Loading...
2003-11-18 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2003 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN LARRY RINGER ROBERT VOLLARO CHRIS HUNSINGER JOHN STROUGH ANTHONY METIVIER PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. MAC EWAN-The first item on the agenda is just a note that originally scheduled tonight was going to be the Prospect Child & Family Center office complex, Site Plan 42-2003. We are going to postpone that until next Tuesday night because we had an internal scheduling snafu. RESOLUTIONS: PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE PZ 2-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED DOUG & TERESA MILLER TOWN BOARD REFERRAL TO PB: RES. #296, 2003 INDOOR/OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITY WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/12/03 RESOLUTION SEEKING LEAD AGENCY STATUS JON LAPPER, TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DOUG MILLER, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-The Planning Board is seeking Lead Agency status in a resolution, but we’re going to hear a short presentation and overview of the proposed project. Staff notes, George? MR. HILTON-Just a quick summary. This application is presented to the Board this evening for resolution only. The Board will entertain discussion on the project and I guess attempt to decide what information you would like to see, if any, for the future meeting, at which time the SEQRA review will take place for this proposed rezoning. The rezoning proposes to change the zone of this 21.38 acre from Light Industry to Recreation Commercial-15, in order to develop an indoor sports facility along with some additional soccer fields and a skating facility. The property is located just to the west of I-87, on the south side of Sherman Avenue. As indicated in the notes, the applicant has submitted a rezoning application, a full EAF, site plan utility and drainage plan, as well as preliminary structural elevations. Some issues that Staff believes will be part of the SEQRA review include stormwater management, visual impact, traffic, and any others that you might identify this evening, and again, if there’s additional information you’d like to see the applicant provide, in support of this application before we meet next, I guess instructing the applicant on what you are looking for is something you should do. The applicant should also inquiry with New York State DEC, and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, about the potential presence of Karner blue butterfly or the habitat at this location, and that’s all we have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, Tom Nace, and Doug Miller. I will make a few comments on the rezoning and then ask Tom to run you through the site plan. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. MAC EWAN-If we could just do a brief overview and not get really bogged down in a lot of site plan details, seeing as how we’re only seeking the Lead Agency status resolution tonight. MR. LAPPER-Certainly. I think the Town Board already consented to your Lead Agency when they sent it to you and there’s no other involved agency, in this case. Very simply, we’re here primarily to talk about the rezoning for your recommendation, but because you’re going to be the Lead Agency, you’ll be making a SEQRA determination as well before the Town Board can vote. Doug wanted to do this sports facility, and there are very few zones, RC-15 zone, Recreation Commercial zone is very limited in the Town of Queensbury. There is certainly a need for recreational facilities on the west side of Town where all the residents are, and there’s a need for a soccer facility, based upon Doug’s involvement with soccer, based upon the demand for it at Exit 12 in Malta, another similar facility. The property in question is zoned Light Industrial. We think that this is a more compatible use with the residential neighborhood at Hidden Hills and the residential neighborhoods all along Sherman Ave. Sherman is almost entirely residential and we think that if somebody came in with a nice Light Industrial project, the neighbors would be up in arms about tractor trailer traffic and noise impacts, etc. This is a large site which will provide for a nice treed buffer. We expect, in site plan, to deal with buffering issues on the Hidden Hills side, but we think that there’s plenty of opportunity to do that. The adjacent site to the south, of course, is the Arrowhead Truck site, which was unfortunately developed before more stringent zoning controls, but just to compare the Light Industrial there where you look from the Northway and you see one of the properties that’s not something indicative of what most of Queensbury looks like. When you look from the Northway here, and Tom will show you on the site plan, there’ll be a large buffer of trees remaining. So it really won’t change the view of this, with the exception of the dome facility, but because the need for Light Industrial and the location of the residential area, we think it’s compatible, and it’s a good use for the Town. When we were at the County Planning Board last week, we went through an analysis of the loss of Light Industrial, which is always an issue, and I spoke of how the Town had recently created the, Queensbury rezoned on Queensbury Ave. an area for a large subdivision that QEDC and Warren County Economic development are pursuing and Queensbury Economic Development just purchased 10 acres for industrial use for where the cut through is going to be between Luzerne and Main Street by Exit 18. So there are new industrial sites and we just think that this site really is more appropriate for Recreation Commercial than for industrial because of the residential character of the area. MR. NACE-Real, real quick. The site plan, what we’re looking at on the facility, and I’ll tell you what I’m going to do. I’m going to turn that up so it’s the same orientation as the picture on the screen of Sherman Avenue, the Northway. The back side of the site or the west side of the site’s bordered by NiMo power lines. NiMo has a substation up here. What we’re planning for the site is a domed sports facility which will house indoor fields to the tune of either one large full size outdoor soccer field or several practice fields across the facility, a central support structure that will have locker rooms and support facilities in it and then a future dome, smaller dome on the north for tenants, and looking at the site, you can see that the structures have been kept down at the south end of the site, to provide as much buffer as possible from the residential area on the other side of Sherman Avenue. We’re also proposing a treed buffer be left on our property, adjacent to Sherman, especially looking at the picture up here, you can see there’s the scenic corridor, the additional 100 foot scenic corridor that was purchased by New York State along the Northway. That is all treed and that will remain as buffer, and beyond that, we’re providing some additional buffer, especially in the area adjacent to the dome structure. Besides the two structures, the site will also contain parking, drop off area, and outdoor fields, to the tune of three softball fields and three multiple purposes soccer, field hockey, lacrosse fields. Also in the northwest corner of the site, we’re providing a one acre or a little better than one acre separate parcel for, at this point, envisioned for the (lost words) training facility. That’s, very briefly, unless you have further questions. MR. MAC EWAN-John, we’ll start with you, maybe just keep questions brief, maybe about additional information we might want to see that’s not included in our packets, when we do site plan. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. STROUGH-I’ll just keep it to some of the technicalities, just so the next time we meet we’ll keep it clean. Now, I have here a letter from Jon Lapper dated May 1, 2003 that refers to the zoning of this area as single family residential one acre. MR. LAPPER-That’s the existing zoning or the proposed zoning? MR. STROUGH-It says zoning classification Single Family Residential One Acre. MR. LAPPER-Well, it was, but that was changed in the last, in 2002 when the zoning amendments, it was changed to industrial. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, this is dated May 1, 2002. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Then it is industrial now. That’s incorrect. MR. STROUGH-Right. Also inside, on the data sheet, Part I, Project Information, it talks about the percent that is going to be forested presently, and after completion, and it doesn’t jive with what other information is here. It has almost 10 acres will be left treed. MR. NACE-The SEQRA form is the most current, okay. The SEQRA form was done at a later date when we were developing the complete site, the concept site plan. MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. Well, speaking to that, then, you recognize there’s errors with that one, then, Tom, right? MR. NACE-Well, that was developed with our very preliminary concepts for the site. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Then on the most recent SEQRA, I’m on Page Three of Twenty-one, and it talks about forested, 21.4 presently, 3.1 acres after. MR. VOLLARO-You’re on Page Three of Twenty-one? MR. STROUGH-Page Three of Twenty-one. MR. VOLLARO-So that I can get on the right page here, I’ve got two SEQRA’s in front of me. MR. STROUGH-Well, one of them I just threw out. MR. VOLLARO-Tell me which one you threw out. MR. STROUGH-The one dated May 1, 2003, from Jon Lapper. MR. VOLLARO-All right, just so I get on the right page. MR. STROUGH-The more updated SEQRA form. MR. VOLLARO-9.9 acres versus 3.1? MR. STROUGH-Yes, that’s one of the things, but if you go to Page Five. MR. VOLLARO-Well, which one is the one you’re working with? MR. STROUGH-Yes, 21.4 presently, and 3.1 acres after completion. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the good one. MR. STROUGH-Yes. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but this one goes, right? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Well, I see you’ve got them circled, too? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do. MR. STROUGH-Because if you look on Page Five, the figures aren’t going to jive. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct, they don’t. They’re in conflict. MR. STROUGH-So, anyway, if you’ll just work that out, Tom. I mean, I can go through. MR. NACE-Which figure are you looking at on Page Five? How many acres to be removed? MR. STROUGH-On Page Five we have, for project acreage to be developed, you’ve got seven plus acres. MR. NACE-Okay. Well, that’s, what you’re looking at is the ultimate development, okay. Initially, we were looking at just the dome, okay, without the tennis dome, the dome and the parking is the initial phase, so to speak, but the SEQRA form addresses, and the site plan that you’ve got addresses the full build out of the site. MR. STROUGH-That’s the way we have to address it, the full build out. MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-And, ultimately, 21.38 acres, and you’re not going to develop all of it, Tom, are you? MR. NACE-Well, we’re not leaving any of the site to be developed in the future. I mean, we’re, ultimately the entire site is developed. MR. STROUGH-All right. MR. NACE-And some of it’s buffer. If you look down at the bottom of page five, it says how many acres of vegetation to be removed, 18.2, I believe, is correct. It’s the 21.4. MR. STROUGH-Well, actually it’s 18.3, but I’ll live with that. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Right, because we’ve got 7.9 acres are going to be roads, buildings, parking. Then 10.4 acres, okay, will be buildings, etc. That comes to 18.3 will be developed, 3.1 will remain forested, 3.1 acres. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. STROUGH-All right. Okay, and that’s site plan. So you want me to save site plan for later, right? MR. MAC EWAN-If there’s information that you don’t have within your packet you currently have that you want to have, at this time, it’s time to give them direction of additional information we might want. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. STROUGH-All right. Vehicle trips generated per hour. Is that from ITE, the 160? MR. NACE-There is no such animal in ITE to address this particular site use. There are bits and pieces. MR. STROUGH-All right. What did you work from? MR. NACE-This is based on our evaluation of the events that will take place and the expected usage of the site. MR. STROUGH-And is that with full build out? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and anticipated commencement would be August of 2003? MR. LAPPER-That’s up to you guys. MR. NACE-I’ll update that. That will be, obviously, Spring of 2004. MR. STROUGH-And on Page Seven, use of herbicides and pesticides, you put down no. I would put down yes and minimally, because I think you are going to be using those. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. STROUGH-And the transfer of property, have you gotten that updated, too? I mean here this offer was dead as of April 4, 2003, with Drellos. MR. NACE-He’s talking about your contract. MR. LAPPER-Yes. The contract is still in place. MR. STROUGH-So, Doug, you’ve updated that, and the last question, why are you asking for Recreation Commercial, RC-15, as opposed to RC-3 Acre? MR. LAPPER-I think because, if you notice on the top, on the left side, there’s another building, and that’s for an indoor hockey training facility, so that that could be done on the smaller parcel. This was proposed in the Recreation Commercial zone last year on West Mountain Road where it was a permitted use, and the neighbors, even though they’re across from West Mountain Road, were all up in arms because they wanted it to stay treed. So, rather than fight that battle, the applicant decided that it would be a compatible use with Doug’s use here. It’s not a full skating rink facility. It’s just, it’s about a quarter the size of a skating rink, just for training kids in ice hockey. So it’s a small building, and for that reason we wanted it to be the RC-15, so that it would allow a smaller parcel to be broken off for that use. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Those are all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman, that would pertain to just details, without going into site plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just have one real question, and then when we get to the other site plan, we can talk about it, but I’m really concerned about the rezoning. I guess I’d have to ask Staff a question. On the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Neighborhood Number 12, if you read that whole Neighborhood 12, and then you go to Map 12.2, within that Neighborhood, you’ll see that everything that surrounds that to the left of it and to the right of it is Light Industrial, and I am concerned about losing Light Industrial capability in the Town. That’s my main concern, and when I read through the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, they certainly don’t encourage, 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) anywhere in here, to do that. It says the single family residential zoning extending 500 feet from Sherman Avenue would not be compatible with Light Industrial uses. So this area should be incorporated into a Light Industrial use zone, and they refer to Map 12.2. If you read everything in Neighborhood 12, it certainly doesn’t lean toward this kind of zoning. MR. HILTON-I guess I understand your concern, and it’s stated in the Comp Plan. Certainly we will address the conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, in the future, I guess next month when we look at the Site Plan and do the full SEQRA review. MR. STROUGH-Yes. Well, I think that’s more site plan, Bob. That’s more of a site plan issue, not the motion before us. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just wanted to make sure that I had the zoning correct, that zoning on each side of that parcel is Light Industrial, and that is the only Light Industrial in Neighborhood 12. MR. NACE-Bob, the significant fact is, also, that that’s the only piece of Light Industrial zoning on that end of Sherman Avenue. MR. VOLLARO-I realize that, and that’s a concern that I have, about losing Light Industrial land, and I know that people are not knocking the doors down to get into Light Industrial these days, but I’d sure like to have enough of it around to accommodate what might take place. MR. NACE-Yes, but it needs to be in a place where an applicant will have a reasonable time of getting an approval for it, and here I think it would be very difficult to get any type of Light Industrial use because of the traffic involved and the residential neighborhoods all along Sherman Avenue, to get an industrial site approved. MR. VOLLARO-Light Industrial doesn’t necessarily mean that we’re going to have more traffic, Tom. I think that a sports facility like this might generate a considerable amount of traffic and considering that, across the Northway to the east of this parcel, you have the Glens Falls fields, which can get pretty well loaded up on a day when they have a lot of activity there, traffic wise. MR. LAPPER-What you read from the Comp Plan, though, I think was talking about the incompatibility of this site remaining as residential land, as it was previously, because of the adjacent industrial. MR. VOLLARO-That’s not how it reads. It really doesn’t. If you read all of Neighborhood 12, and maybe I’m getting into site plan issues here, but I’m just trying to get the zoning set up in my mind that this is the right thing for us to do. Because depleting Light Industrial ground in the Town is not something I. MR. LAPPER-Well, since that Comp Plan was done, though, there have been considerable number of Light Industrial subdivisions added, the Veterans Field was done and then conveyed to the City, but whether it’s in the City or the Town, Light Industrial’s a regional use, and then the two projects that I talked about, the Queensbury Industrial Park by the airport and then the one by Exit 18, and those are, you know, those are all subsequent to the Comp Plan. MR. STROUGH-And, you know, I share your concern, Bob, about losing Light Industrial, but in this case, and for the most part what I really hate to see, and I think you agree with me on this, is when we see Light Industrial change to Residential. