plan should indicate control of runoff along the existing drive and the emergency vehicle access. We will add, if everything else is okay, we will add to the final plans a detail for stormwater turnouts with some small stone filled check dam detention dams at critical locations where the runoff can accumulate from the road. Number Eleven says that it’s not clear what status the APA jurisdictional inquiry is. Has the applicant yet applied for the APA jurisdictional determination? Yes. The APA inquiry jurisdictional, revised jurisdictional inquiry was submitted August 12. They, by th statute, have 30 days to respond. They have not. So we presume there is no jurisdictional authority here. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. NACE-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, we’ll start with you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The application to the Adirondack Park, you say that that’s been modified beyond the one that we have here? Because I guess it’s pretty academic, if they haven’t responded. I just wanted to make sure that we had the revised. This looks like an original, to me. It was revised 3/2000, what I have on there. MR. STEVES-The original one was sent out for the original application, and then it was modified to include all his holdings across the street. Yes, that was sent to the APA, because they also ask for all contiguous holdings by the landowner, and that was sent to them on August 12. th 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Because the one I have here is dated revised 3/2000. So, obviously, we don’t have the latest one. What I have is dated 2/20/02. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. That’s the date that the original application was sent. MR. VOLLARO-So there was one sent subsequent to this? MR. STEVES-Yes, on August 12. th MR. NACE-It’s the same application, just a different plan. MR. VOLLARO-And the Staff has that in their possession, the modified? MR. HILTON-No, we don’t. We have the same one you do, the 2/20/02. MR. STEVES-It’s the same application, Bob. It was sent in with the new plans. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m just trying to do some housekeeping here, in my mind, you’ll see that we have in the records the correct one. MR. STEVES-Understood. MR. VOLLARO-And apparently Staff has the same one I do that was signed on 2/20/02. So I think what we need to do is have the copy of that put in the record so that we see that that was one that was subsequent to the 2/20. Now, Tom, I listened to what you were saying, and I tried to look on the grading map, you know, this document here that you’ve provided. You’re familiar with that, and I did some looking, trying to look at this and using that to go up the scale and see exactly where the turnout road would be, in looking at that trying to identify the turnout road. Now, what I got out of that, in just doing that exercise, is that the home on Lot Number Two is about 300 feet, roughly, from the turnout, and I looked at it with a grade of 24%, trying to take a look at where that would sit, at an elevation of about 50 feet above the turnout, roughly 50 feet above the turnout. So that means there’s an elevation that the pumper or whatever other vehicle was on that turnout’s got to get the water up 50 feet high, for a fire. Now I guess what I’m struggling with, and one of my fellow Board members and I were talking about this very same thing before I got into this, is where do we stand in terms of the protection on private property for something like this? Assuming that. MS. RADNER-Are you asking me if you’re liable if? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, in any way. Are we supposed to be preserving the safety of people who choose a piece of property like that? MS. RADNER-You’re within your right to inquire into it, to explore it, but you’re not their insurer, and you’re not giving them any guarantee, and you don’t assume liability by approving the best plan that they can present. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SANFORD-We were discussing this a little bit earlier. More specifically, if there is a fire, and a fire engine can’t get up there to service it, I’m not talking about the Planning Board. Is the Town, would the Town be at any liability risk here, for not being able to provide adequate fire service? MS. RADNER-So would the fire company be liable if they couldn’t get up it? MR. SANFORD-Yes. I guess what I’m saying, is there some kind of an obligation on the part of the Town of Queensbury to provide adequate fire service to people who reside in the Town, and if this is, it can’t be approached in an appropriate manner, is the Town at some risk? MS. RADNER-I don’t believe that the Town would be at risk in that situation. What I’m picturing is this house up the grade, and you’re wondering whether or not a fire truck would be able to get to them. I think that if it turned out that a fire truck couldn’t get up there, what they would find, before they were ever to build it, is that they wouldn’t be able to insure it. I can’t guarantee that, but I think that that would likely come into play, and I don’t think that the fire company is a guarantor, that if there’s a fire, they can get there in time, they can save lives, they can save property. They’re there to do the best that can be done under the circumstances, and when people build their homes, they assume some risk for where they build it and how they build it and what materials they use to build it as well. So I don’t believe they would be liable in that situation. If you just recklessly disregarded it, you let somebody build a house where it was obvious that it was a fire hazard and you couldn’t ever possibly get to it, for the inevitable fire, I think that, potentially, you could, but I think it’s real crystal balling, in a case like this, to try and guess what would happen if there was a fire. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) MR. SANFORD-Okay. I have a couple of additional questions, but I’ll wait until it’s my turn. MS. RADNER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I see that the applicant has put a letter in, has had a letter submitted by the West Glens Falls Fire Company #1, from Chief John Carpenter, and it’s a basically one sentence reply. It says, “I, Chief John Carpenter, have looked at the roadway and the property of Jeff Inglee, and see no problem with fire apparatus responding to his home.” I went up there today, and I see only two houses on that property. I parked on Tuthill Road and to the left there’s a house, and to the right there’s the cabin, and I don’t know what Chief Carpenter was referring to when he said to his home, since he doesn’t live in either of the two houses being proposed on top of the hill. Now, based on what you say, Cathi, I guess this whole idea of protecting life and limb, from the standpoint of this chair, isn’t really very valid. So I would just say, okay, if he wants to build his home there and he can’t, the fire company can’t get to it, and if it burns to the ground, it’s really no concern of ours. MS. RADNER-I wouldn’t go that far, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MS. RADNER-It’s an area of valid concern. I think that if you have questions about the Fire Chief’s letter, it’s well within the Board’s scope to request further clarification, and it’s definitely an area of inquiry, but I do not think that the Town becomes the guarantor and I don’t think that the fire department does, either. MR. ROUND-I think in C.T. Male’s comments as well, that there’s a reason that we have a 10% grade on residential driveways, and there’s a reason we develop standards. I mean, we always look at, and it’s not unusual to vary from the standards, but the reason we do that is that it’s good planning, not in a land use sense, but it’s good that we don’t provide steep driveways, so that we can provide reasonable access and that a homeowner may be incurring a burden that’s greater than they’re willing to accept, not knowing the impacts of steep driveways. You’re not completely removed from evaluating the design, just from a fire protection standpoint. MR. VOLLARO-And when Chief Carpenter says to his home, the only two houses I see that could be his home at the present time are right on the flat of Tuthill, and so Chief Carpenter didn’t say, and I have no problem getting up that driveway with this turnout access and when I park my fire apparatus there, I have no problem fighting a fire 300 feet away, 50 feet high. See, that’s my, I’m just trying to take a look at what happens in that situation when fire companies are there. Now we have a member of this Board that’s been doing this. I have never been on the back of a fire truck. So I don’t know from squat about what happens when they get there, but perhaps Larry would want to comment on this after. I don’t know, being in a fire company, you may not, Larry. MR. RINGER-Well, I wouldn’t want to question John Carpenter in what he feels. However, I agree that his letter isn’t very clear. He’s not saying, I’d rather him say he could get to the top of that hill, and there’s no damn fire truck in the world that’s going to get to that top of the hill where that trailer is. I don’t care what John says in his letter. You’re not going to get it up there. So you’re going to be pumping some place other and you’re going to be drafting. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you know, the thing that would take me off, and feel better, Larry, is if he said in his letter that I could certainly service the two proposed houses at the top of the hill, but he says to his home, and I don’t know what he means by that. The only two homes he could have is one of those two on the bottom. MR. MAC EWAN-We could ask for clarification. We can specifically ask what kind of fire apparatus would he use to get to the proposed homes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. RINGER-The only thing you could get up there with is a little brush truck, and he’s carrying, you know, 150 gallons of water. So if you’ve got a structure, you’re not going to get at it. So I don’t look at it so much from the liability we assume from a Planning Board or from a Town, but I look at it as the responsibility of what may happen if some, you know, if there was an emergency up there, to the people responding to that emergency, what could happen to them, a truck sliding off there or an ambulance sliding off there, or even a visitor to the home trying to traverse that driveway, who’s not familiar with it, what, not necessarily a liability, like I say, from our standpoint, but our responsibility, that we’ve allowed something up there that could be considered somewhat dangerous. Myself, this is about the fourth or fifth one we’ve had where these long driveways, steep driveways, and I’ve personally taken a position I haven’t voted for any of them. So I don’t know if I’m a good person to ask, and I’m probably not going to go along with this one, mainly because I just, I think the site is beautiful. I can see why you’d want to build a home up there, Jeff, I mean, the view is spectacular, but I would have a great deal of difficulty with this driveway the way it is. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) MR. MAC EWAN-What else have you got, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t really have anything else. The driveway was my biggest concern and the ability to get to it with fire apparatus. Other than that, I didn’t have any further comments. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-Yes. Just a few points, sort of as a follow through on some of the things we were talking about. This is a subdivide, and the intent is for this to be owned by family members. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. SANFORD-But families only live for a certain amount of time, and properties will transfer to other individuals. So I guess, you know, I differ a little bit with what I heard Larry say, in that I believe people should have a right, as long as they’re aware of the risks that they’re taking, to exercise, you know, their ownership rights and what have you. However, I’m concerned about perhaps the next owner not being aware of this. Is there any way in which the danger inherent in this steep drive can be somehow incorporated into, I don’t know, the deed or something, so that there’s a clear understanding of what might exist here in terms of fire hazard or things of this nature? MS. RADNER-That’s not typically that would be included in a deed. I think what you’re saying is some sort of a warning notice, you know, a buyer beware, if you buy this house, you’re buying a dangerous driveway. MR. SANFORD-Well, I was almost thinking more in the lines that if, you know, initially, maybe there could be a signoff stating that there’s an awareness on the part of the applicant that in the case of an emergency, it may create some problems. So there’s a complete understanding of that, but what I’m concerned about is that understanding following through over time, and is there any way in which that could be? MS. RADNER-I don’t think there is any realistic way you can do that, because even though it’s this applicant’s desire that he’s going to divide this land and give it to his children, you’ve got no guarantee that a year from now his children don’t decide they don’t like him, sell the property to a complete and total stranger, and you have no way of knowing what’s going to be the change of that property, and no way of policing it and no way of tracing down the title for years to come. So you need to try to review it from a planning standpoint and get the best possible design you can, based on the existing conditions with current technology, with what you have to deal with today. MR. SANFORD-Yes, because I’m kind of wrestling with this. I know friends who purposely have bought land on top of a mountain, simply because they wanted to be on the top of a mountain and away from civilization, and that was their purpose of doing it, and I would hate to think that they couldn’t build a cabin up there because a fire truck couldn’t get up there. So, that’s why I guess we’re relying so heavily on you is to try and understand the legalities of this, and also our responsibility to the issue. MS. RADNER-If you believe that that driveway is so inherently dangerous that nobody should be building there, then I think you have a responsibility to deny it. If you think that there are ways you can condition the application to make it reasonably safe or as safe as feasible, given the site’s topography, etc., then you may approve it with conditions. If you think that, based upon what you’re hearing from the engineers and the fire company, you’re comfortable with it and that a fire could be handled there, then you could approve it, and those are the options I see. MR. SANFORD-Here’s what I see. I see it as a dangerous road that in the wintertime is going to be extremely dangerous and that it’s likely, in the case of a fire the place is going to burn, and yet, under those conditions, I’m wondering whether or not I have the right to prevent somebody from building there. MS. RADNER-You most assuredly can deny an application because you do not see any safe or feasible way to build on that driveway. MR. SANFORD-Well, wait a second. They can build it, I guess, if they’re willing to assume that what I just said, is there any reason to deny them? If they know this, and are aware of it and they’re taking that on as a condition of constructing that home, they realize that it’s going to be problematic. MS. RADNER-I don’t think that that’s a proper level of inquiry, is, you know, does this applicant accept and appreciate the risk, and is that acceptance something that transfers, then, to future homeowners in perpetuity? I just don’t think that that’s a reasonable area of inquiry. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MS. RADNER-I think you’re wrestling with something that’s difficult, and I think there’s a good reason, and I can’t tell you how you should vote, but you have to make the decision. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) MR. SANFORD-All right. One more then, then, and I’ll stop beating this dead horse. A few years back I was looking at a cabin on a lake, and it was bordered, all surrounded by State land with no road access. Water access only. MS. RADNER-And as I recall that one was denied because. MR. SANFORD-No, no. This is not an application even in this Town. MS. RADNER-Okay. Because we had one like that once that, as I recall, was denied. MR. SANFORD-No, and I mean, as a person who was interested, I knew what I was dealing with here. If I had a heart attack there, an ambulance wouldn’t be able to get in, but that was part of the attraction is you were getting away from civilization. Okay. I mean, it was built in that area. MS. RADNER-That’s a little bit different, as you’re kind of trying to wear two hats at the same time. Would you, as the homeowner, want to buy this piece of property, or do you see the value of this property, versus, am I sitting here as the Planning Board willing to approve this piece of property, do I think that it’s a reasonable plan, and does it meet the criteria of the Town. MR. NACE-Can I interject two thoughts into your thinking process? MR. SANFORD-Sure. MR. NACE-One is the issue of buyer beware, future, who’s going to own this in the future, and are they maybe buying a lemon they don’t know about. From that aspect, the issue we’re dealing with is something that is readily apparent, on the surface, to anybody that even looks at the house for one time. The driveway is steep. There’s no question about it. So I think it’s not like a latent defect that can’t easily be determined by some future buyer, and it’s just like your cabin on an island, maybe, where there is no emergency service. Some people choose that, some don’t. The other thought is that that 25%, that driveway is no steeper than sections of Luzerne Mountain Road or of Clendon Brook Road. I’ve looked specifically, when some other issues came up in the Town with driveway and road steepness, I specifically looked at the existing grade of those two roads, and there are sections, for several hundred feet, that the roads are at 25%, and some a little over. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the road going up to Tuthill. