Loading...
2003-11-25 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 25, 2003 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LARRY RINGER, ACTING CHAIRMAN ROBERT VOLLARO JOHN STROUGH ANTHONY METIVIER CHRIS HUNSINGER MEMBERS ABSENT CRAIG MAC EWAN RICHARD SANFORD MR. RINGER-There are a couple of changes in the agenda. The first item on the agenda is just a simple rescinding a resolution. The second item will be the Valvoline. Third item will be Hughes. Fourth item will be Rivett. Fifth item will be Wing. Sixth item will be Rowlandson. The seventh item will be Prospect School and the eighth item Hayes and Hayes tonight, and that will be the agenda that we’ll follow. Also, I don’t know how long this meeting is going to go tonight. We will be ending this meeting at 11 o’clock. So if we’re still going at 11, we will be stopping the meeting and continuing anything that we haven’t been able to complete. The reason for that, last month we had a meeting that lasted until two in the morning. I don’t know if any of you were here. We certainly don’t want that experience, and I don’t think anybody here would want that experience again either. So I think 11 o’clock, and we’ll certainly do our best to make sure that we can get as much business accomplished as possible, but I want to let you know ahead of time that we will be stopping at eleven. Thank you, and with that, we’ll start. 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 MR. HILTON-Just as a little point of clarification, although it’s listed on your packets as a motion to rescind, I believe that was, the rescinding motion was already done, and what’s included in your packet is a resolution seeking Lead Agency for the Douglas and Teresa Miller Petition for Zone Change. So it’s appropriate to go forward with this resolution if you so choose, as it’s already been rescinded. MR. RINGER-Okay. I just read it wrong here. Okay. So if you’ll start with the agenda, George, and what’s the first item, then, we’ve got? MR. HILTON-What you have before you this evening is the draft resolution seeking Lead Agency status for Petition for Zone Change for Doug & Teresa Miller. There’s a draft resolution included in your packets, and that’s all we have. MR. RINGER-Okay. Any questions? If no questions, a motion from the Board. MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE PZ 2-2003 DOUG & TERESA MILLER, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) 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 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be Lead Agency for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the Department of Community Development to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such intent. Duly adopted this 25th day of November, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Sanford MR. RINGER-Next item, George, if you would. MR. HILTON-Sure. OLD BUSINESS – MODIFICATIONS SITE PLAN NO. 60-1990 SEQR TYPE II MODIFICATION ROARING BROOK LLC VALVOLINE INSTANT OIL CHANGE AGENT: RONALD WILLIS, DISTRICT MANAGER ZONE: HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION: 717 UPPER GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES A 125.28 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING VALVOLINE AUTOMOBILE SERVICE USE. AUTOMOBILE SERVICE USES REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 87-03, UV 42-90, AV 43-90, SV 1345 TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-52 LOT SIZE: 0.30 ACRES SECTION: 179-14-080 RONALD WILLIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HILTON-This is modification for Roaring Brook LLC. It’s the Valvoline on Upper Glen Street. The applicant proposes to construct a 125 square foot building addition at the existing Valvoline on Route 9. The applicant has requested waivers from stormwater management, grading, lighting and landscaping plans. The ZBA, on November 19, approved an Area th Variance for side yard setback. I guess our only question would be, is there any proposed wall mounted or freestanding lighting that’s to be a part of this application? And the applicant indicates that they will be adding one parking space, and our question is, is any repaving or resurfacing proposed? If so, is it within the Niagara Mohawk right of way and have they consented to this additional work? That’s all we have at this time. MR. RINGER-Okay. The applicant, would you identify yourself for the record, please? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) MR. WILLIS-Yes. My name is Ronald Willis. I’m a District Manager with Roaring Brook LLC dba Valvoline Instant Oil Change. We have an existing car wash bay, and we want to update it to add 125 square feet on to (lost words). As for the questions that he just raised here, I’m not adding any wall mounted lighting or anything of that nature. As for the adding of the parking space, we are not doing any repaving or increased surfacing at all. MR. RINGER-Thank you. Rather than go one by one, are there any questions from the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-No, I thought it was pretty straightforward. MR. VOLLARO-No freestanding lights. We ought to grant the waivers, I feel, and I’d have no further comments on it. MR. RINGER-Okay. Anyone, John, have any comments? MR. STROUGH-Well, just I think probably a correction. On your site development data, it has that you have less than one percent non-permeable. That’s not accurate. I think you meant to say that you had 83% non-permeable. Okay. Just a correction. If you do the math, that’s what it comes out to be. MR. WILLIS-Okay. MS. RADNER-This is a Type II. So you’re going to want to redact the paragraph regarding SEQRA from the resolution from the draft resolution. MR. RINGER-Okay. Thank you, Cathi. Any other questions from the Board? Okay. On the application, making that correction, can he just make that correction right in, hand it to George and make that an official part of the correction? Okay. We have a public hearing on this. MR. STROUGH-No, I don’t think there is. This is just a modification. MR. RINGER-Public hearing not required. Okay. No public hearing, then. All right. I’m looking for a resolution, then. MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. I’ll make the resolution. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 60-1990 ROARING BROOK LLC, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 60-1990 Applicant / Property Owner: Roaring Brook LLC SEQR Type II Valvoline Instant Oil Change Agent: Ronald Willis, District Manager MODIFICATION Zone: HC-Intensive Location: 717 Upper Glen Street Applicant proposes a 125.28 sq. ft. addition to existing Valvoline Automobile Service use. Automobile service uses require Site Plan review and approval from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: AV 87-03, UV 42-90, AV 43-90, SV 1345 Tax Map No 302.6-1-52 Lot size: 0.30 acres / Section: 179-14-080 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 11/21/03, and 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) 11/25 Staff Notes 11/19 ZBA resolution: Approved 11/3 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for a modification, 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, 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 with the exception of the deletion of the Whereas SEQRA paragraph, and the granting of the waivers. Duly adopted this 25th day of November, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan MR. RINGER-You’re all set, sir. NEW BUSINESS – SUBDIVISIONS SUBDIVISION NO. 17-2003 SKETCH PLAN JOHN HUGHES AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: PO LOCATION: BAY ROAD & BAYBERRY DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 9.28 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO 7 LOTS. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ – TO BE SUBMITTED TAX MAP NO. 296.12-1-23 LOT SIZE: 8.66 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HILTON-The applicant proposes to subdivide a 9.28 property into seven lots as shown on the map. Four are shown as residential lots and three are shown as professional office lots. Lots three and four are actually existing lots. It’s kind of a tricky situation. Although they don’t show up on the map, the tax mapping that we have, they are preexisting lots. Part of a previous subdivision called Brookview Acres. I guess the question is, does the applicant intend to include these preexisting lots in the current subdivision, or will they remain as is? All properties shown are currently zoned professional office, P O. the residential, proposed residential properties require rezoning to a residential zone if they are to be developed as a single family, as single family property. This is a Sketch Plan. That’s all I have at this time, if you have any questions. MR. RINGER-Okay. (Microphone not on – not able to pick up all conversation) 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves, representing John Hughes on this application. As George has stated, Lots Three and Four were part of the previous subdivision called Brookview Acres back in 1965 and ’66. Knowing them as part of this plan (lost words). It was always intended to build residential homes on those that was consistent with what’s out back on the entire subdivision. There’ll be one lot that would be left, Lot Two, away from the Bay Road corridor, we would like to also (lost words) as residential. He has talked to Chris Round about the zoning on that. They went to rezoning. They came back (lost word) line that is in back of Lot Four and Five (lost words) Bay Road and rezone that all professional office. Rezoning the two existing lots (lost word) subdivision. So we will (lost words). Lots One, Seven and Six that front on Bay Road will be professional office, and Lot Five would also be professional office lot. Like I said, the two existing lots in the subdivision, we’d like to bring those back in to the residential nature, and keep that (lost words) to Lot Two. We’d open it up to any questions the Board may have. MR. RINGER-Now, we’re looking only at Sketch Plan tonight, and now, Cathi, since this is a Sketch for a subdivision, but there’s going to be a zoning thing in there, too, how. MS. RADNER-At Sketch Plan all you’re giving is some guidance of what you’d like to see. You’re not making any promises or affirming that they’ll be able to get that zoning change. You’re just giving an indication whether or not you like the concept or whether or not you foresee any major problems with the concept. MR. RINGER-Okay. So if we ask the questions, you know, that’s what we should keep in mind, and we’ll start with Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just have a couple of questions. One is the 75 foot setback on Bay Road is not on the drawing. I guess it ought to be. MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-And then, having said that, that’s not going to leave an awful lot of room between that 75 foot setback and the stream. MR. STEVES-Correct. (Lost words) on Lots Six and Seven there is ample room. Lot One was taken out with the previous location (lost words) determination made (lost words) Preliminary (lost words). We don’t know at this time (lost words) professional office (lost words). MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that’s the plan. MR. STEVES-Because of the fact the stream is a natural break there, you really can’t cross it to use the other side of the lot. It was included into Lot (lost word). MR. VOLLARO-That’s the first question that I have. So all of these lots have to go to professional office. That’s the, from One through Seven. MR. STEVES-Two, Three, and Four we’re asking. MR. VOLLARO-For PO. The others are already PO, but this whole thing will be Professional Office when it’s done. MR. STEVES-Except for Lots Two, Three, and Four. MR. VOLLARO-They’re going to stay residential? MR. STEVES-Yes. They were residential. Lots Three and Four were part of the previously approved subdivision back in the 60’s, and it was always the intention to leave those as residential. When the new zoning came into play (lost words) and extended it northerly and then back to the east, and included it in the Professional Office. Whether the rezoning goes 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) through, if it does, then we could use those as residential. If it does not, then we would develop those as professional lots. The configuration won’t change much. MR. VOLLARO-So what you’re trying to do is move Lots One, Six and Seven to residential. MR. STEVES-Lots Two, Three, and Four. MR. VOLLARO-When you’re all done, what will you have on this? Will they be all residential, or all PO? MR. STEVES-Split. MR. VOLLARO-It’s going to be split. MR. STEVES-Just as we had written right on it, underneath Lots Two, Three and Four we say residential. That’s what we’re proposing. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So it’s going to be, you’re going to have that split. That’s what I’m trying to get at. Now what’s the status of Lot Five? That 4.86 acres? MR. STEVES-That was Mr. Hughes’ old home. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That’s the big house up there. MR. STEVES-The big white house with the big garage up there, and he’d make that into some kind of a professional office. There’d probably be a site plan developed in the future that this subdivision goes through for the use of that. It will be (lost words). MR. VOLLARO-Is any subdivision being planned for that? MR. STEVES-No. MR. VOLLARO-That’s going to stay as a 4.86 acre parcel? MR. STEVES-That’s the way he wants it at this time, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and there’s a lot to his east, a Hughes lot. What’s the story with that one? MR. STEVES-That was his son’s house, I believe. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and there’s a house there now? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Are there any mapped wetlands on this that you know of on this? MR. STEVES-Not as far as (lost words) DEC, but you can recall through the property to the south, there’s some, along that corridor up at the stream/swale (lost words) Federal wetlands. MR. VOLLARO-That’s liable to be fairly small. So the Fed’s may not get into it. I don’t know. MR. STEVES-It’s very small on Lots Six and Seven. It does (lost words) Lot One. That’s where (lost words). MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think, in Chris Round’s letter of September 4, 2003, he clauses his letter with, again we are prepared to move forward with the correction of Lots One and Two, but we will delay any action on this matter until we see confirmation of your plans, and I guess this is. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) MR. STEVES-Lot One and Two is what is (lost words) Three and Four here. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STROUGH-It was One and Two to the original. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I don’t have anything else, other than that. MR. RINGER-Okay. John? MR. STROUGH-Well, my concern about Lots One, Seven and Six, you’ve got the 75 foot setback. That I drew up here, the Bay Road corridor setback. Then you’ve got to have, here’s the stream, and you’re going to have your stream and wetland setback. MR. STEVES-Just as we do on the lot immediately to the south, as Mr. Schermerhorn’s developing his office building on now, and (lost words). MR. STROUGH-All right. How far from the stream, what’s the setback from the stream? Do you know offhand, is it 75 or 100? MR. HILTON-In that zone. MR. VOLLARO-It’s 120 foot from the 75 foot setback from the stream. That’s what I got. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but what’s the setback from the stream? MR. HILTON-In the PO zone 75 feet. MR. STROUGH-Seventy-five feet. So you’ve got 75 feet now, setback from the stream. All right. MR. STEVES-You’re talking 70 foot of building space there (lost words). MR. STROUGH-All right. Here’s our 75 set back from the stream. Here’s the 75 set back from the road. Where are we going to build? MR. STEVES-Well, if you take the 220 foot depth, and you take 150 feet away, it leaves us 70 foot. That’s a substantial (lost words). MR. STROUGH-Okay. You’ve got, you know, here is where you have to build is in between these two lines. MR. STEVES-Correct, 70 feet. One hundred and fifty from two twenty, John, is seventy feet. So you have a 70 foot building envelope, and that’s basically what we had on the lot to the south where the building is being constructed at this time. MR. STROUGH-All right. I can’t make a determination on this. I want to see a subdivision plan with all the setbacks, the stream setbacks, the wetland setbacks, the Bay Road setback, because I just don’t know if those lots are big enough to accommodate professional offices. Now one other thing we’ve got to consider. Between commercial and residential, you have your buffer requirements. So that’s even going to further limit Lot One, especially. So I’d like to see that lot, I’d like to see this with your buffer requirements, and all your setbacks, and everything else, and show a proposal where you would put a building. I mean, I just can’t see it. I’m sorry, but that’s all I have to say. MR. RINGER-But this is Sketch. So this is what you’re looking for is what you’re going to get for Preliminary, or what we’d like to see for Preliminary. That’s it, John? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. RINGER-Okay. Tony? MR. METIVIER-I mean, I can see you putting a 70 foot wide building in there. I guess the problem is is that you’re not really working with 150, because you’ve got to move forward of the stream, which is, I’m going to say approximately in one location 20 feet off the line. MR. STEVES-It is approximately at this time. MR. METIVIER-Yes, but, no, I can see putting a 70 foot wide building in there, in those two locations, up to a 70. I’m trying to visualize what the other building there, that Rich is putting up, the smaller of those buildings, how wide that is. I’m willing to bet that’s probably around 60 or so. MR. STEVES-Sixty-three feet, I believe. MR. METIVIER-I guess my concern is, if you look at Lot Number One, regardless with the stream there, you have very minimal use of that lot. MR. STEVES-And I don’t disagree. (lost words). MR. METIVIER-Right. Or you take the building right across the street, which Jeff Howard built, it’s a very small building, and it works perfect, you know, but, besides that, was there any reason for Lots Two, Three, and Four being split up the way that they were? Because you have Lot Two at .77 acres, with insignificant road frontage. MR. STEVES-Three and Four were the exact configuration on the original subdivision of 1966. MR. METIVIER-So I guess I’m confused why. MR. STEVES-They’re existing lots. MR. METIVIER-Right. They’re existing lots, but are they residential or PO? MR. STEVES-They’re zoned Professional Office. MR. METIVIER-They are. MR. STEVES-But once the subdivision is developed, it’s developed as a residential. MR. METIVIER-Okay. That makes sense. So, no, besides that, I can see that working here. I have nothing further. MR. RINGER-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Just the same comments you’ve heard enough, you know, One, Six, and Seven. One of the questions I really had, though, was related to access. I would assume that most of the lots would have access only to Bayberry Drive, and not directly onto Bay Road, but what about Lot Six? MR. STEVES-Lot Six and Seven, the property line between those two is generally in the location of the existing driveway that is there (lost words) the big white house. MR. HUNSINGER-So there would be one driveway that would serve lots, could actually serve all three of those lots. Yes. Okay. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) MR. RINGER-You’d show that on the Preliminary. MR. STEVES-Yes. Everything that you’re asking would be shown on the Preliminary. We’d have to prove, obviously, that the lots would work (lost words) conceptual (lost words). MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not quite sure, I don’t know how much we want to get into the zone change discussion. I mean, I can really see the argument going either way for Lots Two, Three and Four. Your first comment, though, regarding Lot One, is, well, you know, if you can’t develop Lot One, you would just make it part of Lot Two, but if you have already gone ahead and made a zone change, then, you know. MR. STEVES-We’ll go back (lost words). MR. HUNSINGER-Before you, yes, absolutely. Yes, I didn’t have anything else. MR. RINGER-Anything else from any? Well, you’ve got ideas from us, Matt, and some concerns as to the size of those lots and what can be done on it. So that’s it. SUBDIVISION NO. 18-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED VICTORIA RIVETT PROPERTY OWNER: FLOYD SMITH AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES LOCATION: AVIATION & FOX FARM ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 2.43 +/- PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF 1.31 ACRES AND 1.12 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: F. SMITH ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION – AD 1-1999 TAX MAP NO. 301.7-2-3 LOT SIZE: 2.43 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 18-2003, Preliminary & Final Stage, Victoria Rivett, Meeting Date: November 25, 2003 “APPLICATION: Subdivision 18-2003 (Preliminary & Final Stage) APPLICANT: Victoria Rivett is the applicant for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 2.43 +/- acre property into 2 residential lots. LOCATION: The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Aviation Rd. and Fox Farm 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 part of an Administrative Two-Lot subdivision (AD1-1999). PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 2.43 +/- acre property into two residential lots. A proposed house is shown on the northern portion of the property, and an existing residence is located on the southern part of this property off of Aviation Rd. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has requested the following waivers: Stormwater Management Plan - 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) Grading Plan - Topographic Contours - Sketch Plan - Staff does not anticipate any negative impacts as a result of this subdivision. As a note, this 2- lot subdivision does not qualify for an administrative 2-lot subdivision review, because of a previous administrative approval in 1999.” MR. HILTON-The applicant proposes to subdivide a 2.43 acre property into two residential lots. The property is currently zoned SFR-1A. The action is a SEQRA Unlisted action. As far as parcel history, the property was previously part of an administrative two lot subdivision, as I’ve referenced in the notes, administrative subdivision one of 1999. The applicant has requested waivers from stormwater management, grading plan, topo and Sketch Plan. The proposed subdivision, or creation of the lots itself seems relatively minor, and just as a note, this particular application does not apply for an administrative two lot because that, I guess, procedure has already been used. So that’s why it’s before the Board this evening. That’s all I really have at this time, unless you have any questions. MR. RINGER-Okay. You’re here again. (Microphone not on, some conversation lost) MR. STEVES-Here again. Good evening. Matt Steves again, representing Victoria Rivett on this application. This is property on the corner of Aviation and Fox Farm Road (lost words) and (lost words). The barn on the corner, the southwest corner (lost words) 1999, (lost words) parcel which was owned by Floyd Smith. Therefore breaking the old homestead lot off with a one acre lot in back (lost words) Planning Board approval. (Lost words) What they propose to do is increase the building lot in the back, the 1.1 acre running on Fox Farm Road (lost words). MR. RINGER-Is that it, Matt? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. RINGER-Okay. John? MR. STROUGH-No questions. MR. RINGER-Tony? MR. METIVIER-Nothing. MR. RINGER-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. RINGER-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Just one on that lot. Since it backs up on State land to the north, I’m just taking a look at where the proposed house is and where the drain field is, and I appreciate what you’re saying about the topo. There’s not a foot of change, but I just want to make sure that there’s no, that there’s enough permeability in this ground to absorb any water that sheet flows across there, if it does sheet flow at all. MR. STEVES-With the perc rates in this area and the sands that are up there, we’re hard pressed to get the minute, minute and a half soils. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just wanted to make sure that you had looked at that, because I know that land up there is pretty permeable, and other than that, I don’t have any questions. I just 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) wanted to make sure that there was enough permeability in that ground to absorb water before it got to the line. I suspect it is. It will be grassed I suppose because it will be over the field. So it should be okay. No, I don’t have anything on that. It looks pretty straightforward to me. MR. RINGER-I didn’t have any questions, although I really don’t like flag shaped lots, and that’s what we’ve got in this, but I don’t have any, we’ve got a public hearing on this. So I’ll open up the meeting to a public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I have one more question on the note that appears on the drawing. I missed that, but it says the final grading of the proposed parcel will slope away from the proposed structure for stormwater drainage and disposal. Now does that mean that you’re going to slope toward the northern line? MR. STEVES-Well, like I say, it’s so flat that the standard note for a two lot administrative subdivision is that (lost word) increase stormwater flow back toward the foundation, (lost words) to discharge the stormwater away from the home. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STEVES-(Lost words). MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have any other questions. MR. RINGER-Okay. We’ll do a SEQRA. MR. VOLLARO-It’s the Long Form. MR. RINGER-The Long Form. Chris is going to do the SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 18-2003, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: VICTORIA RIVETT, 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. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) 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 25 day of November, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan MR. RINGER-Anyone want to make a motion for Preliminary? MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 18-2003 VICTORIA RIVETT, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 18-2003 Applicant: Victoria Rivett PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: Floyd Smith FINAL STAGE Agent: Van Dusen & Steves SEQR Type: Unlisted Zone: SFR-1A Location: Aviation & Fox Farm Road Applicant proposes to subdivide a 2.43 +/- acre parcel into 2 lots of 1.31 acres and 1.12 acres. Cross Reference: F. Smith Administrative Subdivision – AD 1- 1999 Tax Map No. 301.7-2-3 Lot size: 2.43 acres / Section: Subdivision Regulations Public Hearing: November 25, 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 11/24/03, and 11/25 Staff Notes 11/18 Notice of Public Hearing 11/3 Meeting Notice w/project id marker 9/30 F. Smith from C. Brown: need for subdivision 5/11/99 Two Lot residential subdivision, Floyd Smith 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 25, 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 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) 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 and grant the waivers requested: Sketch plan, Stormwater Management, Grading and Landscaping Plan. Duly adopted this 25th day of November, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 18-2003 VICTORIA RIVETT, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 18-2003 Applicant: Victoria Rivett PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: Floyd Smith FINAL STAGE Agent: Van Dusen & Steves SEQR Type: Unlisted Zone: SFR-1A Location: Aviation & Fox Farm Road Applicant proposes to subdivide a 2.43 +/- acre parcel into 2 lots of 1.31 acres and 1.12 acres. Cross Reference: F. Smith Administrative Subdivision – AD 1- 1999 Tax Map No. 301.7-2-3 Lot size: 2.43 acres / Section: Subdivision Regulations Public Hearing: November 25, 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 11/24/03, and 11/25 Staff Notes 11/18 Notice of Public Hearing 11/3 Meeting Notice w/project id marker 9/30 F. Smith from C. Brown: need for subdivision 5/11/99 Two Lot residential subdivision, Floyd Smith 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 25, 2003; and 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) 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 Final Stage is hereby approved and is subject to the following conditions: 1. Recreation Fees in the amount of $500.00 per lot - two (2) are applicable to this subdivision. 2. Waiver request(s) are granted / denied: Sketch plan, Stormwater Management, Grading and Landscaping Plan. 3. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 4. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. Duly adopted this 25th day of November, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan MR. RINGER-You’re all set, Matt. SITE PLAN NO. 52-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED ROBERT WING PROPERTY OWNER: TOM & ELMA MCDERMOTT AGENT: JAMES MILLER, MILLER ASSOCIATES ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION: 155 SUNNYSIDE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A LANDSCAPE SUPPLY NURSERY ON A 19.90 +/- ACRE PARCEL. NURSERY USES IN THE RR-3A ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/12/03 TAX MAP NO. 279.17-1-60 LOT SIZE: 19.90 +/- ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 52-2003, Robert Wing, Meeting Date: November 25, 2003 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 52-2003 APPLICANT: Robert Wing is the applicant for this request. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to construct a nursery on a 19.90 acre property. LOCATION: The subject property is located at 155 Sunnyside Rd. EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned RR-3A, Rural Residential Three Acre. SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Unlisted Action. The applicant has submitted a SEQRA short form. PARCEL HISTORY: A search of the parcel history found no previous Planning Board or ZBA actions for this property. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to construct a nursery, including a 5,880 sq. ft. building, parking, storage of stock, and site landscaping on a 19.90 acre property located approximately at the northwest corner of Route 9L and Sunnyside Rd. The applicant has also submitted a grading & drainage plan along with a stormwater management report with the application. STAFF COMMENTS: The site plan indicates a 5,880 sq. ft. building along with associated parking, landscape storage, site landscaping, and lighting. Vehicular access is shown off of Sunnyside Rd. with an additional access point off of East Road. Is the East Rd. access designed to be for limited or emergency access, or will this be a full access drive? The applicant has shown the required buffers from surrounding residential properties and has proposed additional plantings (spruce trees) in some of these areas. The Planning Board should determine whether or not the proposed plantings will provide an adequate buffer from the adjacent residential properties. Proposed light levels appear to be consistent with Zoning requirements. It is unclear whether or not the fixtures are downcast lights. Are the tops on the proposed fixtures solid or will light shine upward from the fixtures? Consideration should be given to aligning the proposed drive on Sunnyside Rd. with the driveway of the Golf Course on the south side of Sunnyside Rd. in order to minimize vehicle conflicts between the two locations and other cars traveling east and west along the main road. Any comments from CT Male should be addressed during the review of this application.” MR. HILTON-The applicant proposes to construct a nursery on a 19.90 acre property, including a 5,880 square foot building, along with associated parking, storage of stock, site landscaping, and lighting. Vehicular access is shown off Sunnyside Road, with an additional access point off of East Road. I guess our question is, is that East Road access designed to be limited access, emergency or a full access drive? The applicant has shown on the plan the required buffers from surrounding residential properties, and I guess the Planning Board has discretion over these buffers and whether you feel they’re appropriate to screen this site from the adjacent residential properties. Proposed light levels appear to be consistent with zoning requirements. However, it’s unclear whether these fixtures are downcast, if the tops are solid or if light will shine out of the fixtures. Consideration should be given to aligning the proposed drive on Sunnyside with the driveway across the street, the golf course drive, in the best interest of, I guess, access management and traffic safety, you know, you line those two commercial drives up. It may be a safer situation. Also, any comments from C.T. Male should be addressed during the review of this application, and that’s all I have at this time unless you have any questions. MR. RINGER-Okay. Have we gotten anything back from C.T. Male? Have they answered C.T. Male? 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) MR. HILTON-What we have, and we received this today, is a letter that says, basically states that the applicant and C.T. Male have been trading drawings and says provided that the information included in a fax which C.T. Male received is incorporated into the final document, the revisions address our previous comments. It’s signed by Jim Houston and it’s dated November 25. th MR. RINGER-Thank you. MR. MILLER-Good evening. I’m Jim Miller, Landscape Architect, representing Rob Wing, the applicant. Just to further state, we responded to all the comments, and these drawings have all the revisions that were approved by C.T. Male. MR. RINGER-The drawings that are on the board? MR. MILLER-The ones that are on the board here. They were revised (lost words), and there’s actually (lost words). The site is on the north side of Sunnyside Road, on the corner of East Road. It’s a 20 acre site. This is the existing motorcycle/dirt bike track, which is going to be removed. The plan is to develop a nursery within the RR-3 zone. All the track’s being removed. The only building that, there’ll be a building constructed back off the main road, which will house retail, office and garage and associated parking. There’s a combination of uses. Part of the site is going to be retail, which is actually a smaller portion of it. You can see in the building there’s about (lost word) square foot of retail store, and then there’s about 23,000 square foot of retail sales area. This is open to the public, retail sales. There’ll be a little gazebo building for seasonal sales, but any public coming to the nursery will park here and either access the retail store or for the nursery. Another function of it is going to be wholesale nursery, which is going to be sale of products, nursery products to contractors, and that’s the areas that are identified wholesale nursery storage, and also material storage. These are typically going to be trees that are, and plants that are going to be in pots or bulbs in burlap ready to be delivered to construction sites, and this area is not a retail sales. So contractors would call up, place an order, and the material will be shipped. The storage, this area to the rear of the site is going to be for things such as mulch, stone, rock, pavers, those types of harder surface materials, and the third thing that is going to be is actually going to be a growing nursery where there’s going to be actually plants in the ground, being grown, and there’s a field in this area, along the back of the residences off Sunnyside there’s also an area for growing sod, and what we tried to do, in laying the site out, is to, the areas that are going to have the least activity are obviously the growing fields. They’ll be grassed. They’ll be mowed, except for the time they would be digging plants up, which is going to be infrequently, compared to some of the other areas, the more active areas located to the back of the site, and the areas that are bordering the residential areas are going to be the actual growing nursery portions of the site. As George had mentioned, we’ve shown the required buffers around the residential areas. There’s residences along East Road. There’s a fairly heavy tree row here. In one area it’s fairly light, near a couple of the houses, we’ve shown some additional planting of some evergreens, but again, on the other side of that buffer is going to be basically a tree farm. The same thing along the back of the properties on Sunnyside, this area is fairly sparse. So we’ve shown a buffer area. Again it would be planted with spruce trees, and again, this is against the area where it’s got nursery field. The other properties to the north and east are fairly heavily wooded. This is undeveloped, to the north. There’s one house on this lot that sits fairly back, and then this buffer area would be maintained and be existing material. One of the questions George asked about, obviously, this isn’t going to be opened at night. There’s lighting in and around the office. Those will be a cut off top fixture with a solid top, shining down. There’ll be an entrance on Sunnyside that’ll be, now this is fairly open. It will be a split rail fence with a sign and landscaped entry identifying the nursery. With that, if you have any questions? MR. RINGER-Staff had one other comment about the entry and lining up with the golf. MR. MILLER-Well, I talked to George about that today. A couple of concerns I have about that. We have no problem adjusting that. The driveway George is talking about, you can see, I think it’s this one right here. If you look at Sunnyside, actually the main driveway, Sunnyside has got 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) sort of an “L” Shaped parking lot, and the main driveway is really further to the north, which is really across from this house. The driveway that George shows there, the parking comes across the front of the building, and it’s not even a paved driveway. People just drive out that. Probably on a busy days, they just exit from that corner of the parking lot. So it’s really not a very well defined driveway, as far as us trying to align to it, you know, it’s not the main driveway, one of the concerns we had also was that we have, this is a fairly narrow lot next to us, and there’s a residence right here, and we wanted to try to make sure we maintain as much separation as we can from that neighbor, and so we’d prefer to shift the driveway the other way, for that reason, but, I mean, we’d be happy to line that driveway any way. This house here, it’s on the property and it exists and will remain. MR. RINGER-I just had that comment in Staff, but I just wanted to address it. You showed 92 or 94 parking spaces because the Town requires 92. MR. MILLER-That’s right. MR. RINGER-The way you described the project, it doesn’t seem like you’re going to need that many parking spaces. Is the applicant looking for that many, or would he, we have the authority to reduce by 10%, and I’m just wondering, it just seems like an awful lot of parking spaces. MR. MILLER-Well, it is, and I think, actually, I think there’s a problem with your Code. When you look at, or at least the interpretation of the Code, if you look at nursery sale, the requirement for parking spaces for the outside nursery display is exactly the same as you have for a store, which is really not right, and that’s why we show so many spaces there. The applicant really didn’t have a problem with that because it’s going to be all gravel, it’s not going to be paved. The only area that’s going to be paved is the apron as you’re coming in off Sunnyside Road, and just the paving where we’d need handicap access near the front of the building, but because of the type of business it is, with the wholesale nursery, that even if he’s not parking there. MR. RINGER-It’s not going to be striped or anything? MR. MILLER-It’s not going to be striped, you know, he could still use that area for staging and loading for the wholesale business. It possibly might be required in the spring nursery sales, but he doesn’t really have a problem. We’re well within the green space requirement. MR. RINGER-There was so much. I was just wondering if you wanted to cut it down, I’m sure the Board would go along with you. I didn’t have anything else. Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I have a few questions, and some of them go back to C.T. Male’s comments, which I know have been addressed, but, you know, for our own information, one of the questions I had, that they also had was on the entrance sign. Would that be lit? MR. MILLER-It would be lit from the ground. MR. HUNSINGER-From the ground up? MR. MILLER-From the ground up. Right. MR. HUNSINGER-We’ve been recommending that the lit signs be lit from the other way, from the ground down, and the bad example is the one that’s right out here, you know, down onto the sign, rather than up into the air. The water source, is that going to be well water? MR. MILLER-It’s going to be well water. We added a location of the well, just near the gazebo area. It’s a low use, because what we have is an office there. MR. HUNSINGER-No restrooms for the public? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) MR. MILLER-There’ll be a restroom there, I’m sure, if there’s customers there that ask to use the restroom, they’d be allowed to, but still it’s a low usage compared to residential (lost word). MR. HUNSINGER-I really didn’t have many questions. I thought it was a pretty well designed site. Well, might have some further comments or questions after neighbors get a chance to speak. MR. METIVIER-I just think that you’re going to make some kids awfully angry. MR. MILLER-Well, I think that Rob has removed most of the jumps and things and has been turning people away. So they’re already unhappy. MR. METIVIER-A question on the water, I mean, you said it’s low usage, but what about growing fields? MR. MILLER-He’s going to develop, actually we did some test pits. We were hoping where the detention basin is to the east, that he would be able to get a pond there, but it doesn’t look like he’s going to, so he’s going to drill a series of wells, just for irrigation, separate from the well that C.T. Male talked about, which was really the water usage for the office. So there’ll be wells. There’ll probably be located on the east side of the site, and based on the amount of flow he gets from the well, will determine if he needs any water storage or anything, but typically by using zones, he’s able to irrigate throughout the day and night. So he would envision irrigating the wells. MR. METIVIER-So will there or will there not be greenhouses here? MR. MILLER-No. MR. METIVIER-No greenhouses? MR. MILLER-No. I think that the majority of plants grown here are going to be larger plants, mostly trees. I mean, he’ll have some shrubs and things, but it’s not going to be, even the retail sales is not going to be a lot of flowers and small vegetable plants and stuff. There’s a lot of nurseries in the area that really meet that need. He’s not looking to duplicate that effort. MR. METIVIER-And the existing McDermott’s building, is that going to remain, or is that coming down? I guess I’m confused. MR. MILLER-Well, actually the buildings on the corner is a separate lot. They’re going to remain, I believe, and there’s going to be a tenant there, but that’s a separate lot. The only building on the site that’s going to remain is the one house that’s in the front. MR. METIVIER-Are they scraping, right now, topsoil off that? MR. MILLER-There was some, I don’t know the whole case. I believe there was a topsoil pile there, and he came and talked to Craig Brown and got approval to screen that, and then he removed it, and then he took some of the jumps down, but I think that was an existing stockpile that was there, as I understand it. MR. METIVIER-Okay, because somebody raised the question to me about that, that they were scraping topsoil, and I wasn’t sure. I said I would look into it. MR. MILLER-Well, he did a little bit of grading and he removed some jumps and things, and I can’t say exactly, but I know he did remove some topsoil, but I thought a majority of that was already scraped and piled. I don’t know if they just scraped it during the track construction. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) MR. METIVIER-I mean, I’m surprised that, with all the development today, that on a parcel that size, and in that area, that somebody would opt to do this. It’s almost refreshing a little bit. MR. MILLER-He’s in the business. MR. METIVIER-That’s good. I mean, it’s a great, great piece of property. I mean, it really is. MR. RINGER-Is that it, Tony? MR. METIVIER-Yes. MR. RINGER-John? MR. STROUGH-Jim, on the site development data and the setback requirements sheet, I just got a little confused going through here. So let’s, Front One, Existing, 51.9. Now that’s existing in reference to what? MR. MILLER-The existing residence. MR. STROUGH-Which is, what, McDermott’s? MR. MILLER-No. It’s the building right there. MR. STROUGH-Isn’t that still going to be existing? Are they taking that out? MR. MILLER-Yes, but it’s a separate lot. It’s not part of this application. You see the aerial shows where the lot goes. This is McDermott’s on the corner. That’s that existing house that’s on this lot. MR. STROUGH-But you’re saying it’s not part of the proposal. I see. Okay, and that explains the Front One, Front Two, Side One, Side Two, and all that. MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-All right. So Side One is that house that you’re talking about. MR. MILLER-Well, where it says existing, John, that’s the existing house. MR. STROUGH-Right. MR. MILLER-And then where it’s proposed, the next one over, that’s the new building. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, you see where I was getting confused, Jim. Nothing in the literature explained that. Okay. That explains that, Jim. Thanks. The stormwater report, I even got out my dollar store 3x glasses, and I still couldn’t read it, the map on the stormwater report. I just make that comment. MR. MILLER-I’ll pass that along to Mr. Nace. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, considering the sandy soils, and I am familiar with this piece of property, and the McDermott’s and the motorcycles the whole thing, but that map there, even with my 3x, I couldn’t read it, but, okay, so that was just a comment. MR. MILLER-Actually, John, I think that the whole purpose, I mean, the grading plan is really the map that shows the grading, and the only purpose for that is just to show the breakdown of the subcatchments of the drainage so that you can follow it in the calculations. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) MR. STROUGH-And I know, and I know when Tom Nace does something, he does it well, and furthermore that’s been reviewed by the Town Engineer, and they do things well, but my other concern here is the location within a residential area. Now we’ve had another application where we had an agricultural, if you will, within a residential area, and that was the, I forget the name of the applicant, but it was the winery, off Big Bay Road, D’Alonzo or something, but anyhow, regardless of the name, it was a vineyard, winery. So, pesticide, herbicide and fertilizer use and restrictions applied to that application in a residential area, and I don’t know if we have to go there or not, but we did, you know, there were restrictions about times and wind conditions, and he had to submit New York State and Federal laws that would apply to his usage of those substances just to make sure that we reviewed them, and make sure they were suitable for a residential area. So I don’t know if I’m, you know, to use a metaphor out on a limb on that one or not. MR. MILLER-Well, I think we have a little bit different opinion. I think with, you know, raising grapes, you obviously have a lot more problems. These are ornamentals. These are hardy trees that are really going to be more low maintenance. The sod areas, I think that the type of fertilizer applications and things that would occur here are probably less than you would have at farm, and probably similar to what you’d have at home, but we don’t have any, you know, we’re not selling roses or things or fruit trees. MR. STROUGH-Well, they may have fruit trees. MR. MILLER-Well, but it’s going to be ornamental trees. It’s going to be, you know, crab apples. It’s going to be things that are disease resistant. It’s not going to be plant material that’s going to require a lot of maintenance and special care. They’re selling to the public, and, obviously that’s a specialty, and, you know, the types of materials they’re going to raise here is going to be more of the low maintenance variety. MR. STROUGH-And I can agree with your point, and I can see your point, and you’re probably right. the intensity of use is probably not going to be as strong as with a vineyard, but there still is going to be that use. So, well, we’ll see how it flows, but that’s it for me. Thanks. MR. RINGER-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. On the drawing of the building, is that the north elevation I’m looking at there? MR. MILLER-That’s looking at the front as you would approach it from Sunnyside. MR. VOLLARO-As you would approach it from Sunnyside. MR. MILLER-Yes, it would be the south elevation. MR. VOLLARO-It would be the south elevation. Okay. MR. MILLER-Well, the problem we have with this, I mean, this would be the building plans, we couldn’t get building plans because it’s going to be a pre-fab building, and he’s got to order the building, and he didn’t want to order a building before he knows he’s going to get site plan approval. So he did the best he could. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I don’t think I have anything else. Where do we stand on that driveway issue? Are we going to line it, or should we not line it, I guess is the question. MR. RINGER-It would seem to make sense, from the way he was describing it, keeping it away from the house and stuff because there was going to be traffic in there. So I think they kind of planned it well. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So we’re not going to do that. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) MR. RINGER-Well, that’s only my thought, listening to Jim, and George is shaking his head yes, so I think he kind of agrees with Jim now, too. MR. HILTON-Well, I did speak with Jim, as he mentioned, today, and if you look at the arrow, I don’t know, it’s kind of a, it’s the infrared, so it’s tough to see, but the main drive for the golf course is on the eastern portion of their property. It does appear that alignment would cause this driveway to get closer to the residence on the north side of Sunnyside. So it’s probably pretty difficult to do that, and. MR. VOLLARO-Based on the area it looks like you couldn’t do it anyway because it’s off the property, it seems, where Jim just pointed to it. MR. HILTON-Yes, except in this area here, there’s a secondary driveway, the golf course, but it seems not as wide. It doesn’t seem like it’s probably as heavily used. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So I tend to agree. Did you say the building wasn’t going to be used in the evening? So we don’t have to worry about, there’s nothing going on at night there. MR. MILLER-No. The only lighting would be right at the building, and maybe just some security lighting around the perimeter of the building. That’s all. MR. VOLLARO-With respect to C.T. Male’s, you’ve got a fax into him answering these questions? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And he said based on the fax information provided, he was okay? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-George, do you have a copy of that fax that goes in the file? MR. HILTON-Yes, we do. MR. RINGER-And you’ve said that’s the revised plans that Male was referring to. MR. MILLER-Yes. What we typically do, for some reason, I didn’t get the comments until yesterday. I don’t know what the problem was. I called Jim Houston and I got him at the end of the day yesterday. So that’s why I responded this morning. Typically what I do is make the changes on the drawings, but because we’ve got to fax them to them, I make a series of copies and highlight where the changes were. Then I fax it with a cover letter back down to Mr. Houston, and that’s (lost words). So the changes are actually on the drawing that we submitted to him. MR. VOLLARO-I guess, on the resolution, George, we ought to, or Mr. Chairman, I guess we ought to make a note of that, because he resolution only includes up to 11/25 Staff notes, but as long as you’ve got it on file, it doesn’t really have to be on here, I don’t believe, or should it be? MR. HILTON-Well, we have it in the file. We can always (lost words). MR. RINGER-We’ve always discussed that in the past, and the resolution doesn’t always include the updated, and it always added on to the resolution, the letters and correspondence received after the last date that’s shown here. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any further questions. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) MR. RINGER-Okay. Questions on these gravel and topsoil. How often are those trucks going to come in there, and how much topsoil and stone and stuff are they going to be hauling out of there and what type of trucks are we talking about that’s going to haul them in and out of there? ROBERT WING MR. WING-In the spring of the year, I’m going to be bringing in most of the material. Robert Wing. I’m Rob Wing that’s proposing Wing Landscape Supply over there, and to answer your question on the trucks, primarily what I’ll be doing, in the spring of the year, a lot of my bulk material will be in. There may be a period of a week to two weeks, most of the material will be brought in. As far as traffic flow in and out of there, a lot of it’s going to be my trucks, daily basis, and, you know, they’re there parked at night, go out in the morning, maybe return, you know, sometimes, it varies. Some days I may return in there three or four times. Some days I may never return. It just may be at night. MR. RINGER-The dust issue and the traffic issue with the big trucks, and I was just trying to get an idea of the number. MR. WING-Yes. I mean, I don’t think there’s going to be, there may be a day or two where I’m going to have some hauling done in there, topsoil, etc., brought in, but on a regular basis by no means will there be any major issue with trucks or heavy traffic flow, flat beds, a tandem axel dump truck. My trucks are mid-sized trucks. MR. STROUGH-Is Sunnyside Road constructed to take that kind of trucking? MR. RINGER-I don’t know the answer to that, and I don’t know big an axel he’s talking about. If it’s no bigger than a snowplow, I wouldn’t. MR. WING-Yes, there’s a ton of truck traffic on that, in that area now. MR. RINGER-We’re not talking 18-wheelers. MR. WING-As far as what the road can take tonnage wise and stuff, I don’t know. I’m sure it would be posted if there was a problem. Some time of the year they would post the road, I’m sure. I’ve never seen the road posted. MR. METIVIER-Actually they do close that road, in May, sometimes, to trucks over. MR. WING-Do they? I’ve never seen them. MR. METIVIER-I have seen that. Coming off of Haviland, you’ll see a sign, usually in the spring, they close the road to the, you know, the six ton limit. MR. WING-For Sunnyside? MR. METIVIER-Yes. MR. RINGER-If it’s posted, he’d have to stay within the posted limits. MR. WING-Right. MR. METIVIER-The road’s closed, you know, three months out of the year anyway because line’s always come down on it, but, you know. MR. RINGER-Any other comments from the Board? I’ll open the public hearing, if there are no other questions. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) MR. HUNSINGER-I had another comment I forgot to ask. The Staff comment on the East Road access, is that going to be a? MR. MILLER-There’s an existing opening there. That’s going to be gated. It’s not going to be used. East Road is very narrow and we just wanted to maintain that as maybe as an emergency kind of an access that’s not going to be the main. MR. RINGER-Not used by the public, but maybe used by the employees and stuff to get to the trees or whatever. MR. WING-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. RINGER-All right. Then I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wish to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JANINE REMARQUE MS. REMARQUE-I have a few questions. My name’s Janine Remarque. I am a resident of Hewitt Road, which is the street parallel to East Road. The back of my property is abutting East Road. That’s actually a rear exit (lost words). Our property is located between the two roads. Some of our concerns and questions had to do with how much traffic and traffic access and usage for East Road. It is a very narrow road. Basically accommodating two vehicles passing very close to each other, and some of the concerns we had were how much traffic will be used on that road. Is it open, will it be, to the public? Will it be for commercial use and so on. MR. RINGER-You’re talking about East Road, not Sunnyside? MS. REMARQUE-East Road. MR. RINGER-Okay. MS. REMARQUE-I guess most of my concerns are focusing with the East Road usage, with regard to traffic anyway. MR. RINGER-Go ahead. What we do, the process here, I don’t know if you’ve been here before, you’ll ask all of your questions, and then the applicant will come back and address all of your questions for you. MS. REMARQUE-Since I wasn’t familiar with the format, I’m sorry. Okay. I’m also concerned with what environmental impact it will have on our property. Again, some of the things that you mentioned earlier as far as possible chemical use for the purposes of fertilizing, pesticides and so on, whether or not it will be something that will be dispersed in the air. Will we get notification, should it be dispersed into the air, is it products that will ultimately end up in our well water because we do have well water on our property. So we’re concerned with what potential exposure that could be for (lost words). I’d like to know what type of products they’re going to use, if they’re going to use fertilizers, MSDS sheets on them and so on as to potential exposure or what effects that it may have. Again, I’m concerned with the traffic route. Is any of the property intended for ultimate sales for (lost word) developers? At some point down the road is it intended to have that parcel split again and will that area be developed along the back property so that it will be ultimately (lost words) number of additional residents on that area, or is it basically going to be for the purposes of the nursery? And is there going to be any heavy equipment used on the property in the course of doing the sodding or so on and what hours will they be used, because of the noise levels. I know in the course of trying to flatten the property and so on, there was heavy equipment running very long hours. In any event, it 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) sounded like the back of our house was at a construction site. So is that something that’s going to be an ongoing thing? I think that covers everything. MR. RINGER-Okay. Well, we’ll try to get all of your questions answered for you. Anyone else? CEMILE RENAUD MR. RENAUD-My name is Cemile Renaud. I live on 15 East Road. Right across from the place. My concern is, how are they going to keep the motorcycles and ATV’s out of there? They’re still running. Last night there was motorcycles, and they were coming from McDermott’s. Last weekend there were ATV’s out there running across the property. That’s my concern. This lady here that just spoke, she just moved here. She hasn’t lived here when the ATV’s and motorcycles and the berms and the hills were out there. So the noise level was unbelievable, and so was the dirt. I’m glad to see this place come here, because it’s a relief from what we’ve been going through for the last 20 years. My concern is, there’s two entrances on East Road, not one. There’s one down towards the back side where Mr. Hall is, and there’s one right up behind the cement building right there where he was talking about. How are they going to keep them out of there? MR. RINGER-We’ll try to get an answer for you, sir. Anything else? MR. RENAUD-No, that was just it. MR. RINGER-Anyone else? Okay. I’m going to leave the public hearing open and bring you guys back up here. Did you make a list of the questions? MR. MILLER-Yes, I did. I think some of these we’ve basically touched on before. The traffic will be on Sunnyside. The access on East Road is just an emergency access. It’s not going to be used by the public. It’s not going to be used by trucks. We agree there’s houses there and it’s a very narrow road, and certainly, it’s not in our interest to try and direct traffic down that road. As far as chemicals, like I said, this is low maintenance. I asked Rob. Little to no fertilizers will be used, and again, it’s, anything that is used is just over the counter fertilizers that you can buy at Lowe’s. So there’s no special spraying or requirements, and we have, he has wells on the property also. So he’s certainly not going to do anything to contaminate his own well. So there’s going to be no chemical problems. MR. RINGER-I would think when you use sod, I mean, I don’t know that much about a nursery, but when you’re planting sod, don’t you have to put a lot of fertilizer down to grow sod quickly, or, I don’t know, I think that’s what the lady is looking for, is how much fertilizer are you going to put down and what type of fertilizer are you going to put down? MR. WING-The circumstances where I’m going to be growing, it’s going to be approximately an acre, maybe less, just for my own use, and a lot of it’s going to be organic. So there’s going to be, you know, there’s going to be no spraying of weeds. It’s going to be all controlled organically. So there’s not going to really be an issue. MR. MILLER-There are no plans to subdivide or sell to developers. Rob is in the nursery business and this is going to be part of his business. As far as the equipment, the equipment that’s been on the site was related to removing some of the jumps and more construction equipment and not typical of the operation. He had to screen the topsoil. He had to load the topsoil. So he had heavier equipment in there that he rented, basically, for construction, but normal operations, there’s going to be a tractor there. There’ll probably be some kind of a loader or a forklift to help put materials on and off the truck, but it won’t be any construction. MR. RINGER-And the hours of that operation when you’re loading would be daytime hours? Nine to five, no nighttime? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) MR. MILLER-Probably earlier than that, because they’ll have to, you know, come there, load up to ship to the job site in the morning. So it probably starts early. The other question the gentlemen raised had to do with the motorcycles. Rob’s been, he’s posted the property. He’s been trying to keep them off. Obviously, he doesn’t want to have motorcycles running through the nursery. Old habits die hard. It’s probably going to take a while before everybody gets the message. So if there have been people out there, it certainly hasn’t been with Rob’s permission. MR. RINGER-Is the property posted? MR. MILLER-Yes. It’s been posted. MR. STROUGH-And that was a Warren County Planning Board condition. MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. RINGER-The gates and such, of course a gate isn’t going to stop an ATV. MR. MILLER-No. There’s going to be staff there, and, you know, obviously if there’s a problem he’s going to have to police it. Hopefully, over time it’ll go away, but it’s, you know, people pull up with trailers and bikes and he’s been turning them away. So obviously some people have been coming when nobody’s on the site. MR. RINGER-Having a business there seems like that’s going to cut down what’s going on substantially right now, I would think, and the question was brought up, and it was a legitimate question, certainly. Any comments? MR. HUNSINGER-I just had a question. Would you have a problem in labeling the map, the East Road entrance, as emergency use only? MR. STROUGH-And could you put a gate on it? MR. MILLER-I think that was our intent. Obviously, a side entrance like that wide open is not a good thing. We’ve got a lot of material for sale that would be disappearing at night. MR. RINGER-Okay. Anything else from the Board? I left the public hearing open because I wanted to give you guys an opportunity to answer the questions and make sure that the public heard your answers and was satisfied. So is there any further comment from the public? Okay. I’ll close the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. RINGER-Go ahead, John. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, the dust issue was also raised. The use of heavy equipment during the day, and do you predict that? MR. VOLLARO-That was just to level off the site, I think, is what they said. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I imagine during construction, and I don’t imagine that there’s going to be a lot of dust, but I’m not going to answer that. I’m going to let the applicant answer that. MR. MILLER-Well, I think the intent is all the areas are growing fields. So there’s going to be grass or some kind of surface on it. The areas that are going to be nursery storage will be gravel or mulch or something on that. There won’t be any dust. MR. STROUGH-So no dirt roads? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) MR. MILLER-No. What we’ve done is we’ve identified the main access roads and they’ll be a gravel, crushed stone. So there won’t be any dust. I know the dust with the motorcycles there now is a real problem, but everything will be stabilized. MR. RINGER-Anything else? MR. METIVIER-It could be worse, too. You’d think if they were farming the land more, I mean, the dust then could be more substantial. MR. MILLER-Yes, but what’s going to happen, the areas that it’s growing, the trees will be planted in there, and once a year they’ll get moved or something like that. It’s not going to be, you know, constant where they’re in there tilling, and more than not they’ll go in and mow between the rows of the trees, and there’ll be some kind of a grass cover or something. MR. METIVIER-You’ll have sod cutters? Because they don’t do anything. They don’t create any dust. That’s going to be your most significant farming operation. MR. WING-Yes, and that’s going to be fairly minimal. MR. METIVIER-Right. MR. WING-That’s for just my own use, the sod. MR. STROUGH-The hours of, I was just wondering if the Planning Board was interested in restricting the hours of operation, and this might be amenable to the applicant, too, to say seven a.m. to nine p.m., so that we don’t get nighttime and too early of a morning activity in a residential area. How does the Planning Board feel about that? MR. RINGER-Well, we can put it in there. It’s quite difficult to enforce is what the problem is. Cathi, how do you feel about restricting hours of operation? MR. STROUGH-Well, we’ve done it before. MS. RADNER-Certainly you can do that as a reasonable condition of the approval. MR. RINGER-John, it’s a good idea. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-You wanted seven to nine? MR. STROUGH-Well, does that work for the applicant as well? MR. WING-Yes. I guess the only thing that I can address there is some of the workers will be showing up at 6:30 and there will be car traffic, not necessarily any operation traffic until seven o’clock. Right. There will be car traffic arriving at say 6:30, 6:45. MR. STROUGH-Well, how about if we restrict it to heavy equipment use, is that reasonable? MR. WING-Right. MR. RINGER-Then you’ve got to define heavy equipment. I don’t want to get into, I think hours of operation and operation would be the time the place is open, not the employees coming and exiting and going. So, I think that hours of operation would be good, John. MR. STROUGH-Okay. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) MR. RINGER-I think heavy equipment, you’ve got to define then, you know, what’s heavy equipment to you, and heavy equipment to me, my neighbor’s tell me my tractor makes a lot of noise, but I don’t think it does. It’s only 19 horsepower. Any other questions, comments? MR. VOLLARO-I just had one, Larry. I wondered if the question got answered concerning the development of the north side, the lady came up and asked about that, but that’s not his land. MR. MILLER-No. MR. VOLLARO-That’s lands of Yaegar and lands of Hull. So you don’t have any control. The applicant doesn’t have any control over that. MR. RINGER-Yes, and he said no future development on his plan, on his property, other development, other than what’s shown. MR. STROUGH-I’m just guessing, and I don’t see it in the data review, but what’s the depth to groundwater, offhand, in that area? MR. MILLER-Well, we don’t know. We did a test pit in the area of the septic system, and went down about 12 feet and didn’t hit anything. We did another test pit on the east side of the property where we show the detention basin, we were looking for groundwater, actually for a pond, and there it wasn’t as well drained at the lower elevation, but again, went down another 10, 12 feet and there still wasn’t groundwater. It was silt. MR. STROUGH-So it exceeds 10 feet, and I think it’s practical to agree with you that I think for this type of use that pesticides and such will be probably limited in nature and very unlikely to, highly unlikely, to be a potential contaminant for groundwater, in my assessment. Okay. Thank you. MR. RINGER-Okay. Ready for SEQRA? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. RINGER-Go ahead, Chris. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 52-2003, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ROBERT WING, 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. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) 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 25 day of November, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan MR. RINGER-Okay. John, are you working on a motion? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. RINGER-Okay. How close are you? MR. STROUGH-I’m done. MR. RINGER-You’re done. Would you like to do it, then? Do you want to run through your conditions first and then do your motion, or do you think you could do it all at one time? MR. STROUGH-No. Let me run through, and if anybody has any additions or deletions, and then I’ll go and do the final. MR. RINGER-Good. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. RINGER-Go. MR. STROUGH-I’ve got hours of operation will be limited from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Two, C.T. Male concerns will be addressed and all agreements will be placed on the final plans and applicant will obtain a C.T. Male signoff, and the East Road access will be gated and the final plans will label this East Road access as emergency use only, and all sign lighting will be down lit with cut offs. MR. RINGER-Good. Anybody have anything else? MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have anything else. MR. RINGER-Go for it, John. Good work. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 52-2003 ROBERT WING, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) Site Plan No. 52-2003 Applicant: Robert Wing SEQR Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Tom & Elma McDermott Agent: James Miller, Miller Associates Zone: RR-3A Location: 155 Sunnyside Road Applicant proposes to construct a Landscape Supply Nursery on a 19.90 +/- acre parcel. Nursery uses in the RR-3A zone require Site Plan review and approval from the Planning Board. Warren Co. Planning: 11/12/03 Tax Map No. 279.17-1-60 Lot size: 19.90 +/- acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: November 25, 2003 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 11/24/03, and 11/25 Staff Notes 11/19 CT Male comments 11/18 Notice of Public Hearing 11/12 Warren Co. PB: Approved w/condition 11/3 Meeting Notice w/project id marker WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on November 25, 2003; 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 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 and is subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant’s hours of operation will not exceed 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. 2. C.T. Male’s concerns will be addressed and all agreements will be placed on the final plans and applicant will obtain C.T. Male sign-off. 3. The East Road access will be gated and the East Road access will be labeled as emergency use only on the final plans. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) 4. All sign lighting will be down lit with cut offs. Duly adopted this 25th day of November, 2003 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer NOES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan MR. RINGER-You’re all set. MR. MILLER-Thank you. MR. WING-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS – SITE PLANS SITE PLAN NO. 50-2003 SEQR II IAN ROWLANDSON AGENT: JAMES MOONEY ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: SEELYE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES THE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND REPLACE WITH NEW 2,008 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM. CONDITION OF ZBA APPROVAL, AV 77-03. APA, CEA CROSS REFERENCE: AV 77-2003 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/12/03 TAX MAP NO. 227.17-2-14 LOT SIZE: 0.26 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 JAMES MOONEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 50-2003, Ian Rowlandson, Meeting Date: November 25, 2003 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 50-2003 APPLICANT: Ian Rowlandson is the applicant for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to construct a 2,008 sq. ft. single family home with a new on-site septic system. LOCATION: The subject property is located at 42 Seelye Rd. EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned WR-1A, Waterfront Residential One Acre. SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Type II action. No further Planning Board action is required. PARCEL HISTORY: Area Variance 77-2003 (resolved on September 24, 2003) granting relief from the road frontage requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to construct a 2,008 sq. ft. home with an on- site septic system. The applicant has been referred to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review per the resolution approved by the ZBA on 9/24/2003. Based on the ZBA resolution, it appears that the ZBA is seeking Planning Board review and comment concerning stormwater management and run-off. The applicant has submitted stormwater information as part of the site plan application. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has requested waivers from the following requirements: Lighting Plan - Landscaping Plan - 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) The applicant has submitted information concerning stormwater management, which has been forwarded to CT Male for their review and comment.” MR. HILTON-The applicant proposes to construct a 2,008 square foot single family home with an on-site septic system, located at 42 Seelye Road. The property is zoned WR-1A, Waterfront Residential One Acre. This is a Type II SEQRA action. No further Planning Board action is required. As note, Area Variance No. 77-2003, which was resolved by the ZBA on September 24, granted relief from the road frontage requirements concerning this application. As I th mentioned, the applicant proposes to construct a new home. This application has been referred to the Planning Board by the ZBA. Based on the motion, the ZBA’s motion, it appears to address stormwater concerns. The applicant has requested lighting and landscaping plan waivers, and this application has been forwarded to C. T. Male for their review. We, at this time, do not have a signoff for them in the file, and I guess that’s all I have, unless you have any questions at this time. MR. RINGER-You don’t have anything from C.T. Male, other than his letter of November 19? th MR. HILTON-Well, I have, we have their November 19 letter. I have a November 25 letter thth from North Country Engineering to Jim Houston, answering their questions. MR. RINGER-But he hasn’t had an opportunity? Okay. Thank you. Gentlemen. MR. MOONEY-I’m James Mooney, the applicant’s agent. MR. RINGER-Okay. Do you want to tell us a little bit about your project? MR. MOONEY-I basically came here for a minor variance for a road frontage, and the house (lost words) all the setbacks, but some of the neighbors had concern about stormwater runoff. So that’s why the Zoning Board of Appeals sent it for site plan review. The house itself has no (lost words). MR. RINGER-You had to come for a site plan, I think, because it’s Waterfront Residential. Not because of the. MR. STROUGH-At the Zoning Board meeting that I was at, that Zoning Board meeting, they were very concerned about the stormwater, and I think you’re going to hear from the neighbors, they’re concerned about the stormwater. MR. RINGER-Right, but I wanted to make, he’s here because, he’d have to come for site plan anyways because it’s Waterfront Residential. MR. HILTON-Well, not necessarily. Expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA, I believe, requires site plan review. This is a total rebuild where it’s meeting the side setbacks and it conforms with the floor area ratio and things like that. I think it was just referred based on the stormwater concerns. MR. RINGER-You mean if he hadn’t needed the ZBA he wouldn’t have had to come to us to tear down a building and put a new one up? MR. HILTON-Not if it met the setbacks. MR. RINGER-I would have only thought that would have occurred if he had done it on the same footprint. Okay. All right. Go ahead, sir. I’m sorry. MR. MOONEY-That’s why we’re here to address the stormwater runoff. The house itself is basically the same footprint as before. (Lost words). MR. RINGER-That’s it? Okay. Let’s start, John, at your end. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, Jim, the stormwater is why you’re here. So C.T. Male, in the November 19, 2003 letter, had some concerns. Let’s go through those. Regarding stormwater, Number Two, the proposed storm pipe is shown with bends. Consideration should be given to installing structures at the bend points. MR. MOONEY-Okay. That proposed storm pipe, as you (lost word) is an existing storm pipe. That is not proposed. That’s not part of the (lost words). MR. RINGER-Have you gotten a reply from C.T. Male? MR. MOONEY-No, I did not get a reply. MR. RINGER-I mean, you answered him, but you haven’t gotten anything back from him. MR. MOONEY-I didn’t get anything (lost words). MR. RINGER-I really don’t think we’re going to be able to approve this thing tonight, one way or the other, with the stormwater stuff, until we get something back from C.T. Male. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, we’re not starting off great, because if I remember, that was a ditch, and the stormwater pipe was put there by the owner of the property. MR. MOONEY-Correct. MR. STROUGH-Who I’m assuming is not an engineer. So we don’t know if that pipe’s appropriately sized or appropriately routed, and that’s what I’m trying to get at, and I’m not going to get a clear answer. So Mr. Ringer’s entirely right. MR. MOONEY-Well, can I say something? I had, Craig Brown was up here when we did it, observed it, and said that it was an improvement to the property. He had no problem with it. MR. RINGER-But we still need our engineer. Craig is not an engineer. MR. MOONEY-I know that. MR. RINGER-Not a Town engineer anyway, and so Male would have to signoff on it, and we’d need a letter from him, signing off on that entire stormwater system. MR. STROUGH-All right. So, well, I’m just going to stop right there. I’ll listen. Thank you. MR. RINGER-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to be dwelling a little bit on your area worksheets and your area worksheets and your site data development. So if you want to drag those out for yourself, while we’re working, and then also get to your floor plans, your first story and second story floor plans. Because we’re going to be working with those. Now, according to your drawing, the first floor is 30 by 47.6. That’s the footprint, essentially, of the building. MR. MOONEY-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-So that comes out to be 1425 square feet, if you do the math on that. Now around that building, this is on the first floor plan. If you’re looking at the first floor plan you’ll see a patio, all around the building. I sized that patio out. I couldn’t do it on scale because this is a reduced drawing. So using a quarter inch to one scale wouldn’t work here. So basically what I did is I took your figures and came up with 593 square foot of floor print, as far as footprint for the patio, and then I get into the second floor, and your number there looks correct. It’s 680 square feet. Now that looks to me like, if you add those numbers together, you’d get 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) 2698 square feet, versus your 2,008. Now if you take a look at the lot area. The lot area is 11,238 square feet times 22%. The allowable floor area there, now, becomes 2,472, and your new build, as I read it, footprint wise, is 2,698. So it looks to me like you’re over by 226 square feet. Maybe you want to take a look at that and. MR. MOONEY-Well, let me first address the 30 by 47, there’s a cut out there, on the left hand side of the (lost words). MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m just looking at the footprint itself. This is the footprint we’re really talking about. MR. MOONEY-Right, and we’re just proposing the footprint, the patio is not part of the footprint. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but the patio is. MR. MOONEY-It’s on there, but it’s not part of the construction. MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to remove it from the drawing, you mean? MR. MOONEY-We can remove it. It was put there by an architect, and that was not submitted as part of the square footage of the house itself. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I realize it wasn’t submitted, but when I look at the drawing of the first floor plan, it’s on there, and unless this drawing is changed, to have it deleted, this is the drawing that’s been submitted, and so my work was done based on the submitted drawing, and there’s 593 square feet in that patio. MR. STROUGH-But going along with your thinking, Bob, what you’re saying is the footprint is 1,425 square feet without the patio. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And should be, in the site development data, should be 1,425 feet, not 1,328 feet. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m going to get to that. I’m going through what should be. I’ve made the changes on the data sheet. MR. MOONEY-You should delete that little cut out there. It’s about four by twelve. MR. HUNSINGER-Left hand corner of the. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So that would account for that. MR. HUNSINGER-It looks like it would be three, six by twelve. Yes. MR. STROUGH-All right. I see. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s still, it’s not enough to take care of the 226 square foot overage. MR. HUNSINGER-No, your point’s well taken. MR. VOLLARO-I just did an over footprint of 40 by the 47.6. MR. STROUGH-And it’ll be 97, Bob. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) MR. MOONEY-I guess the thought was the patio was not part of the building, that was an architectural, like (lost words) you know, they hadn’t planned to put it in. MR. STROUGH-Yes, that would go under paved, gravel, or other hard surfaces. MR. MOONEY-Right. It’s not part of the structure. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You’re saying that the patio is coming out of the drawing. MR. MOONEY-Right. MR. VOLLARO-So the drawing has got to be, since you’ve got to do some other work here with C.T. Male, it seems to me that drawing’s got to be resubmitted, without the patio. MR. MOONEY-And the second floor is correct, you said? MR. VOLLARO-The second floor is 680, I get 680, yes, when looking at the second floor. MR. STROUGH-George wants to make a comment here. MR. HILTON-I just want to clarify a couple of things. I guess I’m not sure if the applicant plans to remove the patio from the drawing or if he’s saying that it’s not part of the floor area ratio calculation. MR. MOONEY-That’s what I was saying. MR. HILTON-And based, I just wanted to read the definition for building floor area, in terms of computing floor area ratio, all floors of the primary structure, and covered porches, including the basement, are counted for building floor area. What’s excluded, in terms of floor area ratio, are open decks, docks, and that portion of covered docks which extend into the water, and one storage shed of 100 square feet or less. So, you know, in terms of computing floor area ratio, that’s what is counted and what isn’t counted. MR. VOLLARO-So you’re saying that the patio footprint is not counted. MR. HILTON-Towards floor area ratio. Certainly I think it has to be on the site development data sheet and accounted for for impervious surfaces, but I don’t believe it’s counted for floor area ratio. MR. STROUGH-Well, it says 100 square feet or less? MR. HILTON-With sheds. MR. STROUGH-But we now allow, we changed the Code and now we allow 120 square foot sheds. MR. HILTON-Well, that’s different. That’s with setbacks, if you have 100, I believe with 120 square foot. MR. STROUGH-Okay, for this purpose, for floor area ratio. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. VOLLARO-George, go through that again. You mentioned basements, did you say cellars were included in the floor area ratio? 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) MR. HILTON-Yes, when at least three feet in height of one of the walls is exposed, and the space meets the requirements for living space, as described in, and it references Section 7-11, and 7-12 of the New York State Building Code. MR. VOLLARO-So what is the story with that, in terms of? MR. RINGER-If it’s a finished basement you count it. If it isn’t a finished basement, you don’t count it. MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to ask the applicant, what’s the position? Is it a slab? MR. MOONEY-It’s a four foot crawl space. MR. VOLLARO-Four foot crawl space. MR. MOONEY-Correct. It’s on the plans. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So I take it by what we’ve been doing here that he’s not over by 226 feet if the patio is not included. MR. HILTON-Well, I guess I don’t know that. I must admit the floor area ratio sheet was a little confusing. It appears, I did my own calculation, using the applicant’s numbers, it appears that he isn’t, but if you’re looking for some clarification or want some additional information. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I found the worksheets a little bit confusing myself. This is a new build, essentially. So existing area, I took that out and started right as a new build, in both the site development and in the, we don’t have an existing plus. We’ve got a whole new building to deal with here. So, in the site development print, the footprint of the building is still, in my mind, roughly 1425. You want to take that little 90 square foot out. That’s all right, but that, now, when you get to coming up with permeability, I would think, again, this patio is going to play a role in the permeability analysis. If it indeed is a patio. It sounds like they don’t want a patio in here. It sounds like this drawing’s got to be changed to show no patio. They’re talking about possibly just growing something in there, bushes or what have you. So I think that the drawing’s got to get the patio deleted for this thing to work out for him. MR. MOONEY-Sir, I believe that patio is in the 980 of the paved gravel (lost words). MR. VOLLARO-When it says paved gravel or other hard surfaced areas, yes, I don’t know whether it’s in that 980 or not. I couldn’t tell. MR. MOONEY-There’s no, hardly any gravel driveway at all. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, see, I really can’t, in looking at this site development data sheet, I’d have to know that that 980 either included this patio or the patio comes out and the 980 figure drops. MR. RINGER-Bob, he’s going to be back. He’s got an idea of what you’re looking for. So he can get that information. So if you can move on to your other. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’d just like to see those, both those sheets redone, floor area ratio and site development data, so that it makes sense against this drawing. MR. RINGER-Right, and I think you’ve told him that’s what you want to see, and they’re going to come back. So you can revise your data sheet to make sure that it agrees with. MR. VOLLARO-All right. So long as he understands that. Okay. Now, the next thing I had was the question was, I see where you’re putting the Elgin system now, for your septic. Where 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) was the other drain field before, on the old building? Where is the existing drain field before you put that Elgin system in? MR. MOONEY-I don’t know that we’re absolutely certain. There’s a septic clean out on the northwest side of the existing camp. MR. VOLLARO-I saw that. MR. MOONEY-We believe that it’s right in there, but we’re not absolutely positive. MR. VOLLARO-Because what I’m thinking of, when your start excavating for this new house, you know, previous, and I see where the, where it is, but when you start excavating for the new house, you’re going to be right in the area where that field might be, and that’s always considered contaminated ground. You’ve got to do something with that. You can’t just dig it up and push it around. That’s why I’m interested to know where the old field sits, because it seems to be right in the area where you’d be excavating for your new house, and even putting your 1,000 gallon septic tank in that you have noted on C-2 would be right smack in the middle of what looks like might be the old drain field. MR. MOONEY-I don’t think there’s any drain field. I think there’s a seepage pit in there. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Just a seepage pit, which would be a lot easier, well, a lot less area to deal with, but still and all, I’m somewhat concerned, even with seepage pits. They’ve got to be filled in, even if it’s a block pit. MR. MOONEY-We can certainly note that other drawing, that if they run into that, they would take care of that (lost words). MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That’s a Department of Health issue. The stormwater report itself, I looked that over, and it seems to me that, looking at where you’ve got your sub catchments, and your sub catchment runoff analysis, it looks reasonable to me. I’d have to have C.T. Male put his handle on that, though. I couldn’t really tell, but I did look them over, and they looked like they worked, to me, but C.T. Male’s got to do something with that, or make a response. How did you respond to C.T. Male’s position on that? MR. MOONEY-His position on which one? Regarding the stormwater? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MOONEY-Well, he doesn’t really say anything about what I show for stormwater plans. He is talking more about, Jim Houston that is, is talking more about the pipe that runs along the edge of the property. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That’s his Number Five. MR. MOONEY-Which is existing. MR. VOLLARO-No, I’m talking about Number Five, the stormwater calculations should include an approximate determination of the watershed tributary to the proposed pipe system to support the proposed design. That I didn’t see in your stormwater analysis. MR. MOONEY-The proposed pipe system that he’s talking about is existing, and that’s why. MR. VOLLARO-I see. MR. MOONEY-This is all sheet runoff of this site. I’ve contained the stormwater before it runs off the site so we don’t have anymore runoff, but I believe his comment number five was regarding the pipe that runs along the outside of the property. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) MR. STROUGH-But you keep on saying pre-existing. That was just a trench, for years, and years, and years, and years, up until fairly recently. So, you call it pre-existing, and I think, I agree with Bob and probably almost every Planning Board member’s concern that it’s got to be looked at to make sure it works. MR. MOONEY-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That’s all I have on this, Larry. I’m not going to take it any further because I think that the applicant’s got to come back anyway. MR. RINGER-Yes. Tony? MR. METIVIER-I don’t know if I had anything. I just want to see comments from C.T. Male and I guess resolution or at least signoff from that. I think that we’re missing the point why we’re here. I don’t know, if we’re looking at stormwater. I guess we’re not missing the point, but we need to get the satisfactory signoff for that. I mean, that’s really it. MR. RINGER-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, I read all of the minutes from the ZBA meeting, and, you know, I think they raised a number of sort of interesting issues. The requirement is that any new construction that you handle the stormwater, what if there’s a determination made that the stormwater that’s running through this underground pipe is, I mean, it obviously doesn’t come from this site. So, at what point is that the applicant’s responsibility and at what point is it not the applicant’s responsibility? MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s a good question, Chris. I think that this has got to be thrashed out, though, with C.T. Male to make those determinations. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, I agree, too, but, you know, I’m wondering, you know, there’s some liability issues there. Certainly all the comments that were made by the neighbors at the ZBA meeting about there being increased silt and, you know, his water is running into the lake without being treated, and everything else. I mean, those are all fairly significant issues, but it’s not coming from the applicant’s property. It’s only going through the applicant’s property. MR. MOONEY-If I can address that. The Warren County Soil and Water has been there, and their (lost words) upstream (lost words) install that. We’re just waiting from the ground to dry a little bit. It’s still wet. Okay. (Lost words). MR. STROUGH-Is that the Soil and Water Conservation Department? MR. MOONEY-Yes. They’ve been there a couple of times. (Lost words). MR. STROUGH-Dave Wick? Who is it you’re working with? MR. MOONEY-Dave Wick. MR. RINGER-Is there any correspondence you’ve had with them, Soil and Conservation? MR. MOONEY-E-mails, and they were there today, and they’re going to get a little plan. They aren’t engineers. They can’t, you know, (lost words) and also the Town of Queensbury, there’s another retaining (lost words) that crosses Seelye Road that’s in poor condition, and we had (lost words) and they’re going to put a new (lost words) across Seelye Road. (Lost words). MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I just wanted to finish my thought. That’s all good information. In reading through the ZBA comments, it appears as though there’s at least some anecdotal evidence that perhaps the applicant, though, and I don’t know if it was this property owner or a 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) prior owner, we don’t really know, whoever installed this, the pipe itself, and put the stream underground, may have exacerbated the situation. So therefore then you come back to, well maybe there is some liability and responsibility of this property owner to do something, even though this stormwater isn’t, you know, originating from his property. So, a lot of it’s kind of a, I don’t know if it’s a legal question that maybe Cathi can shed some light on, or if it’s even outside our jurisdiction. It sort of begs the question, but I don’t think there’s any easy answers. MR. MOONEY-At the Zoning Board, Craig Brown said that that is out of the Town’s jurisdiction. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MOONEY-And it’s mostly up to Warren County or the Town, if it was on Town’s property, they could fix it. If it’s off Town property, (lost words), but the neighbors have agreed to allow this to happen, (lost words) or these people down the street (lost words). MR. STROUGH-It’s intermittent then. MR. HUNSINGER-But again, usually when we talk about stormwater runoff, we talk about, well, what stormwater is being added as a result of the new construction on the site, and we have to make sure that the after development stormwater is not greater than what it was before development, and it seems as though all of the issues are related to this seasonal stream, for lack of a better word. MR. STROUGH-And if sediment should plug up, it appears to me to be about a 12 inch pipe, 15 inch pipe. What happens if sediment blocks that, or what happens, you refer to a drainage ditch on the east side of Seelye Road, you know. MR. MOONEY-It has to be cleaned out periodically. Actually the Town does that every year. MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s a Town road, I believe. MR. MOONEY-Right, but the County (lost words). MR. STROUGH-But it sounds like that might be a, George, might be a Town Highway Department stormwater device. MR. HILTON-It may be. It would be a guess on my part. It’s a Town road, I believe. MR. STROUGH-Should we get something from the Town Highway Department in reference to the condition and history of that drainage basin? MS. RADNER-It’s not on his property, correct? MR. STROUGH-No, but it’s part of the drainage system. I mean, C.T. Male will be looking at the whole picture. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. STROUGH-I mean, should they be looking at the history of the stormwater of this property, the stormwater history of this property? Should they be calling Dave Wick and seeing what’s happening upstream. Should they be calling the Highway Department and see what’s happening downstream so that we know that the stormwater system’s going to work in totality? MR. HILTON-Well, as far as history, I don’t know. I guess I would say if you have a concern about the current proposal and how that’s going to impact drainage downstream and the existing infrastructure, certainly you could get an opinion from the Highway Department. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) MR. STROUGH-Well, I would think that, to look at the big picture here, we have to consider, or C.T. Male, the engineers, the experts, are going to have to consider what’s happening upstream, what’s happening downstream, because both ends are going to affect what goes through this property. So I think they have to look at the whole picture. Okay. MR. RINGER-Let’s see what we get back from C.T. Male, and the applicant’s only really responsible for what stormwater’s discharging from his property, and what he may have done to divert it at one time or another, or the property owner at one time or another by putting this pipe in, and maybe C.T. Male, if you can let C.T. Male know our concerns and maybe he can look at it from that directive. MR. STROUGH-Well, I think, I don’t agree with you, Larry, that we’re only looking at discharge from this property. I think we’re looking at the nature that this property has played, in the past, historically, geographically, hydrologically, in the big scheme of things. You can’t just look at this little parcel as a separate entity. You’ve got to look at it as playing a role as in this whole big picture, and that’s what C.T. Male has to do, I think. MS. RADNER-I think Chris stated it fairly accurately early on. Under our stormwater management plan, we have to know that what this applicant is proposing to do to his property is not going to increase, that the stormwater from his property doesn’t leave, that he isn’t doing anything to add so that more stormwater or new problems are leaving the property post- construction compared to pre-construction. C.T. Male are the engineers. They’re the ones who can determine whether they need additional information in order to make that determination whether this construction’s going to have a negative impact. You can’t say stormwater’s already running across my property so I can pour whatever I want into it, (lost words) as much as I want. So to that extent, you look at this applicant, but this applicant is not responsible for curing all problems upstream and downstream. MR. RINGER-Well, let’s hear, you know, from C.T. Male. So let’s open the public hearing and see what we get from the public. Anyone wish to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DAUREEN KEATING CAIAZZO MRS. KEATING-CAIAZZO-Doreen Keating Caiazzo, and I’m from 88 Seeley Road, right in front of the Rowlandsons. I had two areas that I wanted to comment on. We came up and looked at the old paperwork (lost words), and there is the five of us little camps right there in that area. We’ve been there since the late 50’s. We have a common water (lost words), and the house that’s just north, is Tom (lost word) and he, they’re from White Plains. Anyway, I think, from what it looks on your map, where he’s going to put that (lost words) septic system, I just want to make sure it’s not going to interfere with Tom’s water line, because his water line is (lost words). (Lost words). These are just little camps (lost words). If, in the future, we wanted to expand our camp, we just want to make sure that (lost words), and then the other thing that we all said at the Zoning Board, we all felt that the size of the homes that they want to put in there is quite large for this (lost words). I know you have this floor area ratio rule that we use here, but I still think that, you know, square footage (lost words), I think the square footage that they have now is like 900 and something and they want to, well they wanted to go to 2300. Now I guess they’re down to 2,008 or something, square footage, and (lost words). The water runoff, in the spring, it’s really, well, it comes down off the back of the mountain there (lost words), it comes down, especially in the spring, and it’s really, and the old creek (lost words) really is a big runoff there, and then it dries out in the summer. This spring we had a lot more water than we’ve had in a couple of years, so it really comes down (lost words). The way it used to come down, I guess it used to get filtered out pretty good, the way it was before, but by the time it reached that catch basin, right out in front of our driveway, which the Town of Queensbury usually takes care of (lost words). By the time it goes underneath Seeley Road, goes over to Mahoney’s property across the street, now it gets into the lake, and now it’s really 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) (lost words), where they put the new pipe in, there’s not that screen (lost words), so all this mud and clay (lost words) really coming out into the lake, that Mr. Mahoney was complaining about (lost words) used to clean like maybe once a month and now I think he’s cleaning like three times a week, but those were mainly my concerns. MR. RINGER-We’ll try to get your concerns answered for you, ma’am. MRS. KEATING-CAIAZZO-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-I just have a question for you before you leave. Do you know when the stream was put underground? MRS. KEATING-CAIAZZO-Just this spring. MR. HUNSINGER-So this pipe was just installed this year? MRS. KEATING-CAIAZZO-Yes. MR. RINGER-Okay. Anyone else? CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. My name is Chris Navitsky with the Lake George Waterkeeper. I sent a letter in today, and I’d like to read a couple of things in and maybe add a couple of bits of information regarding the stormwater situation. I do agree with some of the neighbors about the concern about the piping and the results of piping the existing intermittent stream and the potential effects. It is my opinion our concerns are justified. The piping through the property that’s proposed does reduce the opportunity for infiltration and removal of the sediments. By piping it, you’re putting it through the direct (lost words) where right now it can flow over ground and get slowed down by the grass, and lose velocity and lose a lot of the sediment, and the velocity also reduces the scouring effect that can happen, I think that there will be the loss of potential of infiltration. That can be addressed through a couple of measures, such as the installation of a sediment basin (lost words) that’s a positive step. You can also put in a perforated pipe, because the solid pipe, which will allow water to infiltrate out, depending on the level of groundwater there. Also, they were proposing a catch basin, I think, concrete basin. That could be built as a catch basin with a sump in there where the two pipes are coming together. That can collect sediment in there and be removed and take some sediment out of the runoff. In addition, you know, they should address any additional stormwater management from the impervious. Another question I have is regarding where they’re proposing the new septic system. To me it appeared it was in the area of the old foundation and if there was going to be any removal of materials, I mean, as far as soil materials brought in, there could be some type of quality control on that, so that you maintain that, I believe it was a seven minute perc rate. I can’t remember, but so you have the same types of materials so they don’t bring in material that would be silty or have a worse perc rate, and I do think you, you have engineers working on your end, and they have engineers, but I think that also with putting the pipe in the ground, you can create scouring at the outlets of the pipe by concentrating on flows. So if you don’t have the proper riprap or any energy disbursement, but putting in the pipe, could be creating those situations also, and also just because it’s a 15 inch diameter pipe, or whatever it is, they should analyze what the slopes are because a 15 inch pipe at 10 percent carries a lot more water than a 15 inch pipe at two percent. I don’t know what the grades are. That should be all. Thank you very much. MR. RINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I’m going to leave the public hearing open. MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, first of all, just to reference, we do have a copy of the letter Mr. Navitsky referred to in the file, and I do have one additional piece of correspondence that I’ll read into the record. It’s from Kathy Standbridge. It says, it’s addressed to the Planning Board. It says, “Due to the timing and distance to this hearing I cannot appear in person but want to 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) voice our concerns as we, Marie T. Smith and Katherine J. Standbridge, are the owners of the property, tax map no. 227.17-2-13, directly adjacent to the property that is the topic of this hearing. The following are our concerns: 1. The location of the septic system. How close is it to us and to the Keating property, lot no. 227.18-2-15? How far is it from the water areas and water tables around us? I understand there will be three (3) bathrooms in this new house. Is there a limit on bathrooms for the size of this property? 2. The size of this proposed house, 2008 sq. ft. is VERY large for that piece of property. 3. We are very concerned that if we move our dwelling or change it in the future, we would like to be assured that we would not have an issue with being too close to the Rolandson’s septic system, their well, or their decks and porches. Please consider our concerns in your decisions. Thank you. Kathy Standbridge” MR. RINGER-Okay. Well, the previous letter, would you make sure that Male gets a copy of that from Navitsky? MR. HILTON-Navitsky? Sure. MR. RINGER-Okay. Comments from the Board? MR. VOLLARO-Just one. I’m just reading the print now. I’ll ask George for a determination. How far does the well have to be from a property line, George? MR. HILTON-I will look that up. I believe it’s, well, I don’t want to guess. I’ll look it up and get it to you. MR. STROUGH-Didn’t they say they got water from a common source? MR. VOLLARO-They have a well on the property here, the way I see it. This is the property. This is the well, and it’s 10 feet from the line. I think it’s too close. MR. HILTON-Yes, 10 feet is the. MR. VOLLARO-Ten feet? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-It just makes 10 feet. MR. HILTON-One hundred feet from streams, water bodies, and 10 feet from property lines. MR. RINGER-You heard some of the comments. Some of them you can answer. MR. MOONEY-Well, I think I addressed the (lost words) of the retention ditch upstream to take care of runoff. I think you’re missing one thing. There’s always been a pipe from the north side of the Rowlandson property that goes down through the other people’s property down to the road. That’s always been. It’s a metal 15 inch pipe. Basically (lost words) Rowlandsons, and it runs under that southern part where that “V” is right there. There’s a road right, a little dirt road, and it ran under that road, then it became flat, on their property. Sort of ran across their property (lost words) this other pipe on the other side, eventually. They just basically contained it on their property through a pipe. That intermittent stream ran across their property into an existing 15 inch pipe that you see piped across the (lost words) and down to Seeley Road. That pipe was existing for 20 years (lost words). MR. RINGER-The question, one of the questions was the septic system, how it would affect the Ziehnerts, however you pronounce that, that live to the north, above, the cabin above your Elgin system, any effect on their water, their well. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) MR. MOONEY-Well, we meet all the setback requirements for the septic system. They do, I believe they get water from this pressured line on Seeley Road, but we need to be 10 feet away from a pressurized line with (lost words) requirements. MR. RINGER-Has Jim Houston been up there and actually, I’d like to have him go up there and look at this situation because I think it’s quite unique and what’s there, and so I think in tabling we should ask that Male go up there and really take a look at the property and have, they wouldn’t have the minutes, but certainly the letters that you’ve got and you could express the concerns that have been expressed tonight by the Board and the public as to the situation up there, because I’ve found a lot of times that we get reports from him and he has actually visited the property and I think this is one that he certainly should be up there, because as John mentioned, it’s not only on this property, but it’s a large area. So I would be for tabling right now, and tabling with, tabling for the reason of C.T. Male going up there and making a complete inspection and a signoff on this. MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s a number of things that have to go into the tabling motion, if we want to table, and I think we are going to, and I’ve got some of that worked up. MR. STROUGH-Yes, so do I. MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to have, I’ve got a question, on C-2, Drawing C-2, it says former runoff of the stream, on C-2, and then it’s got rerouted. Now it looks like because of where the proposed house is going to be located, that’s where you’re running that pipe. You’re bypassing the house. MR. MOONEY-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-This is a fairly newly installed pipe, the one that’s going into the concrete basin that’s on the north side. MR. MOONEY-It was installed in the springtime. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That is a new pipe. The old stream bed, or the thing that we see running, is that the old pipe, or that’s gone? MR. MOONEY-That is gone. That was an intermittent stream that ran through their property. The existing 15 inch CMP pipe started approximately where the intermittent stream runs into the 15 inch pipe that you see there now. MR. VOLLARO-I see it. Okay. MR. MOONEY-There is an existing pipe that’s in pretty poor condition there, that, you know, that’s what we had to tie into with our pipe. MR. VOLLARO-Now how far down did you come? There’s a concrete basin and you go all the way back down south. MR. MOONEY-And we go back almost to the property line before we tie into that pipe. MR. VOLLARO-Almost to where the well is. MR. MOONEY-You’re talking. MR. VOLLARO-I’m talking about where the concrete basin is on the north of the property. Then you come south. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) MR. MOONEY-Okay. Running in a southerly direction, we pipe back underneath the drive. That existing intermittent stream, that was an existing 15 inch CMP there. We replaced with this 15 inch and then rerouted this (lost words). MR. VOLLARO-So where you start that pipe is where it says runoff stream, down at the southern end of the, way at the southern end of the property here. MR. MOONEY-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-There’s a little sign that says runoff stream, and that’s the connection of this new pipe that goes all the way to the north and runs itself out to the east. MR. MOONEY-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-So that’s very recent installation there. MR. MOONEY-Yes. It was installed in the springtime. MR. VOLLARO-And then it’s the output of that 15 inch CMP that people are talking about, now, should be riprapped or whatever. MR. MOONEY-Yes. I think where it outflows down at the river, or down at the (lost words). MR. VOLLARO-The input of that is down here at the southern end of the property. That whole thing has to be looked at. The fact that they’ve rerouted that stream, and I think the gentleman that was up here before talking one of the things they don’t have any inverts at the end of that. We don’t know what the slope of that pipe is, how fast it’s running. There’s a lot about that pipe, and I think that the Chairman’s position on this, that C.T. Male ought to really get up and take a look at that is a very valid position, Larry. MR. RINGER-You said you had some stuff written for conditions of tabling. MR. VOLLARO-Well, John’s got some. I’ve got some. MR. RINGER-Well, you read yours and then John read yours, and then we’ll get to one final and get it tabled. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. What I’ve got is the site development data sheet and the floor area ratio worksheet shall reflect the reworked architectural drawing called Floor Plan. So those two ought to lock in together. Eventually we need a C.T. Male signoff on their 19 November letter, th but that would be after he went up and took a look at it. We want to know the location of the previous septic system and drain field. Now, just let me get into that for a minute. The DOH is probably going to play a role in this. If you’ve got an old septic system or a seepage pit that you’re going to build close to, that’s considered contaminated soil, and usually it’s got to be removed. That’s one of the DOH requirements, and you can check that with Department of Health yourself. MR. MOONEY-Okay. MR. STROUGH-And you want something back on that? MR. VOLLARO-Well, yes. We want to see a Department of Health comment on this. MR. STROUGH-I’ve read in the past, the Department of Health looks at like there is a way they handle an installation of a filtration bed differently, on what they call virgin soil. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) MR. STROUGH-Versus, this is going to be infill. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, one of the big problems you’re going to have here, I think, I’ll just ramble on for a minute, the little bit that I know about this stuff, when you’ve got a contaminated site that has to be excavated, you’ve got to take it out. You’ve got to dry it. You’ve got to put it on a truck and you’ve got to take it to two sites that are available close to us. One is Plattsburg and one is Colony. They’ll have to get to that with DOH. MR. RINGER-Yes, and that has nothing to do with our tabling, but it would have something to do with our approval, but it would have to be approved with the condition of the Department of Health. MR. VOLLARO-Right. I’d like to see DOH’s comment on that, because if I take a look at the two drawings, both the other drawing where you’ve got it, the existing condition, and if you overlay these drawings, do, essentially, a light table exercise on this drawing, you’ll see their septic clean out is right where the old house was is right almost perfectly aligned with where your septic tank is going to be now. Those two things are in overlay position and I think you’re going to have to take a good hard look at that, but that’s something we might want to let C.T. Male look at as well, is the location of the septic. MR. RINGER-Put it on your tabling motion. MR. VOLLARO-For drainage and location of previous drain field. MR. RINGER-Anything else in your tabling, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s, so far, all I’ve got. MR. RINGER-What comments did you have, John, besides what Bob has already mentioned? MR. STROUGH-Besides what Bob has already mentioned, I wondered if Bob wanted a clarification whether the patio was included into the paved, gravel or other hard surfaced areas in the site development data? For instance, what was the driveway. You had that concern. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I certain do. There’s no way for me or you or anybody to know whether that 593 square feet that I came up with is part of the 900 and some odd square feet. MR. STROUGH-Eighty. MR. VOLLARO-980 square feet that he shows. That’s got to be cleared up. MR. STROUGH-You just wanted clarification on that. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The best way for them to do that, in my opinion, is if they don’t want that patio to show is take it away from the drawing. MR. STROUGH-Or show us how it’s been added together. MR. VOLLARO-Well, if they add it in, they’re going to be close to the 22% of the 11,000 square feet. MR. RINGER-Do you understand what we’re asking? MR. MOONEY-Yes. (lost words). I think it’s hard surfacing. MR. HILTON-It’s hard surfacing which you would include in your site development data as hard surfacing. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) MR. MOONEY-Right. MR. HILTON-But not in terms of floor area ratio. It wouldn’t be counted. MR. RINGER-For permeability it would be. MR. VOLLARO-For permeability it would be. For floor area ratio it would not be. MR. RINGER-What else did you have, John? MR. STROUGH-I had, I didn’t hear Bob speak to this, that C.T. Male should communicate with Dave Wick of the Warren County Soil and Water Conservation Department in reference to what’s going on upstream, and that C.T. Male should correspond with the Town Highway Department and get their assessment of this retention basin on the east side of Seeley Road in the vicinity of this application. MR. RINGER-And C.T. Male should make a personal inspection of the. MR. VOLLARO-I had, C.T. Male inspect the property for drainage and location. MR. STROUGH-I would like C.T. Male to get a little bit of the stormwater history of this property. Because I think they need that in their analysis, and I agree with you. I’d like for them to do a site visit here, and did we also need to locate the water lines? Were there any water lines here? And wasn’t there a concern about the location of the water line? So I think the water line should be marked on the plan. MR. MOONEY-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-You intend to use the well on the property for potable water, don’t you? MR. MOONEY-They intended to use the water from the lake in the summer to water the lawn or something like that. MR. VOLLARO-The potable water, though, is going to be from that well. MR. MOONEY-Correct, yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay, but there’s a common source that comes from the lake as well. MR. MOONEY-Yes, and that’s shown back down by Seeley Road. (lost words) there’s a right of way. MR. VOLLARO-Which drawing are you on, sir? MR. MOONEY-We’re on C-1. It’s called out as a three foot square basin for water connection. Now, from my understanding, the water lines that serve these five lots come from that concrete basin. MR. STROUGH-So does their line go up that area 14 5 foot right of way? MR. MOONEY-Yes. I’m only assuming that that’s what that right of way is for is for the water line. MR. STROUGH-All right. So you’re going to mark where the water line is because that’s in the proximity of where your infiltration bed might go. MR. MOONEY-Right. That water line is going to be not in use anymore when this project is done because we have a well on the other side of the site. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) MR. STROUGH-So you’re going to terminate that some place. MR. MOONEY-Yes. MR. STROUGH-So you’re going to have to show where you’re going to terminate it. I assume at the property line or whatever the case may be. MR. MOONEY-Probably right back to that (lost words). MR. STROUGH-Maybe back of the (lost word). Okay. MR. RINGER-Is that it, John? MR. STROUGH-Yes, and I like the idea of including Chris Navitsky’s letter and sending that on to C.T. Male, because I think Chris had some good ideas. MR. RINGER-Okay. Let’s try to table it, then. Can you just do it without a delay here. Start with a motion to table, whatever site plan we’re on here, Site Plan 50-2003, for the following reasons, and call them off, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Are we going to table to a specific date? MR. RINGER-I don’t think we can, because our request that C.T. Male go up there have to go up there, we can’t determine when he’s going to be able to get up there. So I don’t know if we can do it, unless we do it to the first meeting in January. That ought to give them time to get up there. MR. VOLLARO-It seems to me that that would be, depending on what kind of load we’ve got in January, I don’t even know what the load for January is. MR. RINGER-I don’t know what that would be, but Old Business is always first. So it would be on there. So let’s table it to the first meeting in January. MR. HILTON-With the understanding that December 15 is the deadline for January, or if it’s a th Saturday or a weekend it would be the day, you know, the first Monday. If they can meet that deadline. MR. RINGER-Yes, well, I don’t know. They might be able to meet it, but I don’t know if Male might be able to meet it. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think you’ve got to discuss this with Male as a special anyway, because I had talked to Chris Round about it a little bit this morning and we’re way, way over Male expenses this year, way over. MR. RINGER-I still think that this is important enough that we go with it. MR. VOLLARO-I do, too. MR. RINGER-And we’re looking at next year’s budget anyway, if C.T. Male’s going to go up there in January. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I’d like to get C.T. Male up there before snow hit the ground. MR. RINGER-Well, let’s try, start the motion, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-All right. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 50-2003 IAN ROWLANDSON, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: Tabled to the first meeting in January [1/20/04] with the following conditions: 1. The site development data sheet and the floor plan ratio worksheet shall reflect the re- worked architectural drawings called floor plans. 2. C. T. Male to inspect the property for drainage and location of the previous drain field and location of previous septic system drain field, and subsequent to that we’d like to have a sign-off of C. T. Male on their November 19, 2003 letter after their inspection. 3. In reference to the C. T. Male concerns and the stormwater runoff, we would like to have C. T. Male made a little bit, or made aware of the stormwater history on this property, specifically the recent inclusion of a pipe put there by the owner of the property. 4. I would like C. T. Male to correspond with Dave Wick from the Soil & Water Conservation Department as to what are their intentions, upstream intentions. 5. I would like the Town Highway Department to give us an assessment of the drainage ditch on the east side of Seelye Road in the vicinity of this application and send that assessment to C. T. Male, and a drainage ditch or retention basin, that is, and we need to know the locations of the water line, and the applicant has to show their intentions, if it is to terminate the water line, and what they’re going to do and note that on the plans. They also have to show the water line going from the well to the house as well. I would like to have Chris Navitsky’s letter forwarded to C. T. Male as part of this assessment. 6. We would like the New York State Department of Health to assess this applicant’s septic filtration bed proposal. Duly adopted this 25th day of November, 2003, by the following vote: MR. STROUGH-Did you want to get a clarification on the paved gravel and other surfaces, what part of that? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think that that’s what I mean, that it’s got to reflect the architectural drawings and floor plan. MR. RINGER-Let him go through, John. If we start interrupting as he’s making the motion, we’re going to get all confused. AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan MR. RINGER-Okay. You’re all set. You’ve got the information. Now you can get back to George to make sure that you don’t miss anything, and hopefully we’ll get this thing squared away. The first meeting in January, for those people, would be the third Tuesday in January. Okay. So the third Tuesday in January is when this is scheduled for right now. OLD BUSINESS – SITE PLANS SITE PLAN NO. 42-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED PROSPECT CHILD & FAMILY CENTER CONTRACT VENDEE PROPERTY OWNER: GAIL KEYES AGENT: JAMES MILLER, JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: 160 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVERSION OF RESIDENCE BUILDING TO ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING FOR EIGHT CARS. SCHOOL USES REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. TAX MAP NO. 295.18-1-73 LOT SIZE: 3 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 JON LAPPER, LARRY GOUGE, & JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HILTON-Okay. This was tabled at the last meeting to this evening. As the Planning Board requested, the applicant has provided information, updated site plan, and stormwater management plan. The parking area has been relocated to the west side of the building, as the Board had asked for. Just a minor note, the applicant’s lighting plan appears to have mislabeled contours. It seems like everything else has been addressed that you had asked for. Any comments from C.T. Male should be addressed. As a note, since the writing of these comments, we have received a C.T. Male signoff to this proposal, and that’s all I have at this time, unless you have any questions. MR. RINGER-Okay. Would you read his signoff, he signs off completely on all of this. MR. HILTON-Sure. A letter dated November 17, from Mr. James Houston. It says, “In th reference to the Prospect Child & Family Center project, we have received a re-submittal from the applicant’s consultant consisting of a transmittal letter dated November 13, 2003 and excerpts from the revised plans. This information was received via fax. The revisions shown in the re-submittal address the comments made in our previous letter of November 12, 2003. If you have any questions related to this matter, feel free to call our office.” MR. RINGER-Okay. Thank you. I apologize for changing you on the schedule, but I thought that I’d want to get the other items out of the way first, because I really felt this would be a long meeting and it still may be a long meeting. So, if you would, go ahead. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, with Jim Miller, Landscape Architect, and Larry Gouge, the Executive Director of Prospect School. As George said, we think that we made the changes that the Board required last time. Larry personally met with the property owners to the east and west, and we hope that what we have here is satisfactory for the Board. We look it as a pretty small project, but we tried to be responsive. Would you like Jim to go through the changes that he made since we were here last time? MR. RINGER-I think that would be a good idea. MR. MILLER-For the record, I’m Jim Miller. When we were here last month, or actually a couple of months ago, you remember we talked about the conversion of an existing residence to administrative office, and we want to maintain the existing driveway. We were proposing a parking area for eight cars and the original proposal had the parking in the northwest corner towards the front. The comment from the Board was they would prefer to see the parking more behind the building. So we reorganized the parking, brought it down the side, single loaded it close to the building. So access could either be through the front or through a new ramp that’ll enter the back doorway of the residence. We looked at a couple of different options. The residents to the west, there’s some trees here, and it’s heavier towards the back, and there’s very little screening on the east side. So we felt the best option was to keep the parking to the rear, and to the west of the building, to further screen it from the road and maintain as much of the residential character as possible. We’ve got planting along the front of the driveway, facing Aviation Road, which’ll help buffer the parking. There’s also additional planting adjacent to the parking stalls, and we’re showing some, six hemlocks to be located in areas where there might be some lights. There might be some visibility to the west. The lighting we talked about, we eliminated, if you remember we had a cut off fixture 16 feet high in the original parking lot. We’ve eliminated that. Now we’re showing three pedestrian scale pole lights that have to be mounted near the front entrance at the corner of the driveway and one near the back entrance. We also are showing a building mounted light near the doorway which will be a similar type light, and these lights would only be operated when the building was occupied, and we think we’ve responded to the concerns, and with that, we’ll turn it back to the Board. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) MR. RINGER-Okay. Tony? MR. METIVIER-I think it’s a great plan. MR. RINGER-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t have anything either. MR. RINGER-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Just a little housekeeping stuff. I think the lights should be labeled as C and not E, I believe, on your Details. MR. MILLER-Yes. I think that was a C.T. Male comment. We’ve got that already. MR. VOLLARO-It was a C.T. Male comment? All right. So as long as you’ve got a signoff from C.T. Male, those were the only, I was just interested in some of his stuff, but I don’t see anything on this site plan that I would change or object to. I have no further comments. MR. RINGER-John? MR. STROUGH-Well, why the 24 foot driveway going in? Why not 12 or 15? Why 24? Remember, I’m trying to keep this looking residential. Twenty-four, you’ve got a major highway going in back here. MR. MILLER-Well, the 24 is, I believe that’s what’s required for backing out along the parking space. We could narrow the portion in the front to something less than 24. MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s, I’m not concerned about the side. You do need the 24 feet. I’m talking about in front. MR. MILLER-Okay. Well, I think it should be wide enough so two cars can pass. MR. STROUGH-Well, you know how many engineers, lawyers, accountants, real estate people that have, you know, that I’ve visited that have single lane driveways going into the back areas to the houses and those houses have been converted to commercial use in Downtown Glens Falls and I’ve never ever, ever had a problem with their 12 or 15 foot driveways. I mean, I just wanted to see less pavement out in the front yard and more vegetation. So you took away my berm, and, you know, here’s two things that I would like to see and you’d make me real happy. MR. LAPPER-We’ll reduce the driveway, if that’s what you want. That’s fine. MR. STROUGH-Okay. To something 12 or 15. MR. LAPPER-Fifteen. MR. STROUGH-Fifteen’s fine, with snow removal and everything, and just in the front part. In the back you need to leave it 24 feet, but could you also bring the landscaping along the driveway across the front of the house, you know, to try and make it look more residential. Just extend it. MR. LAPPER-You’ve got it. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I didn’t see my bollard lights, but we’ve only got three light poles there, with the house light. MR. LAPPER-Jim was concerned about the bollard. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) MR. MILLER-Yes, the problem with the bollard lighting in the parking lot, you park a car in front of it, it really doesn’t have any effect. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, I think I can live with this. MR. MILLER-Okay. MR. STROUGH-It looks good, and with the reduction of the driveway and the additional landscaping, I think we’ve got a pretty good plan here. MR. LAPPER-You’ve got it. MR. VOLLARO-I have a question, John. On reducing that 24 feet, are you talking right out front on the road? MR. STROUGH-No. I’m talking that narrow, to narrow this part. MR. LAPPER-Where it hits the driveway. MR. MILLER-Where it comes around the front of the building. MR. LAPPER-Where the apron hits the road. MR. STROUGH-Now let me, I’ll draw it on here. MR. VOLLARO-You want to cut that little piece out? That’s it? MR. STROUGH-Yes. Make this 12 or 15 foot in through here, right? And then we’re going to extend the landscaping across here, and far enough away so the snow removal won’t be a problem. MR. MILLER-That’s what we tried to do. We tried to show it far enough back. MR. STROUGH-Fine. We agree. We’ve got the same thought process here. MR. RINGER-Anything else, John? MR. STROUGH-No, that’s it. MR. RINGER-Okay. The public hearing is still open. Does anyone from the public wish to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOANN SIGISMONDI MS. SIGISMONDI-The only question, my name is Joann Sigismondi, and I live on the east side of the house, and was the change in the lighting. What is the new lighting going to look like? MR. STROUGH-The new lighting consists of three poles. MS. SIGISMONDI-Just the height of the. MR. VOLLARO-Just ask the question. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) MR. RINGER-And they’ll answer your question for you. Not now they won’t answer it, but you ask the question, and they’ll come up and answer it for you. So be specific in your question, and then we’ll get them to answer it. MS. SIGISMONDI-Okay. The question that I have is with the lighting you just discussed now, you know, different lighting, is the height of that light. MR. STROUGH-Ten foot. MR. RINGER-Height of the pole. Okay. MR. STROUGH-Just make it easy, 10 foot. It’s antique. MS. SIGISMONDI-So it’s not like it’s 20 or 30 feet high. MR. STROUGH-No. It’s antique. It looks typical to what you’d see in the front yard of anybody’s property. MS. SIGISMONDI-Okay. That answers my question. Other than that, I’m pleased with the changes, you know, how they fixed it. MR. RINGER-Thank you. MR. RINGER-Tony? MR. METIVIER-No, I have nothing to say. MR. RINGER-Okay. Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. RINGER-John answered her question, but will you answer it also for us, please. MR. LAPPER-We just directed her to Jim’s plan that shows the decorative 10 foot light. MR. RINGER-Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the Board? Okay. We have to do a SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-Short Form? MR. RINGER-And this is a Short Form. Did you fill out a Short Form, Jon? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. RINGER-Short Form, Chris. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 42-2003, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: PROSPECT CHILD & FAMILY CENTER, 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 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 25 day of November, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan MR. RINGER-Before we go to a vote, one question, just so you can get it for the records. You have no plans now for anything other, no plans on the drawing board now for any plans other than what you’ve submitted for this piece of property? MR. GOUGE-Correct, yes. MR. RINGER-Okay. Ready for a motion. Anyone want to make a motion? MR. STROUGH-Yes. Do you want me to do it? MR. VOLLARO-Let John do it. He’ll talk about his driveway there. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 42-2003 PROSPECT CHILD & FAMILY CENTER, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 42-2003 Applicant: Prospect Child & Family Center SEQR Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Gail Keyes Agent: James Miller, Jonathan Lapper Zone: SFR-1A Location: 160 Aviation Road Applicant proposes conversion of residence building to administrative offices with associated parking for eight cars. School uses require Site Plan Review approval by the Planning Board. Tax Map No. 295.18-1-73 Lot size: 3 acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: September 16, 2003 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) WHEREAS, the application was received on 8/15/03 and 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 11/13 CB from Miller Associates: response to CT Male engineering comments 11/12 CT Male engineering comments 11/6 Mr. MacEwan, from Miller Associates: requesting tabling to 11/25 mtg. 11/3 Meeting Notice 10/21 CT Male referral 10/15 New info received 9/16 Staff Notes 9/15 CT Male engineering comments 9/13 Response to CT Male engineering comments 9/12 CT Male Engineering comments 9/9 Notice of Public Hearing sent 9/3 Meeting Notice w/Project Identification marker sent 8/22 Application forwarded to CT Male 8/21 Application forwarded to Highway WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on September 16, 2003 and November 18, 2003; 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 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 and is subject to the following conditions: 1. Revisions that resulted in the C. T. Male correspondence of November 17, 2003 will be included in the applicant’s final submitted plans. 2. The driveway from the existing driveway to the proposed northern parking area or western parking area will be narrowed to 15 feet. 3. The proposed landscaping that is currently offered on the northwestern parcel, adjacent to the incoming driveway, will be extended for the full length of the driveway up to the current driveway. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) Duly adopted this 25th day of November, 2003 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan MR. RINGER-You’re all set. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. GOUGE-Thank you. OLD BUSINESS – SUBDIVISIONS SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED HAYES & HAYES PROPERTY OWNER: DENNIS & ERIN MILLER AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SFR-20 LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF DIXON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 8.47 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO 12 RESIDENTIAL LOTS. CROSS REFERENCE: 2 LOT ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION – AD 5-2002 NYS DOH TAX MAP NO. 302.14-1-79 LOT SIZE: 8.47 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JON LAPPER, MICKIE HAYES, & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HILTON-As a follow-up to your tabling this item, I believe in April, April 15, the th applicant has submitted additional information including an alternate subdivision plan, and noise and air quality data. This alternate plan still proposes 12 single family lots, along with some separate no cut zones on the western portion of the property. The noise and air quality data has been referred to C.T. Male for their review and comment. I guess our question would be how would the no cut zones be managed, and will there be a homeowners association created to maintain this property. Consideration should be given to additional no cut zones between this site and the residences to the south and east, to provide a visual buffer and whatever noise buffer you would get from the remaining, or the vegetation that would remain. I guess if this alternate plan, which the applicant has submitted, is acceptable to the Board, we would also wish to see stormwater plans, grading plans, more detailed information along with this alternate plan for our review and for C.T. Male’s review as well. There is a C.T. Male comment letter that is in your packet, and at this time we don’t have a signoff or anything from them. We just have that letter that you have in your packet. That’s all I have at this time, if you have any questions. MR. RINGER-Okay. Again I’ve changed the schedule around because I wanted to get rid of the items that I thought would go rather quickly. Certainly, apparently people are here for this, and I appreciate your patience in staying and waiting for this, and we’ll start. Go ahead. MR. LAPPER-Sure. For the record, Jon Lapper with Matt Steves, surveyor, and Mickie Hayes, the applicant. I guess just procedurally, to begin with, it was our intention to make this submittal as a conceptual submittal. That’s why the stormwater and the detail engineering wasn’t included at this point, because this is a conceptual, if you will, change in the plan, we tried to be responsive to the Board’s comments about the visibility and impact of the Northway. This is a pretty dramatic change from what you saw last time. I think Mr. Strough especially was concerned about the Northway, and this new plan includes a buffer for virtually the entire Northway side of the property, which is a gesture to the neighbors in the back, as well as to the Planning Board. This would now be a cluster subdivision, so that the lots are smaller but it provides for all of this green area. In every respect the property conforms to zoning. No variances are requested, and it just, we didn’t submit anything else because we wanted you to tell us that this was suitable and addressed your concerns before we went to the next level of 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) engineering. To address the Staff question, we’re not proposing to form a homeowners association at this point. What we would propose is that the no cut zone would be in deed covenants and we would also grant the Town the right to enforce that as a condition of the subdivision. MR. RINGER-So what you’re saying is you really thought this was going to be Sketch Plan tonight and not Preliminary and Final? MR. LAPPER-That’s correct. Yes. MR. RINGER-But you’re willing to go with a Preliminary and Final, well Preliminary anyway. I don’t know if you’d necessarily get Final, but you want to go on the Preliminary. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. RINGER-Okay. Do you want to run through your plan before we start questions from the? MR. STEVES-Okay. Matt Steves for the record. What you had previously on the subdivision was a road going in to a cul de sac on the south side of Dixon Road, with lots on both sides of the road, and what we have done is just elongate the cul de sac about 100 feet or so, and then develop all the lots, primarily on the east side of that road, leaving a large buffer strip, varying in width from 50 to 60 feet along the westerly bounds, bordering the Northway. The only one lot that will still remain on the west side of the proposed road is that one right behind the existing house. As you can see on the plan that we’ve brought, the shaded areas of green that are on it, we provide the setback in the rear of the lots against the neighboring lots is to be a no cut zone, as well as maintaining whatever trees we could on the side lines as well. MR. RINGER-Do you want to go over your noise and carbon monoxide assessment or just that we’ve got it or just accept that we’ve received it? MR. LAPPER-We submitted it. C.T. Male reviewed it, and part of the, in addition to the engineering data, part of the mitigation that we’re proposing is to leave that green space, which does a lot to buffer it and to keep it the way it is now. There’s already the existing corridor along the Northway which is shown on George’s photograph, and then we’re adding to that that we’re going to keep as the no cut. So we think that covers it, but of course we’ll provide any other information the Board wants. MR. RINGER-Okay. We’ll start on my right with Bob. MR. VOLLARO-All right. Least to say I struggled with this, a lot. I’m just going to read from some notes and then we can go into discussion if you’d like, but I went back to The Great Escape to take a look at what we did there in terms of how we treated noise at The Great Escape, and in there we said there was a threshold that was to be set above the ambient at 5 db, and that was to be determined by dimi max levels. Now, a lot of folks may not know what we’re talking about, db, decibels is sound. Now this application differs significantly from The Great Escape in that the project, essentially, is not a noise generator. We have a steady state noise environment here, pretty much steady state noise environment being created by traffic on the Northway. Now, the DEC guidelines state that sound increases greater than 6 dba, and that’s the A-scale, for those who want to know what the A-scale is, it’s a scale that they use. We can get into that, be considered for mitigation, and the FHA sets the threshold at one db lower. Essentially they’re the same. The FHA and DEC are about the same. Now the application, to me, has to rely on the sound studies of the ever present ambient condition. Now, that’s what we have to rely on. Now, what happens when you go in there and you change things around, that’s what will change the ambient noise. It will either get above or below the current ambient levels. Now, if you take a look at Location Number Four, which is shown on your study, and I can just about point to it, where Four was taken, incidentally, I went out there Saturday and I parked, and I stood on that slight gravel slope for about 10 minutes, and just listened, and the noise, particularly from the big trucks, and the wind noise, and also the fact that there’s a slight 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) grade there that they’re trying to get up. Those that are not loaded are not making as much noise, but there was a considerable amount of noise there. Anyway, Location Number Four had a 64.5 dba at five feet above the ground. Now that was the first thing that caught my eye in the study. What would it be at a second story level? In other words, what is the predicted dba sound, if I got up to around a second story level, unless you were planning to build only ranch houses with no second stories. That’s something we can talk about in a minute. Now, also the data was taken at below 60 degrees of relative humidity, 60% of relative humidity. Now, the data taking was stopped due to fog and precipitation, but that’s exactly where I’d want to hear it, is during a fog period, where sound is carried very rapidly, molecule to molecule in the medium, and I don’t know why they stopped there, but it was probably because it was threatening rain or something. Location Number Four was in reference to the previous drawing on S-2. The receptor should be moved, I think, probably to the western portion of the property line of the houses. That’s, you know, and then Lots Eleven and Twelve, I feel that they should be totally removed from this drawing. They are really going to be very close. If I put the receptor down to the western end of Lots One through Ten, then there’s a considerable distance there between the driving lane of the Northway and the property line of those ten lots. Having said that, the 64.5 dba rating is higher than the 55 db level stated in the attachment. There was an attachment to the study that talked to 55, I’ll just go to read it. You probably know what it says, but we’ll just read it anyway. It says, and this is from the Environmental Protection Agency. It says, “likewise levels of 55 decibels outdoors and 45 decibels indoors are identified as preventing activity interfering and annoyance. These levels of noise are considered those which would permit spoken conversation and other activities such as sleeping, working, recreation and so on”. So it’s 55 outside, and I’m getting an average dba reading of 64.5, and there’s a conflict right there. The other thing that jumps out at me, at this noise study, first of all there’s no predictive data here. It says that noise levels are not likely to exceed 70 db. Now when they choose 70 db, that’s a noise level that tends to be in a steady state mode, affecting hearing. So, I would be looking for some prediction analysis that says what happens here when I do take the trees down, because they talk about, well, we can’t do this now. Is that the uncertainty of noise level when the project is completed, that’s their words. So there is no prediction data at all, but it says, it goes on to say that noise levels are not likely to exceed 70 db. I really can’t buy that as a portion of the study. We’re really hanging on the edge here, as far as I’m concerned, about this. I was, Mr. Strough and I probably had parted company. I was looking at a buyer beware situation on this lot. That’s where I was, before I really started to look into this study and to look at some stuff that’s on the Internet which talks about 70 db as being damaging to ears at a steady state level. I know we don’t have a noise ordinance in the Town of Queensbury, and we probably should, but we don’t, and that’s another thing that I’m concerned about. MR. LAPPER-A noise ordinance would talk about generators, though, not receptors. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we would have something that said that at a particular, I mean, it could be worded that, I’m not going to sit down and try and word a noise section to the Ordinance, but I think eventually we’re going to have to get one, because we get up against this noise thing all the time, and I think this particular site, from what I can read and what I see, you know, looking at your data, I mean, I looked at some of the large swings in the data itself, in the spiking, taking a look at some of those things that were, I think L-90 might have been up around 100 db or so, something like that, or 70 db. Just taking a look at the, it was 80 in some noise spikes, very short duration. So it would be, you know, but I look at some of these spikes that are over 70, and they’re figured into the average of 64.5, I’m sure, but there are some there that are 70. I guess the lacking of predictive data is what really bothers me. So I ended up my, you know, my notes that said there is some mitigation that can be done here, and in the literature it talks about types of mitigation, something that John Strough has with him here, and one of them is to mitigate some of this noise by construction techniques (lost words) possibly lowering, not building a second story, in this particular instance, or, B, constructing sound barriers. I think the elimination of Lots 11 and 12 is also something we really have to consider. Lot 12 is like, its property line is right up against the Northway. I’m sure that if I had put a receptor right at that property line, as opposed to where it was, I would have gotten a much higher reading than 64.5. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) MR. LAPPER-The highest spike were right over there in that field where there aren’t trees. They just weren’t right at that property line. We were expecting to offer to relocate a lot of mature trees to that area to create more of a buffer, which doesn’t exist now. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you know, it’s been proven that trees are not as effective in stopping noise as heavy brush is. MR. LAPPER-What’s most effective, I think, is the houses themselves, and that protects the people to the other side, behind them. MR. VOLLARO-Well, in this instance what you’ve done, it looks like I just, if I scale that off, but from the property line, one of the things I was wondering, the dotted line, is that the centerline of the Northway? What’s the dotted line up there? It’s to the very north of the property, or the very west of the property, I’m sorry. MR. STEVES-That’s the extreme edge of the concrete of the northbound lane. The edge of emergency stopping lane. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the trucks would be running to the west of that line. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-I just think that, based on what I see in the data, and what I see at that 64.5 db, then what I read in the study itself, I mean, it’s not something I conjured up. It’s right in the study itself where they talk about 55 being applicable to outside and 45 indoors. Now if we could get some predictive data that says that this site is done exactly the way you show it here, one of the effects that we have now, because what Jim Houston brought, and it wasn’t Jim Houston that did it. It was, I think Mr. Edwards submitted the report from C.T. Male, he talked about anything over 6 db. I was going to call him on that because I don’t think he’s correct there. We don’t have a Great Escape thing here. We have a steady state noise problem. It’s different, and that’s where I’m really coming from on this. I just think that the noise on this particular thing is too high, and we’ve got to find ways to either mitigate it or whatever, all the way down to constructing some sort of a sound barrier. I don’t think you guys want to do that. That’s an expense that I don’t think would fly here. MR. LAPPER-It’s a visual issue, really, that would probably be detrimental. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it would be, but they use them. They use them on Main. I’ve seen all the way from here to Florida. They construct them. MR. LAPPER-It doesn’t mean anybody likes them. MR. VOLLARO-Right. Visual impact is not aesthetically pleasing. I would agree with you, but I sure do have a problem with this noise thing. MR. LAPPER-But it sounds like you’re focusing on just two of the lots, primarily, that you have a problem with. MR. VOLLARO-Well, those two lots are going to be significantly higher in a db reading than if I put a receptor down in any one of the lots of one through ten, and then try to read through that. See, what we have here is we’ve got a set of, take a look at that, we’ve got a set of forestation that’s right up, almost right up against the Northway. MR. LAPPER-That’s the 100 foot buffer that exists. MR. VOLLARO-Right, and there’s a no cut zone here along, on the new map, on 1-A, and then the other side of that no cut zone it’s, that’s average no cut zone of about 55 feet. It is 55 feet 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) because I scaled it off. I don’t know how much that’s going to cut the noise down, but I’d certainly like to see the receptors set right along any one of those lots from One to Ten. That gives me a pretty good distance, because, you know, the sound travels with the square of the distance. So, if we cut the distance down, we’re certainly going to cut down the noise. I’d like to see it get down to where somebody in predictive analysis would say, look, this is going to be in the 55 db range, and not put a noise, it says in the study noise levels are not likely to exceed 70. That’s an unacceptable statement for me. So, rather than me ramble on with this, I know there’s other people on the Board that have got some comments, and I’m going to stop there, but I’m certainly not happy with the analysis that I read. MR. RINGER-Jon, you didn’t bring your man from Adirondack Environmental Services that did the noise study because you thought it was going to be Sketch? MR. LAPPER-Exactly. MR. RINGER-Okay. Well, so he could be available at a future meeting? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. RINGER-I mean, because we can talk, but we’re not experts. He is an expert. MR. LAPPER-That’s right. MR. RINGER-Anything else, Bob, before we go to John? MR. VOLLARO-The fact is I concentrated on this, because I think all of the other data that was submitted, the old data, the April 7 letter from C.T. Male and so on, really doesn’t reflect this th new plan at all. So all of this needs to be submitted. George, is that correct? If this plan was to fly, we’d need supporting data reflecting this plan, is that correct? MR. LAPPER-And that’s certainly our intention. MR. RINGER-If he thought it was Sketch, that’s why you didn’t get it. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. MR. RINGER-So that’s the only, those are my only comments. MR. RINGER-Yes. I don’t think we’d get, tonight, to go past Preliminary or even to Preliminary, but there’d be another data sheet and all that stuff would be made up. John? MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I recently attended a conference with Anton Nelison, one of the nations most renown community planners. He said the one thing you don’t want to do is put the wrong thing in the wrong place. That’s Rule Number One. I think we’ve got Rule Number One right here. All right. Let’s go over that sound study, noise study. What was the wind direction and wind strength that day? MR. RINGER-They don’t have an answer, John. MR. STROUGH-They don’t have an answer and it’s not in the report. MR. VOLLARO-Well, he says he had an anemometer up, but then he doesn’t tell you what the results were. MR. STROUGH-He doesn’t tell you. The wind direction and the strength of the wind makes all the difference in the world, as far as decibel levels. It’s not here. MR. VOLLARO-And so does relative humidity. Even more than wind, by the way. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) MR. STROUGH-It’s not here. All right. They show that they did a calibration of the dosimeter, but was that calibration of the dosimeter done with the wind screen on it? Because they used a wind screen on the dosimeter in the study, but they did not say they used a wind screen in calibrating it. MR. LAPPER-We’ll have to provide the sound engineer. MR. STROUGH-Also, just so the public knows, when the applicant talks about decibel readings, and when the study talks about decibel readings, it’s talking about average. It doesn’t talk about undulation. It doesn’t talk about the strength. It doesn’t talk about the peaks, the spikes, it doesn’t refer to those. Furthermore, it’s A-weighted. Now A-weighted measures higher frequencies and the potential effects on the human being, better than another weighting measure, such as C-weighting , which measures your lower frequencies better. Why I mention that is because truck traffic is more likely to be in your lower frequencies and is less likely to be recognized by the A-weighting sound reading system. Okay. Also, our sound study was done Wednesday, May 7, 2003. Wednesday, not a Friday, when traffic would be heavier. It was done during the day from 11:30 to 6:45. It was not done at night, because at night, and it doesn’t recognize, register, describe, discuss, talk about the effects of highway noise at a time when the ambient levels will be lower. Ambient is the background noise. So when ambient levels are lower, the human being is more affected by the sounds coming from the source, in this case the highway. Your study shows that noise exposure levels below 70 decibels averaged over a 24 hour period should not cause any measure of hearing loss, and you do point out that the removal of trees would likely result in a net increase in the average noise levels. It would affect neighboring properties, and you went on to take carbon dioxide measurements, but again, no wind direction. If the wind is blowing west, or from the east, you’re going to have low readings on your decibel levels. You’re going to have low readings on your carbon dioxide readings, but if that was it by itself, okay, but it’s not. I mean, I’m looking at a housing development where the houses are facing the Northway, and when the people look out their front yards, their front windows, they have this beautiful view of the Northway, and an elevated Northway at that. So they’ve got a beautiful view of every car and truck and everything else driving by. So, as I mentioned, the Northway is elevated here, which means we can’t put up a sound fence, and New York State has recognized the adverse effects of the highway, and noise isn’t the only adverse effect, on adjacent residential areas, to the point where they’ve spent millions and millions of dollars putting up soundproofing fences. We can’t do that here because the highway’s elevated here. You can’t put up a soundproof fence. It’s not going to work. MR. LAPPER-Usually those fences are when the houses are a lot closer proximity to the travel lane than what we have here. MR. STROUGH-How much closer can you get? MR. LAPPER-Considerably, if you think about Route 7. MR. STROUGH-No, I’m not going to buy that one. You can’t get much closer. All right. MR. LAPPER-Since you’re going to be on the Town Board, would you like to work out a deal where the Town buys the property from the applicants? MR. RINGER-Keep going with your questions, John. MR. STROUGH-That’s not my purview. I think there are ,you could explore other uses of this property that might be more acceptable than residential, but let me read some of the more recent reports. Now, last time you were here, here’s the old ones. Okay. I’m not including, we’re going to do some new ones, okay. These are in the minutes, the highlights of which are in the minutes. These are new ones. Now this is the CEC Environmental Exchange discusses unhealthy highways. Mothers who lived near freeways during pregnancy were more likely to give birth to children with heart defects, according to a 2002 study in the American Journal of 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) Epidemiology. Preschoolers who lived within 500 feet of a road with heavy traffic defined as more than 24,000 cars per day, and we are talking about that, were significantly more likely to be admitted to a hospital for asthma. Children living within 750 feet of a 20,000 car per day freeway had an eight fold increase in leukemia rates. Okay. Here’s another study, and this is the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Okay. MR. LAPPER-What do you have in mind, John? What do you want us to do with the property? Honestly. MR. STROUGH-Let me see. I think all property along a Northway should be zoned appropriately. The Federal Highway Administration, do you want me to read you what they say. MR. RINGER-John, you’ve got to go with the application and the zoning that we’ve got. You can, you know, you have your personal thoughts on it, and all these things that you’re reading, but we still, we’ve got an application in front of us, on a property that’s zoned residential. You can go, work to get the property rezoned, but that isn’t what we’ve got right now. So continue reading what you’ve got, but, and, Jon, you know, that’s not a fair question to ask, because it’s not up to John to tell you what he thinks should be done with the property. MR. LAPPER-I wasn’t being flippant. I mean, seriously, if John has something in mind, we’d certainly consider it. We made these changes in the hopes that that would satisfy. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, I may have something in mind. I’m not going to address it. I think the Chairman’s right. I’m addressing this, and I have been given a charge, and that’s to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. Okay. That’s my charge. So, I’m showing you, and again, I’ve addressed the article and talked about heart disease here. There’s a growing body of evidence that strongly suggests a link between exposure to noise and the development and aggravation of a number of heart disease problems. Noise causes stress. All right. Noise may produce higher blood pressure, faster heart rates, an increase in adrenaline. Noise may contribute to heart and circulatory disease. I’m just reading you the, without going into the details, the bottom line of each of these. MR. LAPPER-For the record, you’re scaring Matt because he lives right across the Northway in Hidden Hills, right near the Northway. MR. STROUGH-Well, see, I’m not going to say anything. The idea that people get used to noise is a myth. Biological changes still take place in us. You don’t get used to noise. Noise does not have to be loud to bring on these human responses. Noise below levels usually associated with hearing damage can cause regular and predictable changes in the body. In a world where steady bombardment of noise is the rule rather than the exception, the cumulative affects of noise on our bodies may be quiet extensive, all right, and it goes on to talk about diseases of adaptation. The disease of stress includes ulcers, asthma, high blood pressure, headaches, colitis, etc. From a study done with animals, researchers concluded that noise may be a risk factor in lowering people’s resistance to disease and infection. Constant exposure to stress from noise frustrates this requirement and in doing so has potentially harmful effects on our health and well being, and noise on the unborn. The fetus is not fully protected from its mother’s response to stress. The fetus is capable of responding to some changes of the mother’s body of the type produced by emotion, noise, or other forms of stress. All right. Stress can cause constriction in the uterine blood vessels which supply nutrients and oxygen to a developing baby. The fetus is not fully protected from noise. Noise may threaten fetal development. Noise has been linked to low birth weights. Learning difficulties, a likely by-product of noisy areas. Reading ability may also be seriously impaired by noise. Noise hinders the development of language skills in children. Noise disrupts the educational process. The constant intrusion of noise, okay, and this is, the loss of ability to speak at a normal level, and I’ve been to the area, I’ve been to the site many times, and when I’ve talked to other people, I have had to increase the level of my voice for them to be able to hear me, and I was in the vicinity of where you’re 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) proposing your houses. All right. Outdoors, people should be allowed to enjoy the outdoors. They should be allowed to enjoy their front yards, their back yards, whatever. In this area, that would be virtually impossible. Noise does interfere with conversation and social interaction, and hampers work efficiency. Noise interferes with our sleep. Noise interferes with sleep, becomes a chronic problem, and it may take a toll on health. The elderly and sick are particularly sensitive to disruptive noise. So noise affects quantity and quality of sleep, the elderly and sick are more sensitive to disruptive noise, and when sleep is disturbed by noise, work efficiency and health may suffer. The most obvious price that we pay in living in an overly noisy world is annoyance and the frequency. Indeed, noise can strain relations between individuals, cause people to be less tolerant of frustration and ambiguity and make people less willing to help others. One recent study, for example, found that while a lawnmower was running nearby, people were less willing to help a person with a broken arm pick up a dropped armload of books. Another study, two groups of people playing a game found that the subjects playing closer to noisy conditions perceived that fellow players were more disagreeable, disorganized and threatening. Several industrial studies indicate that noise can heighten social conflicts both at home and at work. Noise can cause extreme emotions in behavior. Anti-social behavior caused by noise may be more prevalent than is realized. MR. LAPPER-John, you’ve got the applicant convinced not to generate noise. MR. STROUGH-I’m not talking about generation noise. I’m talking about an application where you’re next to a place that is already generating noise and that affect on the people who might live in these homes. MR. LAPPER-This is a new standard. MR. RINGER-You’re reading, I will say, you know, you’re just taking noise. It could be noise anywhere, a ball game or football game or whatever. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but, no, this is constant, prevailing noise, and you’re talking about 24 hours a day here. MR. RINGER-Continue on, but quoting excerpts from different things, you know, but give your opinion on noise. MR. STROUGH-All right. I’m done with noise. Let’s talk about pollution. MR. RINGER-Okay. Good. Okay. Go ahead. MR. STROUGH-Air pollution. Okay. Everyone wants clean area, but polluted air is risking our health, and according to a recent study, this comes from Sierra Club. It’s an October 18, 2001, Brett Halsey, everyone wants clean air, but polluted air is risking our health. According to a recent study, air pollution contributes to up to 100,000 premature deaths each year. More deaths than from guns and car accidents combined. Every American, more than 271 million people, face cancer risk from air pollution, 100 times above safe levels. Okay. The cause of this pollution? Trucks, cars, highways, for the most part. New studies show that air pollution from roads and highways creates a corridor where residents risk more cancer, asthma and other health problems. Then they talk about diesel and the effects of diesel. There’s significantly increased exposure to particulate matter and toxic air pollution for people that live in close proximity to highway areas. The study also found diesel related air pollutants alone, alone are higher enough to trigger unacceptable health risks. Diesel engine pollution is responsible for 125,000 cases of cancer each year. MR. RINGER-John, I want you to continue, but we’re going to stop at eleven. We’ve got a lot of people here that have been waiting a long time to speak. So really summarize. MR. STROUGH-All right. I’m finishing up. Does anybody want me to stop? 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) MR. RINGER-I want you to summarize. I don’t want you to ask the public. I want you to summarize. MR. STROUGH-All right, I am summarizing. MR. LAPPER-Noise is bad. Pollution is bad. We understand that. MR. STROUGH-I’m getting closer to the end. The heavy part’s done. I’m not done. The main cancer risk pollutants from mobile sources, and this is from roadways, benzene, formaldehyde, and 1 3 Butadiene, and diesel pollution. Benzene is one of the most serious cancer causing pollutants related to leukemia and other cancers and actually added to gasoline. Breathing benzene can cause drowsiness, dizziness and unconsciousness. Long term benzene exposure causes affects on the bone marrow and can cause anemia and leukemia. Breathing 1 3 Butadiene during pregnancy can increase the number of birth defects. Other affects seen in animals that breath low levels of 1 3 Butadiene for one year, include kidney and liver disease, and damaged lungs. Again, it talks more about diesel particulate matter from diesel engines. A 2000 December study published in the Journal of Air and Waste Management Association showed that children living within 250 yards of a street or a highway with just 20,000 vehicles per day are six times more likely to develop all types of cancer and eight times more likely to develop leukemia, and they give you a graph. There’s a direct correlation between how close you are to a highway and the chances of getting those diseases just mentioned. Okay. Again, this press release, highway air pollution threatens neighboring communities. This is an environmental and health organization study from Wisconsin. A growing number of studies indicate that people who live near highways and other high traffic areas may be at high risk for asthma attack, lung cancer and other health problems because of motor vehicle pollution. In the past 20 years, scientists have discovered links between elevated levels of outdoor air pollution and a variety of health problems such as asthma attack, lung cancer, heart attacks, strokes, high blood pressure, congenital birth defects and brain damage. Most of these studies have analyzed air pollution, health effects at the regional, state and national levels. You’re 25 times more likely to get many of these problems if you live near a highway. MR. RINGER-I think you’ve probably just devalued every home in Hughes Court and Broad Acres. MR. STROUGH-Well, now, also, now we’re talking about decibel levels that even the applicant reads, and the wind direction it may have been an easterly wind, but they’re in the high 60’s. MR. LAPPER-John, we clearly understand what you’re saying. The question is, what do you want us to do about it with the property? MR. RINGER-Well, we’ve got a couple of things first. We’re going to go through the Board. You’re going to bring your specialist in at the next meeting. MR. LAPPER-Certainly. MR. RINGER-And he’s going to be able to address a lot of the subjects that John has brought up. John has picked and choosed many items, but many of them seem valid, and I’m certainly not an expert on any of them, and none of us are, either. We expect an expert, and we’ll probably have someone from, an expert from the Town or the Town will hire an expert to answer some of these concerns and questions that are coming up, Jon. MR. LAPPER-As history has shown, Mickie is certainly willing to spend whatever time it takes to address the Board’s concerns. In this case, I think we’re talking about sort of a threshold legal issue. What I see John getting to is that he’d like to have a buffer strip along the Northway, a no build, which is something that the Town can work out. I’d point out that the Town just built a park next to the Northway, but if the Town wants to implement a new standard that there’s going to be a 300 foot buffer. 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) MR. STROUGH-I’m not done yet. MR. LAPPER-That could happen. You’d just have to buy it. MR. STROUGH-All right. Let me finish. All right. Now as I was saying, this admits that noise that’s in the high 60’s, just to get a measure of things, and I want the public to know that running your vacuum cleaner, and you being three meters away, is 70 decibels. Just to give you an idea. Okay. Now I have not discussed odors. I have not discussed vibration, and other particulate matter, because, during the winter, you’re going to lie down sand and salt on that highway. MR. LAPPER-You don’t want people to live near highways. We understand. MR. STROUGH-And that sand and that salt is just going to get airborne, and when you get a westerly wind, guess where it’s going to go, right into this residential neighborhood. MR. RINGER-John, I’m going to move on to Tony and Chris, and then I’m going to open the public hearing, and then if it’s before 11 o’clock, we’ll let you come on again. Okay. MR. STROUGH-Well, I still haven’t gotten to the. MR. RINGER-I want to give the other members a chance to talk, and I want to give the public a chance to talk, and then if it’s prior to eleven, you’ll get another opportunity. If not, at the next meeting, we’ll start with you. I promise. Well, I won’t be, Craig will be here, but I’ll promise. MR. STROUGH-Well, we’ve got water at the southern portion. I’ll get to that later, then, I guess. MR. RINGER-So, Tony? MR. METIVIER-I think, on this application, I’m going to take the stand that, well, let me start over. I can’t imagine that the developer in any way would make people live here, and, being in real estate, people, which I am, people that I’ve shown houses to do take the time to check out the area, the surrounding sounds, neighbors and everything, and I guess if it’s an issue for somebody, they just will not purchase a house, or a piece of land. However, in this particular instance, I want to make sure that none of the landowners that live on Hughes Court would be at all affected by anything that would be done with this development. I look at it, and with the no cut zone on the Northway side, it’s a start, definitely, but I think what we need to do is somehow get your specialist in here to not so much zero in on your eleven or twelve lots, but to really look at the lands of Monthie, (lost word), Kingsley, so on and so forth, to see what the impact would be on them, more so than on your lots, because, again, if somebody chooses to live in one of your lots, that’s their choice. You didn’t make them, and, you know, there’s going to be noise issues. There’s going to be pollution issues. However, if you drive up and down the Northway, the thru way towards Buffalo, Long Island, yes, there are areas that they have put in, you know, these sound fences, but there’s other areas where they have not, and people seem to habitat quite well in the areas. So there’s no doubt, and they’re very close. There’s actually one development at Exit 12 where, you know, there’s people right there, swimming pools. I mean, you look at people swimming, right off the Northway, closer than this area here, and I would be hard-pressed to find anyone complaining at this point that the Northway is too noisy because the development was just done in the last two years. It’s being built now, and I would be interested to go in there and ask people what their thoughts are, just to get an idea of how much the Northway does impact them. Certainly in other areas, in Long Island especially, where you have a much more intensive traffic problems, they’re taking steps now to alleviate some of the problems, but I don’t think it’s that intensive here, especially at Exit 19, and most people are actually getting on the Northway at 19. So you’re having a slowing traffic effect getting off as well. So, you know, the impact here I don’t think is going to be as great as around Exit 8, 9, 12, but again, I want to make sure that, you know, the people that live on Hughes Court now are unaffected by this in the long run. That’s really all I have. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) MR. RINGER-Chris? MR. VOLLARO-Could I just ask Tony a question? MR. METIVIER-Sure. MR. VOLLARO-Are you asking for some sort of predictive data that tells us what that is likely to be? MR. METIVIER-Well, the only way you could do that and be sure would be to cut down all the trees and see what the difference is. That’s not going to be the plan. MR. VOLLARO-They can do a predictive study. MR. METIVIER-I’m sure they could. MR. VOLLARO-We did it with the Great Escape. MR. RINGER-They could do a sound study on Hughes Court. MR. METIVIER-You know, and I would be most, I am not concerned about this development at all. Like I said, and I’m going to say it over again, and the next time you come I’ll say it again. If people wish to live here, they will. No doubt about it. They know what they’re getting themselves in to. It’s clear that the Northway’s right there. However, you can’t affect people who have lived, you know, behind here. MR. STROUGH-But, Tony, you’re assuming that people that live there, because you see some of them have bought homes next to there, are okay, flies in the face of the studies. MR. RINGER-John, let Tony have his opinion, and you had your opinion, and let Chris, go ahead, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-My thought was similar to what Tony mentioned. I think there’s really two issues here, one issue, of course, is, you know, the development itself, but then the other issue is, you know, not allowing something that would negatively impact people who are already in those neighborhoods. I guess really what we’re supposed to be looking at tonight is whether or not we like the, you know, alternate one better than the original plan. I agree with Tony. I think it’s a good start. When I first saw it I liked it a lot better. One of the things that I’m going to bring up is the length of the cul de sac, and I’ve stood alone on the Board in my feelings about this before. I’ve voted against other projects because they had dead end streets that were longer than 1,000 feet. This does not have the number on there, but I believe that it’s in excess of 1,000 feet. MR. STEVES-The distance measured on your Code is from the edge of the right of way of Dixon Road to the throat of the cul de sac, and we’re just under 1,000. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re just under, okay. Like I said, the map didn’t say. I was speculating. So, if it’s under, then that’s okay. MR. STEVES-You’re absolutely right. It’s very close, Chris, but it is not over. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So I don’t need to worry about that, but that was an issue. I really don’t have anything else to add. I think we’ve sort of talked about the noise and the other issues already. So, let’s hear from the public. MR. RINGER-My concern kind of mirror’s Tony’s and Chris’s, in that I’m more concerned with the Broad Acre/Hughes Court affect than I am on the new development. There are some 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) questions there, but again, I believe people do, if they’re going to buy a home, look to see what’s there and our concerns, and that’s my opinion. What I’d like to do now is open up the public hearing, because we do have these people and certainly they’ve been patient and waited tonight and we’d like to hear from them. We’ve got 35 minutes. So I think what I’m going to do is probably limit you to about three minutes each, and hopefully we’ll be able to get as many comments as we can. You can be assured there’ll be no decision made on this project at all. It definitely will be tabled, and it will be moved to another date, probably in January, I would guess, before this will come before this Board again. So the public hearing is now open. If anyone would like to speak, please come up. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RICK GARRAND MR. GARRAND-Speaking on behalf of the residents in Dixon Court, Rick Garrand, my wife Jasmine Garrand, Dixon Court, 19 Dixon Court. On the map here, I don’t know if you can see this. This is Dixon Court up here. Okay. Our house is right here. Lately the Friends of Coles Woods have been cutting, clear cutting trees through here, and, yes, our noise level has gone way up. I guess this is City of Glens Falls property in there. They just purchased this house here, and the land that goes back there, that used to be an old farm. They’re clear cutting trees, the noise level’s gone way up. It’s now gotten to the point where it’s really annoying. I think the same thing is going to happen to the people on Hughes Court. Also, I wanted to know if an environmental impact study’s been done. Basically, if you look along the edge of the Northway, it’s all ravine, and that ravine feeds into Halfway Brook. If you’ve been down there, you’ve probably noticed that ravine. I don’t know if any environmental impact study has been done or not. Disruption to wildlife. That entire lot is more or less a deer run. Deer go through there all the time. I have upwards of seven deer in my back yard at a time, over on Dixon Court, and we followed them over to this lot. Increased traffic flow. A lot of our residents have noticed that it’s getting more and more difficult. Once they put Dixon Heights in, the traffic has just increased exponentially. People can’t get in and out of Dixon Court at various times during the day, especially during like morning/evening hours. You can’t get in and out. You add another cul de sac in here and you just upped that by, what, 20 cars. Water table displacement. I wish to God some of you were on the Board back 10 years ago when I bought a house on Ferris Lane when I had six feet of water in my basement. I mean, three months after buying a house I had six feet of water. Nobody ever talked to us about what’s happening when you build all these houses in what used to be, you know, soil taking up that water table. You put all these basements in and the water table goes up in the air. Nobody ever explained that to me when we bought that house on Ferris Lane. Kensington Road school. Most of you know that, you know, half of the other side of Dixon Road, part of the subdivision up there, Hidden Hills, is Glens Falls City School. These kids have got to walk down the road to Kensington school, and some of these kids have got to dodge traffic on the way down there. My three minutes is up. Thank you for your time. MR. RINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? CAROL LA POINTE MRS. LA POINTE-Hi. I’m Carol LaPointe. I’m not a public speaker, so bear with me. We live on Hughes Court, and the noise there from the Northway has increased. We’ve lived there about eight years, and it has increased tremendously in that time, and I’m not an engineer, but I can only assume that it’ll go up, even more as the years go on. Now when you’re talking about trucks going on the Northway and accelerating from there, when they go north and they’re downshifting to go off on Exit 19, they’re going right by the back of our property, and you can hear them and you can hear them hit that, well, I don’t know whether it’s the bridge, the starting of the bridge or what, the boom. You can feel it right in the house. So, it’s not something that’s away from us. We’ve got it. We bought the house. We’re there, but if this project is rejected, Hayes and Hayes can take down their survey stakes, dismiss their lawyers and consultants and go home, to one of their other projects that they have all over Town. 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) However, if this project is approved, we the present taxpayers, owners along with the purchasers of the new proposed homes, will not have that option. We’ll be there, and we’ll have to listen to that, no matter what it is, and nobody can assure us that that’s not going to affect us. Now someone here said something about building one story houses, because it would affect you on the second story, it’s going to go right over the top of those first houses, right over to us. Stop and think about that. Because we’re right behind there. Now by all reports, in the report there, there’s a probability of adverse affects on all of us, either by water, noise that restricts outdoor activities, and as by their own study, they won’t be able to know, until the project is completed, just how bad the affect will be, I heard somebody say until they cut all the trees down, we won’t know, but that shouldn’t be an option. Now, I don’t think the Planning Board or Hayes and Hayes or anybody can leave all of us owners, there’s 74 that signed the petitions that we have, that we’ve turned in, how can anybody leave us in that position? I don’t think, if any of these people that are building those houses, at Hayes and Hayes, if it was at their neighborhood, they would want this to be left with something like this. Now we talked about cul de sacs. I was a Transportation Supervisor for a school district down in Saratoga County, or down in Albany County. We had cul de sacs, and when you had to go up in there, if there’s someone up there in the cul de sac area who’s having a Tupperware party, who’s having their lawn mowed and the trailers are in there with their lawnmowers and everything, somebody’s having a swimming pool put in, whatever, if an emergency vehicle needs to get around that cul de sac, it isn’t going to happen. We’ve had to back a school bus out of there many times because we can’t get around the thing and they can’t get by us going the other way. So I know what a cul de sac is like because I’ve dealt with them for eleven years, okay, and I’ve got a picture here that is about 40 feet back from the fence by the Northway. You can see the truck, and this is the view those people will have, and I’m going to give it to somebody. I don’t know how to hand it to. MR. RINGER-This is a view from Hughes Court, Carol? MRS. LA POINTE-No, it’s from right out in the woods. MR. RINGER-From your property? MRS. LA POINTE-Right out in back. MR. RINGER-Of Hughes Court? MRS. LA POINTE-Yes. MR. RINGER-Okay. Give it to Staff and he’ll pass it around to us. Okay, and, George, if you’d mark on the back of the picture where the picture was taken from, the back yard of LaPointe’s on Hughes Court. MRS. LA POINTE-No, it’s not in my back yard, it’s way out in back of the woods on this property. MR. RINGER-On this property. Okay. MRS. LA POINTE-Yes. Out here, in here, this is about right here, looking at where that clear cut’s going to be. That’s what the view is going to be. The trees, the number of trees that are out there. MR. RINGER-For the Board’s information, she was pointing to the back of Lot Eight on the other side of the road, on the west side of the road. MRS. LA POINTE-Okay. One more thing. I had sent a letter with the petitions and with the packet of pictures that I took out there of the water table and everything, and it’s in, and I went in the other day to look at it, and it’s in an envelope, I don’t know whether it’s the main pack or file folder, but it’s there, and I don’t know if any of you have looked at it, but the water table, 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) they’re going to build right over a stream on one of those sites. So, I think that a lot more needs to be looked at, too, besides the noise, including the water. MR. RINGER-Thank you, Carol. MRS. LA POINTE-Okay. MR. RINGER-Anyone else? JIM ROUND MR. ROUND-Yes. Jim Round. I’m at 34 Pershing Road, which is the first house in from Hughes Court on Pershing Road. I walked around with a petition and had a number of people, 20 some odd people, sign it. Everyone I spoke to on Hughes Court or actually on Pershing Road, Queensbury Place, and Spruce Court, everyone’s feeling was the same. This is going to increase our noise level on all our property. It is noisy now. We all understand that. We all bought these homes. We all live there. I think you all understand that. The study, or all the statements that I read say that the ten decibel increase in the noise level is a doubling of the noise level. I think everyone understands that, has read that statistic. Fifteen percent decibel rating will quadruple the noise level. You really need to do more of a study not just on Hughes Court, okay. How far out is this noise going to travel? Is it going to double, quadruple the level, all the way up Broad Acres, all the way up Ashley? I mean, at what level do we say that this is the standard, because the Zoning Ordinance says that to have a site approved that it has to meet the standards. Well, the statement says adequacy, type, arrangement of trees, shrubberies and other suitable plantings, landscaping, screenings, constituting a visual and noise buffer between the applicant’s and the adjoining lands. The adjoining lands and the noise traveling is going to travel more than on Hughes Court. It’ll get to Queensbury. It gets to Spruce Court. I don’t know how they’re going to stop the noise from traveling. The only way is as you’ve recommended, put up a barrier, but that doesn’t look like it’s a good idea on this property. So again, the concern, I think, is for the adjoining neighborhoods, and the noise level, and how it’s going to adversely affect us. MR. RINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Well, certainly the public meeting will be left open, and we’ll ask. Do you have a letter? I’m sorry. MR. HILTON-Yes, well. MR. RINGER-You’ve got a petition that I see is being passed around along with pictures. MR. HILTON-There’s a petition, but there are multiple, multiple pieces of correspondence. I’d be here past eleven o’clock reading. I certainly don’t mind, and if you want me to read each and every one of them, I will. MR. RINGER-No, I don’t think it’s necessary, but could you recap in general, you know, other than noise, and pollution. MR. HILTON-Noise pollution, based on those factors and overdevelopment of the property and also concern with water and drainage at the rear of the property. I can speak to that in a moment, but before I go any further, what I will do, between now and the next meeting, is I will make copies of each and every one of these correspondence and we will provide them to you. MR. RINGER-Right, because they should be part of the record. They don’t have to necessarily be read, Cathi, as long as they’re made part of the record and each Board member has an opportunity to read them? MS. RADNER-That’s correct. MR. RINGER-So that would be fine, but the issues are noise, traffic and water. 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) MR. HILTON-Yes, for the most part, and based on that, the feeling that it’s probably too much of an intense, in some cases too intense a proposal for the property, based on those specific. Now in terms of drainage, there is some concern. One of the neighbors, Demboski, I believe the name is, there’s a letter in here that talks about a drainage easement for a drainage district and there was some discussion about that last time, and yes there is a drainage district to the east of this site, this site that we’re dealing with this evening, and there is infrastructure to the east which the ditch on this property, it appears that that ditch drains towards this, it’s a 15 inch pipe off site, that eventually gets into the system and works its way through the Town’s highway drainage system. MR. RINGER-Is that the Town’s highway drainage, or is that the one that goes down to the City through Broad Acres and down across Sherman Avenue and into the canal? MR. HILTON-It’s a Town system. MR. RINGER-Okay, because there’s another one in Broad Acres that the City put in, or somebody put in, years ago, and it drains into the canal. MR. HILTON-Right, and I met with the Highway Department today, Rick, and we looked at the old plans. I guess his concern that he relayed to me was that this project would not have an adverse impact on that drainage system, and that it be designed to connect and, you know, accept water from this site, adequately, safely, and not impact the residences to the east of this site. So I guess as part of any future review, obviously C.T. Male will look at it, but we’d probably forward it to the Highway Department as well for their review. MR. RINGER-Most definitely. Okay. Thank you. That’s it, George? We heard a lot of comments. Most of them you’ve actually heard from the Board, noise, traffic is one that we hadn’t heard from the Board, water tables which, you know, you’ll be doing in your stormwater. Going down the list of what was brought up here. Mainly that’s it, and what George had. So we are going to table it. MR. LAPPER-What we heard, Larry, is that we need to get the noise expert in to look at the concerns of the Board on site as well as the off site concerns, and probably a little more detail on the pollution, air pollution issue, and we will, the next time we’re here we will have engineers to address the Board and answer any questions, and we are open to suggestions from Mr. Strough or anybody else about alternate development plans, but as three of the members of the Board said, I mean, we really tried to change this pretty dramatically to address the concerns last time, and we’re listening. MR. RINGER-Okay. You didn’t mention stormwater, but you’ll do stormwater, too? MR. LAPPER-Yes. That’s an engineering issue. MR. RINGER-As far as alternate things, I mean, you’re zoned residential. So there’s not much you can do in the zone that you’re in, other than to go for rezoning, and I really believe that all the neighbors here tonight, I mean, Mr. Strough suggested an office complex or something like that would be just as adamant against an office complex as they would with residential homes in that area, because you’re talking more traffic. MR. STROUGH-You don’t have to develop the whole piece of property. Some of it can be left green space and probably should be for good reason, good planning reasons. MR. LAPPER- We did plan for green space. MR. RINGER-In any event, we’ve got an application before us for a 12 lot subdivision, and that’s what we have to look at, and the tabling is going to be for the noise pollution, you know, to bring your expert in, the stormwater, an EIS was mentioned. The Board hasn’t suggested 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) that an EIS is necessary here. Traffic study, I really find it difficult that a 12 lot subdivision is going to be, my personal opinion. Water tables will be done with your stormwater. MR. LAPPER-Engineering. MR. RINGER-So I’m going to make a motion to table. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, this is just concept. Correct? MR. RINGER-No, it isn’t. They thought it was going to be Sketch, but the way the application is before us right now, it’s Preliminary and Final. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Sorry. MR. RINGER-So we’ve got a Preliminary application. Which would table, we’re looking at a timeframe here. MR. LAPPER-We have to check with the engineers because these studies, we have to schedule it. I can’t tell you. MR. RINGER-There’s no way, John, we can get this in December. As much as I’d like to, for you, to get this in December, there’s just no possible way that this can be done. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m glad you cut me short, then. MR. RINGER-Well, I did, but I felt it was more important to hear from the neighbors. I really did, and you can come as a public, you know, John, certainly you’re going to be on the other side of the room and you can address the Board, and, you know, and you’ll get your three minutes, maybe two and a half for you, but you’ll certainly get an opportunity to speak. MR. HILTON-I guess I understand your concern, as far as follow-up and not scheduling a meeting, or tabling it to a specific date, but I would just suggest that you specify in your motion the items you’re looking for, and if there is no date specified, somehow make arrangements for notification to the neighbors. MR. RINGER-Well, I was going to put a date on it, George, but I didn’t think I could put it in December, and I just wanted to let John know that there was no way I could get it for December. MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. RINGER-So what I was going to do is table it for the second week in January. MR. VOLLARO-The studies that were done, the sound studies that were given to us, as I read them, were done against the old drawing, and not against alternate one. MR. LAPPER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-And I think we want to take a look at them, I’d like to see the studies show receptors set at at least the west end of the new properties, as they’re defined in alternate one. I think I’d like to see some of those studies done that way. MR. RINGER-The way I was going to table my motion was to do a new sound study, include the new plan, and also do the sound study on Hughes Court and Pershing Road. MR. STROUGH-But again, the sound study wasn’t done during the summer when windows are going to be open, and when traffic’s heavier. 69 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) MR. RINGER-Yes, well, they aren’t going to do the study indoors, John. They’re going to do the study outdoors, and it will be a better study because more leaves will be gone in the fall than in the summer. So the noise should be greater in the fall than in the summer, I would think, with less leaves and foliage out there. MR. STROUGH-Well, and then it doesn’t address dust, vibrations, smell, odors. MR. RINGER-Yes, but, John, you know, you’re getting way, way out on the issues that could be any subdivision anywhere in the Town. MR. STROUGH-Well, like the community planner said, the wrong thing for the wrong place. MR. RINGER-And that very well could be, John, and you’re probably not going to get a disagreement, but that isn’t what we’ve got in front of us. We have to work with what we’ve got in front of us, and we’ve got property that’s zoned as residential, and we’ve got an application for a 12 lot subdivision in a residential zone and that’s what we have to look at. Now you can determine, you know, the neighborhood character or whatever, can be deteriorated from this and maybe make a point, but it’s not what we’ve got in front of us. MR. VOLLARO-One more thing, and I don’t want to keep interrupting you, but can you mention in there that the new study should have some predictive analysis? Something to tell us what the future will look like if people, and they can do that. We did it, I saw the study that was done for The Great Escape. MR. RINGER-I will do it this way. I will start the motion, and then I’ll have you add to it. How’s that, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. RINGER-Okay. Tabled to our second meeting in January. MR. LAPPER-Well, we’re not probably going to be able to submit by the 15 of December, only th because after you get through Thanksgiving, that’s two weeks. MR. RINGER-Okay. You’re looking at February, then, Jon. MR. LAPPER-Most likely, but we have to talk to the engineers. MR. RINGER-Okay. The first meeting in February, which would be, for the people in attendance here, the third Tuesday of the month in February would be our first meeting in February. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2003 HAYES & HAYES, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: Tabled to the first meeting in February with the following conditions: 1. The applicant will come back with a noise study reflecting the revised plan. The noise study will also include the areas of Hughes Court and Pershing Road or the Broad Acres area in general. 2. They will bring their expert in that has done the noise study and discuss the pollution study that has been done. 3. Stormwater report will also be part of the tabling. 4. When the noise study is done to add some predictive data as opposed to statements like noise levels are not likely to exceed 70 db. 70 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/03) 5. The new site plan should show more information than is shown on the current plan. Duly adopted this 25th day of November, 2003, by the following vote: MR. RINGER-John, did you want to add anything to this tabling motion? MR. STROUGH-I’d just say you should look at everything in the worst case scenario, and that’s your charge. MR. RINGER-It’s part of our charge. All right. That’s the motion. I need a second to the motion. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll second. MR. RINGER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan MR. RINGER-Now I had a few comments from the Board. You raised your hand. If you had something specific, you can ask me now and we’ll, the lady in the back there. AUDIENCE MEMBER-We wanted to know the price range of the houses were. MR. RINGER-Okay. Would you just tell them what the price range of the houses you’re considering? AUDIENCE MEMBER-I also wanted to know, if they didn’t sell for that price, would they be reduced? MR. RINGER-The price range of the house is really not something that the Board would get into, but they may be more than willing to answer your questions. MR. ROUND-Who owns the property? MR. LAPPER-Hayes and Hayes. MR. ROUND-Hayes and Hayes. That’s all I wanted to know. MR. RINGER-Okay. I need a motion to adjourn the meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-So moved. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Larry Ringer, Acting Chairman 71