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s even worse. I agree. MR. STROUGH-This is almost a commercial to a commercial situation, and like I say, I hate to see Residential next to any major highway. So I’d rather see a commercial enterprise next to a highway. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So I guess when I get into this at the next time, I wanted to make sure, and I don’t know where the rest of the Board members are, as far as the Comprehensive Land Use Plan is concerned, but when you read it, or Neighborhood 12, it certainly doesn’t lend itself to anything else but Light Industrial, but if we’re going to make a change on that, and kind of contradict our plan, that’s fine. If we do it consciously, and know what we’re doing. I just wanted to bring that to the Board’s attention, and that’s all I have on it, at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything to add, other than what John and Bob have said. That certainly Staff notes in regards to stormwater and visual impact and traffic could be things that we’d want to see in here, but they’re in the notes, and I’m sure you’ll be doing them. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I’d just reiterate Larry’s comments. I had the same concerns, traffic, parking, visual impacts. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have a concern over the height of the building. You state that the highest building is going to be 75 feet, and in this area, Recreation Commercial, you only have a building height, a maximum building height, of 50 feet. What is going to happen there? MR. MAC EWAN-We will be applying for a zoning variance for that. We realize it’s high. We’ve already done some visual, Doug’s done some visual studies, flown some balloons at the nearest corner to the Northway, and we think that that shows that it will barely be visible. MR. METIVIER-Silly question, but what color is the dome going to be? MR. MILLER-White. MR. METIVIER-Is it? Because the one down on Albany-Shaker Road I believe it is was white, and they just changed it. They actually put up a new one that’s darker, and it actually looks a little bit better, unless it’s really dirty, but, you know, the white one stood out, and I noticed just the other day that a new one went up, and it just doesn’t stand out quite as bold as the white one did. MR. MILLER-Part of the concern with going with a color other than the white is the longevity of the fabric, and there are different white fabrics that are out there, and the Tevlar coated is the most advanced, and that’s what we’re looking at using. There’s another one that’s Tevlar coated which is white, if you’re familiar with Tri-City Raquet Club, going towards Troy. That went up last winter. Albany State, the south end of their athletic facility, put up a white one also, if anybody wants to look at some others that are around. There are a number of them around in the area, surprisingly. MR. METIVIER-During site plan will you be able to show us a visual impact, by chance? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. METIVIER-Would it be possible, prior to our site visits, when we’re reviewing site plan, to have the balloons up, if we let you know ahead of time. Well, you will know ahead of time. MR. MILLER-Sure. MR. METIVIER-That’s all I had. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Can you provide us some literature on the dome, the material and stuff, as part of your site plan packet? Staff is obviously looking for stormwater management plan. That goes without saying. Traffic. MR. NACE-Now, is the stormwater management plan for recommendation on zoning, or for site plan? MR. MAC EWAN-No, for site plan. No, that was my question I’ve got for Staff is when would we be recommending to the Town Board the zone change application? Because tonight all I see on our agenda is to do Lead Agency status. MR. HILTON-And it’s possible that the Town Board is the only other potentially involved agency, and we can get a signoff from them between now and December, place this item on one of the December meetings. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I just wasn’t sure whether it was going to come back or go directly into the hands of the Town Board. MR. HILTON-No. This Board has been designated Lead Agent for SEQRA purposes. So you would have to do, review the SEQRA review along with the site plan and make a recommendation for the rezoning back to the Board. Again, we can probably look at that in December. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want us to do the recommendation for zoning at the same time we’re doing the site plan review? MR. LAPPER-No, at the same time you do the SEQRA. MR. HILTON-The SEQRA, right, which would be next month. MR. MAC EWAN-You can’t do SEQRA without doing site plan review. MR. LAPPER-Well, you don’t have to do a full site plan review. You have to just get into enough of the site plan details to get into the environmental impacts. That’s why we submitted the site plan, for that purpose. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you provide us information, too, then, well, if they want to be on December, they’ve already missed the deadline to be on December. MR. HILTON-And I guess that’s, you know, up to you, if you’d like to extend them some courtesy for. MR. LAPPER-What is it that you’re looking for, Craig? MR. MAC EWAN-Looking for a stormwater management plan, traffic analysis, I’m picking off of what Staff is talking about, lighting, visual impact on it. We want to see some specs on the dome itself, so we can see how much of an impact that’s going to be. Anything else? MR. LAPPER-We can coordinate the balloons, but we have to know, just because of wind, we have to arrange for that the day that you’re going. So we’d have to coordinate that with the Board. MR. RINGER-Well, we can tell you when our site visits are, if you’re going to have it in December. MR. STROUGH-Site visits will be the 13. th MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have most of this information compiled already? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. NACE-If you’re looking for a complete stormwater report, I mean, normally we do that with site plan. We’ve done the soils work. We know that, we’ve done a concept drainage plan. We know that it will work, okay, because of the soils, but we haven’t gone through the minute analysis of a complete site plan, stormwater, and we had hoped not to have to do that until we know that we are going to have the rezoning and the project, you know, we don’t want to put that investment in a complete 100% site plan. MR. MAC EWAN-But this is kind of an unusual situation, because in order for us to get through the SEQRA, so that we can get to the zoning, we’re going to have to have some information to be sure that we’re going to be okay on SEQRA review. So as part of that, we would need as much information, I would think, as we can get on stormwater. Obviously lighting and traffic are equally as important. MR. NACE-Okay. We’ve developed a concept. If we put together a concept stormwater report, reviewed that with your engineer, and got a conceptual okay from him that he felt that stormwater can adequately be designed for the site, would that be satisfactory? MR. MAC EWAN-That would work. Yes. How soon could you get that information to the Town? MR. NACE-I could get that to the Town the first part of next week. Monday? MR. MAC EWAN-Get them on in December? MR. LAPPER-It doesn’t have to go to County because we’ve already been to County, for the rezoning. MR. HILTON-Yes. I don’t have a problem. I think we’ve, the Staff has kind of reserved a place, if you will, for them already, and it’s really up to you as to what kind of deadline. MR. MAC EWAN-Close of business on Tuesday of next week? MR. NACE-Sounds great. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else that anyone’s going to want, additional information to help us get through SEQRA? Okay. It sounds good. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to do the resolution, please? MR. RINGER-I’ll make a resolution seeking Lead Agency status. MR. STROUGH-Are we seeking or accepting? MR. RINGER-Accepting. I’m sorry. Thanks, John. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re seeking Lead Agency status. MR. SCHACHNER-Seeking is correct. MR. LAPPER-I thought the Town Board, that there was a policy that when it’s a rezoning coupled with a site plan, that it’s always the Planning Board. That the Town Board already did that in a policy form. MR. SCHACHNER-There is such a policy. What about other involved agencies? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. LAPPER-How about the Town resolution? That may have also said that the Planning Board would be Lead Agency. MR. SCHACHNER-But what I’m asking about is other involved agencies, not the Town Board. MR. LAPPER-There aren’t any other involved agencies. MR. RINGER-Do you want seeking? MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t know. It depends on, if there are other involved agencies then all you can do tonight is pass a resolution seeking Lead Agency status. I mean, except other than the Town Board. If there are no other involved agencies other than the Town Board, and you want to assert Lead Agency status, that’s fine. I don’t know the answer to the involved agency question. MR. HILTON-As I understand it, the only other involved agency is the Town Board, and they’ve chosen to designate you. MR. RINGER-All right. Then our resolution will be resolution for Lead Agency. MOTION FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO BE LEAD AGENCY FOR PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE PZ 2-2003 DOUG & TERESA MILLER, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Petition for Change of Zone application for a proposed Indoor / Outdoor Sports Facility located immediately west of the Northway at Sherman Avenue on the south side of Sherman Avenue, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the project to be a Unlisted action for the purposes of SEQRA review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the actions because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has agreed to designation of the Planning Board as SEQRA Lead Agency, and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its acceptance of Lead Agency Status for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the Department of Community Development to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such acceptance. Duly adopted this 18th day of November 2003 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Sanford OLD BUSINESS – MODIFICATIONS 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) SITE PLAN NO. 20-2003 PREVIOUS SEQR MODIFICATION AFTAB “SAM” BHATTI AGENT: JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS ZONE: HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION: ECONOLODGE MOTEL – 543 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY A PREVIOUS SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE ECONOLODGE ON AVIATION ROAD BY MODIFYING THE BUILDING EXTERIOR. MODIFICATIONS OF PB APPROVED SITE PLANS REQUIRE REVIEW AND APPROVALOF THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 25-02, AV 55-02, AV 55-02, AV 85-02, TAX MAP NO. 302.5-51, 52.12 LOT SIZE: 1.00 ACRES, 1.22 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 TOM JARRETT & DON DAVIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; SAM BHATTI, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-Really quickly. This is a minor modification to a previously approved site plan for the Econo Lodge on Aviation Road. The applicant proposes to change the exterior, some minor changes to the exterior of the building, and has included two separate color renderings for your review and approval, your choice really I guess. Again, it seems very minor. It seems like it doesn’t affect or impact the previously approved SEQRA declaration, and Staff really doesn’t anticipate any negative impacts. That’s all we have. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. JARRETT-Tom Jarrett. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems relatively minor and straightforward, doesn’t it? MR. JARRETT-I think so. Tom Jarrett, Jarrett-Martin Engineers. Sam Bhatti, owner of the Econo Lodge, and Don Davis, SD Atelier, the project architects. Just quickly, during design of the building, Don came up with some modifications to the building design and presented them to Sam as potential improvements to the façade, and we feel it will fit better with the character of the neighborhood. We want to run that by you and get your concurrence with that. In addition, and you have those changes in your package. Subsequent to our submission of that package to you, the Building Department also brought to our attention that we needed to have a door on the south end of the building, facing Aviation Road, and we can accommodate that door. We need to add a sidewalk along the front of the building. In order to provide the sidewalk and provide the landscaping that we promised you, we need to build a small retaining wall. That wall would be in conformance, consistent with the façade of the building, the same materials, and we think it’s a minor modification that we hope you’ll approve. I’ll let Don walk through the details of it quickly so you can see what we’re proposing. MR. DAVIS-What I’d like to do (lost words) I have two options here of the color schemes we’re looking to propose for the building. I think the major change really is the previous scheme had a gable end roof. We’re introducing a hip roof. We’re also changing out the finished materials on the building to a fiber cement siding, changing out the windows as well. So general design concept here is to give the building more of a residential image, because of the residential zone that it backs up against. The windows are more of a cottage style looking unit. We’re integrated the P-tac units, which are the heating, cooling units, inside the overall window design, against trying to give the building a little more of a residential feel, in terms of the verticality. Also introducing a dormer to the parking edge here to break up the long, horizontal mass that the building originally had with the original design concept. Along the base of the building we’re introducing a split faced block which I have a little sample here of a red imitating the brick, and then a polished stone cap, which is a dark gray. The Porte Cohere share structure is actually something that has the image that is detached but it’s physically attached, again, trying to break down the scale of the building, and also the Porte Cohere share, the original design concept, had something that was more of a two story structure. We’re looking 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) to bring down that scale and that proportion. All of the materials are basically finished materials that you would find in a residential sort of image and feel. The previous scheme had more of a commercial finish and feel to it. So, again, trying to address the residential concerns to the area, and maybe give a little more of an upscale feel to the building itself. I’ve also got the final architectural drawings here, just for your sight lines to see what’s going on with the exit door that’s required by Code, along with the rail and the retaining wall, due to the grade differentiation happening out there near Aviation Road. So that’s pretty much. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems pretty straightforward. Has anybody got any questions? MR. VOLLARO-I guess we want to discuss which of the two of these you’d want to look at, which one does the Board, I know which one I like. How about the rest of the Board? MR. MAC EWAN-I really don’t have a preference either way. MR. RINGER-I don’t have a preference one way or the other, either. MR. MAC EWAN-Either one of those two is fine with me. MR. VOLLARO-I like that one, just so you know. MR. STROUGH-I like the Adirondack green. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems pretty straightforward. Why don’t we leave it up to the applicant to pick one of the two. MR. STROUGH-What color is the siding going to be? Cedar, like this is? That color? You gave us samples of the siding, and I didn’t know if it was Cedar. MR. DAVIS-The siding is actually a fiber cement product, which has the finish of the Cedar looking siding, same exposure width, same feel. It’s just the product that has a longer lifecycle, in terms of maintenance and repair. So it has the lifecycle of 35 years whereas in a Cedar sided product that’s finished and primed correctly, would have a less lifecycle of about five years. So again, what we’re trying to do is minimize the potential for maintenance and upkeep, and hopefully that allows that building image to remain as we had it originally designed from Day One. MR. STROUGH-But my question was, what color? MR. DAVIS-What color? Those are the two, basically it’s a very light beige color. It’ll be along those lines. It will not be something that’s dark. More of the darker colors will be in the roof. MR. STROUGH-Well, the manufacturer’s got the colors right here. I mean, it could be Cedar, it could be, you know, Dutch, (lost word), well those are the siding types, but they have different, okay. MR. DAVIS-Okay. Are you asking me to specify a color? MR. STROUGH-Yes. It’s going to be like the tan color, right? MR. DAVIS-Yes. MR. STROUGH-That’s fairly portrayed. MR. DAVIS-Yes. I think that these color pictures here are pretty descriptive. MR. STROUGH-And the air conditioning units, I guess we’re not going to go with the Amana anymore? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. BHATTI-No, no, we are. MR. STROUGH-You are going with the Amana? MR. DAVIS-Yes. What I did with the air conditioning and heating units is I just integrated them into the overall window design. MR. STROUGH-The building looks nice. Don’t get me wrong. It looks nice. I’m just hoping that it looks coordinated with the rest of the units there. I don’t know. Maybe it will by the time all is well and done, but that’s probably beyond this point. No I think the building looks great. The carport, I take it, Tom, you do have a rain gutter between the carport and the building? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. STROUGH-I just assumed that. Okay. No, that’s all the questions I have. It looks like a nice building. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing from the left side? Does somebody want to move it, then. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 20-2003 AFTAB “SAM” BHATTI, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 20-2003 Applicant/Property Owner: Aftab “Sam” Bhatti Previous SEQR Agent: Jarrett-Martin Engineers Zone: HC-Intensive MODIFICATION Location: Econolodge Motel – 543 Aviation Road Applicant proposes to modify a previous site plan approval for the Econolodge on Aviation Road by modifying the building exterior. Modifications of PB approved Site Plans require review and approval of the Planning Board. Cross Reference: AV 25-02, AV 55-02, AV 85-02 Tax Map No. 302.5-1-51, 52.12 Lot size: 1.00 acres, 1.22 acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: Not required for Modification WHEREAS, the application was received on 10/15/03; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 11/14/03, and 11/18 Staff Notes 11/3 Meeting Notice sent w/project id marker WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing is not required for modifications; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Agency Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 18th day of November 2003 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sanford MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. Sorry we couldn’t do it last month. MR. JARRETT-No problem. OLD BUSINESS – SUBDIVISIONS SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2003 SKETCH PLAN SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED JAMES NEWBURY AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: LC-10A, APA LOCATION: 62 CORMUS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY 50 ACRES OF LAND [11.16 ACRES IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY WITH THE BALANCE IN LAKE LUZERNE] INTO FIVE (5) LOTS OF APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES EACH. CROSS REFERENCE: NONE FOUND TAX MAP NO. 307-1-47 LOT SIZE: 11.16 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JAMES NEWBURY, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Sketch Plan review. Just a discussion item. Staff notes. MR. HILTON-Okay. As instructed by the Board, the applicant has re-submitted a Sketch Plan subdivision application which contains information regarding topography as well as an alternate plan. The alternate plan seems to be different in that the boundary between Lots Two and Three has changed so that Lot Three is not a flag lot anymore, and there’s a wider access to Lot Five by moving the boundary slightly to the north. As stated in the Subdivision Regulations, wetland areas and areas with slope of greater than 25% must be reduced from the lot area, in order to calculate an allowed density, and we would likely look at this at the time of Preliminary and Final subdivision. Just as a note, and I think you have some information in your packet on this, or you should have received it anyway, the Town of Lake Luzerne has indicated the desire to appoint the Planning Board or the Town of Queensbury as Lead Agent for the SEQRA review for this subdivision. So that’s just a note, and I think the applicant has, in fact, appeared before the Board and quite possibly received an approval from them, and he can address that, and that’s all we have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves representing Jim Newbury who’s with me tonight. This was before you before, as a Sketch Plan. We took your recommendations. We went to the Town of Lake Luzerne to ask their opinion of this. We submitted an application. On October 15 we attended their Planning Board. I gave copies of that back to Staff. I don’t know if they th got it in your file, that they approved it and returned it to us. They had no problem with the subdivision. They would defer SEQRA status and make you Lead Agency. They had no problem with that, and they deemed it complete as a minor subdivision in the Town of Luzerne, and said the only reason that they can’t give it the final approval is until such time as they have your SEQRA determination. So they basically went through and waived the public hearing, because it’s a minor in Luzerne. So therefore once SEQRA determination is made by this Board, it is an approved subdivision by that Board, and as far as the alternate plan, we submitted both of them also to their Board, as well as I did to here. They just had the opportunity to act on that before this Board, because of the submission deadline conflicts with the two Towns. I gave them both, and they liked the S-1 instead of the alternate one, and they did note that in their Planning, in their note from the approval, because of the fact of trying to keep with the topography with the existing house lot, but they still left that up to this Board, but I’m just letting you know that they preferred the initial S-1 plan, compared to the alternate plan. As far as any other concerns that this Board may have, it’s been submitted to the Adirondack Park Agency. I’m hoping that Mark Rookes, their Wetland Biologist, will be on site. They didn’t have anything in their records that had any problems, as far as wetlands, but I told them I wanted the site specific walk, just to confirm that, and we’ll hopefully have that in in the next two weeks, so that when we come back for Preliminary, we have that in our file also. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, we’ll start with you. MR. VOLLARO-Let’s go to A-1, which is. MR. STEVES-The alternate plan. MR. VOLLARO-The alternate plan, which is what I prefer. I don’t know, what was the reason that you say that they picked S-1? MR. STEVES-I showed them both, and, you know, the alternate plan, we can adjust the lot lines between Lots Two and Three, so that we don’t have to conflict with the existing structures on that. I had talked to them about this Board’s concern with flag lots, and they said they agree, but in smaller, you know, like one acre, half acre residential lots. When they’re looking at 10 acre lots, they didn’t deem that as a problem, and with the topography, you can see that that Lot Five and the configuration on either plan is relatively the same, and the house locations would be more to their liking, to the S-1 that allows Lots Three and Four to have the houses up in back on the higher portions of the lot. That was their recommendation. I’m just letting you know. I did produce both maps for this Board for review, and if you have any other modifications you would like, we would gladly do that. With the scale of this map, you’re looking at a 100 scale map, and 50 is required, we talked about that last time, because of the size the paper would be on. I’d have to split it into like three sheets and it would be two and a half 30 by 42, instead of 24 by 36. So when you look at the scale, a flag-shaped lot, I wholeheartedly agree with the Board and understand, but when you’re looking at ten acre lots with the average lot width of about 450 feet, you know, it really becomes a non-issue, but like I say, whatever this Board would like. MR. VOLLARO-The frontage on Lot Three, per S-1, which is the flag lot, is 75 feet. Is that right? MR. STEVES-Correct. We could adjust that and make it wider. We have ample room to do that by slightly adjusting Lot One, you’d have 1.93. We could shift everything to the north and accommodate a 100, 125 feet. I mean, like I say, we’re open to suggestions. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I see A-1 now gives us approximately 130 foot frontage for Lot Four and about 100 foot of frontage for Lot Five, as I read it. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. STEVES-That’s correct. We could basically accomplish the same thing on either plan. MR. VOLLARO-I tend to like A-1, which is the alternate plan, better than, only because I object to flag lots, always have. So what you’re saying is you could move. MR. STEVES-Right. I believe the intention of a flag lot, you know, I’m not putting words in your mouth, is to, so that you don’t have a half acre lot that sits, a house right behind another half acre lot, where you would be looking right into their back yard. In this instance you have from the existing house on Lot Two, it is up near Cormus Road, you have 950 feet between, you know, the existing house and the proposed house. That’s quite a separation. MR. VOLLARO-Now you said something about being able to increase the 75 foot of frontage if you wanted to, just by moving that line over? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. We can still accomplish the 10 acre lots and adjust that to make it a wider entrance if you would like. MR. VOLLARO-Well, 75 is a pretty wide entrance to begin with. I think everybody has to remember you’re looking at a 100 to 1 plan here, too. MR. STEVES-The length of the road with the driveway, you were asking? MR. STROUGH-I was asking about, you’re going up 50 feet to your proposed location of your house from Cormus Road. MR. STEVES-Yes, on Lot Three? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. STROUGH-So I was thinking out loud, can the driveway be straight. MR. STEVES-It would still be under 10%. MR. STROUGH-Sometimes it’s better to curve the driveway if you’re going to go up 50 feet. MR. STEVES-But just the depth of Lot Two is 600 feet deep. So 50 feet and 600 is about eight percent. MR. VOLLARO-It’s just a long way to go. That’s all. MR. STEVES-Understood. MR. VOLLARO-But I guess, you know, I’m going to give up the thing here and say that my preference on this would be Plan A-1. MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-And I don’t see anything other that I want to add to that, considering the size of the lots. I just like the frontage better on Lot Four and Five. That’s all I have, Mr. Chairman, on this Sketch. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I just want to chime in my two cents on the various schemes. I also prefer A-1, primarily because of the length of the driveway for Lot Three on the S-1 Plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I don’t really have anything to add. I’m concerned about A-1, in that the house would be sitting on two lots, wouldn’t it, or did you say you were going to move that line? MR. STEVES-I would adjust that line. That’s not the house. That’s an outbuilding, that you see between Lots Two and Three on A-1, Alternate One. We just wanted to show you what an alternate would look like. We’d adjust that slightly so that would conform to the setback. MR. METIVIER-Okay. That’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Just that, you know, I’m with Bob. I’m not crazy about flag-shaped lots, and I’m not so sure that’s the reasoning. I just don’t like to see a lot tied in back of another one with only 75 foot road frontage. I’m more comfortable with more road frontage. My preference is, I mean, otherwise the plan looks fine. I mean, I’m not going to lose any sleep if the Board decided to go with that flag shaped lot, but my preferences would be the A-1, if I was to have to go to one way or the other. MR. MAC EWAN-Your preference is what? MR. STROUGH-A-1, without the flag-shaped lots. MR. STEVES-We have no problem in holding to A-1. MR. MAC EWAN-My preference is A-1. So there’s four. MR. STEVES-There you go. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything Staff wanted to add? MR. HILTON-Other than our comment about slopes and calculations and density and required SEQRA form, stuff I’m sure you’re aware is required. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re going to submit a new plan and stuff for Preliminary, right? MR. STEVES-Absolutely. MR. MAC EWAN-Additionally, with your application, would you please provide the Planning Board a copy of the resolution, please, from the Town of Lake Luzerne, approval? MR. STEVES-Yes, I will. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You’re all set. MR. STEVES-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 18-2002 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED BELL- NAVION DEVELOPMENT CO. PROPERTY OWNER: SARAH MC ECHRON TRUST AGENT: BOSWELL ENGINEERING ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: NE CORNER OF 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) WEST MT. RD. & POTTER RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 23.51 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO 19 LOTS – 18 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1 ACRE TO 1.75 ACRES AND ONE 1 ACRE LOT TO BE USED FOR STORMWATER DETENTION. CROSS REFERENCE: SKETCH PLAN REVIEW – 11/02 NYS DOH, NYS DEC, ACOE TAX MAP NO. 301.5-1-28 LOT SIZE: 23.51 +/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ED HORICK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 18-2002, Preliminary Stage, Bell-Navion Development Co., Meeting Date: November 18, 2003 “APPLICATION: Subdivision 18-2002 (Preliminary Stage) APPLICANT: Bell-Navion Development Co. is the applicant for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 23.51 +/- acre property into 18 single-family lots ranging in size from 1 to 1.75 acres. LOCATION: The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Potter Rd. and West Mountain Rd. EXISTING ZONING: This property is zoned SFR-1A, Single Family Residential One Acre. SEQRA STATUS: This action is a SEQRA Unlisted action. The applicant has included a Full Environmental Assessment Form with the subdivision application. PARCEL HISTORY: This property was previously reviewed by the Planning Board as part of a sketch plan review in November 2002. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 23.51 +/- property into 18 single-family residential lots, plus one lot to be used as a stormwater detention area. The lots within this subdivision would have vehicular access from a loop labeled as ‘King Court’ on the subdivision plat. The subdivision plat indicates no-cut buffers along adjacent residential properties to the east and north, as well as along the West Mountain Rd. and Potter Rd. corridors. STAFF COMMENTS: As part of the application, the applicant has submitted letters from the USFWS and NYSDEC which appear to indicate that the proposed subdivision would not impact the federally and state endangered Karner Blue Butterfly. The USFWS letter does however state that wetlands were found on the property. Has the applicant contacted NYSDEC and/or USACOE regarding jurisdictional determinations or delineation of these wetlands? The applicant has proposed no-cut buffers of 30 ft. from adjacent residential properties to the north and east, as well as a 10 ft. no-cut buffer along the West Mountain Rd. and Potter Rd. frontages. Consideration should be given to providing a wider buffer/no-cut zone along adjacent street frontages in order to provide more of a buffer for future residents of the lots within this subdivision that are adjacent to West Mountain and Potter Roads. The applicant has submitted a stormwater management report with this application, which has been forwarded to CT Male for their review and comment.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-The application before you is for Preliminary subdivision of an approximately 23.51 acre property on the northeast corner of Potter and West Mountain Road. The applicant 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) proposes 18 single family residential lots, plus one lot to be used for stormwater detention, stormwater management. Lots would have vehicular access off a loop road, and preliminary titled Kings Court. The applicant has submitted from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and New York State DEC, which appear to indicate that the subdivision would not impact the Karner blue butterfly federally endangered species. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife letter indicates that some wetlands were found on the property, and I guess the question would be, has the applicant contacted New York State DEC or the Army Corps of Engineers regarding jurisdictional determinations or delineations. The applicant has included no cut buffers of 30 feet from adjacent residential properties, as well as 10 foot on West Mountain Road and Potter Road, and I guess consideration should be given to whether or not these buffers are adequate enough for, as a buffer from surrounding properties and for the properties within the subdivision, and the applicant has submitted a stormwater management report, which has been forwarded to C.T. Male, and I guess any comments from C.T. Male should be addressed, and that’s all we have at this time. MR. HORICK-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. HORICK-I’m here tonight for obviously, the public hearing. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are? MR. HORICK-My name is Ed Horick with Boswell Engineering. I am the agent for the applicant, Bell-Navion Development Company. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. The floor is yours. MR. HORICK-Like I said before, I’m here to answer any questions the public may have regarding the proposed project. Basically the project will consist of 18 single family residential lots, on a parcel approximately 23 and a half acres in size. The parcel is currently owned by the Estate of Sarah McEchron. The property is currently zoned SFR-1A, residential, which is basically minimum one acre lots. The proposed subdivision will have one single access road which will access onto Potter Road in two locations, both locations will be west of existing Queens Lane, in this location right here. These are the two access points, one here and one here. The 23 acre site sits on the northeast corner of West Mountain Road and Potter Road. The proposed subdivision will have public water, private septic systems, gas, cable and electric. The proposed design meets the Town design standards. We’ve shown a no cut zone around the perimeter of the property, based on our pre-submission conference with the Town. Craig Brown recommended a 30 foot buffer along just this part of the property here and along here. We’ve shown a 10 foot no cut buffer along Potter Road, as it’s shown now, and also a 10 foot no cut buffer also along West Mountain Road. If there’s any questions I can certainly, you know, answer them. MR. MAC EWAN-Excuse me, but we’ll wait until the public hearing is open before we take questions from the public. MR. HORICK-That’s the project. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry, we’ll start with you. MR. RINGER-I have nothing right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the big question is where do we stand with comments from C.T. Male, because there was quite a list of questions that they had. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. HORICK-I haven’t addressed those comments. The majority of them were simple plan changes, grading changes, septic system changes. I did look them over. I didn’t see anything major. I have discussed the project with Jim Houston, with C.T. Male. He basically told me to go in for Preliminary, then we can get the ball rolling with him, as far as, you know, addressing comments, so on and so forth, but basically he said submit a design. We’ll look it over. We’ll make suggestions, and then go in for Preliminary, and then from there we can make any changes that he has. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HORICK-But I don’t see them as being a major issue at this point. Just looking them over. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Nothing else. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I just guess I’m going to always have questions about the blue Karner in this area. I know we have a letter from Kathy O’Brien. After reading the letter, I still got the sense that she wasn’t quite convinced that blue Karner exists or doesn’t exist or, you know, there was some question about the times, the length of time in between each inspection of the site, the cold dry spring, so on and so forth. So, you know, I don’t know, where do we stand with that? MR. HORICK-We submitted the survey that you guys wanted to Kathy O’Brien. Kathy O’Brien did review the survey. She is acceptable to the survey. Everything that she’s indicated to me, you know, it’s basically a non-issue at this point. No Karner blue butterflies were found on the property. The frequency of this survey times was an issue at first, but she basically gave us her approval to go on and, you know, it’s not an issue with her anymore, as far as I know. The survey that was done by an outside consultant, the LA Group, they do this all the time. We gave the protocol to them. They followed it to the best of their ability, based on the weather conditions, and, you know, their survey was acceptable to Kathy O’Brien, and also, you know, the Fish and Wildlife Service. They also reviewed the survey and they’re acceptable to the results also. MR. METIVIER-I just, I guess I wasn’t totally convinced, from her letter, that she was okay with it, but, I mean, I know that she did give an approval, if you will, but I just guess I had, I just have some question in my mind over it, but, you know, we could talk about Karner blue all night. I’m not about to go there. So, no way, so I’ll pass it along at this point. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-No. It looks nicely laid out. My concern, though, is one of having only a 10 foot no cut buffer zone along West Mountain Road, where the backs of the houses will be viewable from West Mountain Road. MR. MAC EWAN-The 10 foot cut’s on Potter Road. MR. HORICK-And also shown on West Mountain Road. We do show more of a buffer along West Mountain Road. MR. STROUGH-But I believe it’s just a 10 foot. MR. HORICK-It is a 10 foot no cut buffer. We can certainly provide a 30 foot no cut buffer in that area, because we aren’t affecting that area at all really. MR. STROUGH-That would be excellent. MR. HORICK-Okay. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. STROUGH-As far as I’m concerned. MR. HORICK-Right. MR. STROUGH-I think that would affectively buffer the back end of the houses from being viewed on West Mountain Road. Now, as you reported in your stormwater management program, that there is a stormwater management system on West Mountain Road that is designed to take care of the sheet flow coming off of West Mountain or Luzerne Mountain, it’s called Luzerne Mountain to me, stormwater, and I guess that’s what they are, officially. MR. HORICK-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Are those functioning, to the best of your knowledge? MR. HORICK-That culvert that crosses West Mountain Road? It is functioning, yes. I inspected there. There is periodic flow whenever, you know, you might get a rainfall event, most of it seeps into the ground. Anytime that I was out there, there was some water flowing through the pipe, but as soon as it got onto this parcel, it appeared to go right in to the ground. It percolates into the permeable soils that are out there. MR. STROUGH-So those lots, Lots One, Two, Three, and Four along West Mountain Road, are fairly well protected from any sheet flow from West Mountain then? MR. HORICK-Yes. That culvert basically comes across West Mountain Road at the, I guess it would be the northwest corner of the property. MR. STROUGH-Right. MR. HORICK-And any flow that does come across from that culvert goes basically overland, if it does it at all flow overland, across Lot Five, and we’re proposing a culvert on Kings Road, to take any flow that we do have coming off that mountain, if it does get there, and that’s going to be basically conveyed all the way over to the proposed detention pond. MR. STROUGH-Right. MR. HORICK-But that’s the scenario in a nutshell, as far as how stormwater, you know, flows across the site. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. HORICK-If it does at all. MR. STROUGH-Now your detention area, let’s segway to that. Are you proposing a vegetative buffer for that? MR. HORICK-Around the detention basin? MR. STROUGH-Yes. My thought is there is a large detention basin that I notice at the corner of Montray Road and Route 9 that is kind of an eyesore, but it acts as a detention basin, as this will. So I was wondering if there’s a vegetative plan, and if so who’s going to be responsible for upkeep and maintenance of that? MR. HORICK-We haven’t really thought of a landscaped, a buffer around this, but, you know, if that’s what the Board would like, we can certainly entertain that thought. Our intent was to sell Lot Number 13, also this portion that would have the detention basin on it, and provide an easement for the Town to maintain the detention basin, but as far as screening of the basin, you know, if you want some kind of screening, we can certainly show some kind of screening around that. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have a homeowners association here? MR. HORICK-No. MR. STROUGH-So all you’re going to do is Lot 13 and this detention will actually be one lot? MR. HORICK-Correct. We’d have to remove that lot line. MR. STROUGH-And in the deed, you will have language that gives the Town the right of way to maintain the detention basin. MR. HORICK-Correct. MR. STROUGH-So therefore it would be quite difficult to impose any kind of landscaping. MR. HORICK-As far as screening for that? MR. STROUGH-How shallow is, or how deep is that going to be? MR. HORICK-It’s four feet deep, as we’re proposing it now. MR. STROUGH-And that will be a rather shallow pitch? MR. HORICK-Across the basin itself? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. HORICK-Yes. You do have to show some kind of grade across the bottom of the basin that will be graded. MR. STROUGH-So, will that be basically sod then, lawn? MR. HORICK-Yes. You can plant grass or whatever you’d like to put, you know, on the sides of the basin itself. MR. STROUGH-On the basin itself, what will the basin consist of? MR. HORICK-Yes. We can grass it. MR. STROUGH-We don’t have to use a riprap there, right? MR. HORICK-No. It can be stabilized with some kind of vegetative growth. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and I assume that, let’s say it’s going to be sod, that the landowner will be allowed to mow and maintain it? MR. HORICK-Maintain it, right. MR. STROUGH-Now, will there be restrictions in the deed that the landowner can’t fill it in? MR. HORICK-Yes, certainly. MR. STROUGH-Or, you know, change the integrity of the stormwater device. MR. HORICK-Yes, I think, yes, when you right up the deed you’d have to put those restrictions in it, basically addressing these issues that you’re discussing, correct. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. STROUGH-Could we see language to that affect next time? MR. HORICK-Sure, yes. MR. STROUGH-Which I assume will be the Final time? MR. HORICK-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Along his questions regarding that, and ownership of that, is there another alternative method you could use to ensure that, it would seem to me, a person who would buy that property, knowing they’re going to have a lot they’re going to pay taxes on that they can never develop or do anything with. MR. HORICK-The only other things that I’ve seen is, you know, deeding it over to the Town, and I don’t know how the Town is, as far as accepting ownership of something like that, I haven’t really discussed that with the planner or, and how acceptable you would be. MR. MAC EWAN-And you have no thoughts of a homeowners association at this time? MR. HORICK-Well, I don’t know. Are you acceptable to a homeowners association maintaining that? MR. MAC EWAN-My personal point of view, I’d like to see some alternative idea kicked around for that parcel, because if I was to buy that Lot Number 13, I’d be real reluctant to want to own a piece of land I can’t do anything with. MR. HORICK-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I had just a note on mine, recommending that it be deeded to the Town for future maintenance, just so we know. MR. MAC EWAN-How often do we do that, though? MR. VOLLARO-I think it has to be discussed with the Town, whether or not. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d be inclined to see a homeowners association established to take care of that. MR. STROUGH-Well, with other stormwater devices, you know, and I’ve always taken a concern, as far as what do we do and on the future integrity of these stormwater devices, but in the past, we’ve always allowed something to be written into the deed, and, you know, go along with your concept, buyer beware, Bob, whoever bought Lot 13 buys it knowing that that parcel carries with it a certain responsibility. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does everybody else feel comfortable with that? MR. VOLLARO-Well, is the Town, would the Town take it over? I mean, we haven’t even discussed that with the Town, whether they would accept that. MR. MAC EWAN-I doubt it. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t see why the Town would want to. MR. MAC EWAN-Why would they want it? MR. RINGER-Why would they want one acre? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s something the applicant would need to take pursue. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. HORICK-I can certainly discuss that with the Town. MR. MAC EWAN-When you come back the next time, bring some information about some alternative ideas, and approach the Town with it, and maybe we can come up with some sort of resolution on that. MR. HORICK-Sure. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, John? MR. STROUGH-No, that’s it. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No. I have just a few, I guess. As far as I’m concerned, on the Karner blue, that’s off the table. I think that Tony has a point. I think that Kathy kind of hedged at the end as to whether she did or she didn’t, but I think Fish and Wildlife came out pretty strong, and I think at the end Kathy said yes, go ahead. Sometimes she writes that way. MR. HORICK-I know all along she’s been saying that this piece of property is not the best piece of property for Karner blue butterflies, and she’s reiterated that numerous times. She might not come across saying that to the Board, but from the get go on the property, she walked it and she said this really isn’t an ideal location for this butterfly to even find this lupine area. They’re very small patches and it wasn’t really good Karner blue butterfly habitat in there. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve kept all her letters, and basically she focuses on the Niagara Mohawk power lines off Sherman Avenue. MR. HORICK-Right, exactly. That corridor. MR. VOLLARO-That’s where she’s really at, with Karner blue. So, anyway, on the waivers, you had a waiver for the clearing plan. MR. HORICK-Right. MR. VOLLARO-But I notice when you filled out the Preliminary Stage for clearing plan, you only left out two areas on it, areas of vegetation removed from the site for investigation purposes, and you put non-applicable there, and measures to be taken to protect remaining trees. You left that out, but other than that and the clearing plan you’ve satisfied all other requirements for that. MR. HORICK-Right. The reason why I was requesting a waiver on the clearing plan was because we didn’t show all the six inch diameter trees and that kind of went hand in hand with a clearing control plan. That was the only reason I’m requesting the waiver. I felt as though they went hand in hand, and being that I wasn’t showing the six inch diameter trees, you know, that would affect a control plan as it was written in the requirements. MR. VOLLARO-I guess I have a note on those six inch trees, whether or not, are you going to do anything at all to retain some of the trees on the property? MR. HORICK-We’ll try to retain as many as we can. Obviously the big mature trees we’ll try to maintain those and, you know, not take them down. Anything we can leave there we will. MR. VOLLARO-Are you familiar with Mr. Vasiliou’s subdivision off of Peggy Ann Road where he uses a loop road, very much like you’re going to use here? MR. HORICK-No, I’m not. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. VOLLARO-Take a look at it, because he retained a lot of trees on those properties and it looks pretty nice in there. So I would say that that’s something that I’d be interested in making sure that you do. MR. HORICK-I’ll certainly take a look at it. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want a clearing plan, then? MR. VOLLARO-Well, he’s asking for a waiver on the clearing plan, but if you look at his submission under clearing plan it’s kind of interesting because clearing plan has six areas associated with it. He has left out two of those, yet he’s asking for a waiver on the clearing plan when he’s only really left out two areas. MR. HORICK-Right. MR. VOLLARO-So I don’t know whether we even need to give him a waiver. You’ve sort of answered. MR. HORICK-I tried to address as many as I could, but I didn’t address them all. So I guess that’s why I was requesting a waiver. If you don’t feel as though it’s necessary, certainly we don’t want to, we don’t need a waiver. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know, I think the rest of the Board has to look at that. This is on, so the Board knows what I’m talking about, this is Page 11 of the Preliminary Stage review plat details and requirements. I would say he’s satisfied most of the important stuff on the clearing plan. So I don’t know whether he needs a waiver or not, but I’m going to let some of the other Board members weigh in on that. MR. STROUGH-Well, wouldn’t delineating the no cut zones be a landscape plan, in effect? And they’re going to have a no cut zone along the West Mountain Road and along Potter Road and along the area between this proposal and the northern neighborhood. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. STROUGH-So wouldn’t a display of the no cut zone be in effect a landscape plan? MR. VOLLARO-This is a clearing plan we’re talking about, John. MR. STROUGH-Yes. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-This is a little bit different, but I don’t really see the need for that waiver, but I think some of the other Board members might want to talk about that. My next comment had to do with what we discussed a minute ago on the stormwater management system would be deeded to the Town, but that’s something that the applicant’s going to discuss. In my notes, I refer to the no cut zone along Potter and West Mountain and I think I’d go along with John. I’d like to see that 10 foot no cut zone be increased along West Mountain and along Potter Road. MR. HORICK-The only problem I could foresee with that is maybe the detention basin may be infringing on a 30 foot no cut buffer. I’m hoping it doesn’t, but we’ll try to provide as much as we can in that, with that area. MR. VOLLARO-Well, something over 10. Let’s call it 20, then. MR. HORICK-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I can see that you’ve, what’s the scale on this, 60? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. HORICK-Yes, it is. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you’ll miss 30. You’ll probably miss 30 feet on there, it looks like to me, without using the scale. I think 30 foot would miss that. MR. HORICK-Yes. In the area where the detention basin is, I don’t think we’re going to get much more than maybe 15 feet. The remaining lots that front on the Potter Road we can provide more of a buffer in those areas. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’d like to see, when you come in with the Final, that there’s more than 10 foot buffer along Potter and along West Mountain. MR. HORICK-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Now that 30 foot, staying right with that detention area, you’ve got a 24 foot, a 24 inch pipe coming out of the pond, and it’s entering into what looks like a 30 foot, is that a 30 inch CUP under Potter Road? MR. HORICK-Currently I believe that’s a, I’m pretty sure that’s a 36 inch corrugated metal pipe. MR. VOLLARO-Because I couldn’t read it on the drawing. Is it 36? MR. HORICK-I believe it is. Let me just check. Yes, it’s 36 inch corrugated metal. MR. VOLLARO-So what’s the invert of that pipe? I can’t read that either. MR. HORICK-Of the existing 36 inch? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, going under Potter Road, you’ve got an invert there, but I can’t read that. I just want to determine what the slope is on that pipe. MR. HORICK-It’s, the invert, it’s tough. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I guess I’m going along a little bit with what John had to say, because I notice that this is a tributary to Halfway creek which finally gets into Halfway Brook which is something that Mr. Strough stands four square to make sure everything is correct on that, but I have is, what filtration is provided by the retention pond prior to it being discharged, and I think we talked about that being as a grass based. MR. HORICK-Right, and also any overland flow that we’re going to have will be conveyed through a vegetated swale. The only real surface flow that you’re going to have from any pavement is, you know, it’s going to be collected by proposed drywells along the access road. So any real contaminants, as far as I’m concerned, they’re going to be going into these drywells and they’d be contained in the drywells, rather than reaching this reaching this basin. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HORICK-You’re going to have pollutant removal through the vegetative swale itself that we’re proposing, and also the detention basin itself. MR. VOLLARO-Along the road, along Kings Court, all the way around on Kings Court, we have drywells connected by equalization pipes. MR. HORICK-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Can those pipes be cleaned occasionally, in other words, blown clean? I have a reason for asking that, because I have a very conscious of these types of drainage 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) systems being maintained. Because during the construction period, what happens is a lot of sand gets into these things and clogs them up. MR. HORICK-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-And they’re not working, the equalization pipe’s not doing anything and neither are the drywells. I’ve got personal experience with that. I had to bring the Town in and have them blown out. Tons of sand came out of that. MR. HORICK-Right. MR. VOLLARO-So, but that’s a good way to do it, the equalization, and I’m just trying to make sure that I make a note here that the Town has the responsibility to make sure that those are running. Otherwise, you’ll flood the road. MR. HORICK-I know, during construction, the initial phases of construction, when you’re going to have a lot of the grading taking place, and that’s when you’re going to have a lot of this infiltration with sediment, we’re proposing that, you know, these drywells be protected with inlet, basically fabric around the perimeter of each of these inlets. So that’ll be trapping the sediment before it gets to that. That’s based on the new soil erosion control measures that the State has. MR. VOLLARO-I hope the contractor understands that. MR. HORICK-Right. MR. VOLLARO-On the EAF, on Page Three of Twenty-one, we talk about bedrock being a little greater than five and the water table being a little greater than five feet. The reason I’m asking that question, it has to do with the curtain drains that are shown in the details. Now, do those curtain drains daylight anywhere? MR. HORICK-When you say curtain drains, is that for the septic, or? MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s around the house. I mean, in your detail, you show curtain drains, which I refer to usually as perimeter drains around the house. They’re called curtain drains on this drawing. MR. HORICK-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-They’re one in the same. I’m just wondering, do you provide any way for those drains to be daylighted somewhere? MR. HORICK-We would make that accommodation, yes. Basically what we’re trying to do is get any surface flow that does flow on the site to bypass the septic systems and also the proposed house. That’s the intent of these, you know, I would call them swales or like you say curtain drains, but that’s the intent of those. MR. VOLLARO-That’s not exactly what I’m referring to, I don’t think. I think that in the, these are basically perimeter drains around the bottom of the basin of the house. They’re designed to take the water away, and I think it’s mentioned in the details. I just wanted to make sure that, you know, it’s on Page Six of Nine, if you’re looking for it. MR. HORICK-Okay. Yes. What those curtain drains are, that’s a State detail for the Health Department. Those are provided for the septic systems, for overland flow. This sheet here, six of nine, and also five of nine, those are for the State Health Department for their review. These are details that are for their review and approval. That detail there is right out of their State handbook for diverting surface water away from septic systems, and we probably won’t be using that, but we put that on the detail in case they recommend that we have that. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. VOLLARO-Now, are all the septics going to be gravity fed, going from the septic system? MR. HORICK-Yes, they are. MR. VOLLARO-There’s no pumps that I see. MR. HORICK-No, we don’t want to put in any pumps, really. That was one of the comments from the C.T. Male, Jim Houston. We have to relocate a couple of the septic systems so we do have them fed by gravity. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So they’ll all be gravity fed? MR. HORICK-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Because I notice in your drawing you have pump chamber here. MR. HORICK-Yes, that’s another thing. If we did have to go with a pump system, we provided that detail, but we’re hoping that we don’t have to do that, and I don’t foresee that being the case. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and the last thing I have is the response to the C.T. Male letter, and that’s the only thing, that’s the end of my little drill here. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I have one question. It’s in reference to Fish and Wildlife’s letter dated October 1. The last line, Paragraph Two, it says “we note the presence of wetlands on the site plans. The applicant should contact the Army Corps of Engineers to determine whether any permits are necessary”. I went through your plans. I couldn’t find any wetlands on there. MR. HORICK-We have had the two wetland areas delineated. Those areas basically, one area exists on the outlet end of the existing 24 inch pipe that crosses under West Mountain Road. MR. MAC EWAN-What drawing is that shown on, Sheet Three? MR. HORICK-Yes, I’m looking for that right now. Sheet Three of Nine. It’s a bolder area up in the, I guess it would be the northwest corner of the property that’s labeled as Wetland A. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I see it. It’s pretty small. MR. HORICK-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-It’s .15 acres. MR. HORICK-It’s .15 acres in size. There’s another area that the delineator felt as though it’s going to be called or determined to be isolated. That area is at the inlet, basically it exists at the inlet end of the existing 36 inch pipe that runs under Potter Road. I don’t know if it shows up clearly on yours. It’s called Wetland B, and in parenthesis it’s isolated. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s shown right on Lot 13, right in front of the house. MR. HORICK-Yes, and also a portion of the detention area. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. HORICK-We did have it delineated. We submitted information to the Army Corps. We’re waiting on their jurisdictional determination. That will be forthcoming probably with the next submission. MR. VOLLARO-.15, they’re not going to be probably bothered. MR. HORICK-I don’t think that’s going to be too much of a concern, but like I said, we haven’t had the jurisdictional determination made. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Staff? I’d ask you to give up the table for a few minutes. We’ll open up the public hearing. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anybody want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, Robert. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 18-2002, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: BELL-NAVION DEVELOPMENT CO., and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) Duly adopted this 20 day of November, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sanford MR. MAC EWAN-I have a small list that I worked up while we were discussing this. I’ll run it by everybody. A 20 foot no cut zone along Potter Road, on property lines. Thirty foot no cut on West Mountain Road. Provide options of ownership on Lot 13 retention pond. Address satisfactorily and get a signoff for all C. T. Male comments. Provide information on the pipe. What we’re looking for is information on the pipe that goes underneath Potter Road. MR. HORICK-Right. I was just looking, I was looking at that further. It looks like the invert out of the pipe is 88.84. MR. MAC EWAN-If you could just provide us some information, with your final application. MR. HORICK-We certainly can. MR. MAC EWAN-And an Army Corps of Engineers signoff or determination. MR. HORICK-Yes, we can have that, too. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. STROUGH-Mr. Chairman, did you mention that we wanted to see deed language explaining and describing the stormwater management device on this piece of property and the maintenance program? MR. MAC EWAN-I asked for options of ownership on Lot 13’s retention pond. Hopefully that will include it. MR. STROUGH-And that deed language should be included on the plan as well. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-I can’t think of anything else, no. MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, then. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 18-2002 BELL- NAVION DEVELOPMENT CO., Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 18-2002 Applicant: Bell-Navion Development Co. PRELIMNARY STAGE Property Owner: Sarah McEchron Trust SEQR Type: Unlisted Agent: Boswell Engineering Zone: SFR-1A Location: NE corner of West Mt. Rd. & Potter Rd. Applicant proposes to subdivide a 23.51 +/- acre parcel into 19 lots – 18 residential lots ranging in size from 1 acre to 1.75 acres and one 1 acre lot be used for stormwater detention. Cross Reference: Sketch Plan review – 11/02 NYS DOH, NYS DEC, ACOE Tax Map No. 301.5-1-28 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) Lot size: 23.51 +/- acres / Section: Subdivision Regulations Public Hearing: November 18, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received 10/15/03, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 11/14/03, and 11/18 Staff Notes 11/11 Notice of Public Hearing 11/3 Meeting Notice sent w/project id marker 10/22 CB from D. Tarantino – Last Will and Testament of S. McEchron 10/22 CB from B. Ostrander, Deputy Superintendent of Water Dept. 10/1 CR from D. Stilwell of US Dept. of Interior, Fish & Wildlife Services 9/30 Mr. MacEwan, from K. O’Brien, NYS DEC, Endangered Species Unit 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 November 18, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Preliminary Stage is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution as prepared by Staff with the following conditions: 1. Revise the plans accordingly with a 20 foot no cut zone along Potter Road, 30 no cut zone along West Mountain Road, and 2. Provide options on ownership on Lot 13 retention pond and deed language, 3. Respond and get an adequate sign-off from C.T. Male on their letter dated November 12, 2003, and 4. Provide information (on drainage pipe) that goes under Potter Road, and 5. Get an Army Corps of Engineers determination and/or sign-off. 6. Waiver request(s) are granted: Survey – Free standing trees and Clearing Plan. Duly adopted this 18 day of November, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) ABSENT: Mr. Sanford MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. HORICK-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD SCHERMERHORN PROPERTY OWNER: ERNEST CENTERBAR AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING, JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 63 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO 36 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.57 ACRES TO 17.50 ACRES IN SIZE. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 47-89, AV 47-89 NYS DEC [WETLANDS, ENDANGERED SPECIES UNIT] NYS FISH & WILDLIFE, NYS DOH TAX MAP NO. 308.7- 1-3 LOT SIZE: 63 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RICH S., PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 7-2003, Preliminary Stage, Richard Schermerhorn, Meeting Date: November 18, 2003 “APPLICATION: Subdivision 7-2003 (Preliminary Stage) APPLICANT: Richard Schermerhorn is the applicant for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 63 +/- acre property into 36 single- family lots. LOCATION: The subject property is located on the south side of Sherman Avenue, east of the Niagara Mohawk overhead transmission lines. EXISTING ZONING: This property is zoned SR-1A, Suburban Residential One Acre. SEQRA STATUS: This action is a SEQRA Unlisted action. The applicant has included a Full Environmental Assessment Form with the subdivision application. PARCEL HISTORY: This property was previously reviewed by the Planning Board as part of a sketch plan review on March 27, 2003. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 63 +/- acre property in order to create 35 new single-family residential lots, along with separate parcels for proposed Karner Blue mitigation as well as potential future mitigation. The new residential lots within this subdivision range in size from .57 acres to 1.29 acres. As some of the lots the proposed are below the one-acre requirement of the SR-1A zone, this subdivision is being presented and reviewed as a Cluster Subdivision. The topography of the lot is generally level, with some areas of steeper slopes in the northeast area of the site. The site contains an existing residence at the northern area of the site near Sherman Avenue. The area surrounding this residence is generally cleared of vegetation. The southern and eastern areas of this site contain a mix of mature trees. The lots within this subdivision would have vehicular access from two new road connections off of Sherman Avenue. The road network as proposed also provides for future vehicular connections to adjacent properties to the west and south. The lots within this subdivision would be connected to the municipal water supply and would have on-site septic systems. STAFF COMMENTS: 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) The applicant should submit a density calculation as part of this proposed subdivision application that takes in to consideration the requirements of Article 11 (Clustering) of the Zoning Ordinance. A preliminary calculation (preformed by Staff) of allowable density indicates the number of lots proposed appears to be within the density allowed under Article 11 of the Zoning Ordinance, however a calculation should be provided for reference should Lot 36 be further subdivided in the future. As part of this subdivision, the applicant proposes to dedicate land to the Town of Queensbury to be used as mitigation for the federally and state endangered Karner Blue Butterfly. Acceptance of this land by the Town Board will be required. A portion of this property is shown as a nectar source mitigation area. It is anticipated that some clearing in this and other areas to be set aside for Karner Blue mitigation may be required. Any clearing of this land should be done with the consultation of NYSDEC and the USFWS. The property shown as Avoidance Area should also be fenced off and contain signage informing the public that trespassing is prohibited. As there is some concern about potential neighborhood impacts on the adjacent mitigation areas and adjacent NIMO lands, properties within this subdivision should be deed restricted to prevent any dumping, dumping of lawn and yard debris, or motorized vehicle access from these properties. The proposed subdivision contains a landscaping plan, which proposes to plant maple trees and other vegetation along Sherman Ave. Consideration should be given to including a no-cut buffer along Sherman Avenue to protect the proposed landscaping. As there is existing vegetation between this property and residential properties to the east, consideration should be given to providing an additional no-cut buffer along the eastern most properties in this proposed subdivision.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-The application before you proposes to subdivide a 63, approximately 63 acre property and creating 35 new single family lots, along with separate parcels for mitigation for the Karner blue butterfly, as required by U.S. Fish and Wildlife and New York State DEC. As noted, this is a cluster subdivision, and Article 11 of the Zoning Code, as well as the cluster provisions of the Subdivision Regulations apply to this subdivision. In continuing with that, the applicant should submit a density calculation as part of the proposed subdivision. It appears that, the preliminary calculation shows that the allowable density indicated, or the number of lots proposed are within the allowable density. I guess, however, for future subdivision, we would just need that for reference, future subdivision of that larger Lot 36 as noted in our notes. Again, as part of the subdivision, the applicant proposes to dedicate land to the Town of Queensbury for mitigation for the Karner blue butterfly. This land will need to be accepted by the Town Board. A portion of the property is shown as a nectar source mitigation area, and it is anticipated that there will be some clearing in these areas, and I guess we would be looking for any clearing to be done with the consultation of New York State DEC and U.S. Fish and Wildlife. The property shown as avoidance area, we have some concerns about access to that. Our recommendation would be that it should be fenced off and contain signage informing the public that trespassing is prohibited. Additionally, there’s some concern about the access on adjacent NiMo lands, and I guess our suggestion would be properties within this subdivision be deed restricted to prevent any dumping, dumping of lawn and yard debris or motorized access from these properties. The proposed subdivision contains a landscaping plan showing plantings, maple trees along Sherman Avenue and consideration should be given to including a no cut buffer along this area to protect this new landscaping, and as there is existing vegetation and residential properties to the east, some type of buffer may also be appropriate, no cut buffer within this subdivision. Again, this is a Preliminary only. We’re not reviewing, or this Board isn’t looking at Final yet. These are our comments for now, and if you have any questions, that’s all we have for now. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, Rich Schermerhorn and Tom Nace. Very simply, we’ve been working on this site for the better part of a year, and we think we’ve got it nailed this time. It’s nice to have, finally, some nice letters from Fish and Wildlife and DEC, and DEC was particularly complimentary of Rich, and we’ve been working with Staff and the Board to come up with this mitigation plan which could help other developers on that part of the Town in the future, but we think this is a good solution and we hope the Board does. MR. NACE-What has changed since the last time you’ve seen the plans, let me, I’m going to go directly to the lupine mitigation plan because that has been what has been driving the ship at this point. If you’ll remember before we had the road coming in off, two roads coming in off Sherman. One road in the back extending on into the proposed Schiavone subdivision, running straight into that subdivision. When the lupine was mapped, we found that the, any real areas of lupine of any significance were back in this back corner, and along the power line. We worked with DEC. We moved that connection to Schiavone up away from the lupine patches, and we, instead of extending the road straight, we’ve looped it around and left it dead ended for eventual extension on up to Sherman Avenue. Staff mentioned they would like to see a calculation of density so that the future development potential of Lot 36 can be fixed and known and I will provide that on the Final. There are enough lots. I’ve done a preliminary layout. So if this ever does develop in the future, there is adequate density left in Lot 36 for continuing the development up along this road, but we’ll provide that with the Final. At any rate, that’s the major change is taking this straight connection off, redoing a connection into a different location, and starting this loop around back to Sherman. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. NACE-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t have really a lot of comments to make. Just in looking through some of the C.T. Male comments there’s the discussion about the boulevard entrance to avoid the access connector road. I would feel pretty strongly that we keep the connector roads in there as designed. I think that’s something that we had specifically asked for. MR. NACE-Yes. That was my reaction to C.T. Male. I don’t know, we did get a response from C.T. Male. I don’t know if you have that in your packet. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. NACE-But their response says, regarding the response to Comment 7, which was the boulevard, it is understood that a boulevard entrance is less preferred, but the Board must weigh this option against the proposed grading. So they realize the boulevard is not really the best solution. I think the whole Karner plan is more in line with a while ago when we were looking at the different management options. It’s more in line with what I, personally, had preferred, the Town take a more active role, because I think that’s the only way we can guarantee that the habitat remain. So I think that, you know, what you’ve proposed, in my mind, is the most acceptable solution. So, other than that, I don’t have anything else to add, other than, you know, addressing some of the Staff comments and some of the other things. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I don’t have anything. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-I’ll give the applicant credit. This is a very proactive proposal that you people have put forward, and I think acts as a great example to other projects in this area that might 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) run into the same thing. So I’ll give you credit for taking a proactive approach, but just to fill in a few of the holes, Kathy O’Brien’s letter dated October 14, 2003, in the middle of the first paragraph, says a survey done this year by the developer located several patches of lupine within the project area that have not been surveyed for butterflies. Is that a lingering concern? Should it be? MR. NACE-No. I think if you read later on in the letter. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, we’ll get through the letter. I’m just kind of addressing things as they come across. MR. NACE-No. The few patches in the center, specifically these, were determined by the Kathy not to be inhabited, and they’re potential for being inhabited, because they were so far away from the main portion of the lupine, was felt to be negative, or negligible. The signoff, I think the signoff from Fish and Wildlife, specifically stated that they had no concern about any butterflies being in these patches, and therefore we did not need a Fish and Wildlife permit to disturb these patches. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, Kathy sometimes writes, and I think Bob pointed this out, so you never know which directions. MR. NACE-Well, she goes in a circle. MR. STROUGH-Yes. She also marks that, you know, the sensitive areas that have been identified should be marked with some kind of signage, but she doesn’t say who should put up the signage. She doesn’t say what the signage should say what the signage should state, clearly marked with permanent markers. She doesn’t say, you know, that the markers should have the signs on them, or what, how’s the public supposed to know what the markers mean? I mean, am I the only one that has that question? Do you know what I mean? I don’t think this is strictly the applicant’s fault, but it gets to exactly what I’ve been saying all along, about the Town the Town’s developing, or working on, a Karner blue management plan, and some people feel that it should only go so far, and other people, myself included, feels that it should be more comprehensive, because it should identified these things. It should say what the signage should say, the markers should say. It should include all that, so that these questions, as they come to the Planning Board, are already answered by the plan. Now, she does say in her letter, somewhere in here, that there is a possibility that DEC, New York State DEC, could take over management of these properties. Now she does not say they will. She says they could. Now that would answer all of our problems, and you know, George, the issue here. If the DEC were to take over management of these Karner blue butterfly reserves, boy that would be great. We wouldn’t have to worry about a thing. We’ll just say this is going to a reserve, this is going to be a reserve, this is going to be a reserve. You guys take care of it. In absence of anything concrete there, and I wish she would make it more concrete, but I don’t know if she could at this point, it would be nice to see that happen some day, I think the Town has to go in the direction of, until the DEC says it’s going to do that, it’s going to manage those butterfly reserve areas, that the Town has to go in the direction of developing its own comprehensive plan. What are these signs going to say? How often should the signs be placed? At what height should the signs be placed? These are the kinds of things that aren’t addressed that we’re going to need to address at some point in time. MR. MAC EWAN-We can ask her for some direction. As a condition of approval tonight, ask her to respond to her letter and give us some specifics of what she’s looking for. It’s pretty easy to do. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, you know, it would be beautiful if she just comes up and says, hey, don’t worry about it, we’ll take care of it. All right. MR. LAPPER-We’re looking at Rich’s responsibility, along with the Centebar’s, who he’s buying the property from, to be dedicating the property to the Town, and the management 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) would be the Town’s responsibility. No one’s been asking Rich to do the management, but he did suggest a danger, butterfly crossing sign might be appropriate. MR. NACE-We have agreed with Kathy to put signs at the no cut line at the center of the back of each lot, okay, along that power line no cut zone, to state the purpose of the no cut zone and the fact that it is, and that shows up on the mitigation plan. MR. STROUGH-Well, another thing we’ve had, when we’ve had development next to NiMo lines that did have lupine, was the lupine just got smothered when people put their grass clippings and their leaves back there. Are the signs going to state that you can’t do that? MR. NACE-Well, the whole purpose of the buffer is so that the residents have some place to put the clippings on their own property, without getting to the power line, and the signs will state that, you know, that this is a buffer, that there’s to be no clearing and that there’s to be no grass clippings to be deposited off of the piece of property. MR. STROUGH-So the signs will say that? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s good. All right. Now let me see if I got this straight. Now we’ll stay right on this Karner blue mitigation for a minute or two. Now, this set aside property, which again I say is a great idea, Richard, is going to be given to the Town in parts as needed. I see that you’re giving us the, I don’t know if it’s a lot that’s numbered, but it’s called the Avoidance Area, and then on the other side of the NiMo right of way is that rectangular strip of land, it would be the western part of this lot, or, no southern part, that eventually that whole rectangular area will be given to the Town for the purpose of butterfly mitigation. MR. NACE-Okay. As you said, the Avoidance Area is to be dedicated to the Town, and that’s about three acres. There’s a little better than two acres here in this mitigation area that’s to be dedicated to the Town. The remainder of this rectangular section is to be retained by the owner, but it’s set aside for the specific purpose of future mitigation, but it will be retained, the ownership will be retained by the owner. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Could you explain that? What do you mean, it could be set aside for future mitigation? For example? MR. LAPPER-If another developer needed to create mitigation. It’s like a bank. MR. STROUGH-So they would buy it off of Richard? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Possibly. MR. MAC EWAN-Or if Rich has another project he’s going to be doing and he hits Karner blue habitat, he’s got that bank there to mitigate. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I believe Larry Clute’s been in front of you, behind the Burnt Hills subdivision he has other land that I think he might have been in for a preliminary sketch plan for a development, and just one example would be that land may be helpful to his subdivision. That’s basically just the purpose. MR. VOLLARO-So we’re going to call this a mitigation bank, essentially? Is that what you? MR. SCHERMERHORN-That’s correct. MR. NACE-It’s simply like a wetlands bank, the same idea. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. LAPPER-Because it doesn’t have the lupine, but it’s suitable to have the trees removed and to plant blue lupine. MR. MAC EWAN-What kind of language will you have on your plat? MR. LAPPER-Whatever you tell us. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess I’m looking for you to tell us. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Future potential mitigation area. MR. MAC EWAN-I assume, is there language that would be on there not to be conveyed for development or anything like that, that it’s going to remain? MR. NACE-Actually the density will take care of that, because the density calculation and the future development of the remaining parcels of the property will allocate all the remaining density to Lot 31, with no density to the. MR. LAPPER-So it ought to say no future development on this piece. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. LAPPER-South of the power lines, the rest of that. MR. MAC EWAN-To be used for Karner blue habitat mitigation only. MR. LAPPER-Yes. That’s their only purpose. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I know there’s connecting land that can be developed. We don’t know, at this time, whether there’s Karner blue on it or not, but it was something that was recommended from Deb Roberts and I think even Kathy O’Brien recommended it might not be a bad idea to hang on to that. MR. LAPPER-In terms of that no development, you have had us put that stub street, paper street, so there may be a road going through at some time to connect another subdivision for an interconnect. MR. MAC EWAN-Work up some sort of detailed note to put on the plat. Anything else, John? MR. STROUGH-Yes. Again, reading Kathy O’Brien’s letter, now at first, Rich, you offered, you said you’d clear it for the Town if they wanted it cleared, we’ve come back with something a little different now. Kathy O’Brien refers to someone clearing it, either you or Schiavone. Who’s going to clear this? MR. NACE-Whoever manages the butterfly habitat. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, you know at one time you did offer to clear it. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I honestly don’t remember that. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’ve got a good memory when it comes to these things, but that’s an aside. Don’t worry about it, but, and I did remember reading it, I don’t know, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-I’m afraid I’m not going to support you on that one, John. Because I have a note here that says clearing of mitigation and avoidance areas if deeded to the Town, seems to be a Town requirement to prep or compensate the applicant for doing so. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. STROUGH-Well, it’s not a matter of support or not support. I was just looking for what is going to happen. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. LAPPER-It wouldn’t make sense to clear it until there was somebody in place to manage it, because it has to be managed as soon as it’s cleared to make sure that it doesn’t re-vegetate with trees and stuff. So, somebody. MR. VOLLARO-It’s the chicken and the egg to me. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-It depends upon what Rich wants to do, you know, if the land is deeded to the Town, then it seems to me that it would be a Town requirement to prep it or to compensate the applicant for prepping it. That’s how I feel about it. MR. STROUGH-See, she says here that I recommend that the Town and the DEC enter into discussions regarding the management of these mitigation parcels. The best thing may be for the Town to grant permanent management easements to the DEC to conduct protection and management activities, both, for both set aside areas proposed in this project, the area will need to be cleared of trees and stumps and prepared for planting of native habitat vegetation in order for them to benefit the butterflies. The areas will be needed to be protected from ATV’s with fences and gates and will require regular maintenance in the form of mowing. Now she doesn’t say that the applicant’s responsible for this, nor do I believe the applicant should be held responsible for this, but it still doesn’t tell us exactly who is going to be, and I think at some point we, as the Planning Board, have to get a concrete answer. If the DEC’s going to do it, that’s fine and great. If they’re not, then I think we, as a Planning Board, are going to have to come up with a plan on how it should be done. She’s also concerned, though, but I can’t understand this concern, she’s also concerned. MR. RINGER-John, I would think that if the Town accepts the property as mitigation then the Town has the responsibility to clear it and maintain it and if they accepted that, why isn’t it their responsibility? MR. STROUGH-Larry, I’m not arguing. MR. VOLLARO-That’s essentially how I feel. MR. STROUGH-Larry, I’m not arguing with you. I just don’t see it in writing. All right. So it just goes to, every time I get a little punch in as to where I think that mitigation plan should go, I throw it in there, and I show this as an example, but she refers to the road that’s cutting over to the Schiavone subdivision and she’s worried that that may fragment existing habitat and potentially restorable habitat within the PROW. MR. LAPPER-That’s cause you want that road there because it’s good planning, but she only thinks butterflies. She doesn’t understand that there’s a planning component to having the subdivisions connected. MR. STROUGH-Well, and you’re right, Jon, that is good planning. MR. NACE-The mitigation for doing that to her satisfaction will be the nectar source planting along the side of the road, connector back on the avoidance area. That’s shown on the bottom. That’s specifically what she asked for, and, you know, her concern about, you know, promoting vehicle use of the right of way by having this road access, her idea of the mitigation for that is to put nectar source plants in this area here so that the butterflies have somewhere to go, I guess. I don’t know. I can’t read between the lines. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. STROUGH-Yes, I can’t, either, but I certainly am in favor of that connector road. So, I’m just going to move on. Is this going to, all right. I’m going to leave that alone for a minute. I think enough of my questions are answered on that. I do have a couple of other questions, though. You answered that in your stormwater report. Density calculation, you already said. Signage, KB. All right. Tom’s going to have to, in your stormwater report you referred to some overflow ponds, Tom. I couldn’t find them. MR. NACE-In the stormwater report? MR. STROUGH-Yes. It was Ponds One, Two, Three, and Four. MR. NACE-The drywells are modeled as ponds. There are more than four. There’s ten. MR. STROUGH-Well, no, you had, drywell systems. All right. What I’m looking for, Tom, is are there going to be any other stormwater devices, other than drywells being used? MR. NACE-No. This is a typical Queensbury site. There is no developed, there are no existing drainage pattern, okay. So there are low spots where the stormwater doesn’t go anywhere now, and it’s simply going to filter into the ground through the drywells, after it’s developed, instead of through the ground surface the way it does now. MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s what I thought when I looked at your stormwater management plan, but when I read your stormwater management report, I saw references to interconnected infiltration trenches, and I saw, well, later on in the report, you do drywell, drywell, drywell, drywell, and then you start talking about ponds, yes, you’re right, ten ponds, but they’re drywells. MR. NACE-Yes, in the calculations, in order to analyze the drywell, you have to treat it like a pond, and that’s just a technicality. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and I see you accounted for the front half sheet flow of each lot, in the accounting of your stormwater management report, and so that’s it. So, you know, I just wanted to eliminate any concerns of having to worry about stormwater devices being on other people’s property, which is not the case. MR. NACE-No, no. In fact, one of C.T. Male’s comments was that they wanted us to try to re- grade the road so that any possible overflow of the drywells went off site onto the power lines, and it’s just not possible. The site’s too flat for that. There’s no way to do that, and I’m not sure that’s not what happens now, so we don’t want to re-revise the existing drainage pattern. MR. MAC EWAN-C.T. Male was suggesting you put stormwater on another piece of property? MR. NACE-That we, yes, that we grade it so that any overflow went toward the power lines. MR. STROUGH-I think I agree with you, Tom. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, our Subdivision Regulations say that you’ve got to keep all your stormwater on site. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Last question. The no cut buffer along Sherman Avenue, I think I get this from Staff, and I had some further thinking on that. Now, you’re proposing a no cut zone along Sherman, and you’re proposing to plant some maple trees along Sherman, which will look nice, but they’re going to be on private property, right? MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-I’m with you on this one, John. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. HILTON-I think they’re proposing the planting, but as of yet have not indicated a no cut zone. Our comment was if you’re planting the trees and you want them to stay there, consideration should be given to some kind of no cut for protection of those areas along Sherman Avenue. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. NACE-Yes. This is Sherman. We’re proposing, because of the fact that a lot of this area here was an old sand pit that’s been excavated, okay, and we’re going to be doing some more excavation here for the road and to make these suitable building lots, on this little ridge line, so we’ve put trees in, sort of street trees out along Sherman, but they will be back on private property. So, yes, I mean, we can stipulate that those not be cut by the homeowners, and I suppose they could be put in the deed, John. So, as far as a buffer here, no cut buffer, we could certainly come to the building setback line, which is, I believe, 15, or is it maybe 20 feet, whatever the rear setback line is, and do that as a no cut buffer. MR. MAC EWAN-Why couldn’t you just do a no cut along Sherman Avenue where the trees are going to be planted? MR. NACE-Because the trees that we’re going to plant are the only things that are there. Yes, I guess we could show that as a no cut buffer, sure. Although we’re going to cut here where we’ve put the road in, during the initial construction. MR. MAC EWAN-I understand that. MR. STROUGH-But if you put a no cut zone there, does that mean people can’t go in and take care of it, like clear out the brush and things like that? I mean, it may challenge the survivability of those trees. I don’t know. MR. NACE-Yes. I’d just as soon see something in the deed that says, you know, the trees that are planted shall be protected and maintained, street trees, because it’ll provide a fairly nice frontage along there. MR. STROUGH-Yes, there won’t be any backs of any houses. It’ll just be the sides of the houses along there. MR. NACE-That’s correct. Their driveways must come off the subdivision road. MR. STROUGH-Now that other vegetation, where the road cuts through the hill, I mean, how’s that going to be protected? I mean, you’re proposing vegetation I suppose to stabilize the hillside? MR. NACE-Yes. We were going to have a fairly, you know, large cut slope there, or to make it look nice. MR. STROUGH-Eighteen percent. MR. NACE-In order to make that look nice, we’ve put some trees in there, and also to help stabilize it. We could include that area in that, you know, as part of the trees planted that are protected in the deed. MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, I don’t want to take away the landowner’s right to put something else in there if they don’t like that vegetation, but I also have a concern of erosion control and everything else that has to be kind of assured. So I don’t know what to do. I just saw it. I didn’t know what to do with it. MR. NACE-I’m not really sure you’d have to do anything. The sandy soils, I mean, there’s some banks here that are as steep, if not steeper, than what we’re going to leave, and there 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) doesn’t seem to be any erosion pattern that’s really taking place on those, but, you know, once this is seeded and those trees put in, I don’t think that’s going to be an issue. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, it’s not that big of a hill, is it? MR. NACE-No, it’s not. MR. STROUGH-Five or six feet, or something like that. What is it, five or six feet? MR. NACE-No, it’s more than that. It’s 12 feet maybe, 12 or 15. MR. STROUGH-Not huge, but, yes, okay. All right. Those are my concerns. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Robert? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll go quick, after that. The status of Lot 36, you’re going to put some future possible development outlines on 36. MR. NACE-I’m not going to show the development. There will be a density calculation that allocates a remaining density to that lot. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Concerning Lot 36, along the power lines, the western side of 36, I’m wondering whether we shouldn’t put some sort of a permanent no cut buffer there adjacent to that Niagara Mohawk power. So that if it is in the future development, a buffer would be there anyway. I don’t know whether you want to do that. It’s just a suggestion. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I suppose, it’s a good suggestion. The only thing is that’s the piece I’m not buying. That’s the original owner. So I’d hate to speak for them and restrict it. MR. VOLLARO-Thirty-six is not part of this purchase? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. MR. NACE-It’s the remaining lands of the subdivision. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Sorry about that. MR. LAPPER-Retained by the seller. MR. VOLLARO-Just a note to myself when I say I’m not clear on who does the preparation and clearing of mitigation and avoidance areas. I think, if it’s deeded to the Town, the Town should do it. If the Town asks the contractor to do it, to prep it, then there should be some compensation from the Town to the contractor. That’s just my notes, you know, that’s how I feel about it. Once it’s deeded over, I think it’s the Town’s responsibility. I’d like to see a no cut zone, a 25 foot on Lots One, Two, Three, and Four that border the adjacent property, to protect the properties to the east. MR. NACE-How about 20 feet? MR. VOLLARO-Twenty feet is fine. It’s just that, as somewhat of a buffer to the lands to the east. Okay. Now, in my notes I say I would not encourage no cut zones along Sherman. Lawns would go to property line and homeowners should mow around the nine maples. I think that’s an answer to your question, John. MR. MAC EWAN-They’re going to provide deed language. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. VOLLARO-Fine. Now, there seems to be some misunderstanding between DEC and Fish and Wildlife, as to exactly what kind of mitigation you’ve got here. They talk about the avoidance area as being. MR. MAC EWAN-Who’s “they”? MR. VOLLARO-“They” being Department of Environmental Conservation, and “they” being Fish and Wildlife, both. MR. MAC EWAN-When you start saying “they”, I just want to know what letter, for the record, you were referring to. MR. VOLLARO-For the record, it’s New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, October 14, 2003, and it’s United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife, October 16, 2003, both refer to that avoidance area as being 121,254, where the print shows 116,486. Where did they get their number from? And since they both have the same number, that’s what intrigued me. I could see one making a mistake, but they both think that that’s 121,254 of mitigation out there. MR. NACE-That was, the layout was just a hair different in here, when we gave the initial plan to them showing the avoidance area because we had not extended this possible future connector. When we put that in, we had to shift the lots around a little bit, and it reduced this by 4,000 or plus. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So they were looking at a different print, essentially, is that right? MR. NACE-Minor differences. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just want to make sure that they know exactly what’s happening in that area. I think we got through the fencing and the signing per DEC letter. I’m going to let that play itself out. I said that the Town should play a significant role in enforcing the 25 foot buffer on Lots Four through Fourteen. Management of mitigation parcels by permanent management easement to DEC could be a way to do that. I think we’ve talked about that. That’s something that should be looked at, as to how that’s going to take place. Now, she talks about those two connector roads, that they’re good planning. I think she was thinking butterflies and not good planning there. So I think there’s one error on the EAF, and it’s back on Nine of Twenty-one, should be corrected, I think, and it’s under Nine, what is the minimum lot size proposed, you have 1.2 acres, and it’s really this is a cluster. So we’re down to things like .69 and so on. So I don’t know which is the lowest one in here, but that number should be changed to the lowest number. I think it’s .57, I believe, I’m not sure. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Change that. Then there’s the C.T. Male letter that has to be looked at, and then there’s one other very puzzling question as to why this was in our packet, and it has to do with the letter from Dave Hatin to a Mr. Ernest Centebar. I don’t understand why that was in the packet, or can I just toss this? MR. HILTON-Well, I don’t know what to say about tossing it, but the first I’ve seen that letter was that evening. I guess it’s a matter between our Director of Building and Codes and the current owner of the property. Beyond that I really don’t know too much about that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. This has nothing to do with the subdivision or this whole subject, does it? MR. HILTON-It may not. As far as I can tell, it’s, like I said, something separate from the subdivision that’s an issue between the Director of Building and Codes and the property owner. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. VOLLARO-But it’s on Lot 36, which is not part of this subdivision. MR. HILTON-Well, I guess, I would say Lot 36 is part of this, you’re subdividing the existing property, but the issue that that letter deals with I don’t think is directly tied to the subdivision of land. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So it really shouldn’t have been in the packet, I don’t think. I don’t know. MR. MAC EWAN-Contact Mr. Hatin and ask for some clarification as to why that was in our packet. MR. RINGER-Could be information only, the information we don’t need to approve or disapprove. I mean, you can have information that’s just there, but you just don’t need it. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got enough information to look at, Larry. MR. RINGER-Without having something that you don’t need. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s it, sir. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NICK NICHOLSON MR. NICHOLSON-My name’s Nick Nicholson. I live on the Luzerne Road, and I’m here, and my boys are here, plus a friend lives here. What were we saying that’s going to happen here? MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely nothing at this point. It’s lands that are going to be retained for Karner blue butterfly habitat management. MR. NICHOLSON-Because somebody’s been cutting wood out behind my property, and I’m just curious, you know, I want to stay on top of this if I can. Can they make a road through, underneath the pole lines, into this property? MR. MAC EWAN-There is a proposal right there on that plan to do a connector road at some point, and that would be the only development that you would see. There would be no houses or anything like that built on that parcel of land. MR. NICHOLSON-There wouldn’t be houses there? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. VOLLARO-That’s going to be a land bank for the mitigation of Karner blue butterfly. The property will be banked and will, there’s going to be a note on the next plat that we get that no further development on this property. That’s my assumption. MR. NICHOLSON-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Anyone else? Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. “Impact on Plants and Animals Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?” MR. MAC EWAN-No. Well, wait a minute. MR. RINGER-It will. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it will, but there’s mitigation. MR. VOLLARO-The answer to that is yes? MR. RINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And will this be small, medium? MR. STROUGH-Small. MR. SCHACHNER-Just for my benefit, is medium one of the choices? MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry. Small. MR. SCHACHNER-It should be, but I don’t think medium is one of the choices. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m just improvising. MR. MAC EWAN-Don’t improvise on a SEQRA. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s what threw me. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So we have a yes, and we have a mitigation. Correct? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. RINGER-Right. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO., Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 18 day of November, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sanford MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Strough, have you got a list? MR. STROUGH-I’ve got a list. I’ve got some questions, but I’ve got a list. Here’s my questions. Let’s get those out of the way first. I’m assuming, by what I’m reading, that the signage is going to be the applicant’s responsibility? MR. LAPPER-It depends on which signage. The signage on the back of the lots, yes, but not the signage on the mitigation area. MR. STROUGH-Okay. How about the fence? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. STROUGH-The fence is going to be. MR. LAPPER-The fence is the fence, the area that’s being dedicated to the Town, on the other side of the power line. MR. STROUGH-So the fence is going to be the Town’s or DEC’s responsibility. MR. LAPPER-Right. Rich is giving the land. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I needed to know that. So what I’ve got. Deed language will be shown on the plan describing how the row of proposed maples along Sherman Avenue will be preserved. Two, applicant will provide a density calculation that will include Lot 36. MR. VOLLARO-John, before you go through that, go back to your first one. MR. STROUGH-Deed language will be shown on the plan describing how the row of proposed maples along Sherman Avenue will be preserved. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Change that row of maples to just call it landscaping along Sherman Avenue, because there is other landscaping that’s proposed that isn’t maples. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I wanted to make sure there was not a no cut zone along Sherman to do exactly what you’re saying. MR. STROUGH-Well, we can read the language, and that’s why I left it open. MR. LAPPER-We won’t say no cut. MR. STROUGH-I think through the minutes, I think we. MR. NACE-We’re just going to stipulate that the landscaping planted as part of the landscape plan be maintained and preserved by the individual landowners. MR. STROUGH-Yes, that’s fine. Okay, and then any questions about the density calculation. All right. Next, applicant will address C.T. Male’s concerns listed in their November 13, 2003 letter. MR. MAC EWAN-Change that and get a C.T. Male signoff. MR. LAPPER-We have that. MR. STROUGH-And obtain a C.T. Male signoff. Do you want me to just add it? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, that’s fine, if you want to do that. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Applicant will obtain a note of intent from the Town that they are willing to accept the land proposed for the Karner blue butterfly mitigation. MR. LAPPER-Well, we don’t want to have to wait until that happens to come back and get Final. MR. STROUGH-Well, we can’t assume that the Town is going to take this. MR. LAPPER-Well, the Planning Staff’s been working with us for nine months, to make sure that we dedicate the land. MR. HILTON-I think as part of Final we’re already considering potential conditions, and I think one of them is going to be that the dedication of this land be accepted by the Town either prior to any construction or any development of this site, and I think we’re looking at that at the time of Final, just to give you an idea where we’re going. MR. STROUGH-So I’m actually correct in what I’m asking for, or no? MR. MAC EWAN-We can approve a Final on that, but what he’s saying, and we could put the language in the Final that say, you know, roads won’t be dedicated to the Town or no occupancy permits will be issued until the habitat management land is conveyed to the Town, or something like that, language could be put in at that point at Final. MR. STROUGH-All right. Okay. I just tried to think of everything. The last thing that I have, that I have, so if any members of the Board, you know, if I miss something, bring it to my attention, but the last thing I have is signage wording proposal will be submitted for the Final, and approximate signage placement will be shown on the plans, and for at least some language explaining where the signs will be placed or something. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d prefer to have them on the plat. It’s always a good idea. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. STROUGH-Okay. Is there anything else? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. There’s one thing. I think they have to make the correction to their EAF on Page Nine, so that, what is the minimum lot size proposed. They have 1.2 acres, it should be, I think it should be .57. I’ll leave that to Tom. MR. NACE-You want to save a tree and make that administrative correction in the minutes, rather than my having to copy 15 copies of the EAF? MR. VOLLARO-Sure. Yes. It could be an administrative change. I just want to make sure that the final EAF is addressed properly. MR. MAC EWAN-Roll with what you’ve got, John. MR. STROUGH-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2003 RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision 7-2003 Applicant: Richard Schermerhorn PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: Ernest Centerbar SEQR Type: Unlisted Agent: Nace Engineering, Jonathan Lapper Zone: SR-1A Location: South side Sherman Avenue Applicant proposes subdivision of a 63 +/- acre parcel into 36 single family lots ranging in size from 0.57 acres to 17.50 acres in size. Cross Reference: UV 47-89, AV 47-89 NYS DEC [Wetlands, Endangered species unit] NYS Fish & Wildlife, NYS DOH Tax Map No. 308.7-1-3 Lot size: 63 acres / Section: Subdivision Regulations Public Hearing: November 18, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received 10/15/03, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 11/14/03, and 11/18 Staff Notes 11/12 E. Centerbar from D. Hatin: Barn 11/11 Notice of Public Hearing 11/3 Meeting Notice sent w/project id marker 10/16 D. Roberts from D. Stilwell, US Dept. of Interior, Fish & Wildlife 10/14 Mr. MacEwan, from K. O’Brien from NYSDEC Endangered Species Unit 10/9 CR from Nace Eng., Lupine Mitigation Plan 6/2 R. Schermerhorn from C. Brown: request for more information 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 November 18, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Preliminary Stage is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff with the following conditions: 1. Deed language will be shown on the plan describing how the row of proposed landscaping along Sherman Avenue will be preserved. 2. The applicant will provide a density calculation that will include Lot 36. 3. The applicant will address C. T. Male’s concerns listed in their November 13, 2003 letter and obtain a C. T. Male sign-off. 4. A signing wordage proposal will be submitted for Final and approximate signage placement will be shown or explained on the plans. Duly adopted this 18th day of November, 2003, by the following vote: MR. VOLLARO-Just a question before a second, Mr. Chairman. I think the plans do show signage along the properties now, that shows where the signs are, and the placement of the signs. MR. MAC EWAN-We want to incorporate it on the plans to show the placement of the signs plus the language that’s going to be on the signs. That’s what he’s asking for. MR. STROUGH-Well, if they are, Bob, I didn’t notice them. Tom? MR. NACE-Yes, I believe it’s on. MR. VOLLARO-It’s on the drawings. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve got a motion going here. I’ve got a second down here I’ve heard. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. NACE-It is already on the plat. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it’s on the plat. MR. MAC EWAN-We have a motion going here. MR. STROUGH-All right. AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sanford 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You’re all set. MR. LAPPER-Craig, is it possible for us to get back here next month for Final, since there’s nothing to it, just those three conditions? MR. MAC EWAN-We have an agenda review meeting Thursday? MR. HILTON-We have an agenda review meeting Thursday, and just to give you an idea, we already have 16 items. It’s certainly up to this Board. MR. LAPPER-We would agree not to even show up. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m going to go to the agenda meeting on Thursday. Let us see how loaded up the agendas are. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-How deep they are. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Tom will make the changes and we’ll be ready if we can be there. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, before the meeting is adjourned, any further business that may come before the Board, I’d just like to have a minute, if I could. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, and then don’t forget, we’ve got to approve minutes. MR. VOLLARO-Do that, too. Do you want to do that first? MR. MAC EWAN-We have a motion, does somebody want to introduce a motion to approve minutes for 9/16, 9/18, and 9/23? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll move it. MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 16, 2003, SEPTEMBER 18, 2003 AND SEPTEMBER 23, 2003, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: Duly adopted this 18 day of November, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sanford MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’d just like to talk one minute on something. If we want to make a motion on this Board to the effect that we would like meetings not to go past eleven o’clock at night, how do we do that? MR. SCHACHNER-It’s not something to make a motion about. You can do that. I mean, nobody can force you to conduct meetings past when you want to conduct meetings. It’s not something to formally resolve, I guess is what I’m saying. MR. RINGER-I’d rather go without a motion, but we can just have a general consensus of the Board that we will limit our meetings to a certain. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. SCHACHNER-That’s what I’m saying. MR. MAC EWAN-A very easy thing to do is put it on the bottom of the agenda that meetings will not go past 11 p.m. MR. HILTON-I would suggest also possibly putting it in like your procedures or by-laws, some kind of statement. MR. MAC EWAN-The question I’ve got, procedurally. MR. SCHACHNER-You’re going to run into some procedural issues. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. You’ve got things advertised, public hearings and stuff like that. So we don’t get to do two of them, what do we do? MR. SCHACHNER-Either of two things. Either, when it gets to be 10:30 or some time close to 11, start tabling, table whatever you’re doing, and then open the public hearings on whatever, if there’s something you haven’t even started yet that’s been noticed for public hearing, you would have to, if you want to avoid re-noticing, which I assume you’d want to do, you would have to open the public hearing on whatever you haven’t reached yet and then announce and then say we’re going to keep the public hearing open until whenever you want to keep it open until. The only thing, believe me, I don’t have any problem with, you know, obviously stopping at 11 o’clock. Just realize, and I’ve been through this in a lot of different places, you will have some difficulties managing that, from the standpoint of people who show up for various items. MR. RINGER-I would have difficulty putting it into our by-laws or our operating procedures by putting a specific time because if you say 11 o’clock and, you know, you could be it’s something that you’re 99% complete with and 11 o’clock strikes and somebody stands up and says, wait a minute. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you know, you write it in the by-laws and it could be at the Board’s discretion to. MR. RINGER-Why even write it in? Just have an understanding, you know, so you’ve got, you don’t want to fix yourself so solid in something that you have difficulty getting out or you could be embarrassed by getting out of it. I’d rather, I agree with you, Bob, 100%. I think that after 11 o’clock you become so ineffective. MR. VOLLARO-Absolutely. MR. RINGER-I don’t know if we’ve got to have a rule. MR. MAC EWAN-If we had it in the by-laws, and you can put it in very generalized in the by- laws, at the Board’s discretion they may not want to proceed. I don’t know how you’d word it, but you could say they may not want to proceed past 11 p.m. for Planning Board meetings, but it’s at the Board’s discretion based on agendas, you know, weight, and the reason why you’d want that in there, because if you didn’t have it in there, and we’re saying, it’s 11 o’clock, lights are out, we’re going home, there would be someone who would file some sort of grievance with the Town saying, they don’t have anything posted they stop at 11 o’clock. MR. RINGER-Mark just said that we don’t have to have anything posted that we’re going to stop at 11 o’clock. We could just have a continuance. MR. SCHACHNER-The thing you should do, in my opinion, and I think Staff agrees, is just do something so that the regulated community, and those who are participating, have some knowledge of this, and the best thing I would suggest is put it on the agendas. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what the ZBA does, doesn’t it? Don’t they? MR. STROUGH-They have 11 p.m. on theirs. MR. SCHACHNER-On the agendas? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I think it’s on their agenda. MR. SCHACHNER-That seems like the best way to notify people. MR. RINGER-Well, what do you do if you let Applicant A, on the first meeting, go to 11:30, and then on the second meeting you’ve got Applicant B, and you know it’s going to last forever, and you say to Applicant B, well, wait a minute, we’re quitting at eleven, and he says, last week you let Applicant A go to 11:30. MR. MAC EWAN-What you would do, if you did not get to an application on a night you stopped at 11 o’clock, you put them on for the next meeting, that application that was carried over from the previous will be the very first item on the agenda, bar none with Old Business and anything else. MR. RINGER-It’s just, I don’t feel comfortable locking ourselves into specific times. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I certainly agree with that. I wasn’t hearing anything that wouldn’t. What I was saying was not to adopt a formal resolution. I think, Larry, I was agreeing with you, and I think the statement at the bottom of the agenda, I don’t know what the ZBA says, but should not be something that locks anybody into anything. It should say something like what Craig was talking about, you know, at the discretion of the Board, the Board may terminate or, you know, we can work on language that doesn’t lock anybody in so that if 11:05 comes nobody has a right to get up and protest and say you can’t go on. MR. STROUGH-Well, ZBA’s, I think, just has on the top it says meeting 7 p.m. to 11 p.m. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. It doesn’t say anything about tabling and adjourning or anything else. MR. VOLLARO-Do they go over that regularly, or? MR. STROUGH-No, they don’t. They have, but they don’t usually. MR. MAC EWAN-What do they do if they have an item on the agenda they didn’t get to? MR. STROUGH-They’ve never used it. I can’t remember them having to go beyond 11 o’clock. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, the thing I guess I’m going to discourage the Board is for example the Town Board has a rule that speaker can only speak for three minutes. It used to be five minutes, and the three minutes and five minutes, the Town Clerk used to time it religiously, and the Town Board never backed it up. So I guess I’m going to suggest, if you do this, don’t keep meeting until 12:30 and 1:00 o’clock, or it’s just silly to do this, I think, but. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the ability to go through some of these applications after 11 o’clock is very difficult. MR. SCHACHNER-Absolutely. MR. RINGER-I always tell the applicants, if you’re on at 11:30, you’re probably going to get approved because we’re going to be so tired we just want to get you out of here, and it’s the truth in most cases. You just want to get out of here. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we’ll let Counsel and Staff toss around some idea of what we can put on the agenda to let the public know if we’re inclined to go that route on a given night, we’ll go that route. Maybe it’s just as simple as putting our meetings are seven to eleven p.m. At twenty minutes to eleven we’re starting on our next application we know is going to take an hour, then we decide right then and there do we want to hear it that night or do we want to wait and hear it another night. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. We have that discretion at the end. MR. SCHACHNER-You have that discretion all the time. MR. MAC EWAN-We have a pretty good sense, by now, how long applications will take to discuss. MR. SCHACHNER-The only thing to remember is if you don’t open a public hearing for somebody at all, then it has to be re-noticed. So you may want to just keep in mind, it’s perfectly appropriate to open a public hearing, but say we’re opening the public hearing just for the purpose of procedurally opening the public hearing, but we’re going to adjourn this until whenever you’re going to adjourn it to, and everyone, you know, that’s when we’ll really conduct our business, including the public hearing. Just procedurally, if you don’t open it on the night it’s noticed, it has to be re-noticed. MR. RINGER-I’m sure that Counsel would, if we forgot to do that, would tell us, by the way, you’ve got. MR. SCHACHNER-If it’s before 11, we will. Anything else? I reviewed that thing, (lost words) and I don’t have any problem with it. What we’re going to do is just keep a tight rein on the public, as far as how we’re going to proceed with it, and not get bogged down with two hours worth of discussions on the good neighbor plan. MR. HILTON-So you don’t have a problem with the splitting into 10 groups and talking about it? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t have a problem with you splitting it into six groups, what I’m looking at. MR. STROUGH-I have no idea what you’re talking about. MR. MAC EWAN-The good neighbor, Wal-Mart good neighbor policy that we’re going to talk about briefly Thursday night. Staff has put together an outline for. MR. HILTON-Just to give you a little background. MR. MAC EWAN-Did the entire Planning Board get a copy of that Wal-Mart good neighbor policy? MR. STROUGH-I haven’t done Wal-Mart yet. I had enough to do. MR. HILTON-We just received yesterday a copy from the applicant of the most up to date, that good neighbor plan. MR. STROUGH-Can you e-mail this to everybody tomorrow? MR. HILTON-I can do that. We had planned on giving it to you at the meeting. Since it wasn’t such a lengthy document. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like everybody to have it so they can look at it before the meeting. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. HILTON-Sure. We can do that. MR. MAC EWAN-What basically we’re going to do is just do a brief outline, and the only thing I’m adding after Number Six your communication agreement, add Number Seven, overnight parking for RV’s. It’s still a problem up there. MR. RINGER-Is it a problem of the Planning Board? MR. HILTON-Just to give you guys all a little background here, the applicant for Wal-Mart has talked to us and said that they want to, before the site plan review, and at the same meeting, sit down and have a roundtable discussion, if you will, about the good neighbor plan, involving the Planning Board, themselves, and the public so they can get everybody’s ideas and kind of, I don’t know, just formulate the good neighbor plan before they go into the site plan. So that everybody’s on board and everybody is approving of the good neighbor plan. MR. MAC EWAN-If it’s not handled properly, I could see it being a two and a half hour discussion, and I don’t want it to be that way. MR. HILTON-Correct. Yes, and I think that that’s our, with the memo that I handed only to Craig tonight, is to kind of try to facilitate that meeting, what is the best way. One idea of this memo is to break off into splinter groups and discuss each item of the good neighbor plan for a limited amount of time, and then come back and have one representative from each group say, okay, here are the things that were discussed in my group, and then everybody has just one voice for each group, as opposed to 20 different people coming and mixing up site plan review issues and just making a very long evening. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know about breaking up into little groups. We need to have things on the record, and I don’t see that happening. MR. HILTON-And just keep in mind, this isn’t part of the public hearing. This just a the good neighbor plan meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-But the good neighbor plan. MR. SCHACHNER-But it’s part of an open public meeting of the Planning Board. MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s right, and part of that, we’re going to adopt this thing as part of our site plan approval. So it’s part of the review. MR. HILTON-Okay. That’s fine, and I don’t object to that, but I guess, and I think you agree that you want to try to keep some order to it. MR. MAC EWAN-I think to try to facilitate this thing based on these seven bullet items on here, and focus on that, and get them respond from it, then I’ll open up a brief public comment for neighbors to comment relative to the good neighbor plan itself and anything that we may have overlooked. MR. STROUGH-Can we give him handouts. Would that help? When they came up and spoke to us, at least they had a handout of questions that they had to direct? MR. MAC EWAN-Could you make copies and put them on the table of the Wal-Mart good neighbor plan? MR. HILTON-All neighbors within 500 feet have received that. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Make more copies because there are going to be people here who are beyond 500 feet, and e-mail both this Wal-Mart good neighbor plan and the Staff’s overview of the discussion to all the Planning Board members as well. MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Except Larry, send it by FedEx or something. Is that it? On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 54