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-I noticed that today on the way up. MR. MAC EWAN-That, in reality, is comparing apples and oranges. MR. NACE-It’s a different road, but it’s a different use, too. I mean, we’re not talking about a road that’s going to be used by everybody going over the hill to Luzerne. We’re talking about a road that’s going to be used by a resident and his guests. MR. STEVES-By two homes. The third home is down closer to Tuthill Road. So it’s the two homes. MR. NACE-So, you know, my thought, in looking at the driveway, personally, is that I think that the emergency vehicle turnout is a very necessary thing for a few times in the winter when it’s going to be slippery. That, in essence, gives the homeowner some place to get to where he can put a car without trying to attempt the last section, but those are my thoughts anyway. MR. SANFORD-Thank you. JEFF INGLEE MR. INGLEE-Can I interject here? Tom came up with a great idea in regards to this, the staging area, per se, as far as a fire truck goes. His original thought was to create the staging area, which is just down below the building site, with a set of stairs from the staging area, going up to the upper landing. We see that a lot on Lake George shorelines, staging areas and a set of stairs going down to other levels. This is exactly what we had thought we would do, in the winter months. MR. MAC EWAN-Did you have anything else, Rich? MR. SANFORD-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) MR. RINGER-No. I’ve said basically what I’m going to say. Tom, there are roads that are steep, Luzerne Road and the ones you mentioned certainly, and I wish they could be improve. Unfortunately, we can’t do anything about that. On this particular driveway, I just don’t feel comfortable, and, to me, it’s too steep, and I don’t have anything else, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I don’t really know if I can add anything. I don’t know enough about apparatus, as far as what they can handle. I know driving up that road last week, I just couldn’t believe how, obviously, how steep it was. I’m just sitting here thinking how you’re going to get a well truck up there, a truss, if you’re having, you know, trusses delivered, if they’ll ever get up there. I just don’t know, but I obviously have nothing more to add. I was wondering, I was going back and forth in my mind if you could traverse up the mountain a little bit more, as opposed to have it, you know, kind of going on a straight line up. Is it all possible to set a road up to traverse back and forth to reduce the grade, but I don’t remember enough to know if that would be possible. MR. NACE-I don’t think there’s room to do the turnaround. For the record, I don’t think there’s really room to do the switch backs necessary for that. MR. METIVIER-Now, I noticed that there were a lot of, on the side of the road, boulders, I guess. Is that to mitigate runoff or to mitigate cars that might be out of control, or what is the purpose? MR. INGLEE-No. The boulders were actually what were unearthed as we were cleaning up the old logging roads that were going up the side of the mountain. They, basically, are where they rolled out of the way. MR. METIVIER-And that gravel, are you going to plan on keeping it gravel, or are you going to? MR. INGLEE-What we’re planning on doing is the first 500 feet of the road would be regular blacktop, and then the last sharp incline I have a plumbing contractor who’s going to design a heating system underneath the blacktop as we put it in. So, in other words, that last stretch of road is going to be continuously heated and we had anticipated doing that. It’s going to cost a few dollars, but I think it would be essential to do that. MR. METIVIER-I just can’t imagine. I would never ever be able to fathom tackling that in a snowstorm. MR. INGLEE-Well, you know, there’s different caliber and classes of individuals, and a lot of people would not even want to drive up there. We’ve had several tandem trucks up that road, no problem whatsoever, not even spinning a wheel. When the Planning Board went up, they drove up in a regular front wheel drive, and they never spun a wheel. MR. MAC EWAN-We spun lots of wheels. MR. METIVIER-We spun a lot of wheels the other day. I thought maybe it was just the driver, but I came to the conclusion later on that I think it was the road, and as far as like a well truck, I mean, can you get a well truck up there? MR. INGLEE-I would have to dare say John Carpenter, what he’s referring to in his letter, as far as, he didn’t specify his home on the top of the mountain, unfortunately, I couldn’t tell him how to write the letter, but when he drove up there, he seemed to think he would have no problem getting a fire truck up there. MR. METIVIER-I just could not fathom getting a fire truck, if you had to get a pumper up, not a pumper, a tanker up there. MR. INGLEE-And again, this is why Tom had designed this staging area, I guess, if you will, just down below the clearing to whereas a pumper could pull right in there on a straight run, instead of taking that last sharp turn, and the upper landing would be accessible by a set of stairs. MR. METIVIER-Well, I’d certainly, I, you know, could never, and this is your land to do what you want, but, I mean, as far as feeling comfortable about it, I don’t know. I mean, I wish you the best with it, but I just don’t see you getting a lot of trick or treaters. That’s all. MR. INGLEE-That’s exactly why we want to be up there, Tony. MR. METIVIER-Maybe I’ll come up there and see you, but I doubt it. I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Evening. The new emergency vehicle turnout, I think, helps mitigate some of my concerns, in reference to emergency vehicle access. Fire Chief John Carpenter’s assurances, and the grade, I think the grade is, the applicant has to bear some burden. It’s a self-imposed liability. They’re willing to take it. It 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) doesn’t seem to jeopardize public safety, in my mind. I mean, if the driveway were a 25% grade or even a 10% grade, as it approaches the road, I’d have concern, but that’s not the case. We have a rather lengthy, flat area, as we go by your cabin and your house. No, and the lots, there’s three lots. They all meet Code, size. The only comment that I want to make is on D-1, the sewage disposal layout, that the septic tank has to be 100 feet from the well, and not 50 feet, as noted on D-1, and we’ll work on changing that template or get Tom to change it, right? Just as long the applicant understands that 50 feet is an incorrect number. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and that’s it for me, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-My thoughts. We had difficulty accessing that last lot. We started losing traction probably right in the area about just above where that proposed turnaround is, your back in area, and we did have a difficult time getting to the top lot. The other thoughts that are going through my mind, I’m not totally content, like some other Board members, with this letter from the fire department. I don’t think they’re clear in what he’s responding to. I’d like to get clarification on that. I’d also like to know, specifically, from him what kind of fire apparatus does he plan on trying to get up that road? As far as from just a straight planning standpoint, I don’t really think that the subdivision, as it’s laid out now, really meets the intent of the Subdivision Regulations as far as the type of lots you’ve got there. I mean, as I recall our Ordinances, we try to get away from irregularly shaped lots. We try to do things symmetrical, well laid out. Is that still the case with the new Ordinance? MR. HILTON-I don’t have the Subdivision Regulations in front of me, but it’s my understanding, and it has been in the past, that flag lots, you kind of try to steer away from them. MR. MAC EWAN-They’re not a desirable thing. MR. HILTON-Not desirable. MR. MAC EWAN-And just philosophically, you know, not all the land in Queensbury can be developed to its full potential because of limitations the terrain has to offer, and I think this is one of those cases. Maybe if this was just a two lot subdivision, I might be more able to warm up to it, but what you’ve got now, I can’t support it. I just think that the driveway is way too long. It’s way too steep, and I think that emergency vehicles would have a very difficult time accessing it, and I don’t really think this letter really clarifies that for us. I’d be willing to table this thing to get more information from the fire department, but I can tell you, just from those reasons right now, I’m not inclined to support this subdivision. Comments? MR. INGLEE-I guess my first question, Mr. Chairman, and again, I have been a self-employed building contractor here in Queensbury for 27 years, and over that 27 years, I have assisted literally hundreds of people in making their dreams come true. This has always been a dream of mine to be able to sit in my living room and gaze at a tremendous view. I’ve worked all my life, I’ve dreamed all my life, of having that. I guess, you know, where there’s a will there’s a way, they say, and my question to Matt just now was, if everybody is so concerned and nervous about the driveway in the winter months, would it be feasible for me to put an application in to build a seasonal hunting lodge, for instance, on my property, whereas I would have plenty of easy access to this hunting lodge in the summer months, and not even have it functioning as a living quarters in the winter months, on the upper lot. The slopes on the lower lot, or the second lot up, are not anywhere near as intense as the upper lot. MR. MAC EWAN-If that were the case, why would you even need to subdivide? MR. INGLEE-I was under the impression that if I was to build any type of a structure on my property, I would have to subdivide. I mean, I’m willing to try to meet everybody halfway here, but like I said, I think that view really definitely deserves some sort of a structure where a man, in his retirement years, can go up and sit next to his fire and gaze out his window at that view, whether it was on a seasonal basis or an all year round basis. It’s obvious that the Planning Board is steering in the direction of denying this as a year round home, but if it was considered as a hunting lodge, a seasonal hunting lodge, where do we stand with that? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t have an answer for you. I guess I would refer that to Planning Staff and Counsel. MR. HILTON-I’m not sure if I heard the entire question. We were just looking up the regulations for RR-5. MS. RADNER-I’m going to defer to George on what it says for hunting and fishing cabins. I have seen a condition of subdivision approval in the past being that it’s for seasonal use only and having that defined. Just to give you an idea of what you can face is that in the future it’s possible that the applicant would want to change the use, and then they would need to come back and seek a modification removal of that condition, and they would then have to establish a that there’d be some change in conditions that warranted removing the condition of site plan approval that was granted. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Let me just informally poll the Board here. What seems to be the issues that individuals are hung up on, other than the driveway, which I seem to sense is a consensus right up and down the Board for the most part. MR. STROUGH-I don’t have any issues with this application. I tend to approve it. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any issues with the application, except for this driveway. I mean, I think that that, to me, is a showstopper, and I would probably be inclined to vote no under the present situation. If the applicant wants to come in with a new proposal, a new application, where he then proposes to put the structure as a temporary, not temporary, but as a seasonal structure, then we’d look at it as a new application, but the way it is now, I just couldn’t approve this. MR. SANFORD-I’m in the same category as John. I would approve this application. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I have trouble with the driveway. Jeff, I agree, that view is beautiful. There’s just some pieces of property that I don’t think would be a good place to build a house, and because of that steep driveway, I have trouble with it, and I’d vote no. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, first of all, I apologize for being late, and I think, in fairness to the applicant, since I didn’t see the presentation, I would abstain. I do have an issue with the driveway, but I would abstain on any vote because I was late. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I guess, as much as I do have issues with the driveway, I couldn’t not approve this. It’s somebody’s land, and I think he has a right, there’s other areas in Queensbury on mountains, and other areas, and I just, if it was me, I think I would want it approved, if I knew what the consequences might be, and obviously you know what the consequences could be of it, but, I would approve it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Did you want to make some comments, Matt? MR. STEVES-Yes. The only comment I was making is I understand the Board’s concern with the driveway, and if you look back, there’s a lot of properties in Queensbury they say are flat on the bottom and you could have a parking area at the bottom. That doesn’t stop the applicant or the purchaser or the owner of the lot that might be 50 acres in size to put a parking area down and use an ATV or walk to his home. We understand the issues of the driveway and I just present that. I’m not saying that this is what we would do. I’m just asking the Board, is it the issue of the driveway or is it the issue of where he’s placing his house? What if he had a parking lot that was graded down in the lower level, just behind the existing cabin, and after construction of the homes, they walked or used an ATV to get to them, and no cars? I mean, it seems to me that the Board is telling people, are we saying, not you are, are. MR. MAC EWAN-The issue seems to be regarding emergency access. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-So, I mean, if the homeowners are planning on using an ATV or walking to it, how does that solve the problem with the fire company? MR. STEVES-Okay. If this lot was not being subdivided and there was no building on it, they could build wherever they wanted to, and that’s the issue I’m saying. MR. RINGER-But they’d still have to get approval for the slope, though, exceeding 10%. MR. STEVES-Not if they were not putting a driveway to it. If they were going to walk to it, just like any other. MR. NACE-For an existing lot, he could build anywhere within the building envelope with a building permit. MR. STEVES-And I understand the concern of the Board. MR. RINGER-And they wouldn’t have to get, Chris, a, for the slope that exceeds 10% for their building permit? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) MR. ROUND-There’s constraints, I mean, septic system location, etc., but then they wouldn’t need the approval of the Board, though, either, to do that. That would be one home versus three that are, two that are proposed. They’re asking you, I mean, make a good case, but they’re asking you to give approval to something they can’t do right now. So, I mean, if the applicant’s proposing to not propose a subdivision and build a home anywhere he wants and demolish the existing house, he has that alternative as well. I don’t mean to be negative about that, but those are alternatives, if we’re going to throw them out. MR. MAC EWAN-And the way I see it right now, we’re deadlocked, three to three. MR. STEVES-And I wasn’t stating that the Board was incorrect. What I was just stating a fact is that I understand your concern of fire safety, but if you had a piece of property that was 200 acres in size and you wanted to build your house in the very pinnacle, and you could meet the requirement of slope for septic, you could build your house up there. The stipulation of fire access would be taken up with his insurance policy. MR. VOLLARO-That’s true. In the case you’re talking about, he would be building one house on 300 acre piece. He wouldn’t even be before this Board. MR. STEVES-I’m just stating a fact, and I’m trying to help you with your concerns of fire safety, and I think the Counsel is trying to help you with that, too. The fact that she’s trying to protect a person from themselves, if they want to build somewhere where it is either, you know, somewhat inaccessible or completely inaccessible to fire apparatus, they are allowed to do that. There is no law that says they cannot do that. MR. MAC EWAN-But the difference is that you’re seeking a subdivision that requires this Board’s approval. That’s what we’re hung up on is the emergency access. So if he wants to go and just scrap this whole idea of this application and build his log cabin up there wherever he wants on his property, fine and dandy, but you’re asking us to use the same analogy. MR. STEVES-I just wanted you to realize the fact that. MR. MAC EWAN-We do. MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-But the realization is, we have a three lot subdivision in front of us. MR. STEVES-Right, with two new homes. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. That’s the realization. MR. METIVIER-Perhaps we could ask the fire marshal, or whoever it is, to give us clarification on what his. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d be inclined to do that. MR. VOLLARO-Tony, you mean going back to West Glens Falls? MR. METIVIER-Yes, and ask him, maybe we could meet him at some point on the property, with his tanker. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d prefer to have a written response from him, for the record, and I think we’re inclined to want to table this and get additional information, that our motion very specifically request the information we’re looking for from the fire company. MR. VOLLARO-I would go along with that. It depends. If the applicant wants to sustain a tabling, that’s fine, or, B, you could come back with a new application that says you’re going to build a seasonal, the way you talked, build a seasonal home in place of what you’ve proposed. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, if that’s his intent, he doesn’t need to come back here. He could throw out the application. MR. STEVES-We still we would need to because you have the existing cottage, another proposed home, and then the seasonal hunting cottage on the third lot. MR. MAC EWAN-So you still want to go the subdivision route. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. INGLEE-I think we’d almost have to, wouldn’t we? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) MR. STEVES-You would have to, because I don’t think you could have a hunting lodge and a primary residence. MR. ROUND-Yes. We would look at those as separate principal uses. There are, I don’t know if you normally table before opening your public hearing or not, because I know there are people in the public that are here. MR. MAC EWAN-I will open the public hearing, but I just want to be clear where we’re heading here. That’s all. MR. INGLEE-May I ask the Board a frank question, Mr. Chairman? In regards to your thoughts on the seasonal hunting lodge and the other primary structure, the other primary structure, of course, would be down slope from the higher structure. What is the Board’s feeling? If I pay this guy some more money to go ahead and re-do this application and ask for a primary structure on the lower lot, and a seasonal hunting lodge on the upper lot, in regards to the, there’s not even going to be anybody living in it in the winter months. So fire apparatus doesn’t even have to get up there in the winter, what are the Board’s views on that issue? MR. MAC EWAN-The point may be moot, because if we get clarification from the fire department that rests our concerns about fire apparatus being able to successfully navigate that road, the issue of building a seasonal building is for naught. MR. INGLEE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-I think it would be in your best interest that we table this thing and get a response from the fire company and pick this thing up next month. MR. INGLEE-I can contact the Fire Chief tomorrow. MR. MAC EWAN-What we’ll do is we’ll do a tabling and we’ll have Staff contact him. Because I want him to have a copy of this plat so that they can see what two proposed buildings we’re referencing. MR. INGLEE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Can I ask you guys to give up the table for a minute. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHARLES HUPPERT MR. HUPPERT-My name is Charles Huppert and I live at 229 Clendon Brook Road. My property is approximately 900 feet from the northern edge of the applicant’s property. I think I have two concerns at this point. One is that there’s been a great lot of discussion about access for fire, but no mention has been made of the possibility of forest fire, which may or may not start on his property. That scares me, because the wind usually blows northwest up there on that mountain, which fortunately blows it away from me, as long as it continues to blow that way, but it often blows from the southwest, also. In which case I would be right in line to have fire spread to my property. So, if it ever starts up there on the mountain, that scares me. Secondly, I would want the Board to make absolutely sure that septic system outflow is completely contained within the property, and does not run into the adjacent brook, which now runs clean, and secondly, with respect to drainage, I’d also have the same comment about what happens to rain water runoff, and where is that going to go. I don’t know anything about the capability of soil on that property to absorb water, but I am concerned about silt pollution of the adjacent stream, as well the possibility of pollution from septic system runoff. So I’d say those are my concerns about the development of the property. Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? CARA BEAMES MRS. BEAMES-Hi. My name is Cara Beames, and I live on Tuthill Road, 78, just down from Jeff. First I want to start off with the driveway. Can I ask a question? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. MRS. BEAMES-Okay. Am I to understand that there’s going to be three driveways, then, three 40 foot driveways for each parcel? MR. MAC EWAN-No, one driveway, shared. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) MRS. BEAMES-One driveway shared. Well then we established last time for the development that this was not a cluster development. So Jeff should not be permitted to be allowed to call it as you call in there an access to common open space, which is I would refer to as a driveway. When we subdivided our lot a few years ago, we had to have a separate driveway for that lot, and just keep in mind that, you know, this should go for, you know, the same rules for everybody. This shouldn’t be changed, and as for the driveway concerns, there is great concerns. I’ve lived there longer than anybody in this room, up on that mountain, and I can tell you, and some of the examples that they gave was Clendon Brook Road coming up. Well, you come up on a winter day, and you’ll see a lot of cars parked at Joanne Holm’s driveway because they can’t make it up that road, and actually in the winter it’s usually pretty well maintained, but in the spring, if you have a dirt road, you can forget it. I mean, the Gomes, who live across the street from there, I believe sometimes I still see their cars parked at the bottom of their driveway because you can’t make it up. We had our driveway for 15 years, and we had to park at the top and walk down. If you’ve been up there, I live where there’s brick pillars and white lions. We had to walk down because we’d constantly get stuck in the spring. So you can, spring is probably more of a nightmare than in the wintertime. I also wanted to, you know, you point out a lot of properties in Queensbury have steep driveways. Well, I’m a firm believer two wrongs don’t make it right. The last time we had talked about, it seems like there’s some new people, and I just want to review. Can I give you a handout of what we talked about last time we met? The last time we met on this, it was proven that Jeff falsified his intentions for the development to this Board. His true intention is for serving his occupants for his own profit. I believe that this is a definition of commercial use. As you can see, this is not, and has not been rented for family. Now, I’m sure that he has all intentions for his family to receive these homes, but it’s probably after he has deceased. As you can see by my handouts, he advertises his cabin for recreational use, camping, plenty of space for a trailer and camping, four-wheeling, snowmobiling, which he has available for them to use. You can see in the pictures the four-wheelers and the snowmobiles. As you know, he has a trailer stationed on his property for use. I might ask where are the wastes being disposed of. You can’t convince me that they walk all the way back down to the cabin to go to the bathroom, when they have one available for them right there. I believe using, renting this property for recreational purposes is against the zoning codes. I have also concerns with the clearing. We have been, he has been able to clear cut his property, nearly nine acres, which you’ve all been up there to see. We live on a mountain. Buffering should be enforced, not only for the beautification, but also for our environment. We all know his true intentions, and it is not for the true meaning and the use of residential living. When he advertises his cabin, he does not advertise in the section for house for rent. He advertises in commercial sections, as you can see from the handouts. So I ask that you not waive or vary any requirements that we have to follow to build in this area, solely for the purpose for his service and his occupants for a profit. He is developing a commercial profit in our residential area. I am hoping that you do whatever you can to preserve our unique residential area in Queensbury that we live in. We don’t have very many of these areas in Queensbury, and I think we should keep it. It’s a unique area. We bought the land knowing the way the land is. The land’s not changing. He’s changing it, and I think it’s a crime for our area to let this continue. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? KATHY GOMES MRS. GOMES-Hi. Kathy Gomes, 91 Tuthill Road. I am the property right next to this property. So we stand to be most fully impacted. I came here tonight fully intending to say how pleased I was to see this new proposal which finally complies with the RR-5 and LC-10 zoning. That is what we have been asking since Day One of this project. I am still glad to see that. I am really glad that it finally complies with the zoning. That is what we have been asking for since the first day that we even had conversations with Mr. Inglee outside of this forum, at our homes. I am grateful to the Board that you have tried to assist us in obtaining that. I would hope in the future that you might be a little bit more careful about letting proposals get to this stage where we’re in these meetings. It is very frustrating to me that I have to sit here and listen to someone behind me making obnoxious comments, calling the person who’s up here speaking a liar. I find that very offensive. We are all here trying to protect our own rights. I have had my personal rights threatened. So, although I want to support the fact that this is in compliance, I find Mr. Inglee’s behavior is making it very difficult for me to do that, and I know that’s not a concern of this Board, but I just feel like I need to say that, because it makes it more difficult for me to come up here and speak my piece. I had questions about the APA jurisdictional letter because the one that was in the file when I reviewed it was in fact the old letter, which stated five lots, with the smallest being 3.53 acres. I would like to be sure that, in fact, there is a new application, that APA has reviewed. My only question on this entire project, prior to being here tonight, was the road, not steepness. That’s Mr. Inglee’s decision. It’s his risk. It’s his insurance that he’s going to have to get. If his house burns down, it spreads to the woods, it burns my house down, then we might have an issue, but as far as where he wants to live, that’s his prerogative, and that is not something we have tried to interfere with. All we have said from the beginning is comply with the five acres, comply with the ten acres. That has been it. My one question about the road is at the last meeting we discussed a section of the road which is right on the property line with our property, and as we’ve heard, since this road is very frequently traversed by four by four’s, and four-wheel drive vehicles and snowmobiles or whatever they’re going to use it for, and since it is serving more than one home, it inherently will have more traffic, and because of the type of vehicles, we may be dealing with more noise from those vehicles. There are different regulations for cars 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) than there are for four by fours, and so forth, and certainly snowmobiles, which can be quite loud. So, at the last meeting, we discussed the relocation of that section of the road, moving it back further into the property, and I asked that there be a buffer planted where it had been cleared right to the property line. At the last meeting Mr. Inglee said he would be willing to do that. However, it’s still in the original location on this plan. The road has not been moved. So my question, my one question in coming to the Board tonight was, will that road, in fact, be moved back from the property line? That’s been, I guess, augmented a little bit by the discussions from the engineer saying that the road should be widened even more in the turns, because one of the turns does take place in that area. So if it’s widened, it’s already right on the property line. Where is it going? What direction is the widening going in, and I read in the file that there was an application to waive the landscaping plan for this project, which I would ask not be done because if the road is going to be moved, I would like to see a buffer planted in there, where it has been cleared right to the property line. That’s a very sparsely wooded area on our side of the property. It backs up right to the side of our house where our bedroom is. So that was my concern at the last meeting, and at the last meeting, it’s in the minutes, Mr. Inglee said he would move the road, but it has not been done for this plan. My intention is to write a letter to this Board about what has come of this process, in the hopes that you’ll reevaluate how you do business. Because you pit neighbor against neighbor, and I think that’s very unfortunate, and it abuses the people in the Town. It abuses the services of the Town, and I really don’t think you should be doing business that way. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you clarify that, please? MRS. GOMES-Well, the last application that you had before you was clearly not in compliance with the zoning. Craig Brown sent you all a letter saying that he agreed that it was not in compliance with the zoning. Yet we had to come here and speak at a meeting which has resulted in unbelievable unrest in our neighborhood, which is very distressing to me. That’s not why I moved up here. I don’t think that’s the intent of this Board, but that is what you have created by even entertaining that last application, and that is the conditions under which I and my neighbors are continuing to live. I find it extremely offensive to have to sit here tonight and listen to comments being made behind me while someone else is up here speaking. I think it is base, and it is not a level that I will ever sink to. I’m not going to be the Hatfields and the McCoys, but people who live in glass houses should not throw stones, and I think it is very unfortunate that the actions of this Board have lead to this situation. MR. MAC EWAN-A couple of comments for you. I don’t recall exactly how the first application ever made it onto the agenda when it didn’t meet the zoning, but we have changed our procedures in reviewing applications. I have a couple of members from our Board who sit in with Staff on a monthly business when all new applications come in and we look at those applications for completeness, and if they’re not complete, they’re bounced. So that policy has changed. As far as comments being made by anyone in this room, if I ever catch wind of it, you know that I clamp down on people. So if someone wants to make comments, and they want to be very hush, hush about it, there’s not much I can do about controlling it, but I do try to run a tight ship here when we’re having our meetings, and I do not let anything get out of hand, and if I was aware that comments were being made, you can rest assured I would have said something. MRS. GOMES-I appreciate that, and I’m glad that you have changed your procedures in terms of incomplete applications, but this wasn’t a question of completeness. It was a question of was it a cluster or wasn’t it a cluster. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s part of what our review is now, whether it meets the criteria of the zoning, whether it has everything that’s required in the packet to make it on to the agenda, and we’ve already bounced a few already. We’ve only been doing it for two months. MRS. GOMES-Well, I’m glad. Our intention, from Day One, has been to see the five acre and ten acre zoning enforced. That’s why we moved to this area. We were here for the meeting with the Gereaus for that person. I most recently attended the meeting for the Ashton property with the Zoning Board on West Mountain Road for the same reason, for the density and the zoning, the density zoning issues. That is a frequent matter of discussion in our neighborhood and in the surrounding neighborhoods. There’s already a neighborhood association dealing with the Ashton property. There’s been a great deal of discussion about forming a neighborhood association on our street and the surrounding streets for the same exact reason. It’s something that the residents feel very strongly about. We want the five acre and ten acre zoning enforced. That’s why we chose to live where we live, and I think this Board needs to consider, very, very carefully, any application that would deviate from that. Like I said, I’m very appreciative of the fact that you supported the last time and that we now have an application in front of us that does comply with that, and I’m just grateful that you supported that the last time, and I hope you will continue to do that in the future. It’s just unfortunate the level to which some people sink when they don’t get their way. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. We’ll leave the public hearing open. Do you gentlemen want to come back up. We have that new APA letter in our file. Correct? MR. ROUND-No, we don’t. We have the February 20 JD. th MR. MAC EWAN-Why wasn’t this one sent? 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) MR. ROUND-It was sent, according to the applicant. We don’t have a copy of it. MR. MAC EWAN-You don’t have a copy of it? MR. STEVES-What was sent, as I said before, was a copy of that February 20 one, revised with the new th application, the new map, showing to the APA. The maps that you have in front of you, I will call up there tomorrow and get confirmation that they did receive the plan that you have in front of you, with copies of everything that was sent to them. MR. MAC EWAN-Procedure wise, what happens if they didn’t receive it? MR. ROUND-It doesn’t affect the local review. It’s going to affect whether the applicant gets an approval, or the JD determination. MR. MAC EWAN-But if it’s a non-jurisdictional thing, the APA decides. MR. ROUND-If it’s non-jurisdictional, then the Planning Board moves forward. If it is jurisdictional, and we issue an approval, they need to go and get an approval from the Park Agency. So it’s a parallel path. MR. STEVES-If this Board was to grant an approval, it would still be contingent upon the fact of an approval from them or non-jurisdictional determination from them. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s just nice to have all the paperwork in order. That’s all. MR. STEVES-You have all the paperwork that was submitted to them. What they wanted was revised plans with some revised areas on that application. That’s exactly what they got. MR. MAC EWAN-Get confirmation of that and fax it up to the Town office tomorrow, please. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Septic overflow contained on property. MR. NACE-Yes. We’ve done test pits, perc tests. There, astoundingly to me, is a reasonable soil on the property. It’s, the area that we’ve located for septic systems has a good pocket of reasonably deep soil. MR. MAC EWAN-Schermerhorn’s property on Walker Lane, those septic fields that were put out behind his apartment houses, do you remember what the slope was on that hill, offhand? MR. NACE-That was all fill that was put in there, a totally different system, totally different system, different soil, as a matter of fact. The soil over on this property is actually better than the native soil on Schermerhorn’s. MR. MAC EWAN-What was the depth to bedrock in those cases over there? MR. NACE-We didn’t hit bedrock. MR. MAC EWAN-You didn’t hit bedrock on the Inglee property at all? MR. NACE-On Inglee. I’ve got to look back at my notes. MR. INGLEE-Mr. Chairman, may I address the Board, while he’s looking for his notes? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. INGLEE-In regards to the flier that Mrs. Beames handed out to some of the new member, I would just like to reiterate that, last time, this was old news, this is not an issue in regards to the Town of Queensbury. I have every legal right to rent that cabin out, whether it’s by the week or by the month, whatever I so choose to do. According to Craig Brown, I am not violating any Code whatsoever, and I just wanted to make sure any of the new members that were not aware of that are aware of that. I so chose to advertise that cabin on the website. I’m not running a commercial operation. I have no intentions of running a commercial operation, and anything that I’m looking for, as far as a subdivision, is for the direct use of my children to build their home, and I am more than so willing to deed that property over to them, ASAP, and not once I die. I just wanted to make that perfectly clear to all the members of the Board. This is for my own personal dream come true cabin on the mountain to be able to provide each one of my children with a place to call home. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) MR. NACE-Okay. In answer to your question, Craig, the test pit was just over 60 inches deep, and did not hit any ledge, to the bottom of the pit. MR. MAC EWAN-The test pit was how deep? MR. NACE-Sixty inches. MR. VOLLARO-Five feet. MR. MAC EWAN-I thought you said six inches. MR. NACE-No, no. MR. MAC EWAN-Runoff, rainwater runoff, especially on the roads and such, what do you have designed for that? MR. NACE-As I said in my letter, and we will, since this is being tabled, we will provide details for C.T. Male review. What we’re talking about is just runoff from the gravel, well, actually it’s going to be paved, from the road, and we’ll provide infiltration trench along the side of the road, and turnouts that’ll be small rock check dams, but we’ll provide full details of those for C.T. Male. MR. MAC EWAN-Is the intent to pave the road all the way up the entire length of the driveway? MR. INGLEE-I’m hoping, at some point in time I can do that, but meanwhile we’ll be using a solid gravel base. That gravel that we put down, we are expecting to put another layer of that down come spring, and again, once we do construct up on the top, we will be putting a heating system under the last 200 feet of the road. MR. MAC EWAN-What about relocation of the driveway and adding a buffer zone next to the Gomes property? MR. INGLEE-Boy, you know, I really was told not to bring this up, but, you know, I really don’t feel that the amount of traffic that is going to be going up and down my road is going to be any more so troublesome to the Gomes family than their driveway over the last two years has been to the Inglee family. MR. MAC EWAN-What are the setback requirements for driveways from property lines? MR. HILTON-I think it’s five feet. MR. MAC EWAN-Five feet only? If it was a condition of approval, would you have an issue with it? MR. INGLEE-As far as moving my road? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. INGLEE-I would move my road under a couple of conditions, I guess. I mean, if I don’t have to, I don’t want to, but if I agree to move my road, I would like to see the Gomes agree to cease and desist their. MR. MAC EWAN-They don’t have an application in front of us. Only you do. MR. INGLEE-Pardon me? MR. MAC EWAN-They don’t have an application in front of us. Only you do. MR. INGLEE-I don’t think that I want to move my road. I could widen my road at that point, but I don’t know if I want to actually move it 25, 30 feet, per se. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. INGLEE-I can move it to the right maybe about five or ten feet. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add? MR. INGLEE-I guess I better not. MR. MAC EWAN-No, because you’re not giving me the warm and fuzzys, quite frankly. MR. INGLEE-No, I know that. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to pen a resolution? I, specifically, for my information, I want to know from the fire department, and I want it to come from Staff. I don’t want it to come from the applicant. I want them to have a copy of this plat, specifically letting them know we’re talking about the two proposed houses on the top, up the hill, okay, and I want to know what kind of firefighting apparatus they can get up that road, and what kind of a road bed that they need to have to get up it. I guess that’s what I’m looking for. Is anybody else looking for anything else? MR. VOLLARO-One of the conditions, I’ve just been reviewing, Mr. Chairman, the jurisdictional inquiry form, and I would like to see the new one. Now I know there isn’t a new form. I understand that, but the old form talks about a two lot subdivision and is now a three lot subdivision. Were those things corrected? In other words, they got the form that was dated 3/20, or was signed on 2/20/02. That’s the form that they got. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Was that form in some way modified, so that they know now it’s a three lot subdivision, as opposed to a two lot? I see it here as what was the prior project, two lot subdivision, it is now a three lot. Well, where did, I just want to know what that what the APA looked at. MR. STEVES-I will get clarification on that from the APA, but I can assure you it is exactly what you’re looking at. The application asks if it was ever part of a previous subdivision, and, yes, it was. It was part of a two lot subdivision by Marilyn Smith. That’s why you see two lots in there. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I see what their question is. MR. ROUND-I think the JD format for jurisdictional determination for a five lot subdivision, the form conflicts with what the plat. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. ROUND-I think that’s where everybody is having some. MR. STEVES-And they asked me to send them the new plat, which I did. MR. ROUND-Right, the form that you submitted has a five lot, it’s requesting if there’s a. MR. STEVES-Understood. I’ll get confirmation from the APA to this Board that they realize it is a three lot subdivision, and I know they have it, and I will get confirmation from them. MR. VOLLARO-Is it common for the APA to let the 30 day period slide by when they don’t want to respond, and it becomes an automatic? Is that something you’ve experienced before? MR. STEVES-I’ve experienced that in the past, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-They don’t typically just send a letter saying we’re not interested or we have no comments? MR. STEVES-They typically will send a jurisdictional, when you send in a jurisdictional inquiry form, they will send you an NJ letter, non-jurisdictional letter, but once they have, they have the 30 days to respond if they want to be jurisdictional. They have taken up to 60, 80 days to get the non-jurisdictional letter back from them. If they wanted to take jurisdiction over the application, they would have sent a letter at this point. MR. VOLLARO-Just as a sidebar, you’re familiar with the property I’m building on, on West Mountain Road? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I had to specifically get a letter of jurisdictional, a non-jurisdictional approval from the APA before I could go forward with that at all. MR. STEVES-Correct. That was part of the previous subdivision that they had reviewed and had issued an NJ letter, and based upon that lot, you had to have a re-issuance of that letter. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. I’m quite familiar with their process. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Okay. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Would someone like to introduce a motion, please, to table. Anybody? MR. VOLLARO-To what date? MR. MAC EWAN-The second meeting of October. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ll make the motion. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2002, JEFFREY INGLEE, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: To provide the following information: 1. The letter from the fire department, dated November 25, 2001 be modified to provide clarification that the homes at the top of the hill can be adequately serviced by fire apparatus, also, what kind of fire apparatus and what kind of a road bed do they need to have to access that, and 2. We need a copy of the jurisdictional inquiry form dated 2/20/02 to be modified to match the existing plat. Duly adopted this 24th day of September, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. STEVES-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2002 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED PYRAMID CO. OF GLENS FALLS, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: ESC-25A LOCATION: AVIATION MALL, AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 56.72 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO (2) LOTS OF 8.36 ACRES AND 48.36 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 21-2001, AV 72-2002, ETC. TAX MAP NO. 98-1-5.2 LOT SIZE: 56.72 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JON LAPPER, BOB ORLANDO, & RUSS PITTENGER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 14-2002, Preliminary Stage/Final Stage, Pyramid Co. of Glens Falls, Inc., Meeting Date: September 24, 2002 “Project Description: Applicant proposes the subdivision of a 56.72 acre lot into two lots of 48.36 and 8.36 acres. The subdivision will create a new lot on the property of the Aviation Mall. Study of plat: Lot arrangement: The subdivision will result in a lot being cut out of the boundaries of the current Aviation Mall parcel. Topography: The topography of this developed property is relatively level. Water supply Sewage Disposal: This property is currently served by both municipal water and wastewater services. Drainage: Drainage issues at this location have been addressed at the time of site plan review for businesses at this location. Lot sizes: The subdivision seeks to create a lot of 8.36 acres and a lot of 48.36 acres. Future development: This application seeks to create an individual parcel at the mall to accommodate a future mall tenant. State Environmental Quality Review Act: Type is Unlisted, the applicant has submitted a short form 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 21-2001 - res. 7/16/02 retail expansion at mall AV 72-2002 – res. 9/18/02 relief for setback and minimum road frontage requirements Staff comments: On September 18, 2002 the ZBA approved an area variance providing setback relief, permeability relief as well as relief from minimum road frontage requirements at this location. This application ultimately seeks to create a separate parcel cut out of the mall property. Currently, as shown on sheet S-1 dated June 20, 2002, the subdivision would actually modify an existing parcel on site (shown as Lease Parcel 8 which is tax map no. 302.5-1-92.3), as well as split the main Aviation Mall Parcel. Through correspondence with the applicant, it is Staff’s understanding that Lease Parcel 8 and Lease Parcel 9 as shown on sheet S-1 dated June 20, 2002 will be merged back into the main mall parcel if SB 14-2002 is approved. As a result the proposed subdivision before the Planning Board would be a subdivision of one property into two lots. Staff recommends any subdivision approval be conditioned that the two parcels shown as Parcel 8 and Parcel 9 on sheet S-1 dated June 20, 2002 be merged into the main mall parcel, and that a new subdivision map be presented to the Planning Board Chairman for final signature that reflects the most current boundaries for all of the property within the entire boundary of this subdivision. Cross easements for vehicular and pedestrian access should be created which will allow for access between different parcels at this location.” MR. HILTON-What you have before you is a subdivision at the Aviation Mall property which ultimately seeks to carve out a parcel for a new tenant in the Mall from the existing Mall parcel. As of right now, based on current lot configurations, current ownerships, what it would really be is amending the lot line of one and subdividing another. Before this would happen, the applicant has agreed to merge two existing smaller parcels back into the main parcel, and then proceed with the subdivision, and then, in effect, it really would be a subdivision of one lot into two. As a condition of any approval, Staff would recommend cross easements be provided for access and that a final plat be submitted for the Chairman’s signature showing all property boundaries of all property within this subdivision and clearly clarifying lot areas. That’s it. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, Russ Pittenger, and Bob Orlando. We’re here, essentially, for a minor change. In negotiations with the new major tenant, after we received final site plan approval over the summer from this Board, just looking at the big picture, in terms of both of the applications that we have on tonight, we needed to move the new department store parcel by eight feet, and we needed to move Kleins out from the location where it is now, in order to accommodate the new store, and the best way to move Kleins out was to go on to the sidewalks. It’s a minor site plan change, and it’s the subdivision parcel which, if we had known, we would have done this all at the same time over the summer, but this company decided that they wanted to own their own site, their own pad. It’s certainly not something that Pyramid does with a little Hallmark greeting card store, but for a major anchor that’s going to come in to the Mall, that they basically have the leverage to ask for that. In terms of the site itself, due to reciprocal easement agreements that just go both ways between the Mall and these large anchors, the site functions absolutely as one site. Everyone has their employees, customers, deliveries, treated as if it were one parcel. It’s for financing. It’s because some companies like to own sort of like own your car, versus lease your car, but in terms of the site plan, the function of the site, there’s absolutely no change. So what we have first is the subdivision. When we were looking at this with Staff, it was realized that the old Penney’s space was a separate tax map parcel, just like what we’re trying to do with this, and in order to clean up the site, there was no reason not to merge two of those parcels into the main Mall site. So the new Penney’s is still a separate site, but the old Penney’s space is being merged in with this new, at the same time that we do this, and that was something that the Staff asked, and the applicant had no problem doing that. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems pretty simple and straightforward. Rich? MR. SANFORD-Yes, just a quick question. I think I’ve got a pretty good idea of what you’re trying to do, but what if one of the entities was to belly up here and go out of business? What impact would that have on the Mall which you’ve said is going to basically operate as a single entity, but yet there would be two owners of really what we view as the Mall property? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) MR. LAPPER-Not being facetious, but to answer your question, if it was the Mall that was going belly up, that would be a problem, but if it was any of the major tenants, under these reciprocal agreements, the Mall has the right to come in, to plow the property, to maintain, to fix the parking lot, to maintain the green space. So the Mall has all the rights they need to operate this as one Center. MR. SANFORD-So, if the tenant is to, goes out of business, then it’s not an issue, but if the Mall now was, you know, I guess I could ask a couple of questions, maybe really isn’t too much of my business, since you’re coming here asking for this. Does the tenant have protections in their lease, should the Mall not continue to operate? MR. LAPPER-Yes, and because it’s not a lease, it’s an ownership, the tenant has the reciprocal rights to maintain the Mall property to get to the tenant’s property if the Mall wasn’t maintaining it. So there’s the agreement that the Mall is going to handle the maintenance issues, and the major anchor is going to pay their share, and their pro rata share, but the major anchor has the reciprocal rights to do that work if it wasn’t being done by Pyramid. So everybody’s protected, and that’s what all of the lenders require because they have to ensure that whatever happens, that the parcel they have a mortgage on is going to be able to be operated, quite frankly. MR. SANFORD-Okay. No, thank you. That’s all I had. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No, I don’t have anything. By changing the, I said no, and then I do have a question. I’m sorry. By changing, these still meet all the requirements of the zone and stuff, and that’s why you got your ZBA, for those that didn’t? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. RINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-We got our variances last week, and the ZBA viewed them as technical variances because it all functions as one site. MR. RINGER-I don’t have any questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I really didn’t have much to say, other than a comment that came out of the zoning meeting, that was in the resolution, where they talk about the parking, in effect, being public parking, and that just didn’t. MR. LAPPER-Yes. It’s not really public. It’s private for the customers. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. LAPPER-But when they, the public really means all of the customers. If you want to go to the movie theater, you can park in the department store space, that there’s no fence line colored. No one knows any difference. It’s just a parking space. So it’s open to the shopping public. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, right. Okay. That was it. It seemed to be, I mean, it’s not public property. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-So, the comment was made that it’s public property, but it’s really not public property. MR. LAPPER-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing to add. I’m kind of miffed. I think this is the first time I’ve ever heard of an actual anchor store wanting to own, is it own their property? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. METIVIER-I mean, that just never happens. Does it? MR. LAPPER-It’s becoming more and more common with the bigger anchors. I mean, it’s just one corporate policy. Sometimes they want to lease it. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) MR. MAC EWAN-We did it with Home Depot, and Wal-Mart did it a few years ago. MR. METIVIER-Well, Wal-Mart, they leased the property. It’s a land lease. Isn’t it? MR. MAC EWAN-No, Wal-Mart owns that. Because we had to do a zero lot line for them so that they could merge the property. MR. METIVIER-Okay. No, I have no questions on this. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Well, one of my thoughts is that this is an Enclosed Shopping Center, 25 Acres, and actually this might be a question more for Chris than the applicant. Since this parcel appears to be less than 25 acres, why didn’t they have to get a variance for that? MR. ROUND-I don’t know. MR. LAPPER-Craig had determined that that wasn’t necessary. MR. ROUND-Craig made a determination it’s not a separate, not created to create a separate building lot, and it’s not offering additional densities than required variance from that aspect, but that’s a, George and I were just discussing that. Somebody’s going to bring that up tonight, and I don’t know that I’ve got a good answer for you. MR. STROUGH-Well, he looks at it like it’s not really a separate entity, and it doesn’t act as a separate entity? MR. ROUND-Yes. MR. LAPPER-There are other parcels, when you talk about the whole Mall site, just as I mentioned, the new Penney’s space is also a separate tax map parcel. So you need the 25 acres to establish the use. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I don’t know the history. JC Penney’s may have gotten a variance for that. I don’t know that, Jon. MR. ROUND-Yes, we don’t either. We had a tough time resolving that ourselves, and this is the only ESC- 25 zone there is, and it has some particular nuances to it. MR. VOLLARO-Well, just to chime in, and to take a little bit out of what John was saying, if they provide a deeded reciprocal agreement which allows employees, customers and delivery trucks, you’ll recognize these words, John, fire access over each of the two parcels, so that the site will operate as one parcel, when I looked at that definition, and I looked at the 25 acre requirement, I thought this satisfied that, myself. MR. ROUND-I think that’s what we, I’ll comment briefly on it, but it’s not allowing for, see it is but it isn’t. The construction’s approved. It’s more of a, we don’t recognize this type of subdivision as a separate and distinct type of subdivision. You see it with condominium, duplex, etc. We’re not offering additional densities, and generally subdivisions are to create additional living units or dwelling units. In this case it’s not. It’s more for lease purposes, and so we don’t look at it in a traditional subdivision sense, and then the density issue tries to resolve itself. MR. STROUGH-If you notice the whole thing with Home Depot, Jon, it was a financial arrangement with the retail store that’s going to be? MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. SANFORD-Excuse me, John. From a technical point, is the applicant still the Mall here, or is the applicant the new property owner? MR. ROUND-The applicant is the Mall. The Mall still owns the property. They haven’t sold the property. They haven’t closed the deal on this. So they are. MR. LAPPER-We have to have this approval before it can close. MR. STROUGH-It seems to me, just going along with what Richard said, I don’t think the Zoning Board would have had a problem recognizing this as a separate parcel. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) MR. ROUND-No. We recognize that, and I don’t know if, I don’t think that it was an oversight. I think that there is a decision that was reached by Craig that this didn’t need this particular variance. I think we all agree with that. MR. STROUGH-I’m just saying, if it was a contentious situation, which it’s not, everything seems to be in favor of this concept. MR. LAPPER-The Zoning Board specifically recognized exactly why we’re doing this, we had the same discussion. So this is all on the record. MR. STROUGH-Now that other parcel, Jon, is that, just to satisfy my curiosity, the parcel that, and I’ve got this one. Is this for the Queensbury utilities? Is that why? MR. LAPPER-Yes. That’s a water line. MR. STROUGH-I was curious on that one. I have a note here, Sear Brown letter, 9/20/2002. MR. LAPPER-I think that’s on the site plan, not on the subdivision. MR. STROUGH-So that’s, that’s right. It is site plan. MR. LAPPER-That’s next. MR. STROUGH-I’ve got to read my own writing. That’s all the questions I have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, applicant. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I clearly see what you’re doing here. I don’t have any problems with it. I’ve had a problem, all along, with these applications, with some numbers, and I think that the fact that we’re asking that the new subdivision map be presented to the Planning Board Chairman for final signature that reflects the most current boundaries for all property within the entire boundary of this subdivision is very applicable to what I’m going to say now. MR. MAC EWAN-I won’t sign any plats until Bob does the math. MR. VOLLARO-But, if you take a look at the math, it says that this piece is going to be 8.36 acres, plus 48.36 comes out to 56.72. When you look at what is talked about as the entire acreage, it comes out to 56.72. The entire acreage is 56.52. If you look at your large, definition of your acreage here, and I’ll give it to you. It’s Site Plan S-1 09/06/02. MR. LAPPER-So you’re talking about twenty one-hundredths of an acre? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I just want the numbers to match, that’s all. MR. ROUND-But you know when you cut things up, there’s more of it. MR. VOLLARO-Is that what it turns out to be? It’s synergistic, effectively, yes. So, in the motion, where it says the subdivision for 14-2002, the words that the new subdivision be presented to the Planning Board Chairman for final signature reflect the most current boundaries, and that’s, I mean, it’s a small point, but the numbers don’t match. I mean, they should. MR. MAC EWAN-I understand where Bob’s coming from may seem trivial, but as these applications continually come back to us, it’s nice to have the math right. MR. LAPPER-Do you know the answer? MATT STEVES MR. STEVES-No, I don’t know the exact answer, but I will review the math and make sure that the acreages add up. MR. HUNSINGER-The resolution’s correct, Bob. MR. LAPPER-Matt’s the surveyor of record. MR. HUNSINGER-Bob, the resolution’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but the plat’s what’s going to be filed. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) MR. STEVES-Matt Steves, for the record. I’m the surveyor on the project. I will take a look at the entire parcel holding and then break out the lots and make sure that, the plat you see is the subdivision plat. I’ll just confirm that the numbers add up. There might have been a typo or something on one of the maps. I will confirm that, so that the map that the Chairman is signing is true and correct. MR. VOLLARO-That’s all we’re asking. MR. STEVES-You’ve got it. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you, Mr. Steves. MR. VOLLARO-I have nothing else, Mr. Chairman. I’m finished, except that in the motion these two things should appear. MR. MAC EWAN-Make a note of it. MR. LAPPER-We knew we were going to get that question. We just weren’t sure in what context, but, it figures, two-tenths of an acre, or twenty. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else to add? MR. LAPPER-No. 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-We need to do a SEQRA, please. MR. HUNSINGER-Short Form, right? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Chris has actually incorporated that in the resolution. MR. ROUND-You don’t have to do that. In our resolution, you’ll see some typos, didn’t pick up on a couple of changes that I had made, but the resolution prepared for you indicates, and you have to reach this decision when you act on the resolution, but there was an Environmental Impact Statement that was prepared as part of this project. Subdivision of the property wasn’t contemplated at the time that the FEIS or the DEIS were prepared, but, you know, it’s Staff’s opinion that you’re having less lots and we’re actually talking about consolidation and lessening the number of lots, and so that the practical impacts are minimal or nonexistent, and so that what you need to do is you have to, the resolution gives you language that says that. MR. MAC EWAN-Page Two, Paragraph Two, Paragraph Three. MR. ROUND-Paragraph Two, Paragraph Three. It’s not DEQR. It should read “SEQR”, and then the first, top of the page, paragraph, the second paragraph should just read, Whereas the Town Board adopted SEQR Findings and not say Positive SEQR Findings, and then the, NOW, Therefore, Be It, RESOLVED, there’s a “D” where there should be an “S”. It should say SEQR Findings adopted August 27, 2002. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Well, based on that, Mr. Vollaro, would you like to introduce the motion? MR. VOLLARO-I will introduce a motion, resolution approving the Preliminary Stage for Subdivision No. 14-2002, for Pyramid Company of Glens Falls. With the following additions, for Subdivision 14-2002, the new subdivision map be presented to the Planning Board Chairman for final signature that reflects the most current boundaries for all property within the entire boundary of this subdivision, and, two, provide a deeded reciprocal easement agreement which allows employees, customers and delivery trucks free access over each of the two parcels so that the site will operate as one parcel. MR. HUNSINGER-Bob, we don’t want those conditions on the Preliminary site plan, only on the Final. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you’re going to do it at Preliminary, and then you’re going to turn around and do it again for Final. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if you have them on Preliminary, we can’t pass the Final until you have the corrected map. MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s not the case, because the corrected map is the final one, and that’s the one that’s going to be signed. Right? Am I wrong on that? MR. LAPPER-Chris had done it as one resolution, for Preliminary and Final. MR. ROUND-Yes. I have a single resolution in front of me. I know typically you’ll do Preliminary and Final as separate actions, but I’m sorry, I missed the point that Chris had? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, my point was if we have to have a corrected plot plan in the Preliminary resolution, we can’t move to the Final resolution until we have the corrected map. MR. ROUND-Yes. You would make that a condition of the Final approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. ROUND-That you need to do that prior to signing, rather than make it a condition. I follow you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Then amend your motion there, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll amend the motion to remove the two conditions from this Preliminary motion. MR. STROUGH-Well, can’t you do Preliminary and Final at the same time? Isn’t that what you were saying? MR. MAC EWAN-I’d rather do them separately. MR. STROUGH-So you can keep your conditions in. You’re just going to do a Preliminary and Final at the same time. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. MAC EWAN-No. I want them separate. That’s the way we’ve been doing it for ten years. We’ll continue to do it that way. MR. VOLLARO-So we’ll do the Preliminary in accordance with the resolution as it has been prepared by Staff. MR. STROUGH-I’ll second. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2002 PYRAMID CO. OF GLENS FALLS, INC., Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 14-2002 Applicant: Pyramid Co. of Glens Falls, Inc. PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: Same FINAL STAGE Agent: Jonathan Lapper Type: Unlisted Zone: ESC-25A Location: Aviation Mall, Aviation Road Applicant proposes subdivision of a 56.72 acre parcel into two (2) lots of 8.36 acres and 48.36 acres. Cross Reference: SP 21-2001, AV 72-2002, etc. Tax Map No. 98-1-5.2 Lot size: 56.72 acres Section: Subdivision Regulations Public Hearing: September 24, 2002 WHEREAS, the application was received 8/15/02, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 9/20/02; and 9/24 Staff Notes 9/20 Map S-1 revised 9/6/02 9/18 ZBA resolution 9/17 Notice of Public Hearing 9/4 Meeting Notice 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) 8/30 J. Lapper from C. Brown – requesting revised subdiv. Plat 8/30 C. Brown from J. Lapper – New tax map nos. 8/26 R. Pittenger, LA Group – additional info WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on September 24, 2002; 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 Town of Queensbury Town Board caused the preparation of a Environmental Impact Statement evaluating the expansion of the Aviation Mall and the Town Board subsequently accepted the Final Environmental Impact Statement, after several supplements and addenda addressing the changes to the project as originally conceived, and WHEREAS, the Town Board adopted positive SEQR Findings and the Planning Board as an involved agency also adopted SEQRA Findings (Res. Dated 8/27/01) effectively confirming that the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the project is consistent with essential considerations of SEQRA, and WHEREAS, the subdivision of land as presented to the Planning Board here tonight has been duly reviewed and found not to be inconsistent with respect to the environmental factors evaluated within the FEIS, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Planning Board after fully evaluating the project as presented hereby reaffirms its SEQRA Findings as adopted August 27, 2002, and RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Preliminary Stage is hereby granted in accordance with the resolution as it has been prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 24th day of September, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2002 PYRAMID CO. OF GLENS FALLS, INC., Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 14-2002 Applicant: Pyramid Co. of Glens Falls, Inc. PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: Same FINAL STAGE Agent: Jonathan Lapper Type: Unlisted Zone: ESC-25A Location: Aviation Mall, Aviation Road Applicant proposes subdivision of a 56.72 acre parcel into two (2) lots of 8.36 acres and 48.36 acres. Cross Reference: SP 21-2001, AV 72-2002, etc. Tax Map No. 98-1-5.2 Lot size: 56.72 acres Section: Subdivision Regulations Public Hearing: September 24, 2002 WHEREAS, the application was received 8/15/02, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 9/20/02; and 9/24 Staff Notes 9/20 Map S-1 revised 9/6/02 9/18 ZBA resolution 9/17 Notice of Public Hearing 9/4 Meeting Notice 8/30 J. Lapper from C. Brown – requesting revised subdiv. Plat 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) 8/30 C. Brown from J. Lapper – New tax map nos. 8/26 R. Pittenger, LA Group – additional info WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on September 24, 2002; 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 Town of Queensbury Town Board caused the preparation of a Environmental Impact Statement evaluating the expansion of the Aviation Mall and the Town Board subsequently accepted the Final Environmental Impact Statement, after several supplements and addenda addressing the changes to the project as originally conceived, and WHEREAS, the Town Board adopted positive SEQR Findings and the Planning Board as an involved agency also adopted SEQRA Findings (Res. Dated 8/27/01) effectively confirming that the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the project is consistent with essential considerations of SEQRA, and WHEREAS, the subdivision of land as presented to the Planning Board here tonight has been duly reviewed and found not to be inconsistent with respect to the environmental factors evaluated within the FEIS, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Planning Board after fully evaluating the project as presented hereby reaffirms its SEQRA Findings as adopted August 27, 2002, and RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Final Stage is hereby granted and is subject to the following conditions: 1. The new subdivision map may be presented to the Planning Board Chairman for final signature that reflects the most current boundaries for all property within the entire boundary of this subdivision, and 2. Provide a deed reciprocal agreement which allows employees, customers and delivery trucks free access over each of the two parcels, so that the site will operate as one parcel, and 3. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 4. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by the Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. Duly adopted this 24th day of September, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 44-2002 TYPE II PYRAMID CO. OF GLENS FALLS, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: ESC-25 LOCATION: AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO CONSTRUCT A 3,500 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE MALL LOCATED WITHIN THE SIDEWALK AND LANDSCAPE AREA BETWEEN THE INNER RING ROAD AND THE MALL WEST OF THE NEW DEPARTMENT STORE AND EAST OF PENNEY’S. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 14-2002, AV 72- 2002, ETC. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/12/02 TAX MAP NO. 98-1-5.2 LOT SIZE: 56.72 +/- ACRES SECTION: ART. 4 JON LAPPER, BOB ORLANDO & RUSS PITTENGER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 44-2002, Pyramid Co. of Glens Falls, Inc., Meeting Date: September 24, 2002 “Project Description: 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) Applicant proposes to construct a 3,500 sq. ft. addition in order to accommodate the relocation of Klein’s in the Aviation Mall. The expansion would be built within previously approved sidewalk and concrete areas directly adjacent to the mall between JC Penny and the recently approved retail expansion on the north side of the mall. Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-9-080 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? Retail businesses of this type are allowed in the ESC zone with site plan approval from the Planning Board. 2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting public services and facilities? A small relocation of retail space of this type should not increase any burden on public services. 3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the town? Existing traffic circulation and parking should not be impacted as a result of this addition. 4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project? No adverse impacts of this type are anticipated with this proposal. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. The proposed building expansion would be built in previously approved area of pavement and sidewalks and is compatible with prior approvals. No new lighting is proposed as a part of this latest addition to the mall. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. Traffic circulation should not be adversely impacted by this 3,500 sq. ft. addition. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. More than enough on-site parking exists to address the requirements for this addition. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. Pedestrian traffic should not be impacted by this expansion. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. No additional stormwater drainage facilities are proposed other than those that have been part of previous site plan reviews for the larger expansion directly to the east. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. This site is served by both municipal water and wastewater services. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) The site plans submitted show minor differences from previously approved landscaping plans associated with the larger retail expansion to the east. The latest plans do not call for any decrease in the amount of previously approved landscaping. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. It appears that emergency vehicles would not be limited by this proposed expansion. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Impacts of this type are not expected as a result of this proposal. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 21-2001 - res. 7/16/02 retail expansion at mall AV 72-2002 – res. 9/18/02 relief for setback and minimum road frontage requirements Staff comments: Staff anticipates no adverse impacts as a result of the proposed site plan. The construction would take place in an area previously shown and approved as a concrete surface directly adjacent to the mall. The submitted plans do reflect a minor change to previously approved landscaping plans, however those changes are minor and do not remove any amount of already approved landscaping. Any comments from Sear Brown should be addressed prior to Planning Board action on this Site Plan. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted; the applicant has submitted a short form.” MR. HILTON-The site plan before you is for relocation of an existing tenant within the Mall to an area that has previously been shown hard surfacing walkways. No adverse impacts are anticipated. There are some minor changes to the landscaping plan. However, the number of landscaping, like trees and shrubs aren’t going to be lost. The same amount is still there. That’s all I have. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, Russ Pittenger, and Bob Orlando. Now we’re here to talk about what we consider and hope the Board will consider, a minor change to the approved site plan to shift, actually, let me as Russ to go through this for you. MR. PITTENGER-Thank you. This is the original drawing that was proposed to the Board, and what that entailed was a bump out here for the new Klein’s store and a slight modification of this curbed line to reflect some new graphics that the tenant wanted to have in the pavement. So I did a little manipulation of the parking in here. This plan also reflects some of the conditions of the previously approved plan, which was to redesign this intersection, which I’m hopeful that the Board had looked at, but this is the thing that we had worked out with Frank Palumbo, that this intersection got redesigned, and he was happy with this. That was part of the plans that were filed for the previous approval. Subsequent to our submission of this plan, we have had some information from the tenant which prompted a slight modification in that, with the new building footprint, and with a slight, an adjustment in here, understanding what the column lines were in the Mall, this building shifted at an angle about eight and a half feet. That did prompt quite a bit of changing in our grading and in our utilities relocation, although the systems and the design is exactly the same. There has been a revised receiving area for trucks, in that before this screen wall was in this location, it moved approximately 20 feet to the east, prompting this road to move. So if you can look at the two plans, here we have a rather narrower service area, and this plan it’s gotten slightly wider, but the utilities were reconfigured. The stormwater really stays the same. This building moved a little. We have a new building here, and this road moved from this location almost by its own width out to here. So the minor modification is to the Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. LAPPER-That’s it. MR. PITTENGER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I get to ask the first question. Please clarify to me. Why is this a new site plan, and a 100,000 square foot store was a modification? MR. LAPPER-I asked that same question. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) MR. ROUND-We’re not going to agree on this. So do you just want to go to the next? MR. MAC EWAN-I want an answer. Procedurally, this is dumb, quite frankly. MR. ROUND-Well, no. Initially. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m going to like this answer. MR. ROUND-You will. You’re going to like it. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re moving a store eight feet to accommodate a bump out for an additional retail outlet. That should be a modification. When you propose a 100,000 square foot store, that’s a new site plan. MR. ROUND-All we’re doing is, for tracking purposes, Klein’s is going to be issued a building permit. They need a site plan approval. The tenant at the other location is going to be issued a building permit and they need a plan approval. So for tracking purposes, we need to identify two different approvals for the project. The tenant that you have in front of you that’s moving it eight feet, we see that as a modification. We saw it as a modification when we were moving it 75 feet, or whatever the location. So we’ve been consistent. We’ve seen that as a modification to a previously issued approval. No approval has been issued to Klein’s for an expansion. Therefore it’s a new one. MR. MAC EWAN-You lied. You said I would agree with you, and I don’t. MR. ROUND-I didn’t say you would agree with me. I said you would like it. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t like the answer. All right. Larry, go first. MR. RINGER-No, I don’t see anything, other than Sear Brown’s comments there, that you would explain why now you’ve given up the 25 parking spaces, or whatever. MR. LAPPER-I view that as a little bit of a slap from Sear Brown. MR. RINGER-Yes, I kind of thought it was, too. MR. LAPPER-The simple answer is that, even Pyramid, a large company in New York State, is somewhat at the mercy of the major anchors. So when we’re working with a major anchor to make the deal happen and come in for the site plan approval, and they say they want it one way, that’s how we do it, and then their, you know, board, subcommittees and everything, they change their prototypes and this goes, and they say, you know, jump, and we say how high. So, that’s what happened. MR. RINGER-I agree with your answer and I knew that’s what your answer was going to be, but since Sear Brown had asked for it, I thought we should just put out there. MR. LAPPER-No problem. MR. RINGER-I didn’t have anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I had nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, Sear Brown’s out of the way. All right. What do we mean, I’m looking at S-3, and maybe Russ, what is it meant by the Total Approved GLA 591,000 square feet? MR. VOLLARO-Gross Leasable Area. MR. STROUGH-I mean, Russ, let me just explain. Over on the right hand side, we’ve got proposed, and we’ve already approved 661,000 square feet of space. Why isn’t 661 there instead of, because we’ve approved that? MR. PITTENGER-Because I don’t think it was constructed. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) MR. STROUGH-Well, it says total approved. Total constructed is 557,000 square feet. You see, I think that the total approved GLA should read 661,000 square feet that we’ve approved in the past. See, that’s what threw me off, unless you can explain. MR. PITTENGER-I’m having trouble getting my arms around that. So I think I have to go with what your. MR. STROUGH-You see where it says total approved GLA 591,000 square feet? Well, you know we’ve, and then over on the right, it says that we’ve approved 661,000 square feet. MR. ROUND-Yes. I think the 590’s a historical figure, and the 660 is what includes this new facility. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but to be accurate, wouldn’t you agree that the total approved GLA should read 661,000 square feet? That’s how much we’ve approved. MR. ROUND-Yes. MR. PITTENGER-Okay. MR. ROUND-It should say previously approved or existing, instead of approved. MR. PITTENGER-Well, what it does say is we do have our existing numbers there. MR. STROUGH-I know. I don’t have a problem with that. MR. PITTENGER-Okay. MR. STROUGH-What I have a problem with, and I was just looking at, the total approved, and I know we approved more than that, and then I see that we’ve got the total approved, and I do remember that figure. MR. ROUND-John, I know the applicant has been extremely protective of the areas that have been approved. I don’t know if it was previous Counsel or this Counsel, we were trying to make an argument during the EIS process that about those numbers, and so I think that a lot of that is carried over. There was a facility, it was going to be a Toys R Us at the rear, those kind of things. So some of that’s some carry over. MR. STROUGH-Well, we’ve approved, if my memory serves me, we’ve approved 661,000. That’s what should be there, to your benefit. Okay. MR. LAPPER-John’s correct, and we’ll make that change. MR. STROUGH-All right, and we’re going to end up with the Mall that I don’t know if this includes the Friendly’s or not, of 640,000. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-That does include the Friendly’s. That was just a question out of curiosity. Okay. Well, that all reads well, and my next thought is this, is that that intersection on Route 9 and Aviation Road is bothering me, and I just keep on thinking, if we could have an access tie in from you to the Plaza, and I’m not sure the name of it, but it’s where the Bank is and Toys R Us. What’s the name of the Plaza? MR. ROUND-Glen Square. MR. STROUGH-Glen Square. We could have an access there. That would help maybe one percent, maybe two percent, maybe just a little bit. It would improve them, too. It would improve that traffic. Because I don’t see why they’d be opposed to it. MR. LAPPER-Let me give you a quick speech on that. As part of the EIS process, we studied that, because that came up with the Board, although that was probably four years ago. MR. STROUGH-Several times we talked about it. So I thought, I’m going to give it one more shot. MR. LAPPER-Here’s the way that that was settled, and it’s possible, I don’t recall, it’s possible that it was to everybody else’s satisfaction, but yours, but what Pyramid had to agree, in the EIS process, was that, not with respect to that Plaza, and I think that the issue that came up in our review with Sear Brown in discussions with DOT was that even if you connected to that Plaza, and you were at the light by whatever the old Grand Union, Toys R Us traffic light, that that light is still too close to the light at the main intersection of Route 9 and Aviation Road. So what we agreed to was that if the property which is to the south of the Mall, which is owned by Rudnick. MR. STROUGH-I know, but it doesn’t seem like that’s going to take place. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) MR. LAPPER-Well, actually. MR. STROUGH-It’s a good fix. MR. LAPPER-I keep hearing that people are approaching Rudnick and that something may happen, but that, the grade is better to go that way, and it would get you out over by Foster Ave., which is a safe distance from the existing light. So that, in terms of traffic planning, it was determined in that process that if there was going to be a separate access to the Mall, that would be the appropriate place for it. So we had to agree that the easement would be available and that those two sites could be connected in the future if that other site was developed. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, you know, I see the potential access site that, your see Note Number Two to the western, should development occur there. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. STROUGH-Hopefully it does. I don’t know. If we could work out something, would you be amenable to that? MR. LAPPER-The real problem was grade. It’s just so steep. MR. STROUGH-Well, I know. The grade is even worse going from the current level up to the upper level, too, where you propose the access site. The engineers could work something out. All right. I gave it a shot. MR. LAPPER-It’s good to ask the questions. MR. STROUGH-Again, as you expand, I’m going to be, I’m going to work on that, if nothing else happens, Jon. MR. LAPPER-We understand. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and again, I’d like to show on the final plat that there is a crosswalk going between the proposed employee parking area. Russ said there is one there is there, but it just doesn’t show it on the plans, and going from Friendly Ice Cream, all along and parallel to Aviation Road, you say there’s one there, but it doesn’t show it on the plans. MR. PITTENGER-On our layout plan, it’s clearly shown to the east of the Friendly’s entrance, that there is a walkway along, a sidewalk along the road. MR. STROUGH-Not sidewalk, a pedestrian painted crosswalk going across the access road, from your western, what is labeled in some of these plans as a possible employee parking. MR. PITTENGER-That’s a good point. We’ll add that. It’s not on the plans. MR. STROUGH-Last time I went through this, you said it is there. MR. PITTENGER-I forgot about that. I will add that to the plans. Thank you. MR. STROUGH-All right. Now, Russ, are you going to handle the stormwater questions, or two? MR. PITTENGER-Yes, I am. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I’m on S-5. Now, this parking area, going towards Klein, this drainage, what drainage devices do we have to take care of the water which seems to be flowing in this direction? MR. PITTENGER-Actually, just for everyone’s information, John’s talking about this portion of the parking lot that’s remaining to flow this way. Currently, if you look at this soft contour lines under, the entire parking lot is flowing this way currently. There are stormwater basins here, here and here existing that will be maintained and preserved, but what we’ve done is from this line over, we’ve taken all that runoff into our new system and accounted for it, and so the system that was containing all this before, now only contains the small bit. So we’re maintaining the stuff that’s handling a lot more than it will under future. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and the outer ring road, over here, Russ, isn’t this a valley right here? MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-And that’s going to be the catch basin for this valley? 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) MR. PITTENGER-In a sense, although if you’ll notice, what we’re doing here is we have this road, the ring road, slightly pitched so that it goes into this catch basin, and we’re picking this up here with a trench drain. So really all this water, all of the water from approximately the 410 contour, all this water is going to be directed into these drywells, and this is going to pick up only what misses that. So we’ve done our calculations. This will take the bulk of it. MR. STROUGH-The sheet flow will be in this direction? MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. MS. RADNER-State on the record what map you’re looking for, looking at. MR. PITTENGER-We’re looking at Drawing S-5, and in the area of the ring road near the relocated central entrance road, at about the 410 contour, very little of that water will escape past that 410 contour. It’ll get either picked up by this catch basin or in here, we have a trench drain here to collect all this water as it comes in. So the 410 really directs it to our stormwater basins, our new detention basins here, and the only water that’s getting into the existing one is much less than what’s getting into there now. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you, Russ. That’s a good satisfactory answer. MR. PITTENGER-Thank you. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, my plans don’t, this plan shows you’ve moved the screening, and I see those plans show an update. MR. PITTENGER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay, but these don’t. MR. PITTENGER-Okay. MR. STROUGH-All right, but I understand, and thanks for the Parthenosissus quinquifolia, Virginia Creepers. MR. PITTENGER-Yes. They turn a nice red Fall color, too. MR. STROUGH-Well, hopefully that will make that look nice, and hopefully it’ll work. No white pines. MR. PITTENGER-You’ve got the Lindens already, and then you’ve got 100 to 125. MR. STROUGH-All right. Okay. That’s it. Thank you. MR. PITTENGER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Vollaro? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I recognize that the Klein’s sports store is only a 3500 square foot addition. I just want to get in my mind. We haven’t talked anything about its design or how it will look or any of that, and I’m willing to concede that you guys will do a good job on that. MR. LAPPER-We have a photo, a rendering. MR. VOLLARO-You have a photo. MR. LAPPER-It went in with the application. MR. VOLLARO-It went in with the application? MR. PITTENGER-Although there wasn’t one for everyone. MR. VOLLARO-For everybody, okay. Take a look at that. Okay. Under the basis of a picture is worth a thousand words, I have no other questions concerning that design. The cross between the buildings, there’ll be a way to get between buildings covered? I see this little jog in here. I don’t know what that means. Mr. Pittenger, are you, this is your thing here. This little jog that you have between the buildings, is that, are those supposed to be doors? MR. PITTENGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-How do we get from Klein’s Sports over to the new so called Building E? 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) MR. PITTENGER-There’s two ways. One is certainly, I think there’s going to be, we haven’t identified them, but there will be entrance doors at Klein’s, just like there is now. There’s entrance in the front of Department Store E. There’s also an entrance to the Mall here with this wide entrance, and this little skinny one here I think is a service, to a service corridor. So there’ll be, you can either come in, go through the Mall, go to Klein’s, or outside. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So there will be a way to get back and forth between the two stores. MR. PITTENGER-Yes, they both open to the outside, and they both open to the Mall. MR. VOLLARO-Because the drawing doesn’t clearly identify that. The picture does a pretty good job. MR. LAPPER-The new store has a Mall entrance, the big store. MR. VOLLARO-I see. Okay. I don’t have any other questions, Mr. Chairman. That’s pretty clean. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-Nothing here. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything to add? MR. LAPPER-No. 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-Anything to add? Anything additional from the Board? Would somebody introduce a motion please. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 44-2002 PYRAMID CO. OF GLENS FALLS, INC., Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan Review No. 44-2002 Applicant: Pyramid Co. of Glens Falls, Inc. Type II Property Owner: Same Agent: Jonathan Lapper Zone: ESC-25A Location: Aviation Road Applicant proposes modification to construct a 3,500 sq. ft. addition to the mall located within the sidewalk and landscaped area between the inner ring road and the mall west of the new department store and east of Penney’s. Cross Reference: SB 14-2002, AV 72-2002, etc. Warren Co. Planning: 9/12/02 Tax Map No. 98.-1-5.2 Lot size: 56.72 +/- acres Section: Art. 4 Public Hearing: September 24, 2002 WHEREAS, the application was received on 8/15/02; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 9/20/02, and 9/24 Staff Notes 9/18 ZBA resolution 9/17 Notice of Public Hearing 9/12 Warren Co. Planning 9/4 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on September 24, 2002; and 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) 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 Town of Queensbury Town Board caused the preparation of a Environmental Impact Statement evaluating the expansion of the Aviation Mall and the Town Board subsequently accepted the Final Environmental Impact Statement, after several supplements and addenda addressing the changes to the project as originally conceived, and WHEREAS, the Town Board adopted positive SEQR Findings and the Planning Board as an involved agency also adopted SEQRA Findings (Res. Dated 8/27/01) effectively confirming that the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the project is consistent with essential considerations of SEQRA, and WHEREAS, the site plan as presented to the Planning Board here tonight has been duly reviewed and found not to be inconsistent with respect to the environmental factors evaluated within the FEIS, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Planning Board after fully evaluating the project as presented hereby reaffirms its DEQRA Findings as adopted August 27, 2002, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1. On Site Plan S-3, the total approval GLA will be noted at 661,000 square feet, and 2. On Site Plan S-3, will also be noted a crosswalk on the entryway parallel to Aviation Road, a pedestrian painted crosswalk, that is, and 3. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows: Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 9/24/02 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: 1. Duly adopted this 24th day of September, 2002 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll take a two minute recess. MR. ROUND-You’ve got to just pass a resolution adopting this. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to discuss it a little bit? MR. ROUND-We’ve presented these to you several months ago. Just to refresh your memory, the purpose of this was to try to deal with certain classes of projects that generally don’t involve a lot of subjective review on the part of the Board, but in some instances that the Board may have vital input on, and we gave you a draft. We solicited comment from Planning Board members. We didn’t receive a lot of comment. Tom Seguljic did provide some comment. I think Chairman MacEwan, we had a phone conversation about some things the classes of project that we’re proposing for expedited review were replacement uses where no physical alterations to site and facilities are proposed. Some of our zones do allow replacement uses like you can go into a Highway Commercial zone, and if you don’t add 10% parking or 10 additional spaces, whichever is greater, you don’t need to go through site plan review. Some other zones, such as our Light Industrial zone, don’t allow for that replacement, because there are instances that a change in a tenant might have a significant impact on the character of the community or of the neighborhood. For instance you go from two allowed uses in the Light Industrial zone, a low intensity assembly operation versus a foundry type operation. There’s clearly different impacts. That type of project wouldn’t be eligible for expedited review, but something, a change that was very similar would be. So we want to offer you that discretion. Boathouses, conversion of boathouses, waterfront decks, hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline, 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) directional signs, modification of previously approved subdivisions and then subdivisions of lands creating four or fewer lots, and there are conditions that would have to be met in each and every one of these, and it’s the job of the Zoning Administrator to make a recommendation that would be considered for expedited review, outlines the procedure. Those things would be handled first. If the Planning Board did not, you know, after polling the audience or after reviewing the application itself, didn’t want to go through the expedited process, it’s not mandatory that it be handled in an expedited fashion. It could go through the normal public hearing process. Do you guys need extra copies of this? I’ve got copies. MR. SANFORD-Chris, just a question. Can we jump in with questions? The land up on West Mountain today, would that fall under “F” here? MR. ROUND-It would certainly be eligible for consideration, but not necessarily inserted into that expedited review process, because I think that Zoning Administrator would exercise judgment and say, okay, these are three lots, but there are, this is a marginal type project. What we envision is, you know, a lot that has the minimum lot width, for instance, on the front. MR. SANFORD-Well, help me out here. Let’s say it stayed with you guys. What would Staff’s recommendation be? Just out of curiosity? MS. RADNER-I don’t think it’s appropriate, actually, to discuss that, because the applicant’s not here. MR. SANFORD-All right. Forget it. I withdraw the question. MS. RADNER-Okay. MR. ROUND-I think you’ve got a hint of where Staff sits on that particular project during our discussions. MR. SANFORD-We were three and three with an abstention. MR. ROUND-We can talk about that, but it’s not necessarily to be included. They would be considered. It says, you know, the key language in any of these is that they may be eligible or could be considered for expedited review. It’s not mandatory that they be put into this particular class. MR. STROUGH-179-6-070A, okay, talks about, “Except for approved existing subdivisions or projects normally reviewable by the Planning Board, site plan review shall be required for the following: a. Any detached structure proposed to be constructed on any lot, parcel or site having a slope of 15% or more within a fifty-foot radius of the proposed location of said structure;”, for example this project, the house is within 50 foot of a greater than 50% grade. That automatically kicks it to site plan review. MR. ROUND-Yes, and that’s not to confuse tonight’s issue. I mean, that’s subdivision versus site plan. I guess what that is referring to is the impacts that building on marginal sites where significant grading is, that would require site plan review. Regardless of what, you know, just an application for a building permit on a particular site like that would require site plan review. This is just talking about subdivision. So they’re not in conflict, but. MR. SANFORD-No, no, but he’s saying that the subdivision could have been approved at the Staff’s level, but the site, then it would be site plan. MR. ROUND-No, this is not a Staff level approval. This is just, this is going to come before, the Board is issuing approvals on any of these. It’s just that you’re. MR. MAC EWAN-Expedited matters, it basically says, any discussion about this? Let’s move it. In a nutshell, that’s what we’d be doing. MR. ROUND-And if it comes to the public hearing and says there’s 70 people here that think this is, and, you know, it’s hard to predict public input on this. If there’s 70 people here that want to talk about it, it’s pulled off the expedited agenda and it’s given the same consideration, same expanded, you know. MR. SANFORD-No, I understand, but to get in front of us as an expedited matter suggests. MR. ROUND-Staff has to make a suggestion, and it’s a judgment, yes. MR. SANFORD-It’s a judgment. That’s my point. MR. STROUGH-So you would judge, for example, you don’t talk about, when you talk about covered boathouses, it’s going to come our way. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) MR. ROUND-Ninety percent will come to you. If we go out to the site, we do a site visit, as you do, and we see, hey, this covered boathouse will, or what exists, there’s two neighboring properties where there’s definitely going to be an impact to the view. MR. STROUGH-Well, won’t we have to do a site visit, too, to make that assessment? MR. ROUND-You’re going to have to go through site visits for any of them, in all these projects. You’re not alleviated from that. MR. STROUGH-Right. MR. ROUND-We’re not talking about administrative approvals. We’re talking about just a different way to process applications in front of the Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Just trying to streamline things. MR. ROUND-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Simple things with a dock expansion or, you know, the guy who wants to put a small addition onto this property on a Waterfront Residential zone, where we don’t see major impacts, we just expedited review them. It moves things along quicker, instead of us getting bogged down in the process. That’s the whole gist behind doing this. MR. RINGER-There’s a middle review, too, that Bob and I sit in each month before the Planning Board meets and we also will look at those expedited, that’s recommended by Staff. So it will be, that’ll be another input there before it actually gets to the Board as a full Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Prior to us doing our site visits, we have the agendas. We’ll know at the top of the agenda if there’s expedited reviews. When we look at something on our site visits that maybe we think there’s going to be issues that maybe Staff didn’t pick up on, we’ll just pull it from being an expedited review and review it as we normally would. MR. ROUND-You’re dealing with it sometimes informally here. The Board is like, instead of waiting for the last guy on the agenda to sit through three hours of pain and suffering. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. ROUND-We’re going to, hey, this is a project we want to put first on our agenda. We want to deal with it because there’s little or. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to do expedited reviews right at the top of the agenda. MR. ROUND-Right. MR. RINGER-It makes sense. It just makes sense to do that. MR. STROUGH-Well, Warren County does that, too, basically, don’t they? MR. ROUND-They don’t conduct site plan review, and that’s often confused that they do, but. MR. STROUGH-Well, they have their group that they kind of all. MR. ROUND-They do things that, they list things on their agenda that they want to discuss or don’t want to discuss. Otherwise, if they don’t want to discuss it, they just pass it back to the local board and indicate that there’s no County impact, and the County Planning Board often struggles with what their actual role is, and they do get into doing site plan review, but that’s not what they’re charged with doing. They’re charged with examining, is there an impact to a County resource, State resource, etc., but not too many county boards operate. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems like major commercial projects they like to review. MR. ROUND-Even though, I think they’re overstepping the limits of their authority, they don’t, but they’re getting into areas where they really don’t have the latitude to do so, but they’re, it’s another night. So this, basically, is, we made a couple of small minor changes, based on Tom’s comments, and they’re similar to what you guys are talking about tonight is like, well, who’s making that judgment? It’s got to be clear. Is it required that they be handled in expedited fashion or is it just as an alternative, and we want to reiterate it’s an alternative. It’s not required, and we tried to clarify the procedure a little bit, give you a little more step by step. The Zoning Administrator recommends you put it on your agenda first, you poll the audience. If there’s anybody to speak, you hear public comment. If there’s no public comment, you would go through 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) and entertain resolutions for each of those types of activities. I think the next step is, if you end up being comfortable with these, we tried to, during our Steering Committee and reviewing of our Zoning Ordinance, make some of these administrative approvals or not require the approval, make them permitted uses, and it’s tough. Sometimes they’re no-brainers, sometimes they’re not. MR. MAC EWAN-Just one you think you have a simple one, it gets convoluted. MR. ROUND-We already solicited comment previously, and you missed, you must have been fishing. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, you tell me. Hard surfacing, you say, you know, how many square feet of h hard surfacing. MR. VOLLARO-Within 50 feet of the shoreline. MS. RADNER-Remember that one application that somebody just wanted to add steps. MR. MAC EWAN-Their patio. Those people wanted to add that patio. MS. RADNER-(Lost word) hard surfacing, they had to go through this whole rigmarole. What Chris is saying is that there’s situations where hard surfacing doesn’t require an in-depth look. MR. SANFORD-I actually support this proposal and process. MR. STROUGH-It’s a good idea. MR. SANFORD-But there is the issue of materiality, and as I look through it at A, B and C, and D, and E, they don’t seem to be as material and general as, and then you jump to “F”, and “F” could be, you know, more complex, and so I assume that we’re relying on Staff’s screening before that even really becomes considered. MR. ROUND-Right. MR. SANFORD-And I’m fine with that. MR. ROUND-It is a little different. We do have a two lot administrative approval where we’re looking at, the Zoning Administrator looks at two lot subdivisions. Prior to the ’88 Ordinance, there was a four lot or a five lot administrative approval. They did away with that some time ago. So that’s why, it’s kind of going back to that. MR. SANFORD-You’re going back to that. Okay. MR. ROUND-And there’s not a lot, you don’t see a lot of four lot subdivisions. MR. SANFORD-Well, the one last week up on, was it Cronin Road? MR. ROUND-Yes, Cronin. That’s something we sent to you because we think that’s going to have a real impact on the community character. MR. SANFORD-Right. Well, I mean, we were all concerned about trying to keep the historic looking fences and stone fences and stuff. Okay. Anyway, I find this is a good procedure. I’m in favor of it. MR. STROUGH-What do you mean by off premise directional signs, Chris? MR. ROUND-Off premises. MR. MAC EWAN-Case in point, Applebee’s wanted to put one up near Exit 19 on Aviation Road. That’s an off premise directional sign. MR. ROUND-Yes. Advertising of a business not on the business site itself, and not a billboard. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. ROUND-Curtis Lumber next left. We’re not advocates for that type of signage, but generally it’s something you probably could handle right up front and say, hey, we like it, we don’t like it. It’s not a good idea. MR. MAC EWAN-Strough’s U Pick Berries next left, turn right, up the hill, over the mountain, through the bridge. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) MR. STROUGH-A good retirement job. Berries for that wine industry. MR. VOLLARO-I think the fact that this is going to be in our packets, and we’re going to be doing site plan reviews, going to be doing site visits anyway, full knowing that this is on the agenda as an expedited review, we make our determinations out there, and then when you walk us, when we’re actually sitting here, you’ll probably quickly walk us through it anyway. MR. ROUND-Right. You’re going to have Staff notes. You’re going to go through the same. MR. VOLLARO-The same thing, and then we’re going to, you know, the Chairman will then handle this in a bulk fashion. Okay, I think that just makes a lot of sense. MR. SANFORD-One quick question, though, in terms of mechanics, here. You’ve earmarked it as an expedited review item, I assume. Then we’re going out and doing site visits, and we see a boathouse or something, and we go, oh, no. We want to spend some time with this one. We communicate that to you. How, then, does the applicant know that, hey, this is something that they might have to be prepared to come in front of us with, and do they lose valuable time because they probably, by that time, they might have to go into the next month or something like that. MR. MAC EWAN-The issue here, can I respond to part of that? MR. ROUND-Well, they’re going to be on the Board’s review anyway. They’re going to be here regardless. MR. SANFORD-Anyway. MR. ROUND-And we say, under the first paragraph, 3A, it says Zoning Administrator shall evaluate completed site plan application for eligibility and place the application on the agenda for consideration by the Board, and you may say, we do not want to consider this. What we want to do, oftentimes an applicant will come up and speak, give you a lot more information, volunteer information that’s not necessary and confuse the issue, and so we want to alleviate the applicant from that peril as well. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think you cover that in your parenthetical statement where you say or requested by the Board. That clears it up. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich made a comment relative to an applicant losing valuable time. There’s no guarantee that anybody who walks through those doors is going to get an approval in X number of days or X number of months or even at all. So, for someone to come in with a boathouse versus a big box store, anyone who comes in here with an application takes the same chance. There’s no guarantee that you’re going to get your approval the night you come in here or the night you leave. MR. SANFORD-Yes, I understand that, but that’s not exactly what I was getting at. I was getting at. MR. ROUND-We expect them to be here, that they may be called on. Even though they’re under consideration for expedited matter, you folks might have a question for them, even though the public doesn’t. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve tabled applications before because someone didn’t show, and they say, gee, I didn’t think I needed to be here. MR. ROUND-All we will do, we don’t know yet, but we expect that we will advise that they may be considered for expedited matters, but there’s no guarantee that you’re going to be handled in that fashion. You should be prepared, as you would for any other application, and we’re hopeful that it will be handled in this fashion. What troubles me is the question I thought you were going to ask was that, well, if they’re on for expedited matters, are they guaranteed an approval. Because that’s somewhat what this is implying, that we’re going to entertain these things and they’re no-brainers, and we will do our best to communicate that that you’re not guaranteed that you’re going to be dealt with in expedited fashion, and that you’re not guaranteed an approval, because it’s the Board that makes the decision, not the Staff. MR. SANFORD-So if it’s not considered eligible by this Board for an expedited review, are they on the agenda that same night? MR. ROUND-I think we’ll have to find this out, but I think we would handle them in the order that they’re listed on our agenda regardless. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. ROUND-So if you’ve got one item on the first for expedited matters, they’re handled first. If you’ve got three, you would handle those three. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Before the night of that meeting, we’re all going to know primarily whether it’s going to be an expedited review or not. I think we’ll ascertain that through Staff making site visits, us making site visits. MR. VOLLARO-I think your special committee of Larry and I would also be another filter on the line that says that this is acceptable as an expedited review or not. MR. MAC EWAN-The only thing that would bump that out of being an expedited review at that stage, having it that night on the agenda, is if it got a lot of public comment that were offering a different opinion of what this application was all about. Then it would be pulled right off. MS. RADNER-Or one that just throws a monkey wrench in it, that you’ve got to be open to, are you aware that that lot doesn’t have septic system and that they’re draining into my back yard and then you’re going to say, wait a minute, let’s back up. MR. ROUND-Yes, something that hasn’t been disclosed. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, just one thing. I think we’ve got to change the word under C. for hard surfacing, that applications, and you give, the last sentence, the applicant should provide sufficient evidence. I think you’ve got a misspelled word there. You just want to correct that. Other than that, it looks pretty good. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments? Does someone want to introduce a motion, please, to adopt it? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll introduce a motion. MOTION TO ADOPT THE POLICY FOR EXPEDITED REVIEW AS COVERED BY CHRIS ROUND’S SEPTEMBER 19, 2002 MEMORANDUM ENTITLED “EXPEDITED REVIEW”, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: Duly adopted this 24th day of September, 2002 by the following vote: MR. RINGER-Did you include them in the revised? MR. ROUND-Yes. MR. RINGER-All we’ve got to do, then, is make a motion to approve our new by-laws as revised, the same thing. MR. STROUGH-There’s a couple of things with that. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That would be, I think if we approve, make a motion to approve this expedited review, then that gets coupled in, Larry? Is that what you’re saying? MR. RINGER-No. I’m saying that approve the revised by-laws, which incorporates the expedited review. MR. VOLLARO-It doesn’t yet, though, does it? MR. STROUGH-It doesn’t. MR. VOLLARO-I tried to find it. Where does it? MR. ROUND-Yes. The revised by-laws, you just cleaned up a couple of small things and you should see underscored text. On Page 13, Order of Business, it talks about. MR. STROUGH-We’ve got some, a lot of discussion on this. I think what Bob is doing is we are going to accept this into our by-laws and then now, why don’t we take a look at the by-laws, because I have some suggestions. MR. ROUND-Right. I think you have acted on, maybe you haven’t voted on it, but you would act on the resolution adopting the policy and then act on the resolution. MR. RINGER-I thought you said that they were in there. MR. ROUND-They are. MR. RINGER-But they’re not listed. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) MR. STROUGH-I’ll second, Bob’s motion. AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Do you guys want to discuss these by-laws tonight? MR. STROUGH-Yes. Just a couple of little things. MR. VOLLARO-Just as a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I see at the tail end of this, there was a resolution that I did not use. It’s okay? Okay. Fine. MR. ROUND-Yes. Page 13, we just identified that expedited matters would be handled second in the order of business. Approval of minutes, expedited matters, old business, new business, and then you’d have your same list of activities. We did also make some changes. Page 15 identifies our deadline date is now the 15 th day of the month, or the next business day for application submittals. Okay. Then Page 19 we identify special use permits are another class of actions, and then I’m looking for, I think that’s the only. MR. STROUGH-All right. What I didn’t see in there are term length to alternate members. MR. ROUND-It says membership and terms of officers seven years, or as specified. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but I didn’t see anything given for alternate members. MR. ROUND-But you’re a member. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I didn’t know if there was separate classifications. MR. HUNSINGER-John, aren’t alternates members for life? MR. STROUGH-Well, it doesn’t say what the length of the alternate terms are. MR. ROUND-It just says as a member of the Board, it does say. MR. MAC EWAN-It doesn’t matter. If you’re a member of the Planning Board, it doesn’t matter whether you’re a regular or an alternate. Your term is duly specified by the Town Board in their resolution. MR. STROUGH-All right. MR. MAC EWAN-You could be filling the remainder of someone else’s. MR. STROUGH-If you’re happy with it, I’m happy with it. MR. ROUND-The last sentence, Page Four, upon designation the alternate Planning Board members shall have all the same duties and responsibilities of a regular Planning Board member. So we take that to, as far as terms of office. We read it to mean seven years. MR. STROUGH-All right. I’ve got this circled. MR. SANFORD-I wasn’t called to vote on that last resolution. I thought I didn’t have, I wasn’t asked because I was an alternate. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-I’m just trying to find in here how the expedited review material is part of the by-laws. MR. ROUND-Bob, it’s been some time since I’ve looked at this. I think all we’ve done is identify it in the Order of Business and that we haven’t identified it anywhere else because the Code, the Zoning Code specifies how you do site plan review. The policy itself specifies how you do expedited review, and we just were listing it to identify that it’s. MR. VOLLARO-Is this on Page 19, Chris? Is that where you are? MR. HUNSINGER-No, it’s on Page 13. MR. VOLLARO-It’s on Page what? MR. HUNSINGER-Thirteen. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) MR. ROUND-Thirteen. I’m sorry, yes. Just under Order of Business. MR. VOLLARO-Order of Business. Expedited Matters. Got it. Okay. There we go. Got it. Yes. Okay. I’m happy with that. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. STROUGH-Yes, on Page Five of the By-laws. Three B, Number Two, as allowed. It reads, the Planning Board may hold public hearings or public information sessions in addition to those required by law, when it is deemed such hearings or sessions would be in the best interest of the public. Is that a majority vote of the Planning Board? Is that one person on the Planning Board? Is that the Chairman of the Planning Board? What is “it”? MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve typically, when we’ve had something that. MR. STROUGH-But I mean it’s not in the By-laws, not what you’ve typically done. MR. ROUND-Site plan review does not require public hearings. MR. STROUGH-But what it’s saying, it’s not specifying. It says the Planning Board may do this. Well, one person on the Planning Board, the Chairman of the Planning Board, or the majority of the Planning Board? MR. RINGER-I would say that if we act on Robert’s Rules, then it’s always going to be the majority. The Chairman. The Chairman is going to act as the Chair, but the Chair can always be challenged by the Board, and then the majority of the Board can override the Chairman on a particular item, if they feel so inclined to do. MR. STROUGH-All right. So it would be the majority, then, is what you’re saying? MR. VOLLARO-Well, “it” I think is synonymous with the majority. MR. RINGER-I think it would be the Chairman. MR. STROUGH-And you’re assuming that, it’s assumed that you’re talking about a majority. MS. RADNER-It would have to be. That’s how you take action. It doesn’t say Chairperson. It says it, so it’s referring to the Board. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. RINGER-Yes, but I think the Chair would run the meeting and he would determine, or she, would determine if he was going to have a public hearing, if that could be challenged by any member of the Board and say, wait a minute, Craig, I think we should have a public hearing on this, and then the Board could take a vote, but since he’s going to Chair the meeting, he should have the ability to say no public hearing, and then be challenged on it if any member feels he should be challenged. MR. STROUGH-All right, Larry, I’ll buy that. MR. RINGER-That’s what the Chairman’s job is. MS. RADNER-Bear in mind that any one of you passes motions, and it’s pretty much the same thing, like when Craig calls for a tabling motion, or Craig calls for a motion to, you know, adjourn this for additional public comment, any one of you could. MR. RINGER-Can challenge. MS. RADNER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-All right, and the other thing is, I’m on Page Seven talking about the annual meeting, and it says the annual organizational meeting of the Board shall be the first regular meeting in the month of January of each year. At such time the Planning Board shall elect officers, designate the dates. At what point do we make the recommendation to the Town Board so that we can elect officers and Chairman? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, when did that change? We’ve been doing that for a number of years in November. MR. STROUGH-There’s nothing in there that says when we make our nomination for the Chairman, recommendation I mean, nomination/recommendation. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) MR. SANFORD-The only officer that goes in front of the Town Board is the Chairman. MR. RINGER-Right. MR. SANFORD-None of the other. MR. STROUGH-There’s nothing in here saying when we would do it. It does say that we should approve the officers here, but, you know, when are we supposed to make a recommendation to the Town Board on our Chairman? MR. RINGER-We don’t make a recommendation. We do the elections, and then the Town Board accepts it, or rejects it. MR. SANFORD-But it does specify, doesn’t it, in here some place. MR. RINGER-It says we’re going to do it the first regular meeting in the month of January. MR. STROUGH-It say we’re going to elect them, but we’re assuming that the Town Board has given their approval to who we’ve chosen as Chairman. MR. SANFORD-Is it on Page Two that goes into that? MR. ROUND-We don’t govern what the Town Board will do or when it will do it. I think this is talking about the operation of the Planning Board and the Planning Board’s officers. If the Town Board has a schedule that they need to keep. MR. STROUGH-Are we assuming that the election of the Chairman by our group is the same as a recommendation to the Town Board? MR. MAC EWAN-John, your question has been answered on Page Two under Officers. The Planning Board shall annually make a recommendation before its organizational meeting to the Town Board, and the Town Board shall annually designate a member of the said Planning Board to act as Chairperson thereof. MR. STROUGH-Right. It doesn’t say when. That’s my point. MR. ROUND-It says before the organizational meeting. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Let’s do it now. This is before. MR. ROUND-It hasn’t been a problem until you raised it as an issue. MR. SANFORD-Well, John does have a sequencing issue here, in that on Page Seven you’re specifying January, you’re going to elect your officers, okay, but on Page Two, it says we’re going to give our recommendation to the Town Board. So that suggests heavily that that should take place on or around December. MR. RINGER-Before January anyway. MR. SANFORD-Before January anyway. MR. STROUGH-But it doesn’t say that. See. MR. RINGER-John, you can’t regulate regulations to death. MR. SANFORD-I don’t think there’s anything you have to do, except in December you have to raise the point that it’s time for us to give our recommendation with the request for the Town Board to adopt it. MR. STROUGH-The last regular meeting of December is when the recommendation to the Town Board for. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we don’t do it in December. We do it in November. Whenever. MR. RINGER-Then I don’t think we have to spell it out. MR. SANFORD-That would be fine. That’s before. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I just brought it up. MR. ROUND-That’s a good point. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) MR. VOLLARO-Make January November, and that should take care of the problem. MR. RINGER-John, if you look at your By-laws, when you’re drawing up by-laws, John, you can start off with four pages of by-laws or ten pages of by-laws or if you want to nitpick it, you can have 100 pages of by- laws. You just can’t go in there and check every period or change every period and try to regulate everything that’s going to happen. That’s why we have Robert’s Rules that we go by, and then run our meetings that way with the by-laws that we have, and hopefully your by-laws are the simplest things that you can have. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m just saying there was one of the things not addressed in the By-laws that. MR. MAC EWAN-Does it need to be addressed in the By-laws? MR. STROUGH-That’s probably the pertinent question here. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think it does. We’ve been doing it that way for 10 years. MR. RINGER-Right, and I agree. MR. MAC EWAN-The second regular meeting of November, for 10 years, that’s when we’ve been making our nominations. MR. STROUGH-Why don’t we put it in the By-laws, then. MR. MAC EWAN-What difference does it make? Why does it have to be in there? We’re splitting hairs here. MR. STROUGH-We could be out in the Town car and get in a bad accident and then who’s going to know? MR. MAC EWAN-The emergency session of Congress, at that point. MR. RINGER-Well, let’s put it in the By-laws, John, let’s put it in the By-laws, what happens if we’re out on site visits and we get in an accident and four people are injured. You know, you could put anything in there you want. MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s a good suggestion, Larry. MR. RINGER-By-laws become a non-usable document when you make them too thick. MR. STROUGH-All right. Never mind. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other issues with these By-laws? MR. HUNSINGER-Just the coversheet. It says revised September 13. I think, shouldn’t that read th September 24? th MR. ROUND-Yes. That was the day I printed it, but we’ll amend that, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments? MR. RINGER-No, after 20 of I get real argumentative, though. MR. SANFORD-Well, you know, your By-laws are very damn important. I think Counsel will have to bear that out. MR. RINGER-You’ve got to keep it simple and workable.. MR. SANFORD-So we need a resolution to approve these. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m looking for one. Someone introduce a motion, please. MR. STROUGH-All right. I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD BY-LAWS, POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ORIGINALLY ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING BOARD APRIL 24, 2001 AND REVISED SEPTEMBER 24, 2002, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: Duly adopted this 24th day of September, 2002, by the following vote: 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/24/02) AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Any other business? MR. RINGER-Is the meeting Thursday going to be here? MR. MAC EWAN-The Conference Room. MR. RINGER-What about the, Chris said the public may come now? MR. ROUND-Yes. We don’t have any control of that. MR. RINGER-I know we don’t have any control, but are we going to have room? MR. ROUND-We’ll communicate. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s no public hearing scheduled. It’s a workshop for the Planning Board to discuss how we’re going to address these Special Use Permits, specifically the language we want to put together in a resolution identifying our issues we have, so that the Town Board and the Staff can take a look at it and revise the Ordinance accordingly. MR. ROUND-And you could indicate that the Town Board would conduct a public hearing, if and when it does revise. MR. STROUGH-And you’ll get my input via e-mail. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve already gotten mine, Chris. MR. ROUND-The Town Board, last night, did adopt the policy regarding petitions for re-zonings. So that we will only handle them on a quarterly basis, and that you folks will only see it, with the exception, they did process one for the John Bernhard, it’s the Queensbury Firehouse #2 on Glen Lake Road. That one made it in before this policy. He’s an attorney. MR. MAC EWAN-He’s a Workman’s Comp lawyer. MR. ROUND-Yes. He’s looking to purchase the particular property. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 45