The URL can be used to link to this page

2004-08-17 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 17, 2004 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, SECRETARY LARRY RINGER ROBERT VOLLARO ANTHONY METIVIER RICHARD SANFORD THOMAS SEGULJIC PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN ENGINEER-C.T. MALE-JIM EDWARDS TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 20-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: PO LOCATION: WALKER LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF 32-MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS (15,104 SQ. FT.) ON THE SIDE OF AN EXISTING 48-UNIT MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON WALKER LANE. MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE SR-1A ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 5-98 TAX MAP NO. 296.11-1-28 LOT SIZE: 11.74 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RICH S., PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-George, where did we leave off? MR. HILTON-Well, this was tabled for two things. One, a Highway Department, I guess, comment letter, a description, or a comment on the hauling schedule which you have, I believe, in your packets, and secondly a DEC, some comment from DEC as to whether this is a mining project or not, and we did receive a letter yesterday, which I have and I can hand it out if you’d like. It states that, based on an inspection by DEC, the project is an on site construction project and does not require a mining permit. So I think that’s all we were looking for. That’s the reason why it was tabled, and I guess that’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Tom Nace, on behalf of and with Rich Schermerhorn, and I think what George said summarizes our position. We’ve got the two letters. These were the only open items at the last meeting, and I think we have it documented, and we’re certainly available for any questions. MR. SANFORD-I have a question. I received, at home, a letter that was sent to the Queensbury Planning Department from a Judge and Duffy law firm, and I just have a question regarding consistency on this item. I recall last month a similar situation happened with an Attorney Caffry submitted a letter and the applicant was tabled to allow a response to that letter. In fact, we’re going to be hearing that application, I guess, next. Here’s the same exact situation with 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) the same type of parameters. An attorney sends a letter expressing concerns about items in the application, and it wasn’t at all addressed, in terms of Staff notes in our packet of information, nor even mentioned by Staff as having received it, and in the interest of consistency, I guess what I’m wondering is why would we table an application, or the Chairman table an application, when a lawyer makes an inquiry on one application, and in this case, not recognize that letter. MR. LAPPER-The simple answer is that the public hearing was already closed when that letter was sent out. MR. SANFORD-I’m not sure if the public hearing on the other application was closed or not, Jon. I’m not really necessarily directing this to you. I’m talking in terms of consistency within a process. So I don’t want, I mean, in a lot of ways I’m not suggesting that maybe you need to. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich, there’s two answers here. One, the Schermerhorn application, the public hearing was closed on June 22, I think it was. With the Hayes and Hayes, the public nd hearing is still open, and the difference is also on the Hayes and Hayes, the applicant’s agent requested a tabling so that they could respond to Caffry’s letter. It was at the request of the applicant that that was tabled. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Well, there’s an answer regarding the public hearing. I wasn’t aware that there was a difference there. Still, I’m not sure what Staff’s policy is in terms of informing the Board of these types of letters. I guess we received it, though not through you. So maybe it’s a moot point, George. MR. HILTON-Well, I guess from our standpoint, you know, if the public hearing is open, and we have comment we will either read it into the record or let you know that it’s there. The letter that you’re speaking about, we did receive. It’s in our file, and because the public hearing is closed, I guess I’m not going to refer to it or read it this evening, unless the public hearing were open. MR. SANFORD-Okay. I was just curious. MR. MAC EWAN-Back to you, Jon. MR. LAPPER-The only other request we have, because of the nature of this project, it’s going to take a year for the former septic field to lie fallow before the soil can be removed from the site. We’d like a resolution approving the site plan to include a two year period of time to start construction, rather than the typical one year, and that’s just unique to this. MR. MAC EWAN-Why is that? MR. LAPPER-Because what’s going on here is that we’re retiring an on-site septic system to hook into the new sewer line, the new municipal sewer line that Rich constructed along Bay Road. So that after the sewer line actually is connected to the property, then the old septic system gets retired. That has to sit for a year and then it has to get inspected by DOH and then he’ll take it off site, and because that period of time will take likely 12 months, he’s not going to be able to start construction on that site until that happens. So here he’s not looking to start building for probably two years. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll open it up for any questions from Board members, seeing as how we’ve pretty much got this thing covered, as far as questions, but I’m not going to go down through our checklist. So if you just want to ask, go ahead. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ll ask a question. On the Highway Department letter, there was a little confusion in my mind, and I just wanted to make sure that I understand what’s happening there, and it’s in the second paragraph where Mr. Missita says, also this is contingent on agreement with Stan Koenig, and I know who Stan Koenig is, of New York State DEC, it sounds 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) to me like Stan Koenig had a position on taking this material off site, not necessarily from a mining permit point of view, but it sounds like the letter from Highway is referring to that perhaps Stan Koenig has some comment on the six month period, and I’m just trying to see whether the Koenig statement is concerning his mining permit or the lack of it. Do you know what I’m saying? I don’t know why Missita is getting into the mining permit area when we only asked him to do, unless it’s something he came up with when he talked with Mr. Koenig. MR. HILTON-I guess I don’t know. I can’t answer why, you know, why the Highway Department comment chose to address that, but, I mean, I have the DEC letter, and they really don’t talk about scheduling or anything like that. They’re really just speaking, DEC that is, about the project, whether it’s a mining project or not. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and I just don’t know, when this Paragraph Two was dumped in here, I said, gee, does Stan Koenig also have a position on the time it takes to get this thing off the site, and I’m concerned they’re not the same statement. He’s not talking about this mining permit here. He’s talking about something else. I think. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Excuse me, Bob, if I may. I did talk with Rick Missita, and he had the resolution in from him, and if you’ll read it just quickly, it says, the reasons for tabling is for the applicant to meet with the Town Highway Department to formulate a plan for the removal of the soil from the property. The plan should include the number of trucks per day, timeframe, time being hours that the soil will be removed and also a letter from DEC regarding the mining operation. I don’t need to read the rest, but he was just simply putting contingent upon them saying that it’s not a mining operation. He was just referring to the Town resolution. MR. VOLLARO-I just wanted to make sure that the rest of the Board concurs with what that implies. I was confused by that second paragraph. Because I knew that Staff had gotten a direct letter from Koenig concerning the permit. That I knew was put to bed, and I didn’t know why a second paragraph was in here. MR. LAPPER-That was six days later, if you look at the date, that Stan’s letter followed up Rick’s letter. MR. NACE-I didn’t know, at that point, what Stan said, or was going to say, regarding the mining permit. MR. VOLLARO-All right. I’m not going to belabor the issue any further. I think I understand it. Just so that everybody else understands, when, Rich, I think you asked to do 50 trucks, and do it in 6 months. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-In your letter. MR. SCHERMERHORN-The only purpose, of course, is if there’s bad weather, we have a summer like we’re having now where it’s muddy or whatever, but, you know, Rick had asked for four, and we can certainly do it in four, and I said no weekends or holidays as well. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I pulled the weekends and holidays out. I just want to know that 50 trucks at 15 yards a truck, I’m averaging a 15 yard truck. I think that’s about right, for a truck. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Typically 17 to 18 yards, we can haul legally. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, 15 is, that’s 750 cubic yards a day, times 20 days in a month, and I took all the weekends and all out, four months gives you 60,000 cubic yards. You’re close to your 51, but I think one of our Planning Board members, and I believe he’s here tonight, Al Anderson, talked about the fact that 51 cubic yards, when packed in as a calculation on large piece, could fluff up to be a lot more than 51 cubic yards when it gets on the trucks, and I just want 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) everybody to recognize that 60 is kind of marginal for a four month program. I believe it is. Just based on the fact that when you start taking earth up you get a certain growth in it by the fact that it’s not compacted anymore. That’s my only point. Does the Board understand what I’m talking about? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-In fact, I had a similar question, Bob, if it could even be done in four months. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, it can be. We’ve just got to hope that we have good weather, because everybody’s certainly sensitive when the trucks come out and there’s mud on the tires and it gets on the road. So that’s the only reason I asked for the six months. MR. RINGER-You can get started, assuming you get approval, if it gets started and you aren’t, then you can come back for the modification to get it changed, if it takes more than the four months. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, yes. Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Refresh my memory. Don’t you have to let the septic field sit fallow for a while before you start excavating this? MR. SCHERMERHORN-That’s why we asked for the two years. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re out 16 months or something. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. Then I have to contend with the roads being posted in the spring and, you know, at time of excavation. So it’s a timing issue. That’s why we asked for the two years as well. MR. MAC EWAN-What kind of measures do you have planned for keeping the road clean, Walker Lane clean, with the trucks going up and down there every day? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, in the site plan, there’s a plan where we’ve got to put the crushed stone down to keep the tires clean, but simply what we’ve been doing is just not hauling when it’s raining, and when the tires are full of mud, you just don’t haul. To be quite honest with you, it’s not worth the liability on my end, because if someone has an accident, they come back on us, regardless if it’s our fault. MR. NACE-Another thing, you’ve got several hundred yards that trucks will travel through Rich’s site on his pavement before it gets onto Town road. So most of the mud will get cleaned off in that area. MR. SCHERMERHORN-And the other assurance is that I have 48 tenants that live there now that are there full-time, and if I start to inconvenience those people and if they’re complaining their cars are tracking dirt and everything else, it’s not going to be a good situation. So you can be assured they’ll be clean. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? Anything you wanted to add? Staff? Let’s do a SEQRA. MR. RINGER-We did a SEQRA. MR. MAC EWAN-You already did your SEQRA? MR. VOLLARO-Are we ready for a motion, Mr. Chairman? MR. MAC EWAN-If someone wants to move it. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 20-2004 SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Construction of 32-multi family residential units (15,104 sq. ft.) on the site of an existing 48-unit multi family residential development on Walker Lane. WHEREAS, the above is supported with the all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record. 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 April 27, 2004, and June 22, 2004; 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, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby Approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. Applicant shall submit a copy of the required Notice of Intent(NOI) prior to the issuance of a building permit related to this application. 2. Recreation Fees in the amount of $500.00 per unit (32 units total) are applicable to this site plan. 3. That parking will be 165 spaces for the entire complex, which is currently 37 and a half percent over Code as it stands. 4. Before a permit is issued, Mike Shaw shall review plans per Mike Shaw’s e-mail dated 4/6/04. 5. The Statement of Purpose and Proposed Protocol for Abandonment of On Site Sewer and Leach Fields will be part of this resolution. 6. Removal of approximately 51,000 cubic yards of fill shall be accomplished in four months, per Mr. Missita’s letter of August 10, 2004. 7. That this approval of Site Plan No. 20-2004 will expire two years from this date. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) Duly adopted Tuesday, August 17, 2004 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Sanford MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2004 PRELIMINARY STAGE/FINAL STAGE SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED HAYES AND HAYES, LLC AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN AND STEVES OWNER(S): HAYES AND HAYES, LLC ZONING: SFR-20 LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF DIXON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES THE SUBDIVISION OF AN 8.47 ACRE PROPERTY, LOCATED OFF OF DIXON ROAD (EAST OF I-87), INTO 12 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.46 ACRES TO 0.72 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: 6- 2003 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY N/A LOT SIZE: 8.50 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.14-1-79.2 SECTION: A183 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Chairman, I will, again, recuse myself for any discussion on this applicant because the Hayes Group is my current landlord, and at the advice of counsel, I guess Gretchen will take my seat to review this project. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Staff notes, George? MR. HILTON-The only thing I can say is this was tabled at the applicant’s request so they could address some comments that were brought up in a letter from counsel of one of the neighbors, and the applicant has done that. I believe you have copies of their responses in your packet, and so that information has been forwarded to C.T. Male as well. That’s all I have at this time, unless you have any questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Michael O’Connor, for the purpose of your record, from the law firm of Little & O’Connor, and with me is Mickie Hayes, and our sound consultant, and Tom Nace, our engineering consultant. We did have an opportunity to review the letter that was submitted on July 20, and we have responded to it in writing. Basically I th would go through that if you want, our responses, or I would entertain questions, if you had questions on our responses, however you want us to handle that. MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t we go that way. That way if there aren’t many questions, we won’t have to go down through the whole letter. Does anybody have any questions relative to the letter, August 11, 2004, from Little & O’Connor? MR. VOLLARO-This is the letter from Caffry and Flower? MR. MAC EWAN-No. Little and O’Connor’s letter of August 11 responding to the Caffry th letter. MR. SEGULJIC-Just one question with regards to statement number two. How big is the DOT right of way? How wide is that? MR. O'CONNOR-I think it was about 80 feet. MICKIE HAYES 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. HAYES-From, that’s on their property? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. HAYES-We bet it’s more than, an additional 100. MR. SEGULJIC-One hundred feet from the edge of the Northway or from the centerline? MR. HAYES-From the edge at least. MR. O'CONNOR-How close to what, I guess I would ask. If you take a look at the northern part of our site, there is a jog here of 100 feet. There’s approximately, there is another 75 feet to get to the west edge of the road, and then you’ve got the 50 feet. So you’ve got 125 and, you’ve got 225 feet, for the most part, into our site before you get to the Northway boundary, and then beyond that. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. You say Northway boundary. MR. O'CONNOR-Northway property boundary. MR. SEGULJIC-Is that the edge of the Northway right of way, then? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, this is the edge of the Northway right of way. MR. SEGULJIC-So, you’re saying from the edge of your property boundary it’s 225 feet until you get the front? MR. O'CONNOR-To the front of our lot. MR. SEGULJIC-So there’s 225 feet from the front of your lots to the edge of the Northway right of way? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And how wide is the Northway right of way? MR. O'CONNOR-I can’t tell you. MR. NACE-This may or may not be the travel lane. I think if it’s not, it’s very close. That to the front, to our lots, approximately 290 feet from what I believe to be very close, at least, to the edge of travel lane, to the front setback of the lots. MR. SEGULJIC-So the front setback being the edge of the road? MR. NACE-No, being the building envelope. MR. SEGULJIC-Being the building. Okay. That’s 290 feet, then? MR. NACE-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, you asked about, I’ve got both of these letters in front of me, and I do have some comments, if you want to. MR. MAC EWAN-Questions, comments. Go ahead. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. VOLLARO-On response number three to the 11 August 2004 letter, the Mr. O’Connor letter, it says, all four suggestions are acceptable to the developer, and those four suggestions are listed in the Caffry and Flower, that the protection of the no cut zones be made specific permit conditions, enforceable by the Town, and so on. Now, do you all follow where I am? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, I do. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All four of those suggestions are acceptable to you? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, they are. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, on Question Number Four, the size of the no cut zones should be increased, and I think that the response was the developer has offered reasonable cut zones, and anticipates that each of the lot owners will want a reasonable yard, thus stands by the offer of the no cut zones as being adequate, and that is your answer to Mr. Caffry’s letter, I believe, Number Four? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and Mr. Nace actually gave you some statistical data on the same question, that the no cut zones actually amount to 45% of the area that is going to be occupied by the lots, which is a high number, four lots within a subdivision to have 45% of each lot in a no cut zone. MR. VOLLARO-Now, the enforcement of that no cut zone is what? How is that going to be done? MR. O’CONNOR-As suggested by Mr. Caffry. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. These are the restrictive covenants? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Well, it’ll be all four, it’ll be, we have said that we would agree that it be a condition of your approval, enforceable by the Town. It would be inserted in each deed for each lot, as a restrictive covenant. The restrictive covenants would be enforceable by the other lot owners within the subdivision, and we have no objection to the adjoining property owners outside of the subdivision also having the right to enforce those no cut restrictions. MR. VOLLARO-That refers to Hughes Court and Griffing Place, I believe, in that letter. MR. O'CONNOR-My suggestion would be that any person owning a piece of property adjacent to any portion of the subdivision would have the right of enforcement. MR. MAC EWAN-How would you do that? MR. O'CONNOR-You can do it in equity or in law. I mean, it’s the same as if you were a lot owner within the subdivision. You bring an action saying that somebody’s violating it, or you bring an action for damages because somebody has violated it. You ask for a temporary restraining order. You ask for an injunction or you ask for money damages. You’d have all three options. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you comfortable with that, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t disagree with the applicant’s counsel’s recitation of some possible options, but I guess I’m going to suggest, to avoid any potential problem, not within the property owners of the subdivision, but with the neighboring ones, that the applicant’s offer be codified in something, in writing, I mean, not more detailed, but from the applicant, saying you agree to that as part of the approval, and the purpose of that recommendation is so that if there is an action of the type Mr. O’Connor is speaking, that some successor property owner with some different attorney won’t be able to make the claim of, no, some neighbor is not subject to the restrictive covenants, doesn’t have what the law calls standing to maintain an action. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) Nothing fancy, nothing complicated. Maybe just a letter from, on behalf of the applicant, indicating it’s assent to that. MR. O'CONNOR-The applicant has no objection to that, and would suggest that we make it a condition, subject to approval of Town Counsel and the instrument to be drawn be drawn in a manner that is recordable as a declaration on these properties. MR. SCHACHNER-And that’s fine. I’m comfortable with that. MR. O'CONNOR-Then it’s in the title. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? MR. VOLLARO-I think, he mentions two things in number four. On most of the lots there’s already additional room to make no cut zones deeper, but we’ve covered that now. We’ve got 45% of, roughly 45% of every lot. That if the septic systems are redesigned to have more but shorter trenches there would be even more room. I just had a small note on mine to explore the use of Elgin systems, since they take a lot less room than leach fields, but that’s up to the engineer. I believe that’s just something I’ll throw in for whatever it might be worth. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you looking for a response? MR. VOLLARO-No, not really. MR. NACE-I’ll respond if you like. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Sure. MR. NACE-Generally, I’m opposed to using Elgin unless there’s an overwhelming need for it. MR. VOLLARO-The only reason I mentioned that is, Tom, looking at some of the test pits in there, to me, some of the depth of those test pits are marginal, in terms of septic, unless we do a lot of filling on that lot, on that whole site. MR. NACE-They’ve been all looked at by DOH and they are acceptable for DOH, and, again, even, especially when conditions could be marginal, the more you can spread out a system, the better off you are. So, trying to concentrate it by using Elgin is not, would not be my recommendation. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. I’ve always had, you know that I’ve got concerns with those test pits. When I see stuff that’s that close, and I’ve got the numbers here, you know what they are and I know what they are. We don’t have to go back to the drawings on that, but I see that a good deal of those test pits are quite marginal, in my opinion. That’s just from looking at them. I don’t know. I guess our engineering consultant has also looked at those test pits and some of them are 15 inches and so on. Some are less than two feet. MR. EDWARDS-No question. A lot of the site is marginal. Yes, (lost words) applies to stormwater management. A lot of the site is marginal, but the way it’s been designed, we feel it will work. There’s enough steps taken, enough extra design put into this that it will function. MR. VOLLARO-That’s, I guess part of my concern. Is how much mitigation do we have to do on that site in order to get it to function. That’s a concern. MR. NACE-One of the safety factors in my mind, Bob, is the fact that we’ve been out there in the spring when the water table has been very high, and we’ve observed mottling, in most cases well above where the actual groundwater was. So I’m not sure, in this particular realm of history, you know, in this period of history, that the water table has really gotten up to where the high mottling level is that we’re working from. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. VOLLARO-In this particular rainy season, it might get close. I guess I don’t have any further questions, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the August 11 letter from Little & O’Connor. th MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members? Anything to add? MR. NACE-There is one thing we had not submitted with the original package, and I’ll hand out now, is a letter from Charlie Main, simply stating that he has looked at the site and that there are no wetlands. MR. MAC EWAN-Give it right to George. Give everything right to George. MR. NACE-Okay. Copies for the Board. MR. O'CONNOR-I also have a set of the experiences and qualifications of Vibra Tech, which is the consulting firm that I sent our sound study to, which I didn’t get in until today. Basically it’s their background and their experiences which would qualify them as an expert, and I’ll submit that. I’ve got enough copies for everybody, or I’ll submit it to George. MR. MAC EWAN-Give them all to George. MR. VOLLARO-I just want to make a comment on that, on the Vibra Tech letter. The thrust of their letter was primarily that a three db difference is not discernible to the human ear. I think that’s the thrust of their letter MR. O'CONNOR-I would differ with that. MR. VOLLARO-But up front they do say that, I believe, I’ve got it, I’ll have to get it and read what they say, but they do come up and talk to the fact that they thought the original study was credible. That’s what you’re going to tell me, I believe. Is that right? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve looked at that original study, and when I see statements in there that talk about, will not get above 70 db, I’ve got some questions about that. We’ve been to the site. We’ve been at the margin of the site, right up next to the Northway, moved back from it. We’ve done a lot. No instrumentation, just the ears, but I see that as a fairly loud noise, and at least when we were there, a couple of trucks pulling up that grade, I definitely believe, and I understand the buyer beware. Certainly understand that. Have no question with that at all. It’s just that as I sit in this seat, I have to make sure that I’m looking in the best interest of the Town of Queensbury, and not hoping that somebody that comes to buy this property sees that and goes away, you know. I don’t consider that buyer beware thing to be very applicable to this application. I still have, there’s so much data out there. There’s so much information that I’ve gleaned from the Internet and a lot of other places, and lot of our Board members have done the same, I know, and most of the information you see out there from the Internet, and from other studies that have been done, say that it’s just not good planning to put housing alongside the Northway or any other major highway. They don’t use Northway, but major highways. I know the answer to that is we’ve done it all up and down the Northway. I know we have. I’ve seen it, but all those wrongs don’t make a right. When I look at this, I consider that site to be unacceptable for housing based on that, based on the wetland situation and so on. It becomes marginal in several areas, and I really have a problem with it, and that’s all I’m going to say about that, Mr. Chairman. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, on the same question I think two months ago, when we tabled this, we tabled this for the purpose of getting a letter from the Town Building Department to respond to the offer by the developer as to sound techniques that would be installed. I would like to have some specificity as to what you are going to condition, or if you are going to condition, what your requirements are going to be, so that we don’t have an issue afterwards, 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) the same as we did with how we enforced the restrictions. We had offered to do the front of the structures facing the Northway, and the windows and doors with the sound material that we submitted to you. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that was answered by Mr. Hatin and said that it was, it didn’t work. We have a letter from him to that effect. Am I wrong? MR. HAYES-He said it would help, but he can’t guarantee it. MR. O'CONNOR-No, he said it would help. MR. VOLLARO-Well, he said once the windows were open, that was it. The sound barrier was breached at that point. MR. O'CONNOR-I agree with that comment, but he also said it would help, and my question to you is, so that we don’t have an issue later, what is the Board’s pleasure on that issue? We are willing to do that if you want us to. We think it will offer some sound deadening noise, some mitigation. It won’t be, you know, if they leave all the doors and windows open, yes, it’s probably not going to be as effective as if the doors and windows are shut. MR. RINGER-I personally feel it’s just a feel good thing, and it doesn’t really provide any effect because the windows are open, and so we’re just adding cost to whoever buys the property and builds the house. So I personally don’t feel that it’s necessary. MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. MR. RINGER-Because it’s not really that effective with the windows open. MR. O'CONNOR-If you leave it up to us, then we’ll decide on an individual basis. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments from Board members? Anything to add? MR. SANFORD-Well, do we have a public hearing? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I’m getting there. Staff, Counsel? I’d ask you gentlemen to give up the table for a few minutes. We left the public hearing open. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN CAROL LA POINTE MRS. LA POINTE-Hi. I’m Carol LaPointe. I’ve been here before. I’d like to make some sense out of this. This doesn’t make any sense to me why anybody would want to put any houses out there to start with, and since we were first involved, I’ve sat through I don’t know how many meetings when the Board asked the Hayes & Hayes group to come back with information, and I’ve not kept count, but I don’t know how many times they ever did what they were asked to do before they came back to the meeting. It was put off until the next time, and then the next time. So I’m wondering if they’ll do any better when, if you do approve this project, when they start building. The last meeting I attended, and you just spoke to that, Robert, they talked about the buyer beware. I don’t like to think of Queensbury as, I like to think of it as some place to come. We came here from Albany County because it was a nice place to live. I would hate to have thought that that would have been the attitude when we bought the house there, and would we have bought that house, had we known that it would have been cut up to the Northway? Probably not, and I know I was told by someone in my family, well, due diligence. What about these guys? They bought this property. Did they use that, too? Did they take into consideration how it was going to be used and what effect it would have on everybody? And the people who are going to buy it, they’re not going to be retired people. They’re going to be 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) young people with children, and the statistics show the learning disabilities, the hearing disabilities. Is this what Queensbury wants to put people into that position by using this buyer beware someone will buy it. This project puts all of us to disadvantage, so that this group can make money. There have been many people who have gone into business in the Town of Queensbury and other places that can’t make it. It just doesn’t work. They’ve made an unwise an investment, and I think they’ve made an unwise investment, as far as trying to put houses out there on that property, and I don’t think it’s up to the Town of Queensbury to make sure that no one loses on a project that they start out like this. I really don’t think that’s the job of the Board or of the Zoning Board when they zoned that that they could put houses out there, and one other remark I heard from some members of this Board was that, well, we’re running out of room. My good God, what are we going to do when the last lot is sold and built on in the Town of Queensbury? What are we going to do? Is this going to be a black day here? I just can’t believe that, you know, anybody would even consider that. We need the green space. We need places to have, that are not completely built on and covered with cement and asphalt, and I don’t know, they say you’re not supposed to compare any place else, but they’re comparing up and down the Northway, but I don’t know how many of you saw the article on either 20/20, 60 Minutes about out in California. They’ve taken and turned some really nice older neighborhoods and blighted, so that they could take them by eminent domain, so that they could construct expensive townhouses to bring in more taxes. Is that what’s the thing after we get the last house built here? I don’t know. Like I say, we came here because it’s a nice place to live, and I’d like to see the other people that come to the Town of Queensbury live in a good area. That’s not a good area, and I believe the mission of our Town Government, including this Board, is to do no harm to the residents. So don’t do any harm to our neighbors. Please follow this and reject this project. Now I turned in a thing about the water. I turned in an old map of the sewer system. There is a drain coming from out behind the Demboski’s property, or it’s a line going out underneath there, in that ditch that they call it. Mr. O’Connor said he didn’t, Mr. O’Connor said he didn’t see any of that. If he had looked into this whole thing, it was in the first folder. There was one folder for the project. Now they started out a whole new folder. That was there. He also didn’t know about the 70 signature petition that we turned in. All voters here, that was not there. That was also in the first folder. So, I also had some letters that I’ve come upon that show that these people out on Dixon Road and everyone that had problems with this drainage system going out onto Dixon Road, in years past. Not recently. Now I don’t know whether these, they’re talking about drywells. Is that going to be carried up to Dixon Road and gotten off that property? I think in the lawyer’s letter he said you’re going to bring in this municipal water, you’re going to use 100 gallons a day per person. That’s a lot of water. Take those trees out. Each one of those trees, those good sized trees, sucks up 40 gallons of water a day to survive. How many are they going to cut, 200 of them? All that water is going to still be in the ground, and I’m not an engineer, and we’re listening to one engineer saying to the other engineer, you know, this is okay. We’ve had a lot of boondoggles in this area by engineers and then boards and somebody else approving this. The Northway down there, where you go on to the Thruway, who designed that and who said that was okay? We get trucks rolling over there all the time. We’ve got many things in here that the one engineer’s talking, and I have no disrespect for engineers. I have one in my family, but you’ve got to use some commonsense and, man, I’ll welcome neighbors. If you say they’ve got to be out there, they’ll be my friends, but I hope it’s not children and I hope it’s not pregnant women because these studies do show, if you read the ones that I turned in to you, they do show that there is a danger, and I just hope that down the road we don’t have to come back and go in like that project off Peggy Ann Road with the sewers, and then come back with some health problems later on. There’s no need to build there. They have plenty of other land other places in the Town of Queensbury to make it a good place for people to come. Now, they talked about the letter, and I have a copy of it, from Dave Hatin, and they’re talking about putting soundproofing out there. Now if they don’t think it’s going to be noisy, why would they want to do that. It says the windows, according to the specifications, provide a little more sound deadening rating, still are approximately a little over half what is required between adjoining apartments. The State Code does not require any type of soundproofing for single family dwellings. However, the sound deadening transmission panels provide less than half the sound deadening requirements as required between apartments in multiple dwellings. Who wants to sit there with their windows closed all the time? Is that what we’re going to do? The 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) kids can’t go out and play? If the kids are outside, they’re going to be subjected to this noise, and believe me, it’s loud, and it’s gotten way louder since we first moved in. I don’t think all of the things in the letter have been addressed by them. The drainage, I don’t know what’s going to happen with that stormwater. Is it going to be hauled out? I want to know that. If it’s going to be hauled out to Dixon Road or whether they’re just going to have drywells there that are going to fill up. I guess that’s it, and I just hope that all of you think about if your daughter, your son, your grandchildren were going to live out there by that, on that land by that Northway. I think you need to think about that. It’s not just somebody with no face and no, you know, it’s a person and people that are going to be moving out there, and I thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? MARGUERITE DEMBOSKI MRS. DEMBOSKI-I’m Marguerite Demboski. I live next door to Carol on 17 Hughes Court, and ours is the property that the water easement goes under. That is my main concern. I don’t care if there are houses out there, and we have other neighbors. I am concerned for the noise for them because we have lived at 17 Hughes Court for almost 30 years, and when we moved there with our young family, the noise was nothing like it is now. We sit out in our backyard, on the patio, it is loud. The trucks are very loud. I would not want to live any closer to the Northway than I do, and I can’t believe that anybody else would either, and if you cut down all those trees, the houses aren’t going to take up the noise. It’s a real problem, but more so than that, I am concerned for the water. I know what happened when they built our house. The easement was put underneath. I don’t want my basement flooded. I don’t want my house ruined. I don’t want my neighbor’s ruined, and already since they built our house on speculation, after they were built on either side, they got water. We do not, but we have this thing in the basement. If you take the cover off, there’s water in there. Fortunately it’s never come into our basement, but it is there. I don’t want it to be flooded. This happened another time. We lived at Reservoir Drive, and we had a three bedroom ranch. We outgrew it. We sold it. We never had any water problem. At that time the Town of Queensbury put the water line right through the back, between Reservoir Drive and Clark Street. The lady that bought our house had her basement flooded after this happened. Nobody expected that but it happened, and she had tons of water in her basement. We never had a drop. So you just don’t know and that’s my concern, water. There’s lots of water out there. There really, really is. Years ago, Tom Hulsaboch said we used to play out there. There was a pond out there. We used to skate on it. Well, there’s woods there now, and the Northway is there. So there’s no pond anymore, but the water’s there, and that’s my concern, really, truly. I just don’t want all of us who have our homes there, who have built our lives there, to have water destroy our homes. That’s my main concern. MR. VOLLARO-May I ask a question? You just mentioned something that interested me a minute ago. You said you have a cover in your basement that covers. MRS. DEMBOSKI-It’s like a manhole cover. MR. VOLLARO-It’s like a manhole cover. You take it off, and there’s water down there. MRS. DEMBOSKI-You can see water sometimes. MR. VOLLARO-Sometimes. Do you know where that water goes now? MRS. DEMBOSKI-There’s a map. Carol brought a copy of it. MR. VOLLARO-It continues out to Dixon Road? MRS. DEMBOSKI-It goes on out to, no, out to Hughes Court. MR. VOLLARO-Out to Hughes Court. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MRS. DEMBOSKI-Yes. It goes underneath our house, our garage, and out to Hughes Court. MR. VOLLARO-Is there an outlet on Hughes Court? MRS. DEMBOSKI-There’s a manhole out there in the middle of the road, which at one time was paved over, which I don’t understand, and they finally came and undid it, but I don’t know the particulars. As Carol said, I’m not an engineer. I don’t know all those things. I just live there. This is my home, and I know that, according to the map that she has, it shows it, and she’s given you a copy of it, and it comes from the drain, drainage out in back of our house, and you were all there. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I know. MRS. DEMBOSKI-And it goes right underneath our property. I don’t know if anything’s broken. I don’t know if anything’s, what works or what doesn’t. We don’t have water. They do. That’s my main concern. MR. SANFORD-We were all out there. MRS. DEMBOSKI-Yes, you were. MR. SANFORD-And other than putting up with the maddening noise, and I walked all the way, the whole property width, and it was loud, but more annoying than that was having to watch where I walked so I didn’t go up to my ankles in mud. MRS. DEMBOSKI-Yes. MR. SANFORD-And so I know what you’re talking about, and I’m not an engineer either, but I can trust my eyes and my ears, and I know what it’s like out there. MRS. DEMBOSKI-That’s very true. That’s very true. MR. VOLLARO-George, do you have a copy of that map that shows this line that goes through this lady’s house? MR. HILTON-We actually just received a copy, just handed to me today. MR. VOLLARO-Did you happen to look at it to see where, does this go to a drywell out on Hughes Court? MR. HILTON-It looks like it’s the drainage system. I’m not sure where it goes. I looked at it very briefly, but it looks like it’s. MR. RINGER-I think I can answer that question, because I owned a piece of property, down in the City quite a few years ago, and it had that drain on it that came from Broad Acres down, and it drains into the Feeder Canal. It’s a huge, huge drain, okay, and it drains that Broad Acres property. MR. VOLLARO-You think her line is connected to that? MR. RINGER-Yes, well, I believe that’s the line they’re talking about, and it goes through Broad Acres, down Western Avenue, across Sherman, across parts of Carlton, just the back end of Carlton, then James Court, and then across LaRose and into the Feeder Canal. Where it sat on my property is, I had a property on James Court, and it sat at the rear of the property. My sister also had property on James Court, and it went past her property and they had a sewer line, or not a sewer line, but a drain line there that fed some of the water, too. It was a huge line, and it was very, very deep, at least it was very deep, the line was very deep at James Court, where my property was, or where my sister’s property was, and that also, when we talked about the, 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) when they were putting in the tennis courts there for the City on Western Avenue. That line was talked about then. They never hooked on to it for the school tennis courts, but that line was talked about at that time, too, and I’m pretty sure, now I’m not 100%, but I’m pretty sure that’s the line they’re talking about, and it does drain into the Feeder Canal. I know that, and I know it’s huge. MRS. DEMBOSKI-This is the map. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and that, the yellow line on that map is, your house is at one end? MRS. DEMBOSKI-That’s the catch basin that comes, actually comes under our house. MR. RINGER-Okay. It goes right underneath the house. MR. EDWARDS-It looks to me like, it’s a yard drain, it looks like, somewhere behind Hughes Court, that picks up the, you know, some of the runoff along the back of Hughes Court. It then goes through a 24 inch line and eventually does pick up Dixon Court, Northup Drive, and dumps out, it looks like the Halfway, according to this map here anyway. It could be a different. MR. VOLLARO-What is the other terminus of that line, and why, you know, my question is why would somebody in the past have put that line in, unless there was a huge water problem on that property? MRS. DEMBOSKI-Exactly. MR. EDWARDS-It could have been back years ago, that’s why they put that basin there. That’s what it does. That’s what it’s function is, is to pick up any, you know, (lost word) water. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but the fact that we have a line going under somebody’s house that terminates somewhere between her house and the Northway, and I don’t know where that catch is. Does it show that on the drawing? MR. EDWARDS-No, it doesn’t terminate there. It terminates. MR. RINGER-It doesn’t go towards the Northway, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-No, no. Toward the Northway. It goes toward it, from her house. MR. EDWARDS-No, it doesn’t. MR. RINGER-Out toward the City. MR. MAC EWAN-It goes toward the City. MR. RINGER-Up and then towards the City. MR. SEGULJIC-Maybe you’re talking about, there was a line on one of the other drawings, a dashed line, like there’s a swale in the back between the property and the Northway that was wet when we were there. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add, Mrs. Demboski? MRS. DEMBOSKI-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? JIM ROUND 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. ROUND-My name’s Jim Round. I live over on 34 Pershing Road. I just don’t want Carol to take all the credit for hiring the lawyer or all the blame. It was a group of us who paid for the lawyer and approached the lawyer to review the file, just to make sure that everything was done up to Code and up to snuff before the project did or didn’t get approved, just to make the point that we were concerned about what was going on. The two points I wanted to make was that, if this goes forward, there’s a no cut zone that we want to put in the covenant. I have covenants in my deed, and over time those aren’t paid attention. I know they aren’t, because I have people in the neighborhood who are probably violating the covenant, but they’re my neighbors, and they’re good neighbors, and I’m not going to bring lawsuits against them so they can’t put a four foot high fence on their property. What I’d rather see done, if this goes forward, is the no cut zones be deeded back to the Town, because 15 years from now, when the people of, the neighborhood has changed and I’m still living there, people are going to want to put a pool in their back yard. Well, they’ve got a no cut zone there, and if you start cutting down trees, I’m going to have to bring a lawsuit against you to stop you. That really doesn’t sit well with me. I mean, I wouldn’t do that to the neighbor. It really wouldn’t make a good neighbor, in my eyes. The other point I wanted to make was, if this goes forward, and there is water on everyone’s property on Hughes Court, possibly across the street. I know we have flooding across the street on the other side of Hughes Court, okay, Bentley, Pershing, you know, everyone. There is water in the basements there. I mean, we have people here who can attest to that. Can’t we? Who do we go after? Who do we get remediation from? If we didn’t have flooding in our basements before, this goes forward, my question is, who do we now go and say, okay, you’ve flooded our property. I have standing water in my back yard and a foot and a half of water in my basement every spring, which I never had before. Do I come after the Town? The developer? Just curious about that, if you could give me that information. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? PAUL DI PHILLIPS MR. DI PHILLIPS-I just, I’ve been here a few times. Paul DiPhillips. I just wanted to say that I am hoping to build a house there. The reason is we built in Queensbury in Hidden Hills because we were trying to find a piece of property that would fit our needs and it was the only place at the time, but we could stay in Glens Falls schools, which was critical. We have looked every single place possible to try to build a house in Queensbury. I’ve even gone and knocked on doors of people’s houses that aren’t for sale. They’ve actually showed them to me. They won’t work for a lot of reasons. That whole Broad Acres area. The ones who are thinking of selling all have visions of the big pay day in their head. Part of what’s happening is, you know, they’ve jacked the prices up hoping to grab somebody, but they also won’t fit our needs. So this is a property that will continue the quality of life for my family. We’ve lived in that Queensbury for 15 years. We really don’t want to move out of Queensbury. We really don’t want to move into Lake George or Glens Falls. We’d like to be there, and it’s something that I think would work out very well for us, and I think some of the other people I’ve talked to who are interested in moving there felt likewise. The only other thing I wanted to mention is I’m fully aware there’s a Northway there, and I’m fully aware of the noise. I’m sure, as I get older, just like my kid’s music, it’ll get louder to me, but I’m willing to take that because I think it’s a decent tradeoff, and I haven’t found it to be a problem at Hidden Hills. That’s all I wanted to say. I’m hoping that those who may be on the fence understand that there are people that are willing to live there. They don’t think it’s that bad, plan on spending pretty good money to build a house there and, you know, I’ve got to believe that the Hayes will do the right thing. They’re local businessmen. They didn’t move here from Pennsylvania or any other State, I’m not picking on Pennsylvania, you know, to build one house and move away again. So, you know, anyway, that’s all I wanted to say and I hope at the end of the night it’s a yes vote so I can go home and celebrate. So, thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? DR. RICK GARRETT 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) DR. GARRETT-Good evening. I’m Dr. Rick Garrett. I live at 18 Hughes Court, right across from the Demboski property. That is one great neighborhood that we live in. We were greeted, on December 18, 2000, when we moved in there, when it was that horrible rainstorm, with a very interesting thing, a wet basement. Since then we have remedied this by changing our sump pump so it’s at a lower setting, and we’ve gotten a lot of water out from under it, but our sump pump’s running at this point, without any help from any other properties, about every two minutes and forty-eight seconds, according to today’s calculations. That goes anywhere between that and about six or seven minutes. So every day, every day, 24/7, that sump pump is running. We are also blessed with a lovely sort of natural backyard, which I have worked very hard to clear out, but the thing is, the water is laying right on top of it. We have standing water, after any kind of precipitation. So I concur with a lot of these folks who are concerned about water. I’m very concerned about water. We’ve got a new septic system in our front lawn. That’s no problem with any of the building here, but we’ve had to put a new septic system in, because of the high groundwater it was set up high. So now we can’t, I mean, we were thinking at one point, I’m getting tangential here, which is typical of me, but we were thinking of maybe having a pool in our back yard. Well, guess what, on standing water, we’re not going to have an above ground or below ground pool. I just want to say that whoever are the governing people, whoever are the deciding bodies here, we are people. We have young people coming into that neighborhood. I have four children. I have one child on life support, and we love this property. It is so nice and quiet. Yes, there is noise from the Northway that we hear. I don’t know what the impact of, you know, more cutting is going to be. I, personally, just want my children to have a safe dwelling with a little cul de sac where cars aren’t having to zoom through at all kinds of speed. We are basically the newbies in the neighborhood, and we love it there, and we want to continue to love it there, and that’s all I have to say. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? MR. HILTON-There’s a letter here. I guess I’ll just summarize. It’s a letter dated August 16 th from Dave Rabine, in support of the project. He lives in the area, and thinks the benefits of living in Queensbury and Glens Falls school district are, I guess, ideal, beneficial, and sees it as a good use of the land, and again, a letter in support. MR. VOLLARO-Who was that from, George? MR. HILTON-Dave Rabine. MR. VOLLARO-He has not spoken before this Board, just a letter? MR. HILTON-Not that I know of, but this is, again, this letter. That’s all I have. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Before I close the public hearing, any last takers? All right. The public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Any comments, additional comments? MR. SANFORD-Yes. We’ve dealt with this for quite some time, and I think today we heard about the noise and about the water, which are two primary concerns. We haven’t heard an awful lot about the pollutants from the air, but they are probably more difficult to understand because of all the science and the conflicts and what have you, but if you read the literature that I actually submitted, as well as Carol, you’ll find that there’s an incredible amount of concern associated with potentials for pollutants coming off of the Northway and having adverse health affects on the people living in that new development, and perhaps even further, and so I think that, given the preponderance of information that we have on these three topics, these three 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) topics being the air pollution, the water problems, as well as the noise, I certainly cannot support this project, and I just can’t imagine the majority of this Board supporting this project, and so that’s really all I have to say. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments from Board members? MR. RINGER-We have some comments from the public on the stormwater, and I think, you know, Tom should address the concerns. I mean, they have been signed off by C.T. Male and stuff, but I still think that the public is entitled to understand, you know, questions of where is the water going. MR. NACE-Sure. One of the things that I have heard several times now from the public hearings is that there was a pond here in the past, and that there was water here in the past. I’ve been on the property many times during wet conditions, and I can tell you that the only place where I’ve observed any water at all is right down in this very, very little part at the eastern portion of this what is labeled here as a ditch line, and it is, if you look at it, you know, it’s obviously a manmade ditch line. I’ve never seen any flowing water in it. There’s no outlet for that. The Demboski property and the area drain that shows up on that map is buried. The grate for the area drain is underground. It’s under several feet of dirt. So there’s no way for water to get to it at this point. MR. VOLLARO-Does that mean the drain under her house is not functioning, Tom? Is that what you’re saying? MR. NACE-Well, there’s no way for water to get into it that I’m aware of, and I haven’t looked at the drainage map that she presented to George, but looking in the field at it, the grate for it has been buried for the homeowner. So there is no means for water. MR. VOLLARO-That drawing shows a direct line that starts to. MR. NACE-Well, I’m not debating that there is a direct line from the back of her house out to the street. MR. VOLLARO-You’re saying that the input to that line is clogged. MR. NACE-The input to that, there is nowhere that I could observe, and they pointed out, Demboski’s pointed out to us, where the inlet had been, or it was buried, and there’s nowhere for water from this ditch line to get into that, so I would submit to you that right now there’s almost no runoff water coming into this ditch line at all because there’s no place for it to go. If there was, you would have a big pond back there, which we don’t. I would be very curious. I think there’s a high likelihood that when the Northway was put in, that drainage that came this way got blocked, that I’ve done work on the other side of the Northway, for the Town of Queensbury, for the Highway Department, for drainage over on the other side. So I’ve walked that area fairly thoroughly, and there is a low area that is picked up there by the ditch line that was put in along the Northway and artificially dug deep that conveys that drainage north toward Halfway Brook. So I think that some of this referral of a pond back in here may have been pre-Northway, when drainage was free to come this way and the Northway fill didn’t block it off. There is no, if you look out at the Northway, there is no culvert or storm drain to convey that water across. It’s all picked up in the ditch line along the western side of the Northway, which flows north. MR. SANFORD-So this is a theory, that you’re telling us? MR. NACE-It’s my opinion, Mr. Sanford. Okay. It’s an engineer who’s looked at both sides of the Northway and has observed the site. Thank you. So at least at present that I have been at the site in wet periods and I have not observed any water standing there. One of the things to consider with the drainage is that we’re raising, all the runoff from the road, we’re raising this end of the road and all that runoff from the road and all that runoff that’s generated off the 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) pavement is actually conveyed to the north where we take care of it in drywells and infiltration pipes, further north where there is a little more depth to groundwater, but, all of the drainage from hard surfaces on the site will be contained on site and infiltrated into the groundwater. We’re not creating any additional amount of rainfall. Okay. Because we have a subdivision here doesn’t mean it’s going to rain three inches here and two inches over here. The rainfall is still the same. So if you draw a black box around this, we’re not creating any additional runoff or rainfall into the ground than there is now. MR. SANFORD-But wouldn’t the homes themselves, through the use of water, flushing toilets, taking showers, and things of that nature, generate additional water that’s not there currently? MR. NACE-There are two considerations which were raised by Mr. Caffry. One is the amount of municipal water that’s brought in to the subdivision. That amounts, I don’t remember the exact number, but it’s an infinitesimal fraction of an inch of water over the area of the subdivision. The other issue is we’re cutting trees, and doesn’t that take evapotranspiration away. Yes, it does, during very short periods of the summer, but during most of the year it doesn’t. During the spring, during the high groundwater table, there is almost no uptake by the trees. That’s, if you go into engineering texts, you’ll find that evapotranspiration septic systems just aren’t used here in the Northeast because there is not the opportunity to, on a year round basis, take up that amount of water. So if you look at it on a yearly basis, the trees, although they may take up, I don’t know what the number was thrown out here, 80 gallons or 40 gallons a day, but that’s only for a short period during the summer? MR. SANFORD-How about the water that’s going to be used by the homeowners? MR. NACE-I addressed that. MR. SANFORD-Which is, in your opinion, this potentially wet property, if this development goes forward, will become wetter. That’s your opinion? MR. NACE-Excuse me? MR. SANFORD-If this is developed, this particular property will be wetter than it is now? MR. NACE-By an infinitesimal margin. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask you a question, clarify it for me, because I didn’t quite understand what you were saying. You were talking about the covered over manhole cover in the back of the Demboski’s yard that you think has been filled in, for whatever reason. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-But without being able to dig it up, can you tell me, with any certainty, that there’s not a pipe coming into it from that field area, from the proposed subdivision area? MR. NACE-Yes. I walked all through the bottom of this swale there, this drainage ditch, and there is no pipe in that ditch. MR. MAC EWAN-How would you know if it were buried? MR. NACE-If it was buried? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s where I’m really confused here. We were talking about this manhole in the back of the Demboski’s back yard. That’s got a pipe coming out if it that goes through the bottom of her cellar, underneath her basement, and goes somewhere out. MR. NACE-Right, out to the road, and I believe, Jim, does that go north on Hughes Court? Is that what you said, it flows north on Hughes Court? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. EDWARDS-Yes. It runs to the east, of course, where that basin is supposed to be. MR. NACE-Right. MR. EDWARDS-And then it picks up that water and heads north towards Dixon, and eventually towards the Halfway. It’s a good sized pipe, too. It’s a 24 inch line there on Hughes. MR. VOLLARO-It’s designed to take a lot of water, if you take a look at it. MR. NACE-The drainage map that has been provided shows the pipe underneath Demboski’s house dead ending at that grate, that area or yard grate in their backyard, the one that is buried. MR. SEGULJIC-The pipe on the map ends at? MR. NACE-Correct, it ends at that buried drainage grate in the back yard. It does not go any further toward this property. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-As you talked about before, there’s a ditch drawn on the map. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Do we know what that ditch was used for in the past? MR. NACE-No, we don’t. I’m conjecturing that it brought water from the other side of the Northway, okay, because I’ve been out there now, even during the very wet periods of the spring, and there is no water flowing in the ditch. MR. SEGULJIC-So you think it used to go across where the Northway was, connect to the other side. The Northway came through and split it? MR. NACE-From what I’ve seen on the other side of the Northway, there is a low area over on the other side that drains the back side of Hidden Hills, and that is intercepted at the west side of the Northway in a fairly deep drainage ditch that goes north along the Northway. MR. SEGULJIC-Because when we walked the property, in my opinion, we were able to find, as I refer to it as a swale that ran across the property. I would agree there was no standing water in it, but it was definitely the wettest area. MR. NACE-Yes, it’s a manmade ditch. MR. SEGULJIC-You could see where the track rig went through and that’s where they got stuck two or three times. MR. NACE-Correct. That will be, you know, we will, as you can see here, we will provide a culvert, in case there is any water that, you know, I didn’t observe that’s collected. We will have a culvert that can continue to convey anything that comes from upstream crossing our property. MR. SEGULJIC-And where will that empty into then? MR. NACE-That’ll empty just into the ditch line. That’ll simply, it’ll keep our road from blocking any flow that exists now. It won’t generate more flow. MR. SEGULJIC-So Lot 10 will have a continuing ditch line through it? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. NACE-Correct, through the edge of it. MR. SEGULJIC-That’ll end up in the Demboski property then? MR. NACE-Where, it’ll be the same ditch line that’s there now. MR. VOLLARO-Looking at that map that George is folding up there, the line that’s on that map speaks volumes to me about what other people in the past have thought about water in that area. Why was that line ever put in there to begin with if we weren’t experiencing some fairly high water levels there, in order to drain it out? There wouldn’t have been a need to put that project in. It’s not just a small back yard drain. It’s connected to a major system, it looks like to me. MR. NACE-Is there a date on that map? MR. O'CONNOR-We did do a test pit in that drainage ditch that you spoke of. MR. VOLLARO-We saw that. MR. O'CONNOR-And did not disclose any piping on our site, and I think Mrs. LaPointe spoke that I did not see a map. What I have said, I think in the past, or intended to say, was that I have reviewed the title report for the property. There are no easements that were granted for piping on this property. When those pipes were put in to Broad Acres, most people did sign written easements for the maintenance of those, or allowing the maintenance of those. That was something that began off this site, and I think the point that Tom is trying to make is that whatever that is, it is probably dysfunctional now because of the way it’s blocked off at the end, but we are not adding anything to it by this development, and in fact if you take a look at the rear of the site, which would be the southerly end of the site, the hard surfaces of the subdivision, the water, that stormwater that would normally collect there and go into the soil is going to go down the road system into catch basins further north on the site, away from that area, and that is the area that is the area that is of concern. So it may improve the stormwater collection on that end of the site as it passes through to the Demboski property. MR. VOLLARO-All of those drywells along that road have got to be maintained by the Town. They’ve got to be made sure that they’re working. How deep are they set, those drywells? This has all been looked at before, I’m sure, before. I’m just, I know C.T. Male’s looked at it. MR. NACE-They’re four footers. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, they’re four footers. MR. NACE-And they’re connected with infiltration pipe at a shallower depth than that. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members? MRS. LA POINTE-We have the easement right here. I talked about it at that table. MR. MAC EWAN-If you want to give it to George, we’ll make it part of the record. MR. RINGER-Two comments that came from the public hearing, and maybe Counsel can guide us a little bit through them. One of the things was can the no cut zone be deeded to the Town, and if so, I’m adding, if so, what are the problems if that’s done, and I think the Town has to accept it and all that if we did something like that, but. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. The answer to the first part is simple. Could it be deeded to the Town. The answer is yes. I’m not suggesting that. MR. RINGER-I’m not either. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and it’s not a complex process, but it would have to be accepted by the Town Board. MR. RINGER-I mean, isn’t it pretty customary that we have no cut zones, I mean, or Indian Ridge we had no cut zones and I think the Pines there are no cut zones up there. I mean, it’s just standard and they’re put into the deeds? MR. SCHACHNER-Are you asking is it customary to have no cut zones or is it customary to have no cut zones deeded to the Town? MR. RINGER-No, I’m asking, from what I’ve seen, it’s pretty customary for us, for our Planning Board, to have no cut zones in our approvals, and generally those no cut zones, generally, are just part of the deeds or added to the deeds and not deeded to the Town. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. That’s correct. MR. RINGER-And then the other thing, the other comment that came from the public was, if something does go astray from the engineer’s reports and stuff, who does the repairs and how is that handled. Does that become a civil matter, or is that a Town matter or? MR. RINGER-Well, it’s potentially all of the above. It’s not a pretty picture. You may recall, there was a subdivision, I believe it’s called Queensbury Forest, which had some water problems. There was very complex litigation that was, in my opinion at least, and I don’t think anyone disagrees with me, not very effective way of resolving the problem. MR. RINGER-The Town ended up fixing that, and putting in, as I recall. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, there was several years of litigation, a lot of money spent by a lot of parties, including the Town and others. Somebody asked, you know, I think it was Mr. Round, if I’m not mistaken. MR. RINGER-Right, that’s who asked these two questions. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s what I thought, you know, who the neighbors go after legally, do they go after the Town, the developer, and the answer is they probably go after both legally, but it’s not a pretty. MR. RINGER-I think it’s important, if someone brings it up, that we try to answer the questions, and that’s why I asked. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-We, as the developer, rely upon our engineer and his engineering signature that what he has designed, if it’s constructed as designed, will work, and I don’t think Tom is bashful about that. As to the issue of the no cut zones, I’ve never seen a Town willing to take them on, because then it’s a maintenance issue, and you would then get into all kinds of issues as to size of the lots, density and everything else. If you took them out and put them into a Town ownership, we’re arguing now, in an adjoining town, as to whether or not they want to continue to take sedimentation areas because they’re finding that those are something difficult to maintain. MR. RINGER-I wasn’t supporting it either, Mike, but it came from the floor, and I think it’s our obligation to answer it. MR. O'CONNOR-My general answer is that towns won’t. We’ve done it. I think the Pines Section Three was very effective with those no cut zones. We’ve done it in some of the other areas. Up on McEchron Drive we put in no cut zones that adjoin that old subdivision that was 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) in place. I’ve not heard any complaints along that area. Other areas that we’ve done the no cut zones, I’ve not really heard that they’ve been problematic. I have not seen the easement that Mr. Vollaro has, but I think what my point is, I have seen the title to this property. That is an easement granted on an adjoining lot or on the parcel outside of this development, and I can supply the file, if you want, a copy of our certificate of title or title report that will show there are no drainage easements that affect this parcel. MR. VOLLARO-I saw it on this, it doesn’t describe the easement for drainage, in the document that George Hilton had, does not describe it. MR. O'CONNOR-I’ve done title in some of those areas, and some of them have easements, some don’t. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments from Board members? MRS. STEFFAN-I actually think I need to make a couple of comments. In evaluating the application, I went to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and looked at the purpose, which is the protection of the natural resources and rural character and visual quality of the Town, and as I looked at the project, I can’t believe that the, you know, the folks who wrote that plan had envisioned a development that close to the Northway, and not just looking at it from Dixon Road, but when folks drive through Queensbury, they’re actually looking down, they’d be looking down on a development, and that’s not part of, I think, what we were trying to be, or what we’re trying to be now, so, from that point of view, I was having a hard time supporting the project, but then I went through the Subdivision Regulations, and one of the regulations talked about character of the land, and that the land should be used safely without danger to health or peril from fire, flood, or other menace, and I started to look at the menace issue and the folks from Hughes Court have talked about the flood issue, you know, what happens to them if there is flooding. Yes, we’ve looked at the data and our engineer has looked at the data and told us that the plan will work. We’ve heard that some of the stormwater issues, the hydrology of the land is marginal, and that there may be some drainage issues but it does, it will function. That’s a little too sketchy for me, but when I started to look at menace, I thought about air quality, and we’ve looked at some information I think that is very compelling regarding particulate matter and how that relates to asthma and some of the potential cancer risks for developments that are next to the highway, and it’s very hard to dispute so much data. The other thing, some of the noise studies that were done were not done during peak traffic times which I consider between Memorial Day and Labor Day. I live off the Northway. I’m above it. I wouldn’t be below it, as this subdivision would be, but I know that the traffic noise is extreme, and even when you have the windows open, and I’ve got a lot of buffer between me and the highway, it’s a constant rumbling noise. I can hear jake brakes all the time. I also looked at the future cost to the Town. When you put a subdivision like this, I just came back from New Jersey a couple of weeks ago, and there’s highway barriers all over the place, and as I look at the future of what’s going to happen if that subdivision goes in, and the folks who live there decide that they don’t like it, you know, do they petition the Town to put sound barriers up? And that may be another cost to the Town at some point, and certainly a liability. The other thing are the lawsuits that might come from folks on Hughes Court, if there were any kind of stormwater issues and there was damage to people’s property, and so I looked at the extreme remediation of the site, and so it’s very difficult for me to support the project, but I just wanted to, I wanted to be up front about the reasons why I don’t support the project. MR. O'CONNOR-Can I respond, in part, to that? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-I find it hard for you to rely upon the Master Plan as being the basis for your issue with the project, when that Master Plan, and the development of that Master Plan also, in fact, changed the zoning on this property to what it is. It was Parkland Recreational or something like that that you would not be able to develop to any degree, and it was changed to this zone where the density, and they’re not using the maximum density. The same people that 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) put together this Master Plan that you’re relying upon for your thought process as to issues in fact changed the zoning of this specific parcel and mentioned this specific parcel as a recommendation of area of change of zoning. So there seems to be a great deal of conflict with that. I have a great problem with the articles on emission. We talk about our children playing outdoors and what not. Glens Falls School system just built, or had built for them, an enormous field, field system process or area in closer proximity than what we’re talking about to the same Northway. The Queensbury School has just gone through a $38 million expansion in the same proximity to the Northway that this one here is, and I don’t compare necessarily apples to apples, but I also looked at all the people who live in Hidden Hills and some of the other subdivisions. There’s no abnormalities. There’s no cluster, if you will, that I’m aware of, of ill health, bad health. Certainly it would be nice if we all lived a mile away from a super highway, and theoretically that may be the nicest type of subdivision, the nicest type of development you’ll have, but I don’t think, from a practical point of view, that’s what we’re going to do, and I think you’re, I think relying upon that as speculation, and without substance, but that’s, we have a difference, may have a difference of opinion, and I really think you’re condemning, what do you say to the people that live in Hidden Hills, that are closer? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, let’s not turn this into a lengthy debate, but what I also heard Mrs. Steffan say was she was relying on the Subdivision Regulations as part of her basis for her feelings on that, and, you know, I have to agree with her on some portions of it. I guess, before we go too much farther, I want to throw this back to Jim Edwards and just clarify for me your feelings on the stormwater issues, the groundwater issues, summarize it for me, where you feel this proposed development will sit. I have great concerns with that, and I have had right from Day One. MR. EDWARDS-And we did, too, but I think when the first proposal came to us, as far as design of stormwater goes, it was simply using drywells, and based on the old data we received on test pits, we felt there was really no way they were going to function in that design. So, we were then given additional information on test pits and additional design that links together these drywells by infiltration trenches, which is piping and stone, which keeps everything above that mottling level, which is that assumed high water mark, and with that we felt a lot better about the design, and we felt that it would work as that design. Is it a great area for stormwater management in terms of using drywells and putting it back in the ground? It’s not great, but it’s above that mottling elevation, and that’s where we’re trying to get to. We’re trying to get things above mottling, maybe not three feet above it like is ideal, but it’s above it. MR. MAC EWAN-Above it by? MR. EDWARDS-It varies, I think. I mean, I think it’s between like two foot three to three feet. I think the worst case is like two foot three above mottling. That’s where the infiltration trench sits, at this point. MR. VOLLARO-That’s a worst case? MR. EDWARDS-I believe two foot three. Correct me if I’m wrong, Tom. MR. NACE-It’s been a while since I’ve looked at the numbers. MR. EDWARDS-Again, that’s not high water. That’s mottling. That’s where the presumed high water mark it. MR. VOLLARO-I understand the two. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s where the base of the drywell trench is two foot three above the mottling? MR. EDWARDS-That’s correct. Not the drywells. Again, the drywells I think are around four feet deep, and them by themselves probably won’t work that well. I think Tom has spoken to 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) that . They put these infiltration trenches in between these drywells to help mitigate that problem. I think we’ve even taken those out of the equation, as far as the exfiltration out of the drywells. I think he’s relying totally on the infiltration trenches now, to get rid of that water. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the life expectancy of one of those trenches? MR. EDWARDS-I think it’s similar to a drywell. If not maintained, probably a couple of years, but if they’re maintained properly, hopefully indefinitely. MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. Okay. All right. Last stab at it. Let’s do a SEQRA. Tony, are you doing it? MR. METIVIER-I’ll do it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Are we doing the Long Form tonight? MR. METIVIER-I believe it’s the Long Form. MR. MAC EWAN-I believe so. MR. METIVIER-Okay. “Impact on Land Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?” Such examples are “Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater. Construction on land where the depth to water table is less than 3 feet. Construction on paved parking areas of 1,000 or more vehicles. Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e. rock or soil) per year. Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. Construction in a designated floodway.” MR. SEGULJIC-I would say yes. MR. METIVIER-To which one? MR. SEGULJIC-The second one, “Construction on land where the depth to water table is less than 3 feet.” MR. METIVIER-Small to moderate? Potentially Large? MR. VOLLARO-Potentially large. MR. METIVIER-And can it be mitigated by the project change? MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s questionable, whether it can be mitigated. It can be mitigated by the project change. I think I agree with that, but I don’t know over what period of time. My experience has been that the maintenance of these drywells and cross trenches has not been very good over, the Town just hasn’t got the capacity to get to them all. So what happens is the damage gets done before the Town can get there and open them up or suck them out or do whatever they do to them. So it’s a difficult question to answer. I think it’s yes, and I think it’s. MR. SANFORD-Potentially large. MR. VOLLARO-Potentially large, yes. MR. RINGER-I think it’s yes also, and it’s up to the Town to make sure, as any other drainage, it’s up to them. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. VOLLARO-And we don’t have control over that, Larry. That’s one of the problems I have. MR. RINGER-I know, but we have to answer the questions now, and it would be yes, with the mitigation. MR. METIVIER-It can be. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the mitigation being maintenance by the Town of Queensbury. MR. RINGER-Well, no, the mitigation would be the way the drywells were put with the trenches. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s the design of the project. Yes, it’s not a long term maintenance program. It’s will this project be mitigated by the design as proposed by the applicant. MR. RINGER-Right, what the Town does, we can’t guess how that’s going to be, you know, we have to go on what we have in front of us. MR. SANFORD-It’s not above, the three feet, it doesn’t meet that criteria which Tony mentioned right up front, right, Tony? MR. RINGER-Right, that’s what we said. That’s where the. MR. SANFORD-Right, and then again, what we just heard regarding drywells, our own consultant said that. MR. RINGER-They’re going to work. MR. SANFORD-No, he said they’ll fail quickly unless they’re maintained, and the maintenance doesn’t come from the Town. MR. RINGER-As any drywell would. MR. SEGULJIC-Could I ask you a question? With regards to the drywells and infiltration trenches, is the fact that the roads will be sanded in the wintertime is that going to be a concern? Because that’s going to get in there and clog it up? MR. VOLLARO-Big time. MR. EDWARDS-That’s a big concern with drywells, yes, but that’s why they have to be maintained on a regular basis. MR. SEGULJIC-When you say maintain them, roads swept and? MR. VOLLARO-No, they suck them out. They did to me. MR. SEGULJIC-Can they suck out a drywell and infiltration trench? Yes? MR. EDWARDS-A lot of towns do it, and I think Queensbury has a program that does it already. I believe Queensbury has the plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So we can do that. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let’s move on to the next question. MR. VOLLARO-Where did we leave that question? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. METIVIER-Well, I have it, Question Number One has a potentially large impact. However, it can be mitigated through the project change. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Go forward, then. MR. METIVIER-“Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual landforms found on the site?” MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-“Will proposed action affect any body of water designated as protected?” MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-“Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water?” MR. RINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. METIVIER-“Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?” MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. METIVIER-Okay. “Will it require a discharge permit?” MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, it requires a stormwater permit, right? MR. MAC EWAN-I think you can jump right down to the fifth bullet. MR. METIVIER-“Proposed action will adversely affect groundwater.” MR. VOLLARO-The answer is yes, I think. MR. METIVIER-Okay, and is it small to moderate or potentially large? MR. SANFORD-Potentially large. MR. MAC EWAN-Does everyone share that, potentially large or small to moderate? MR. SANFORD-Well, I’m talking about, Craig, my reference on that, just so other people can weigh in on whether they agree with it or not, is what I heard regarding impact of potential water in a neighboring, or adjacent neighborhoods in their basements and stuff, and so I believe that’s a potentially large impact. MR. METIVIER-However, we don’t know if that’s going to be the case. MR. RINGER-Right. If they’ve already got water, we don’t know if this actually is going to increase it or not. MR. SANFORD-That’s right. It’s potentially large. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Where do we stand as a group? MR. O'CONNOR-Can I ask a question what the word “potential” means? I don’t think it means what has just been offered by Mr. Sanford. At least not in the terms of SEQRA. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask you to let us just continue on doing our SEQRA. Thanks. Please. So where do we stand as a group on that? Small to moderate or potentially large? MR. RINGER-I’d say yes to small to moderate, and it can be mitigated. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t say small to moderate. MR. SANFORD-I don’t say small to moderate. MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s potentially large. The words “potentially large” comes out of the SEQRA. MR. MAC EWAN-I want to hear from this end. I’ve got two, two; two, two. Tony? MR. METIVIER-I don’t know. I mean, how can you judge it now? It could be very potentially large, but it could be small to moderate. It could be nothing. We just don’t know. So I don’t know. I don’t know what to say here. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m in the middle. I think it could be potentially large, if we’re looking at putting, we talked a couple of weeks ago about putting fill to build the houses up. The houses have to be higher than the street. The water has to go somewhere. It could be large. MR. VOLLARO-I think one of the testimonies that we heard here tonight, that leads me to believe, and I’ll qualify my statement, the gentleman talked about the period during which his sump pump is running. It sounds to me like that the duty cycle on that pump, or the period that that pump runs, is quite high. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll skips this question, we’ll come back to it. All right. Number Six, Tony? MR. METIVIER-Number Six “Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff?” MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. METIVIER-Not floodwater. “Incompatible with the existing drainage patterns”. MR. MAC EWAN-I would think bullet number three would fit. MR. METIVIER-“Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns”. Is it small to moderate, potentially large? MR. MAC EWAN-This is a struggle. In my opinion it would be potentially large. MR. METIVIER-Can it be mitigated? Number Six, “Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff?” Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. METIVIER-“Will the proposed action change floodwater flows?” MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-“Will the proposed action cause substantial erosion?” MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-“Proposed action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns”. MR. VOLLARO-No, not incompatible. I think the drainage patterns are there, and I think they’ll continue to be there. So I don’t think they’re incompatible with it. MR. METIVIER-“Proposed action will allow development in a designated floodway.” MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-What other impact would alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff? MR. SANFORD-Well, it could increase volumes, and so I’m not sure if that fits in there, but you could have a greater volume of water which may fit in there with pattern. The pattern would be, or could be accelerated, okay. I don’t think we’re contemplating any directional change. Of course, if the homes are built with elevated, on mounds, because of the land being wet, then it potentially could change drainage patterns, potentially. I mean, you know, if you bring in a lot of fill to have to put these houses up on hills. MR. METIVIER-Would you say it’s small to moderate or potentially large? MR. SANFORD-Potentially large. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m going to have to say no there, because the stormwater issues are caught up in Number Five. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So we’ve got two nos. Gretchen. MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t know. I’m thinking about trees taken out. If you take trees out of the buffer area, you take those root systems out, how can you anticipate whether that will change the flow of water on the land? MR. SANFORD-Or if you bring in fill and build it up? MR. METIVIER-Well, sometimes we bring in fill and build it up, you actually could correct water problems. MR. SANFORD-On that land, but it may flow into the neighboring areas. MR. METIVIER-Not necessarily. Again, you don’t know. You just don’t know. MRS. STEFFAN-We don’t know. MR. METIVIER-So why would you chance it? MR. MAC EWAN-Bob and Tom? MR. VOLLARO-I’m a yes on this. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m a no, because I think it’s caught up in Number Five, stormwater. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. MAC EWAN-So we’ve got one no, one yes, one no, one no, one yes, one yes, and I’m the tie breaker. I’ll say no. MR. METIVIER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-So that’s your answer to Number Six is no, is that correct? MR. METIVIER-That is correct. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the Board’s answer. Number Seven, Tony. MR. METIVIER-“Impact on Air Will the proposed action affect air quality?” MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. RINGER-No. MR. VOLLARO-I’d say, yes, it will. MR. MAC EWAN-How will it? MR. METIVIER-How will it? MR. VOLLARO-The how will it comes in, in that there’s a preponderance of evidence. We said that. Now, you know, I’ve looked at a lot of those things, as far as air quality is concerned, and being up next to the Northway or next to major arteries and it just, all of the studies that I’ve looked at talk about particulates that could be injurious to health. MR. METIVIER-This project does not add to any of those. MR. MAC EWAN-Let him finish. MR. VOLLARO-Well, Tony, it doesn’t add to it, but if it’s already there, it’s there. MR. SANFORD-No, no. Tony’s point’s well taken. Let me try this, Bob. Removal of the trees are in essence removing natural barriers which would increase the ability for these pollutants to move through the project and actually possibly to the adjacent neighborhoods. Now, we were on that plot of land. That’s a heavily vegetated plot of land, right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have something, though, that supports that position? MR. SANFORD-I don’t have anything that doesn’t? MR. MAC EWAN-Then we can’t say. MR. METIVIER-I apologize, Bob. My only point here is that this actual proposed development would not have any additional impact on air. MR. MAC EWAN-I would agree with that. MR. METIVIER-Reading the examples, it does not. I understand what you’re saying, but this is not creating more pollutants. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You’re saying that the development itself is not creating pollutants, and that’s true. MR. METIVIER-And that’s what I’m looking at. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. MAC EWAN-What you’re suggesting, though, is by leaving it in its vegetative state, it’s acting as a filter, so to speak? MR. SANFORD-Possibly. I don’t know that, but. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think that’s where the SEQRA question’s heading, though, when they ask the question. MR. SANFORD-No. I think the SEQRA’s basically saying if you built on a toxic waste site, you’re not contributing to additional toxicity, and so it’s not a SEQRA concern, but it’s important, but it’s maybe not a SEQRA concern. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that question can be answered somewhere else in the SEQRA form, where you’re going. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Majority no on Number Seven? MR. METIVIER-Yes. Number Eight. “Impact on Plants and Animals Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?” MR. RINGER-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-Number Nine “Will the Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species?” MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. RINGER-No. MR. METIVIER-“Impact on Agricultural Land Resources Will Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources?” MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. RINGER-No. MR. METIVIER-“Impact on Aesthetic Resources Will action affect aesthetic resources?” MR. RINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-I think it will. MR. SANFORD-It certainly will. MR. RINGER-I don’t see it, but. MR. SANFORD-You don’t see that? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s okay. MR. VOLLARO-Go through the list. MR. METIVIER-All right. Number one, proposed land uses or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether manmade or natural. Proposed land uses or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. METIVIER-Okay. Is it small to moderate or potentially large? MR. MAC EWAN-Potentially large. MR. SANFORD-Potentially large. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. RINGER-I don’t see that, though. MR. RINGER-You’re by yourself. MR. RINGER-Yes, but I would ask that you try to. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, the people who live in the adjacent neighborhood right now are looking out, buffered by the Northway and looking at trees and growth, and it’s a natural buffer for them to the Northway. You put a housing development in there and it changes the aesthetics of the neighborhood considerably. MR. RINGER-Okay. I’m just thinking of any subdivision, how this is different from any other subdivision. That’s how I’m looking at this. Am I by myself on that? MRS. STEFFAN-No. MR. METIVIER-The next one, Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Is the Northway scenic? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. SANFORD-No, it would be opening that up, is what I’m saying. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s also driving down the Northway and looking at a subdivision. MR. SANFORD-Actually, that’s a point. That’s a bit of, you know, everybody always talks about the entrance to the Town. Well, almost everybody that comes to the Town goes up the Northway, and now instead of seeing forest they’re going to be seeing homes. So I think there’s some validity to that. MR. RINGER-They’ll be seeing homes all the way up through there, Hidden Hills and the Greenway. MR. VOLLARO-It doesn’t make it right, Larry. MR. SANFORD-It doesn’t make it right, Larry. MR. RINGER-Again, my opinion is we’re just stretching. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Number Twelve. MR. METIVIER-“Impact on Historic and Archaeological Resources Will the Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric, or paleontological importance?” MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-“Impact on Open Space and Recreation Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR. RINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-I struggled with this one when I was looking over the file, and I guess I bypassed bullet number one and went right to bullet number two, which is the major reduction of open space important to the community, and I know that’s something that’s been important to a lot of people in this Town is preserving what open space there is left, and, you know, even though we’re talking a small portion of land here that’s adjacent to the Northway, it is that one little piece of green space, I guess, so to speak, that lends to the overall bigger picture of the Town. MR. SANFORD-I’ll support that position. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think you’ve got a point there, Mr. Chairman. I think that we’re trying to preserve what we’ve got. MR. METIVIER-I think you’re pushing it here. MR. RINGER-We’re going to have to say no to every subdivision that comes before us if we do that. MR. METIVIER-Yes, at this point. MR. MAC EWAN-Not necessarily. Not necessarily, Larry. I mean, you could have a subdivision. MR. RINGER-I stated my opinion on that, and I’m really struggling. MR. MAC EWAN-I just want to respond to that. You can have a subdivision application that comes in and takes advantage of the clustering provisions in our Zoning Ordinance and our Subdivision Regs, that preserves open space and gives us larger densities on smaller lots. MR. RINGER-I just feel we have to be careful when we really start nitpicking too much. MR. VOLLARO-Well, Larry, it’s obvious to me that this Board is struggling with this. You recognize that, don’t you? MR. RINGER-Absolutely, we wouldn’t have been here for a year. We’ve been working on this project for a year. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re getting through it. MR. RINGER-And I see both sides of this issue, I really do. MR. METIVIER-So what is Thirteen? MR. SCHACHNER-Thirteen second bullet item is a yes, and has it been characterized, in terms of its magnitude? 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know that I would label it as a major reduction in open space, but it would be a reduction in open space. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m just asking for recordkeeping purposes. You need to have answered Question Thirteen, which I think a majority of you answered yes. Is that correct? MR. METIVIER-Correct. MR. SCHACHNER-And then if you’ve answered yes, you need to identify which potential impact you’ve identified, which the only one I’ve heard was the second bullet item, I believe. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess my opinion would be, for this small parcel of acreage we’re talking about in the Town, I’d say the impact would be small to moderate. MR. SCHACHNER-And the impact you’re talking about is the second bullet item? MR. MAC EWAN-The second bullet item, but I don’t think I would label it as a major reduction, but it would be a reduction. MR. SCHACHNER-Hence your small to moderate. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-So is that the majority’s view? MR. SANFORD-I’ll agree with that. MR. VOLLARO-Based on the size of it, that would be my view as well, small to moderate. MR. SCHACHNER-Great. MR. MAC EWAN-Item Fourteen, Tony. MR. METIVIER-“Will the Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a Critical Environmental Area?” MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-“Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?” MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-“Impact on Energy Will the Proposed Action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply?” MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. METIVIER-Number Seventeen “Noise and Odor Impacts Will there be objectionable odors, noise or vibrations as a result of the Proposed Action?” MR. MAC EWAN-Jump right down to bullet number four. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. METIVIER-“The proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen.” MR. MAC EWAN-Potentially large. MR. SANFORD-Yes, that’s potentially large. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve got to have an answer for it. Can it be mitigated by the project change? MR. METIVIER-Well, of course not. You’re taking the trees away. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. RINGER-But the noise study we got says it’ll have no effect. So we go with the professionals or do we go with? MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll stick my neck out. I don’t support the noise study. MR. VOLLARO-It doesn’t say no effect. It says somewhere between 56 and 59 db. That’s not a no effect. MR. RINGER-I just, the way I feel is the study, we have to rely on professionals in these, and the professionals we’ve had, both from our own and from the applicants, say that the noise would be, the change in noise would not be significant. MR. MAC EWAN-Sometimes you’ve got to rely on your gut instinct, too, Larry. MR. RINGER-But I’m telling you that we have to be careful when we get up and say something, and you tell a judge or something, say, well, my gut told me this when your engineers and your professionals tell you something else. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m sure that we can base our opinion there on more than just that. There’s a preponderance of evidence around that talks about noise next to major highways, and says it’s not a good idea to put houses there, from a general planning point of view. MR. RINGER-I’m just reading the statement, and the way I read it, I have difficulty with it. MR. SANFORD-Okay, but we’re going to have to, you know, depending on where this goes, document this. MR. RINGER-I mean, I stand alone on this, but I’m reading the statement, and that’s the way I read it. MR. MAC EWAN-Where are you guys on this? MRS. STEFFAN-I agree. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Number Eighteen? MR. METIVIER-“Impact on Health Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety?” I’m going to go out on a limb and say no here. Because if you read all these bullets, this particular. MR. MAC EWAN-I would agree with you. MR. METIVIER-Thank you. As an impact on health, this actual development would not have any negative impact on health if you read the bullets. Would you like to go through them? 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. METIVIER-“Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.)?” MR. SANFORD-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-“Proposed Action may result in the burial of “hazardous wastes” in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.)”? MR. SANFORD-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-“Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquefied natural gas or other flammable liquids.”? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. SANFORD-No. MR. METIVIER-“Proposed Action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste.” MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. SANFORD-No. MR. METIVIER-All right. “Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community?” MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. METIVIER-Okay. “The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%.” MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-“Municipal budget for the capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project.” MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-“Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals.” MR. SANFORD-That’s a yes on that. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Basing it on what? 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. SANFORD-The Comprehensive Land Use Plan. MR. METIVIER-No, it goes along with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. MR. SANFORD-Well, what Gretchen pointed out, when she spoke in terms of the vision statements, I can’t say it as well as what she said, but that’s where I’m hanging my hat, on those comments she made earlier. MR. VOLLARO-Well, she also went to the zoning law. Because somebody would say to us, well, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan is merely a guide. It’s not the law. The Ordinance is the law, but the Ordinance also speaks to this, and I think, Gretchen, I think you mentioned the spot where the Ordinance talks to the same subject. MRS. STEFFAN-The Subdivision Regs, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Small to moderate? MR. METIVIER-Small to moderate. MR. SANFORD-Well, what’s the question again? MR. METIVIER-“Will the Proposed Action affect the character of the existing community. Will it have a conflict with officially adopted plans or goals”. MR. SANFORD-To me, if I lived in that adjacent neighborhood, I would say it would have a humungous impact. So I would say large. MR. MAC EWAN-Based on what, though, Rich? MR. SANFORD-Well, on the same, it’s related to the issue we addressed earlier in the SEQRA, which is basically, right now they’re in their back yard enjoying a forest, and now they’re going to have homes that are going to have spaces and you’re going to have the Northway, and it’s taking away from the character of that whole street. I think the doctor who spoke did a nice job in articulating what the neighborhood meant to him and what the character meant to him, and that would be heavily compromised with this project. I mean that’s the way I’m evaluating it. MR. MAC EWAN-Does everyone else feel the same way? MRS. STEFFAN-I could support that. MR. VOLLARO-I do. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m going to have to say no. MR. METIVIER-I’m going to say no. MR. RINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So the noes then come up with a different reason. MR. METIVIER-I think everybody else in every other development, and please people, don’t get me wrong when I say this, but, you know, we approve subdivisions all the time. It’s in the, I can’t even think anymore. I mean, what’s the difference? MR. SANFORD-Tony, the difference, as I see it, is that it’s not the houses. It’s really the, presenting the exposure to a freeway. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. METIVIER-I understand that. MR. SANFORD-Okay, and that really alters character. MR. MAC EWAN-Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-Again, I’m just trying to record keep. Are you debating the initial answer, yes/no to Question Nineteen, or are you debating the impact on the fourth bullet item? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, there was a, I heard four voices say that the proposed action will affect the character of the existing community. I heard yes. Now we’re debating over how it’s going to affect. MR. SCHACHNER-Which bullet item and what magnitude? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-The bullet item we’re talking about, Mark, is proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. That’s where we are now. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. Okay. Third bullet. Okay. Good. MR. METIVIER-But how can you say that this particular plan goes against anything that Queensbury does? I mean, they’re the ones that rezoned it. That’s the only thing I’m looking at. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s where I’m hung up on. MR. VOLLARO-The fact that the zone called for this? MR. METIVIER-Yes, they just did it. I mean, if Queensbury did not rezone this property, we wouldn’t have spent a year on this right now. MR. MAC EWAN-If this line item said, if it was worded, the proposed action would conflict with the officially adopted plans, zoning ordinances or goals, then you could hang your hat on something maybe. MR. VOLLARO-Because zoning ordinance is not in here, it’s not applicable. Is that what you’re saying? MR. METIVIER-Yes. If you said that, then you’re really digging into it saying, yes, this is part of the zoning. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, because the zone does call, I think that bullet item number five is more. MR. METIVIER-Well, I was going to get to that one. “Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use.” MR. VOLLARO-No, it doesn’t. They’re not anywhere near maxed out here. They’ve intentionally kept the density lower than the zoning code allows. MR. MAC EWAN-The land as it’s used now, not what it’s zoned for, but as it’s used now, there’s nothing on it. MR. SANFORD-Yes, that’s true. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Now you’re changing the density of that land by adding homes to it. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but I think you do in any subdivision. I think that happens anytime you do that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do we need to change that and say, I guess then if you’re saying that the neighborhood character is going to change, then you’ve got to go to other impacts and come up with a reason why it’s going to change under other impacts. MR. VOLLARO-Under the last bullet. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. SANFORD-I would, it goes back to the highway, I mean, really it does. I mean, adjacent neighborhoods would have visual impacts associated in close proximity to a major highway. I mean, it’s one of those things where, to me, it’s highly intuitive. I mean, if I lived on that street, and we were there, and I woke up in the morning and I was having a cup of coffee on my porch, and that’s the character of the neighborhood today, this development goes through, I go up and sit on my porch, I’m having a cup of coffee and I’m looking out, and I’m going to say there’s a major impact on the character, aesthetically, you know, aesthetics aren’t going to be anywhere near the same thing. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and the character of the neighborhood could also be fear. We’ve heard from the folks that live on Hughes Court. There’s water there. It’s wet, and we’ve talked about what the future may hold. We don’t know for sure, and so when you’re talking to that issue, is it fair to have those folks living in fear that their basements are going to be soaked, that their property is going to be water laden? I don’t know. I’m feeling like there’s too many unknowns in that regard. MR. SANFORD-I mean, now the character of neighborhood issue, is that the main caption here? MR. METIVIER-Character of community or neighborhood. MR. VOLLARO-I think the last bullet, other impacts, is where we’d have to struggle with coming up with what the other impacts would be, and I think the major impact is exposure to the Northway, for both the homes to be built there and for the homes on Hughes Court. MR. SANFORD-Yes, I mean, it’s going to change the character. It’s very simple. You’re removing, basically, a buffer, an essential buffer. MR. VOLLARO-See, when we talk about other subdivisions not being subject to this kind of scrutiny, they’re not subject to this kind of scrutiny because they’re not being built next to a major highway which produces noise and other undesirable features. That’s why we’re struggling the way we are on this one. MR. RINGER-But when I look at that, Bob, I think of Hidden Hills. I think of Dixon Heights. Yes, but what I’m saying, these neighborhoods have been built, well, Hidden Hills is relatively new, but Dixon Heights has been there for 10 or 15 years, closer to the Northway than this property is. The Greenway property has been there before the Northway was built, and I don’t see where that property has devalued or been hindered by the presence of the Northway, and that’s where I’m talking about. If we were to lay out a new zoning, I would really believe that we should say 500 feet from any interstate or anything like that, but we’re not, and we have to go with the rules, and I’m looking at the current developments in our Town, and their proximity to the Northway, how they’ve developed and what their status is now, and I don’t see where they’ve been adversely effected. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we don’t know. The quality of life may be adversely effected. We don’t know that. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. RINGER-Well, we know that because these properties, Dixon Heights and Hidden Hills and the Greenway property has been there for years and the people have not been effected. MR. SANFORD-Again, we’re talking about 2004. We’re not talking about potentially what mistakes might have been made in the past, Larry, and you just said, in your comments you said, again, I think we’re repeating ourselves, but I think, Larry, what you’re saying is that those developments, if you had to look at them again, you’d prefer to have a 500 foot distance, and so I think the mistakes in the past can’t be the rationalization for repeating them. MR. RINGER-I didn’t say, I said if we were starting over, I would probably want something like that. Maybe 1,000 feet, you know, I don’t know, but it wouldn’t be, we have to go with what we’ve got before us. We’ve got the rights of the property owner as well as the rights of the neighbors that we have to protect, and I believe we have to keep them both in mind.\ MR. MAC EWAN-Where are we with other impacts? MR. METIVIER-There are others. MR. SANFORD-I think the majority is dealing with other, and I think perhaps it deals with proximity, aesthetic characters would adversely affect the character of the neighborhood due to close proximity to a major highway, and I think that’s what the majority was lining up with. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think that’s the right answer. MR. VOLLARO-The other answer might be the removal of the buffer that currently exists between the homes on Hughes Court and the Northway, removing that. That’s the other impact, the way I see it. Now those homes are now being exposed to higher levels of noise and any other undesirable qualities that are transmitted from the Northway. MR. SANFORD-Do you have another suggestion, Craig? MR. MAC EWAN-I think he’s (lost words) what he’s looking for. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Are we in agreement on that? MR. SANFORD-I am. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. MR. SCHACHNER-So have you characterized the magnitude? You’ve answered Question Nineteen yes. You’ve listed, under the last bullet item, other impacts, a potential impact. MR. MAC EWAN-Potentially large. MR. SCHACHNER-I didn’t hear that. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Potentially large. Cannot be mitigated by the project change. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-Number Twenty. MR. METIVIER-Number Twenty. “Is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. RINGER-I think we’ll all agree on a yes on that. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-And don’t forget to go back to Five. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. We’ve got to go back to Number Five. MR. METIVIER-Is that going to be small to moderate or potentially large? MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t have to ask that. That’s just a yes or no. MR. METIVIER-Sorry. MR. VOLLARO-The answer is yes, for me anyway. MR. SCHACHNER-I think the debate was whether it was small to moderate or potentially large, as I recall. MR. METIVIER-For Number Five? “Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?” And it was a yes, and will it be small to moderate or potentially large? MR. SCHACHNER-Which impact have you identified? MR. MAC EWAN-Fifth bullet down, I think that’s where we were. MR. METIVIER-Yes, Proposed action will adversely affect groundwater. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and then you were going to characterize that, and I think that’s where you got hung up is small to moderate or potentially large. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think we’re missing one here. The proposed action will require a discharge permit, and I think we will require a SPDES discharge permit for stormwater here, and we have to answer that, and the answer is yes. I don’t know why it’s in there, but I didn’t want to skip over it, because I know we need a SPDES permit for stormwater on this project. MR. MAC EWAN-So let’s go down to bullet item number five. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, what are you doing with, I think Bob’s asking about bullet item number one. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I am, proposed action will require a discharge permit. The answer is yes. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-It’s small to moderate, because they’re going to get a SPDES permit. MR. SCHACHNER- Fine. MR. VOLLARO-Now you’re on five. MR. METIVIER-Number Five is we have to determine if the proposed action will adversely affect groundwater, and whether it will be small to moderate or potentially large. MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s potentially large. MR. SANFORD-Potentially large is my vote. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. METIVIER-Why? MR. VOLLARO-I think the word potentially is in our, it’s a word that they use, not one that we’ve created. MR. MAC EWAN-Everyone in agreement? MR. METIVIER-I’m going to, again, ask the question, will this proposed action adversely effect groundwater. Will this proposed action. MR. VOLLARO-Affect surface or groundwater. It doesn’t say adversely, does it? MR. MAC EWAN-It says adversely affect groundwater. Yes. MR. VOLLARO-What bullet are you on, Tony? MR. MAC EWAN-The fifth one down. MR. METIVIER-The fifth one down. MR. VOLLARO-Proposed action will adversely affect groundwater. I think it will adversely affect it. The word adversely means exactly what it says. MR. SANFORD-It’s going to raise it up. MR. VOLLARO-It’s going to affect it. MR. MAC EWAN-Small to moderate or potentially large? MR. SANFORD-Potentially large. MRS. STEFFAN-Potentially large. MR. METIVIER-I still don’t know. MR. RINGER-I don’t know, but the engineering says we’ve got, it’s mitigated. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob and Rich, potentially large, is that where you are? MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-You’ve got your four. Can it be mitigated by project change? Yes or no? MR. SANFORD-No. MR. METIVIER-According to engineers, yes. MR. RINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the engineering data says that it will, and now we’ve got to determine, and it probably will. In its first stage of operation, I think Tom has come up with the fact that it will work. It’s been substantiated by our engineering consultant. The question is, the maintenance component to this can adversely affect its performance in a short period of time, with sand and salt being driven in to the drywells, and into the infiltration trenches. That’s my concern really. That’s why I’m saying potentially large. It’s one of the problems you’ve got, inherent problems you’ve got when you build into an area that’s very, very wet. MR. SANFORD-They fail. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. VOLLARO-I mean, you’re not going to have your Highway Department camping on the grounds here saying, okay, now it’s time to do that, get it done right away. Usually what happens, you’ve got to get into a semi-failure mode before you can get the Town excited about it in the first place. MR. RINGER-Bob, I have two in front of my house. MR. VOLLARO-So do I. MR. RINGER-And they pump it out twice a year. I don’t know, maybe I’m in an area that needs to be pumped out twice a year, but it’s pumped out twice a year. MR. VOLLARO-You must be. I don’t see them on my street. MR. RINGER-But they come up twice a year. MR. EDWARDS-I think you’ve got to assume it’s going to be maintained. How often is beyond me, but I think that twice a year is their protocol with the Highway Department. Assuming that it’s not going to be maintained is probably not a good assumption. The question is adequately maintained. MR. VOLLARO-Going from my experience, and I’m going to jump off the line here a little bit, but in the subdivision I live in, we had some severe flooding problems on the road, and Tom came in and solved that problem for us, put a connection between both sides of the road so each side had a connection to go into a brook in there, but that hadn’t been maintained by the Highway Department, according to the neighbors, I wasn’t there, for almost five years. They hadn’t seen anybody come over there. So, you know, it’s one of those things. I mean, it’s very difficult to determine. They may have a predetermined maintenance schedule and they get to Larry twice a year. This one they didn’t get to at all. MR. RINGER-We had that happen, one time, Bob, on West Mountain Road, and it turned out that it was a County Road, and the County and the Town operated differently. I remember, if that’s the one you’re talking about. MR. VOLLARO-No, no. This was right in my subdivision. I live in the Town of Queensbury. MR. RINGER-Yes, but if the road is a County road, like West Mountain Road, and we had this discussion before, the County is responsible for pumping that out. MR. VOLLARO-That’s a different story. MR. MAC EWAN-All right, and the answer to the question we’re looking for, can it be mitigated by the project change, yes or no. MR. SANFORD-No. MR. VOLLARO-I would have to yes, that it can be, on this one, because it can be in the initial design stage, in the initial function stage, this will work, I think, substantiated by two engineering folks, and I can’t say that it won’t work. My concern is how long, and the how long is really a function of the fact that you’re building in an area that’s wet to begin with. MR. SEGULJIC-I would have to say yes, but I’m concerned about the runoff that’s going to be created in the existing ditch on the site. It’s there for a reason. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you either have to feel comfortable that the engineering is going to work or you have to feel uncomfortable that the engineering is not going to work in order to answer this question, I think, unless I’m missing the question. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. SANFORD-I think there’s a lot of, I mean, the engineering signoff and the applicant’s engineer, by admission, they’re not at the right depth. I mean, they’re shallow, right? Isn’t that what? MR. VOLLARO-This whole design, it tends to be very tenuous, but I think that it passes muster by about that much. That’s my opinion, but I think it works. It either works or it doesn’t work, and I think in this case the design says it works, and I have to go with that. I’m not going to dispute all the work that Tom has done on this, and all the review that you. MR. SANFORD-I think our engineer has said he thinks it works. MR. VOLLARO-No, I think he said it works. MR. EDWARDS-I don’t think I used the word “think”. I didn’t say think. I mean, we signed off on it, Rich. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, he signed off on it. MR. METIVIER-And you have two engineers that actually will say this will work. So I still think that it’s mitigated through the project. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve got two yeses, one no, Larry? MR. RINGER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-We’re still not sure about Mrs. Demboski’s drain. MR. MAC EWAN-Two yeses, two noes. MR. METIVIER-What am I saying yes to? Whether it’s mitigated? MR. MAC EWAN-That it can be mitigated through the project design. MR. METIVIER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s your four. Okay. That’s done. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Chairman, a suggestion? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-At this point, you’ve identified five impacts as potentially impact. The SEQRA regulations would require that your next step would be to proceed to Part III which is called Evaluation of Importance of Impacts, and technically you’re supposed to prepare a written Part III. I don’t care. It’s up to you. You’re the Board. You’re the decision makers. You know I never advise you on policy matters, but my sense is, unless you want to spend the rest of the night on Part III, a very prudent, responsible way for a SEQRA Lead Agency to handle preparation of Part III would be to ask somebody to prepare, somebody of your membership, perhaps with the assistance of Staff, Counsel, whomever you want, to prepare a Draft Part III for consideration by the Board. MR. VOLLARO-How much time do we have? MR. SCHACHNER-You can slog through it as much as you want tonight, and I’m not suggesting you shouldn’t. I’m just making sure you’re aware of the option to have Part II I 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) prepared for some future consideration. I’m not saying to do that. I’m just making sure you’re aware of the option. MR. VOLLARO-What’s the outside limit on that, Mark? Is it? MR. SCHACHNER-There is an outside limit that I’m going to submit to you, as long as we do it within say the next month’s cycle is not going to create a problem, because it’s a right without a, it’s what lawyers call a right without a remedy. So I’m certainly not going to condone any six month delay to prepare a Part III, and I’m not saying you have to delay at all. If you want to slog through it tonight. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not something we want to do tonight. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. SCHACHNER-I just want to make sure you’re aware of the option, and I would, as Counsel, not have any problem if you decide to have a Part III prepared for a meeting, as long as that meeting was next month, or next week. MR. MAC EWAN-What I’ve done in the past, with applications, is when we’ve gotten to the point where we’ve got to do a Part III, I’ve appointed a little committee of at least a couple of members to sit down with Staff and Counsel to write up Part III. We’ve done it before. MR. SANFORD-I’ll do it if Bob will do it with me. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll volunteer for it. MR. MAC EWAN-Gretchen, do you want on? MRS. STEFFAN-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-The three of them get together. You make a time to get together with Staff and Counsel to draft it. All right. MR. SANFORD-You can be present, right? You can always be present at. MR. RINGER-No, that would make four. MR. MAC EWAN-That makes a quorum. Three of you will be doing it as a committee, with Staff and Counsel. MR. VOLLARO-So the committee is officially myself, Sanford and Gretchen. George, can we get together with you on a time? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And, Mark, you’ve got the vote. I don’t have the record of the vote, because we’re going to have to talk to it, in terms of our notes. MR. MAC EWAN-He’s filled out the SEQRA as we were going along. MR. SCHACHNER-No, I haven’t filled out anything. I know which, you identified, Question One, one of the bullet items in Question Five, Questions Eleven, Seventeen, and Nineteen as potentially large. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and on that basis is what we have to answer Part III on? MR. SCHACHNER-That’s exactly correct. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got you. MR. SANFORD-So just one other point of clarification. Because we’re going to Part III, does that presume that it’s been a Pos SEQRA? MR. SCHACHNER-Absolutely not. That’s the reason you’re going to Part III is to do what’s called the evaluation of the importance of impacts and then ultimately reach your determination as to whether there needs to be an Environmental Impact Statement or not. There is no presumption whatsoever. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. HILTON-Just in terms of timing, I mean, when. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m going to leave that up to you people. MR. HILTON-Not so much the drafting of Part III, but having this come back before the Board. You asked about timeframes, and I just want to, since there are some interested parties here, just try to get a handle on when we’re going to have this back before you. MR. VOLLARO-Well, let’s take a look at the calendar. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s our September agendas look like, already booked? MR. HILTON-Well, it’s full. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re going to need 30 days anyway to go through this thing. First meeting in October? MR. HILTON-That’s up to you. I just want to know. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m just looking at the backlog that we’re dealing with already. We don’t seem to be making headway these days. That’ll give you your 30 days to, and then we’ll be meeting, you guys are going to get together probably sometime next week. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, I don’t know what 30 days you’re talking about. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m thinking of making sure that we try to stay within a 30 day cycle. If I go to September, which would be 30 days out, the problem here is that September’s agendas are already chuck full. You don’t want to drag it out for 60 days or 80 days or 90 days either. MR. VOLLARO-We may be done before the month of August. The question I think the Chairman is raising is when do we put it before this Board again. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s our second meeting in September? MR. SCHACHNER-September’s second meeting is the 28. th MR. MAC EWAN-The 28. Put them on that night. Bump whoever we have to bump. th MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do we need a tabling motion? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think we have to table it. MR. SCHACHNER-Do you need a tabling motion? No. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-(Lost words) you’re going to circulate the draft of the report. Can you make that available to the applicant so that the applicant’s consultants can look at it? MR. MAC EWAN-Counsel? MR. SCHACHNER-You’re not obligated to. You can if you want. That’s up to the Board. MR. MAC EWAN-No problem. Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2004 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED DIX AVENUE PROPERTIES AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: LI-1A, HC-INT. LOCATION: DIX AVENUE, ACROSS FROM MC DONALD’S APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 14.58 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF 1.23 ACRES AND 13.35 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 14-2004 PZ 3-2000, SUB. 23-1989, SUB. 4-1991 TAX MAP NO. 303.16-1-1 LOT SIZE: 14.58 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS SITE PLAN NO. 14-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED NORTH STAR DONUT GROUP DUNKIN DONUTS PROPERTY OWNER: DIX AVENUE PROPERTIES AGENT: GARRY ROBINSON ZONE: LI-1A, HC-INT. LOCATION: DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 2300 +/-SQ. FT. DUNKIN DONUTS FACILITY AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. RESTAURANT USES IN THE HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 2-2004 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/9/04 TAX MAP NO. 303.16- 1-1 LOT SIZE: 14.58 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 JON LAPPER & GARRY ROBINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT MR. MAC EWAN-George. MR. HILTON-I guess not too much to add on this one. We’re still discussing subdivision. We’re still discussing the access. We have, as you will read in my notes, you know, no property lines have been created here. We have an opportunity to do some planning here with a vacant piece of property, and I guess our position is that one driveway is preferable. You’ve seen that comment from A/GFTC and other, you’ve seen that in other comment submitted to the file. The reason for the tabling last week was so that C.T. Male could address the Creighton Manning letter, which they have. I’m not sure if you have his comments on this. They came in after our notes. MR. VOLLARO-We’ve got them. MR. HILTON-You do have them? Okay, but as far as the subdivision, that seems to be the main issue at this point. I think I’m going to wait until we get into the site plan to kind of describe my site plan comments, but at this point, that’s all I have to say. I don’t know if you have any questions. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper with Tom Burke, the project applicant. Wendy Simino from Creighton Manning traffic engineering, and Garry Robinson, the project engineer. I guess, where we were last time on both projects, both the subdivision and the site plan, which are integrally related, the issue, I think fundamentally, comes down to the traffic access issue. We were tabled, as George said, for a couple of specific reasons. There was site lighting, which has now been addressed, and landscaping which we’ve added to. In the Staff Notes they ask for 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) some additional plantings, and the applicant is certainly willing to consent to that. So what it really comes down to is just this access issue. We had a very thorough and positive meeting with the Planning Board last month where we explained the reasons why the applicant is trying to give the Board what they want, but the one access doesn’t work real well with the drive thru on this site. Wendy explained it in detail the last time. She’s put it in writing and submitted it, but I do want her to explain it certainly for the sake of the Chairman who wasn’t here last time. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s okay. I read the minutes. MR. LAPPER-We started with the same building that we did at the other site, which this Board was asking for some pretty good concessions, and we now documented that it would be the same building that we had last time. Rich Schermerhorn is here tonight, who wasn’t here last time, as the owner of the adjacent site or the site to be subdivided, to put on the record that he’s happy to have one entrance onto his site, and that he knows that it’s zoned industrial and commercial and he has not plans at this point, whether it would be an industrial project, a commercial project, or a mix. The problem for Tom for Dunkin Donuts is that C.T. Male has documented, previously has agreed that if there’s an entrance that’s not on their site that goes into the front of their site, it could stack up on Dix Avenue which would be a serious issue for the Town, for people on the road, and if it goes to the back of the site, Wendy’s documented in her correspondence that it’s not going to work with the drive thru, it’s not going to be safe on- site. What we have on Glen Street, which is a much busier road, 22,000 cars a day compared to about 11,000 cars here, we have two curb cuts, one for in and one for out. So Tom started off conceding that we’d have one curb cut in and out all together, and we think, for the reasons that we’ve documented, that the safest thing to do is to give Dunkin Donuts here. It would be the only curb cut now, and Tom’s certainly willing to come back and have the Board revisit it when Rich decides to develop his site, whether that’s in two years or ten years or what have you, and we’re agreeable to, for access management to show a connection on the east side of the site, and that’s shown on the site plan, and we’re agreeable, in response to Staff comments, to also show an access management easement along the Quaker Farms entrance, sort of in the middle of the site, on the west side. So in terms of that issue of having cars go between the sites, we can deal with that with easements for future developments. The issue just comes down to curb cut, and we think that the safest thing to do, because it’s a drive through facility, is to let them have this one curb cut, and we’ll look at the site again when Rich comes back with a proposal. We’re not trying to pick a fight with the Board. It’s worked out very well on Glen Street. Tom wants to be a good applicant, but the idea of insisting that there’s one entrance that goes to nowhere in the middle of the site and then connects to the back of his site, because we’ve shown that the front of the site doesn’t work. The back of the site won’t work either, because it’s going to conflict with his drive thru and it’s just going to cause more problems than it’s going to solve. So we’re asking you to approve the subdivision and the site plan with the one entrance onto Dunkin Donuts, with the understanding that we’ll include the access management and we’ll look at other possibilities when Rich comes in in the future. MR. MAC EWAN-Without being cynical, can I ask a question? MR. LAPPER-Certainly. MR. MAC EWAN-Why has it been so hard, for well over a year, to ask you guys to make one curb cut, design your subdivision, make the entrance, the one access, single access across from McDonalds access, which we’ve been asking for for well over a year. This is now our seventh or eighth meeting. Nothing has changed. MR. LAPPER-You weren’t here at the last meeting, but we had a very through discussion about that, and the majority, or everyone on the Board, in your absence last time, understood what we were saying about why that wasn’t the best alternative here under these circumstances, and they seemed to feel very comfortable, and we’re certainly not trying to take on the Chairman. I mean, you know I’m here every month. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not trying to take you on or anything. My understanding is this Board hasn’t changed their position on where they want that access. MR. LAPPER-And I think that that has been your position, but I don’t think that’s been the Board’s position. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll poll the Board right now. Are we still looking for access across from McDonalds, single access into the parcel? MR. RINGER-Based on last month and what we heard from Creighton Manning, I kind of felt that what the applicant was presenting was the right way to go. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I would similarly echo Larry’s comments. I was, coming in to the meeting I was dead set against the separate entrance for the Dunkin Donuts store and now I have an open mind about it, but I wouldn’t say that, you know, they’ve won me over yet. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tony? MR. METIVIER-You know my argument all along with putting entrances in line with other egress, McDonalds there. I would be in favor of this for now, but, you know, have it documented on the record, Mr. Lapper’s comments that they would be willing to come back in front of us when Rich knows what he’s going to do with the other development, and at that time, they absolutely, positively have to be open to closing that curb cut and opening it up when it flows with whatever Rich is going to do. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-I think the applicant last time did a pretty good job in explaining the rationale for having an individual curb cut to Dunkin Donuts, and it had to do with if they shared a common entrance, the representation was that they would only go a very short distance on that road, access road, before they had to make a turn into Dunkin Donuts and that, in and of itself, may present traffic problems for a queuing line going out onto Dix Avenue and so I think that I would be happy to hear that discussion again, but I think they had some interesting ideas which reopened this issue, and I think we should perhaps go into it further to see if, in fact, if it works. The other things that were talked about, which were things like rotating the building to facilitate queuing lines for the drive thrus and everything else seemed problematic, in terms of strictly the realities of doing business as a donut company or a donut store. So, it’s a complicated issue. If there weren’t additional problems created, I think we would all still feel that the access across from McDonalds makes the most sense, but they gave pretty compelling reasons to look at it in another way. It’s certainly a (lost word) to some degree. MR. MAC EWAN-Robert? MR. VOLLARO-I heard their presentation. It had some merit, and I weighed it in two different ways. I have to weigh what the Glens Falls Transportation Council has to say about their, the way they view problems on Dix Avenue, take a look at C.T. Male’s position, take a look at our own Staff’s position, and then trying to look at it myself, and I said, the way I looked at it was, yes, there would be conflicts on the site, by doing it, having the entrance line up with McDonalds. There would be site conflicts, but there would be Dix Avenue conflicts, which is, in my mind more important, by not having a common entrance. In other words, if you put it across the way from McDonalds, you would probably have less impacts on the Dix Avenue traffic and less impacts on the site. If you put it their way, you’d have less impacts on the site and more impacts on Dix Avenue. I’m looking at it from the Dix Avenue point of view, frankly, and not the impacts on the site, as much. There’s two weights here. In looking at the August 6 th CME reply here, the August 6 letter, and we see that there are some, I just have a problem with th one paragraph in here, and I think that C.T. Male came up with the same thing, right after I 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) looked at this, and I started looking at C.T. Male, but it says during the morning peak hour when Dunkin Donuts (lost words) the highest volume of traffic, it is expected that 60% of the traffic will be traveling to the site from the west. MR. LAPPER-That was a typo. I’m sorry. That whole paragraph is an error. MR. VOLLARO-That whole paragraph is out. MR. LAPPER-Yes, it was just a typo on Creighton Manning’s part. WENDY SIMINO MS. SIMINO-It should say east, meaning that the right in, right out, west bound or east. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It was tough for me to come up with the right hand turn. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s stay on track for a second. So you’re comfortable with hearing opposing design for the curb cut access? MR. VOLLARO-I would like to see the designs for curb cut be lined up with McDonalds, and there’s, you know, between Staff’s recommendation, the Glens Falls Transportation Council, our consulting engineer’s position on that, I would vote that it would be a single access, but that the access be off the McDonalds entrance. MR. MAC EWAN-Opposite you mean. Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-They’ve made a compelling argument for it, and it made sense, but one of the things we also said we’d like C.T. Male to look at it. We’ve got this response letter, and I guess, could you clarify that for me? MR. EDWARDS-I think there were two things we were asked to look at on this, Tom. One was, again, keep looking at the traffic analysis and comment on that as we see fit. The second thing was look at the site layout from our site plan perspective, and we did that, and I think when Chris was here he asked us to look at this site plan, a site layout, can it be done in a different way. Can it be done better by utilizing one access point off Dix Avenue, and we had Frank Palumbo look at that, who’s been doing this for a long time, and we didn’t have any real great ideas, alternate ideas as to how to line this thing up, with one point of access and still maintain, I guess, the integrity of the site, you know, the idea of how to operate a Dunkin Donuts the way they intended on showing it here. So we didn’t have any great ideas to add to it than what’s been presented, as far as a better site layout, unfortunately. I can’t offer that to you as an alternative plan. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, my biggest concern is not so much, I was buying the argument that Dunkin Donuts felt they need a separate entrance, but the problem that I was then left with was, what do we then do with the rest of the site? And the comments that we made at the last meeting were we would want to see absolutely that the balance of the site only have one entrance, and that that one entrance be across from the existing McDonalds. MR. LAPPER-And Rich is agreeable to that, and he’s here to put that on the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, the question then is, if you can see this, is if you draw a road, an access road across from McDonalds, what happens to this strip of land between the access road to the rest of the project site, and the Dunkin Donuts. MR. LAPPER-It’s probably landscaped green space. I mean, it could be parking. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I just don’t want to set this Board up for a situation where, you know, down the road two years or whatever, you know, another applicant comes in and says, well, you know, you created a hardship by approving the curb cuts at Dunkin Donuts. MR. LAPPER-You asked at the last meeting, and Rich wasn’t here, and I was willing to put on the Board, but he’s here tonight, that he understands, because of the curve in the road to the east, that the rest of his site would have one curb cut, and that you want it, and it makes sense to put it in front of McDonalds, and that’s agreeable. He doesn’t know whether it’s going to be, again, an industrial site in the back, a commercial site in the front, or one or the other, but one curb cut will work for him for the rest of the site. MR. SEGULJIC-I also heard you say that if we granted your access, access to the site now, in the future, when the rest of the site is developed, you would then interconnect the site. MR. LAPPER-Well, and what we’re saying that we will interconnect it, meaning that there would be another connection in the back so that people on Rich’s site and people on the Dunkin Donuts site can go get donuts back and forth without having to go on the main road. MR. SEGULJIC-So you would still want your. MR. LAPPER-It may make sense, at that point, to combine the entrances, but it depends, again, it depends on what Rich’s use is. If it’s tractor trailers going to a manufacturing facility, it’s certainly not going to make sense to intermingle them, and either way, we have the issue which we weren’t talking about a few months ago, which Wendy brought up last time, that if you connect to the Dunkin Donuts site up front, you’re going to have people stacking because they’re going to be turning left into Dunkin Donuts while people are coming off of Rich’s site straight, and you could have stacking on Dix Avenue, which would be the worst situation, and if you have them connect in the back, they’re going to be connecting right by our queue for the drive thru, and that could cause conflicts. So it’s just, it’s hard to interconnect the only entrance to a drive thru site from that other site. MR. SEGULJIC-What if we were to, I realize it’s late in the game, though, but what if we were to reconfigure the site instead of having it run, whatever it is, north/south, east/west. MR. LAPPER-C.T. Male just said, they looked at it. They tried to come up with anything imaginative, as did we, and it doesn’t work. MR. SANFORD-Excuse me for jumping in, but if, in fact, Rich, whatever he does, he’s going to have the entrance coming in across the street from McDonalds, and then if that property amount from that road to the Dunkin Donuts site right now you said would probably be just green space. If instead that space became an enlargement of the Dunkin Donut property, in other words, instead of that becoming owned by Rich and green space, but became an enlarged Dunkin Donuts lot, that potentially could open up a number of different possibilities in terms of how the Dunkin Donut configuration could take place on now an enlarged lot in order to facilitate different traffic flows. MR. LAPPER-Well, we did look at that, and if the connection, if you come in across from McDonalds and you still turn towards the front of the Dunkin Donuts site, you’re still going to have a conflict with people coming from the back of Rich’s site. So it’s still going to create that need for a quick left turn movement, which could have people stacking onto Dix Ave., and if it comes in the back, because again, it’s really the same issue, even if you make it wider, because we tried, as did C.T. Male, to come up with alternatives. You’re still going to have people entering right where the stacking is, and Rich’s site is going to need green space, whatever it is, in terms of landscaping and just permeability. So it’s not wasted land, but I mean, we put pen to paper to try to do that, too, and it didn’t solve either of those two movement problems. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the one thing that I see here is when Rich’s property gets developed we, the Board, will probably be asking him to put his entrance opposite McDonalds. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. LAPPER-We know that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and then we’re going to be saying, and then you’re going to be faced with the fact of changing your approach. MR. LAPPER-Well, maybe, maybe not. MR. VOLLARO-Let me finish. Right now, in 258 feet, taking the Quaker Farms entrance, taking your proposed dedicated entrance, taking the entrance that Rich would have to go, in 258 feet, you’ve got three curb cuts on Dix Avenue. That, to me, is unacceptable. MR. LAPPER-I’m going to let Wendy comment on that. MR. VOLLARO-You follow where I’m driving at there? Because that’s really the dilemma I have, because I know Glens Falls Transportation and other people are concerned about the conflicts on Dix Avenue, and I certainly don’t want to go counter to some of their recommendations. MS. SIMINO-Right, but you’re not considering the remaining part of the parcel that will not have any curb cuts, there’s 800 feet of frontage. So you’re saying that there is, within 300, but not within the full parcel there’s not going to be additional. MR. VOLLARO-I see the center line of the Quaker Farms entrance, all the way up to the center line of your proposed entrance comes out to be 111 plus 31, that’s 142 feet, plus 116 feet from the center of your entrance to the probable center of Dix Avenue, that’s 258 feet, within the probable center of the McDonalds entrance now. So you have the McDonalds, you’ve got yours, you’ve got Quaker Farms, and if you look at this and just add the distances up, it’s 258 feet, that there’ll be three curb cuts within 258 feet. Just take a look at your layout plan one of seven. MS. SIMINO-Right. MR. VOLLARO-That’s my concern, is the number of curb cuts potentially on Dix Avenue. MS. SIMINO-Right, but for unsignalized driveways, that’s not an uncommon spacing requirement. MR. VOLLARO-If you look at the Glens Falls Transportation Council letter, they really disagree with that entirely. Now, I don’t know, you know, from the, I’m not a traffic guy, so I don’t really know, but I know this, and, George, let me ask. In terms of the Code, what kind of separation distances between driveways on major arterials are we looking for? MR. HILTON-I think we touched on this before. The closest the Code calls for, I believe, is 330 feet. MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s what I read. Now, you know, this is three driveways within 258. That’s my dilemma here. I’m just trying to get out of the box. MR. LAPPER-And part of the answer is that, as Wendy was saying, that we have the 800 feet, and because of where the curb is, all these entrances are as far away from the curb. So in terms of site distance to that dangerous curve, it makes sense to stack the entrances away from that curve. There’s good sight distance both ways. So in terms of that safety issue, then the other issue, that there’s not going to be any curb cuts in that whole rest of the site because Rich is agreeing to one, and Wendy is saying that it’s going to work. MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to ask a practical question is, we give you this site layout. Rich starts to develop his, and Rich comes before us with his, and we say, Rich, you’ve got to be opposite 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) the McDonalds entrance and he says okay. That means you’re going to close your entrance down. MR. LAPPER-We’re not saying that. We’re saying we’re willing to look at it, but for all the reasons that we’re talking about tonight. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I thought you said that once he starts, that now you will agree to a. MR. LAPPER-We’re saying that, depending upon what he does, we’re agreeing that we’ll look at it, and we’re certainly going to add the access management. We’re not trying to fool you or get away with anything. It doesn’t work to enter a drive thru in the back and it doesn’t work to enter that site in the front to have a quick left turn at the front, regardless of what Rich does. TOM BURKE MR. BURKE-In all candor, you know, we’ve agreed to provide two additional connections, both to Mr. Schermerhorn’s remaining property and to Quaker Farms, internally from our site. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the one in the back. MR. BURKE-Yes, and another one between us and Quaker, which was suggested, I guess, the other day, and so that eliminates the need for a lot of people to go out and have to leave Schermerhorn’s site to come to ours. You can migrate internally, but it makes a lot more sense, from a safety standpoint, and I know that’s what Mr. Vollaro was addressing earlier, you know, the issue of the Dix Avenue impact, to have our driveway where it is, than to force people to come in, take a right, a left, and a right to get on to the Dunkin Donuts site. It looks pretty on paper, and maybe in theory it sounds good to talk about shared access, but the practical, the reality, the truth of the situation is that doesn’t work. This works, and there’s an expert who’s given you their opinion on that and demonstrated in black and white on the board as to why that is the case. I’m not here to trick you. I’m not here to lie to you. I’m not here to try and play games. MR. VOLLARO-We’re trying to work this out together. MR. BURKE-I agree, but I want you to bear in mind that I have agreed to provide internal access to both my neighbors on that site, and that will eliminate your concern, sir, about people having to go out and use Dix Avenue as a way to get from Point A to Point B. They can do it internally. MR. MAC EWAN-Where does the interconnect go to the Quaker Farms? I mean, where are you going with it? MR. LAPPER-That was only asked with the Staff notes that we got today. So it would go in the center of the site, because it would have to go. MR. MAC EWAN-But where does it go to, physically? MR. LAPPER-It would be an easement for a future, where their parking lot is. MR. MAC EWAN-But from the edge of that property line to the actual Quaker Farms parking lot, you’re probably talking maybe almost 200 feet of grass area and perennial beds that you go through. MR. BURKE-Well, if they redevelop that site, at some point in time, if and when that becomes something other than what it currently is. MR. ROBINSON-You’re saying there’s 200 feet, you were saying that from the edge of? 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. MAC EWAN-From the property line to the actual pavement of the parking lot of Quaker Farms. You’re talking roughly 150, 200 feet. There’s a heck of a big grass area between there with perennials in there. MR. ROBINSON-No, there isn’t. No. When you come in there, this line that’s running right on your, you probably have it on the plan you have right there, that’s the pavement. That’s the edge of pavement. It’s right there. It’s right off our property line within 10 feet. We did the test pits out there, it’s right there, and we would connect right in, probably after the drive thru, after the pick up window. So we would connect right, I don’t know, about 100 feet back, and that’s still all paved back there. It runs paved all the way back. MR. MAC EWAN-I apologize. I recall there being a big grass area, perennial bed there, along that portion of the property line. MR. ROBINSON-No, I don’t know. He was here earlier. I was going to. MR. VOLLARO-Larry, you would have to connect back of the retention (lost words). MR. LAPPER-That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-You’d have to get right to the rear of that, wouldn’t you? MR. LAPPER-Behind the retention pond and in front of the future septic replacement area. MR. SEGULJIC-Considering, I don’t know exactly what the deal is, but you’re only going to use a portion of a 20 acre site. Why, couldn’t we, the site is oriented north/south now. Couldn’t we locate it, orientate it east/west? Would that make a difference? Why doesn’t that work? MR. ROBINSON-We talked about reorienting the store and putting it different places on the site the last meeting we were at, and what happens is the way that the store is set up, the drive thru is on this left side of the building. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. I’m not talking about this particular piece. You have. MR. ROBINSON-No. What you’re saying is take this, the piece and make it long and narrow here? MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MR. ROBINSON-And what I’m saying is when you look at the plan down below and we look at stacking and getting around the drive thru and getting to the board, what happens is now you’ve brought that site down to where you can’t get that stacking, and you’re going to force people out onto Dix Avenue. You’re not going to be able to stack the cars that you need to get around. If you look at that plan down below, that’ll show you how many cars we need to fit to go out there, and that was a comment that, that’s why put this plan on here, and there’s plenty of room there for us, but if you starting taking that away, and we move that store up front, then you don’t have that stacking available. MR. VOLLARO-And while you’re on the topic of the drawing on the bottom, I noticed that the spaces to the east of the walkway, spaces on top of the drawing, essentially, if you do get 14 cars stacked, those parking spaces become useless. MR. ROBINSON-Somebody may have to wait. That’s right. That’s what would happen. From experience at other stores, it seldom happens, but if that does happen, that’s what happens. You have to wait, and there’s always the spaces on the other side, that if there’s not a space here, you can pull in along the property line to the east, or you can come around to the west side and pull in spaces there. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. VOLLARO-I heard your comment. You don’t see stacking. MR. BURKE-I’d love to have that problem. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand that. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we need to review both these simultaneously for SEQRA purposes. We typically go down through our checklist, but I’ll start with the Subdivision first, I guess. Does anybody have any questions relative to design standards, on subdivision? I mean, it’s going to be difficult. We’re going to bounce back and forth between these I’m sure. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. On design standards, I guess they’ve supplied a color rendition of the building. So the building should look exactly like Glen Street. I think there’s a comment in the. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re on site plan? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m doing subdivision. MR. VOLLARO-This is not a time to quibble, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I don’t know how to balance it, in that regard, I don’t know how to balance to try to do them both at the same time. So I just said we’d start with subdivision and then go down through that and then do site plan. All right? MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Go ahead. MR. MAC EWAN-If one intertwines with the other, that’s fine, because they do, I mean, as far as SEQRA goes. So if something overlaps and you want to ask a question relative to a site plan issue when we’re talking about subdivision, I don’t have a problem with that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Design standards on subdivision. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. There I think they’ve supplied a color rendition, and they make a statement in their application material that the building should look like Glen Street, and I think they’ve agreed with that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-We asked for a color rendition and they’ve supplied it. It looks right to me. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions on designs standards? Development criteria, site conditions, utilities, street design and layout, traffic and pedestrian access circulation? None? MR. RINGER-You’re on subdivision. MR. SEGULJIC-You’re on subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m on subdivision. MR. RINGER-It seemed like the only concern that we had generated on the subdivision was the actual driveway, and nothing else. If you want to go down the whole list. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m just going by categories. So if something jumps out. Stormwater/sewage design? 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. VOLLARO-I see the location of their septic field, and that’s fine. I don’t have any problem with that. MR. MAC EWAN-Buffering/landscape design? MR. RINGER-They’ve added the trees. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, they added the trees. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’ll flip over to site plan. Building design and layout, signage? MR. VOLLARO-I think I have one question on there. Where are the, let’s say for now we seem to be leaning toward the dedicated entrance. I think that’s where this is going, from what I can tell. A car comes in, handicap parking has to go all the way around the by-pass lane, all the way around to get into the handicap parking space. The handicap parking space should be on the other side of that. MR. ROBINSON-I guess one of the reasons for that, and this is typical on all the ones that we’ve done, Upper Glen, Moreau, all the ones we’ve done recently, is if for some reason there is a stacking, and it does block one of the parking spaces on that side, it’s available on this side for where there won’t be any blocking. MR. VOLLARO-But I think what the owner of the building, of the business is saying, he seldom sees that. You might have not, you might have done, stopped it at 12, eliminated a little controversy. I think that the handicap parking should be accessible when the handicap person drives in, and not have to go all the way around the site. MR. SANFORD-Well they’re probably handicapped because they can’t walk, not because they can’t drive. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that may be true. MR. ROBINSON-Realize they have to go around the whole site anyway, right. They either do it when they’re coming in, or they do it when they’re going out. MR. SANFORD-Plus it would be easier for them to back out of the handicap spot where it is now, rather than backing out where you’re proposing, Bob, if there is a queue line. MR. VOLLARO-Not necessarily. Take a look at what happens when I pick up my donuts, okay, and now I’m coming out of there, and we’ve got a conflict between the car that just came out of the pick-up and the handicap parking who’s trying to back out into that traffic. Back out into it. MR. ROBINSON-They do, yes. That traffic does stop periodically, although they try to get you through there quickly, you still have to stop at that outlet. MR. MAC EWAN-If you guys had carpooled together, you wouldn’t have the problem. MR. SANFORD-Do you still want to go forward with this, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I still think it ought to be on the other side, yes, definitely. I think it ought to be quickly accessible to the inbound traffic. That’s my opinion anyway. I’m out on the limb on that. MR. RINGER-Why not put a handicap on each side? I mean, you’ve got a lot of parking spaces. Put one on each side. MR. VOLLARO-There you go, Larry. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. RINGER-I mean, you’ve got a lot of parking there. So you could put one on each side and make everybody happy. MR. BURKE-Is that the only condition? MR. RINGER-I doubt it. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re only a third of the way through the list. MR. RINGER-Do you have a problem with putting one on both sides? MR. BURKE-No, I don’t. MR. RINGER-Then put them on both sides. MR. BURKE-Okay. MR. RINGER-That takes care of the question. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions relative to access/parking? Stormwater we’re okay on? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think stormwater, with the adding of that stormwater retention and discharge pond, I think that’s pretty flat out there. I have no stormwater problems. MR. RINGER-Did you signoff on it, Jim? MR. EDWARDS-Yes, everything with regard to site layout design we have. MR. MAC EWAN-Lighting? MR. HILTON-I just wanted to go back to parking. One of my comments was a parking calculation should be provided. This is a restaurant use, and we just want to make sure we’re not going over the 20%. I haven’t seen a parking calculation based on the number of seats, and employees, etc., as it’s listed in our Code, and I think that that was one of my. MR. MAC EWAN-Is it consistent with the Upper Glen Street? MR. HILTON-Well, I don’t know how many seats they’re going to have. I don’t know how many employees they’re going to have. I guess I need to know that. MR. LAPPER-We got that comment today, with the Staff notes. So we have response, we have some numbers, and it’s a question of what category it fits in. So we laid it out a couple of different ways. If you call this fast food, which isn’t what this has been considered, it would be like 100 spaces, which is nuts under the Code. MR. VOLLARO-I had the same problem trying to, will the real use please stand up, is my problem. MR. LAPPER-So there’s a provision in the Code that says that if doesn’t fit right into one box, the Planning Board can make a determination. MR. MAC EWAN-What did we do with the Upper Glen Street store? MR. LAPPER-Well, Upper Glen Street, we had a really small site, like an eighth of an acre, so we got by with 13 spaces there, but that’s really tight. That’s not optimum. Here we have, well, but you’d lose some because of the interconnect at the top. So you’re going to lose like three. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. ROBINSON-One of the things that we, I mean, we looked at different things, and there’s, you know, is a convenience store or a restaurant, a retail business, a combination, and we came up from anywhere, the requirements being somewhere from 12 to like Jon said 90 or something. One of the things that we had on Upper Glen Street, that there was some comments on at the hearings, and I think the Board had some comments on was the fact that we usually do cater to truckers and people who have vehicles that are larger than a regular car, and what we try to do is try to provide some excess parking for them, and that parking that’s along that east side is a place where there’s a stretch of pavement where we can get some truck parking. MR. MAC EWAN-Say that part again? What did you just say about the truck parking? MR. ROBINSON-On this east side here, we have a long expanse of parking. There’s 20 spaces here, and that would be a space that’s available for some trucks. There’d be some spaces there. They’re not the desirable spaces. Usually these spaces, the 12 that are around the sidewalk that goes into the front of the building are normally the ones that fill first, but if trucks come in with anything in tow, or something like that, and I think the Board was concerned about that on Upper Glen Street, and we’re trying to address it here. Back to how do we back into that, we were looking at a combination of either retail and restaurant or convenience store and restaurant, and that gives you between 25 and 30 spaces, and that’s what we would like to do. MR. LAPPER-In terms of the theory, the way this works, it’s not like a restaurant where all of the customers are accommodated, where they come and sit down and seats. There are only 26 seats. A lot of people come to the counter and pick up a box, get in their car and go. So it works as a retail, where you come in, you pick up and you leave, and also as a restaurant. It wouldn’t be enough to just address the 26 seats, because there’s plenty of people that come in and buy and leave. So we’re looking at a combination. We’re showing 32 spaces of which we’d lose about three for the interconnect in the back. One way that Garry did it, where he used the retail and the restaurant, it came to 25 spaces, and that would be fine, and we’d be happy if the Board felt that was right to cut it back to 25 spaces. I mean, Tom’s other store works with 13, but he just, since he has the land here, he’d rather make sure he doesn’t have a problem. MR. MAC EWAN-George, what’s your concerns? MR. HILTON-Well, with the previous, with the one on Glen Street, we looked at it as a restaurant, and again, as I know you’re aware, the Code says you can’t approve more than 20% without a variance, and I just want to make sure that we’re not going over that 20% threshold here. MR. VOLLARO-But the restaurant gives us an awful lot, I looked at the restaurant. It just doesn’t play at all. It turns us into close to 90 spaces, doesn’t it? MR. LAPPER-That’s fast food. MR. ROBINSON-That’s fast food. MR. HILTON-But if you’re looking at restaurant, which is the way I think we looked at it on Glen Street, you’re. MR. VOLLARO-Then you have to know the number of seats. MR. HILTON-Correct, and the number of employees. MR. RINGER-When I look at Broad Street, I go there quite a bit, and it’s always packed, and they don’t have enough over there. I’d rather really err on the side of more, considerably more than the less. MR. SANFORD-So would I, especially since they have peak hours. I’m sure in the morning you’re going to have a whole different pattern than you do in the afternoon. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. RINGER-You’re showing 32 and you’re going to lose three. So that would bring you down to 29. MR. VOLLARO-Twenty-nine spaces. MR. RINGER-Twenty-nine seems pretty good. MR. VOLLARO-I’m buying that myself, the 29 spaces looks okay to me. I think this is kind of a judgment call because we don’t have a hard rock piece of information to go on. MR. LAPPER-I’m just going to point you to this section which gives you some discretion, 179-4- 040(C), Off Street Park Schedule. The Off Street Parking Schedule is found in Table Five, which follows, parking requirements for uses not listed in this schedule shall be determined by the Planning Board which shall consider the requirements for the most similar uses in making its determination. MR. VOLLARO-And I think that’s what we just did here. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Now can I jump back to lighting? We’re all comfy with that? Lighting issues? Any? MR. RINGER-Just the entrance there seems pretty bright, but that’s probably a street light and something else there, but no problem. I don’t have any problem with it. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems like the lighting has been kept right down. Right to the property line. MR. RINGER-Yes, just the entrance is the only place that’s really bright. It’s a little bright, but there might be a street light there that throws that, too. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you respond to that, Jon. MR. LAPPER-Garry, the lighting, he’s saying it’s bright. MR. MAC EWAN-Right at the entrance, I mean, you’re looking at foot candles there of 5.2, 4.4., 4.0, and you go another, what, five feet and it drops down to zero. I don’t understand how it drops off that quickly, or why it needs to be that bright right there. MR. ROBINSON-Well, I think that one of the things he’s trying to do is that’s usually the place where we want to make the brightest, where people are coming in and accessing and exiting the site. What we do is we have a gentleman, Bob McWarmer from Looman Lighting Systems, and he does our lighting for us, and we had some different lights on the plan before, and at the last meeting we agreed that we would use these downcast lights and these are the same lights that we used on Upper Glen Street, and we just, pretty much from Upper Glen Street we do have an extra light right there at the front that lights that access a little better, that access, and one of the things we found at Upper Glen Street was it is a little dark in a couple of areas, and we just wanted to add that light right there, but how it gets from 5.2 down to .2 at the site is, you know, it’s got a shield on the back side there that keeps the light from spreading over off the property line, and those, I think, are included in the catalogue cuts that we provided. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you using the same fixtures throughout the site? MR. ROBINSON-All of these fixtures that are pole mounted are the same. That one in the front, that S-1, is a, I want to say it’s a different light distribution. I think one is a Type Four and the other ones are Type Two’s. I don’t know if you’re familiar with lighting, but a Type Four distribution is like a light that has like a circular distribution. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. ROBINSON-And the Type Two’s are like used for like a street light where it distributes out each side and goes each way, kind of lights a drive. Where here we’re lighting an area out in front, trying to light more of an area out in front. Once again, we’re dealing with, you know, a lighting specialist who, you know, we send the plans to and say, hey, we want to light this the best that we can within the Town requirements, and this is what he came up with. MR. MAC EWAN-Is it a different bulb that you’re using in S-1 as well? I mean, if I’m reading this right, because it looks like it’s kind of covered by the light, but is that, does that look like a 7.1 lumination under there, foot candles? MR. ROBINSON-Yes, I think it is. MR. MAC EWAN-And if you look at the ones that are off on the side, you know, in the drive aisle, S-2, S-2 fixtures. MR. ROBINSON-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-See the foot candles by them? There’s 1.0 and 1.7, which is basically almost right underneath it. That’s what’s confusing me, is why are those two lights up front so much different, as far as the flooding they’re putting out of lights, versus the ones in the drive aisles? MR. ROBINSON-Could be the light distribution, how it combines with the light that’s next to it, because they are different distributions. On the side here, with a Type Two distribution, the light is spread each way, so it’s a little less underneath it and a little more away from it. You kind of get a darker spot right underneath the spot because it spreads the distribution each side. MR. VOLLARO-I think what they’ve done on four of seven, is that what you’re looking at now, four of seven? MR. ROBINSON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-The lighting levels say it all, right in that little box I think. It talks about the horizontal luminants and the uniformity ratios. MR. ROBINSON-That’s right. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m just trying to understand it. I mean, if you look at the lights that are along that property line, the S-2 light fixtures as they’re labeled, when you look underneath the light, the lumination is relatively low, but if you look between the lights, the lumination goes way up. So they’re not downcast. They’re side cast. Yes, no? MR. ROBINSON-Well, they’re still downcast. It’s just the distribution is different. MR. VOLLARO-I think there’s a mix between the two fixtures is what’s giving you the difference in foot candles on the ground. You’re getting a mix. MR. ROBINSON-Yes. What happens is a Type Two distribution. If the light’s right here, the distribution, the foot candles, it kind of goes like this, and that’s where your brightest light is, so it tends to be a little darker underneath, and then a Type Four distribution, the light has a distribution that kind of goes out like this, so that it’s brighter in that area right underneath the light, and what he’s done is that’s where you’re coming out, and that’s where he feels that you need the most light is where you’re making those transitions to come in to the site, and turning to and from the site and turning on site here. I think that’s why he did that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions on lighting? Landscaping everybody okay on? 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. SEGULJIC-One thing. I think you did a good job adding the landscaping. However, more shade trees. MR. LAPPER-Yes. Staff asked for that, and we’ll add that. We agree to that. MR. SEGULJIC-What are you going to do for shade trees then? MR. ROBINSON-What we did is along the front we didn’t want to put too many there because we didn’t want to take away from any sight distance. So I think we added one along the front. I think the Code just required one, but we added one, and then on the side what we were doing is putting a bush that would be about four foot high, and we can add some trees down the sides, if you would like, so that we’d have some shade trees there. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I’d like trees on the east and north sides, red maples there. MR. ROBINSON-That would be fine. That would be fine. How many would you like down that side? MR. SEGULJIC-North and west. MR. ROBINSON-We didn’t really put anything on the north side because the property’s kind of, behind us it’s zoned industrial back there and we didn’t, I mean, if that, if you’d still like trees back there, we didn’t have trees back there because of that. We’ve kind of concentrated on the east and west. MR. SEGULJIC-And how far are the trees spaced in the front? There’s not a scale on this. MR. VOLLARO-They look pretty close to me. MR. ROBINSON-Well, it’s a 20 scale plan. So those trees are about maybe 60, 65 feet apart, in the front ones. Are you thinking that you want to go 65 feet down the side? That would be fine. On the north side, you’re saying this side back here, on the north side. MR. VOLLARO-Their septic field is right here. I just don’t see the need for, but, you know, hey. MR. ROBINSON-I mean, what we did is, if you look on that west side, what we did is we put some along this parking here, so from the road it was kind of obscured along there, and then we looked at side also because it’s open to the other parcel over there, and we kind of left that open, but, I mean, we can, you know, we can add some things that would make you happy. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. ROBINSON-Okay. So what do we want to add? We want to add down the east, okay, shade trees every 65 feet on the west side. We’ll put a shade tree up here. MR. LAPPER-Say approximately, so it doesn’t interfere with our access management. MR. ROBINSON-Yes, and then we’ll put a couple of shade trees in the back. Is that what you want? And then we’ll just leave the shrubbery where it is, the shrubbery where it is on that east side part, where it is up here on the east side we’ll leave that and then we’ll have it on the west side as shown. Okay. Fantastic. MR. MAC EWAN-George, just jump back to lighting for a second. In your Staff notes that your Staff recommends that all lights be downcast cut offs. MR. HILTON-That’s the way they’re shown. I think we’re just trying to reinforce that with a condition. 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Should this be approved, please bear in mind the new boilerplate that’s going on all our resolutions, draft resolutions, here on out, all lighting will be inspected by the Town prior to their erection, prior to the poles going up, on site, to make sure they’re right, what’s been approved are the right fixtures, the right bulbs in there. MR. BURKE-No problem. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions relative to landscaping? Environmental, neighborhood character? Anything else? Any involved agencies other than the A/GFTC? Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-No, but at some point I do have a question. MR. MAC EWAN-Go. MR. SCHACHNER-If the Board is going to entertain a potential condition relating to the adjacent property, which I understand to be owned by Mr. Schermerhorn, I have a concern about two things. One is Mr. Lapper has indicated certain things that Mr. Schermerhorn is prepared to put on the record. I don’t think that’s happened. My other concern is what about Mr. Schermerhorn’s successors? I’m not suggesting anything, but. MR. LAPPER-He’s an applicant, Mark. Because we have a subdivision which is in Rich’s name. So he’s an applicant on that application. They’re both. MR. SCHACHNER-On the subdivision. MR. LAPPER-On the subdivision, and they would be conditions on the subdivision plat. MR. SCHACHNER-And he’s an applicant? MR. LAPPER-And he’s an applicant. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. That addresses my concern. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments? MR. VOLLARO-I have one. I want to be clear in my mind, if we grant them the dedicated entranceway, as shown on One of Seven, Drawing One of Seven, we’ve got to recognize what we’re doing here is, the potential here is that we’re going to make Rich’s dedicated entrance opposite McDonalds entrance. Does everybody agree with that? MR. RINGER-That’s what Jon said Rich was going to agree to anyway. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So we’re agreeing, for a reason apparently, because of the sight distance that’s to the east is very, very poor, we are going to concentrate three curb cuts on Dix Avenue within 258 feet. Recognize what we’re doing here. Three curb cuts in 258 feet, and we’re doing that because the sight distance to the east is poor and we’re squashing these three down. I just want everybody to understand what we’re doing. MR. LAPPER-That’s not the only entrance to Quaker Farms, though. They have one on Quaker Road also. MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry. I’m talking Dix Avenue. MR. LAPPER-Right, but I mean, Quaker Farms has an entrance on. MR. MAC EWAN-But let him finish. 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. VOLLARO-There’s still a Quaker Farms entrance shown on this drawing that comes out onto Dix. MR. LAPPER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-So we have three curb cuts on Dix Avenue, potentially, within 258 feet. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-That’s where we are, and I just want the Board to understand that we’re doing that, and the reason we’re doing that is because the sight distance at the east is poor. Is everybody in agreement with that? MR. MAC EWAN-Then I’m all by myself. I’ll borrow John Strough’s limb tonight. MR. VOLLARO-My question is, I guess that that entrance will never go away, this entrance that we’re putting in now will never get an entrance opposite Dix Avenue that somehow feeds into this site. This entrance that’s here is in perpetuity. MR. RINGER-Well, it’ll feed into this site from the rear, but not. MR. MAC EWAN-Not necessarily. Because the applicant hasn’t agreed to that. The applicant said that they would take a look at it. MR. RINGER-From the rear, he’s agreed to come from the rear. MR. SANFORD-You’ve got to assume that it will not be changed. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. That’s what you have to presume. MR. VOLLARO-That it will not be changed, and that’s my assumption that it will not be changed. MR. MAC EWAN-What would be the point of, just humor me, of looking at it. MR. LAPPER-I guess depending on what Rich builds. MR. MAC EWAN-But you’re not agreeing to anything. All you’re agreeing to do is look at it. MR. LAPPER-No, because we think it’s going to mess up the stacking of the drive thru in the back or cars onto Dix Ave. in the front, and our job is to make it easy for you, to agree with you whenever we can. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m just asking. MR. VOLLARO-But the practical matter is once you’ve got your curb cut there, and, Rich, you’re not going to want to change that. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Somebody’s going to sit at the table and say, who’s going to pay me to make that change. MR. LAPPER-It’s not a money thing. He needs to make sure his customers are okay. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that, but, you know, somebody said follow the money. That was in the Year 1500, you know, but he was probably right. I just want to, in my mind know, that 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) we’ve got three curb cuts, which is really diametrically opposed to what the Transportation Council is saying we ought to do. MR. MAC EWAN-And it’s also in direct opposition of just good planning practices. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Period. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it is, and we’re agreeing to that, based on, and again, the weights are, put the conflict on Dix Avenue or put the conflict internally. MR. MAC EWAN-You know, I know I’m all by myself on this, but just go back to the history of this application, to some other applications we’ve looked at in the past, in the same proximity. We’ve looked at something even farther up the road closer to that bend, and we’ve all been concerned about the number of curb cuts that were going to be on that stretch of highway, and we were going to try to do everything that we could, as good planners, to keep them to a minimum. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Here you’re now sitting here tossing around the idea of having a subdivision and a site plan that’s going to add not one but two more to the mix. MR. VOLLARO-In 238 feet. That’s the real problem in my mind. MR. MAC EWAN-Enough said by me. Anything else to add? All right. I’d ask you to give up the table for a few minutes. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-Is this Long or Short? MR. RINGER-What did they submit? MR. MAC EWAN-I honestly don’t know. MR. RINGER-They submitted a Short. MR. HILTON-I believe there’s a Long Form with the subdivision. MR. RINGER-Yes, but they submitted a Short, although I might be looking at Site Plan. I’m looking at Site Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the pleasure, Long Form? MR. RINGER-The Long Form is called for in a subdivision. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s one SEQRA review for both. 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Right, but which one do you want us to use? They’ve submitted a Short Form with Site Plan and a Long Form with the subdivision. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, there should be a Part I of an Environmental Assessment Form that is the Part I, not the part you do but the part the applicant does, that addresses the Subdivision and the Site plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t know which it is, the Long Form or the Short Form. MR. LAPPER-We were asked to submit a Long Form afterwards, and we did. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. The applicant is indicating, and again, I don’t know if this is true, I don’t have these documents, that they’ve done a Long Environmental Assessment Form envisioning both aspects of the proposed action. MR. MAC EWAN-Do the Long Form. MR. HUNSINGER-The Long Form. “Will the Proposed Action result in a physical change to the project site?” MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Small to moderate. MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the impact, what item? MR. SCHACHNER-Chris is right. You can’t identify the magnitude until you identify the impact. MR. HUNSINGER-The examples are, “Construction on slopes of 15% or greater. Construction on land where depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. Construction of paved parking for 1,000 or more vehicles. Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Construction that will continue for more than one year or involve more than one phase or stage. Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 100 tons of natural material per year. Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. Construction in a designated floodway. Other impacts.” MR. VOLLARO-No, based on that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So no. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 2-2004 & 14-2004, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: DIX AVENUE PROPERTIES & NORTH STAR DONUT GROUP (DUNKIN DONUTS), 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: 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) 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 17 day of August, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic NOES: Mr. MacEwan MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Now, does someone want to introduce a motion for Preliminary subdivision. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2004 DIX AVENUE PROPERTIES, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 14.58 acre parcel into 2 lots of 1.23 acres and 13.35 acres. WHEREAS, the application was received April 23, 2004, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record. 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 May 18, 2004 and June 22, 2004 ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Preliminary Stage is hereby Approved and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plat submitted for the Planning Board Chairman’s signature and filing: 1. Waiver request(s) are granted [Sketch plan, Stormwater, Grading and Landscaping Plan] 2. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 3. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. Duly adopted Tuesday, August 17, 2004 by the following vote: MR. RINGER-I think maybe we ought to have some discussion on that, because I think Rich was supposed to, the applicant, Rich was supposed to come through and say that he agreed to. MR. MAC EWAN-Now’s not the time to ask, Larry. We’ve got a vote going. MR. RINGER-Well, before the discussion. We can have discussion on it. MR. MAC EWAN-You’ve got a vote going on it, though, right in the middle of a vote. MR. RINGER-Yes, but I’m saying we started the vote, but we can stop the vote and have discussion on the motion. MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s not, procedurally, not the right way to do it. MR. RINGER-Okay. Well, I don’t have a problem with it, but I think that we had previously said that Rich was going to agree to, but go ahead. I’ll vote yes, but I think we could have a problem with that. MR. LAPPER-I’m his agent. AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic NOES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan MR. MAC EWAN-Motion for Final? MR. METIVIER-Can we talk about that now? MR. MAC EWAN-Introduce the motion and tack on whatever you want as conditions. MR. METIVIER-Well, let’s think about it. Larry? MR. RINGER-No, I’m just concerned that we should have done this before we started it, but go ahead and make your motion. I’m good with it. MR. HUNSINGER-The only condition is that each lot should have only one curb cut onto Dix Avenue. The larger, 13.35 acre lot, curb cut shall be immediately across from the curb cut to McDonalds and the shopping center on the south side of Dix Avenue. MR. LAPPER-One for Rich, one for Dunkin Donuts. MR. RINGER-Can’t you just say that the remaining parcels shall only have one curb cut? 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. LAPPER-And it’s fine to say where he wants it, too. MR. RINGER-They may look at it, but they’re not going to be forced to do it. MR. METIVIER-Didn’t we talk about them coming back at one point? MR. MAC EWAN-Remember my little lovely exchange with Mr. Lapper that said, well, what do you mean by we’d look at it? That’s what it means. They’ll look at it. Their intention is they don’t ever want to do it. MR. SANFORD-Don’t even put it in. MR. METIVIER-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2004 DIX AVENUE PROPERTIES, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 14.58 acre parcel into 2 lots of 1.23 acres and 13.35 acres. WHEREAS, the application was received April 23, 2004, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record. 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 May 18, 2004 and June 22, 2004 ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Final Stage is hereby Approved and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plat submitted for the Planning Board Chairman’s signature and filing: 1. Waiver request(s) are granted [Sketch plan, Stormwater, Grading and Landscaping Plan] 2. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 3. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. 4. Each lot shall have only one curb cut onto Dix Avenue. 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) 5. The larger, 13.35 acre lot, the curb cut shall be immediately across from the curb cut at McDonalds, and the shopping center plaza to the south side of Dix Avenue. Duly adopted Tuesday, August 17, 2004 by the following vote: MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to qualify my no vote by saying that the reason I’m voting no is that we’re placing three dedicated driveways and curb cuts on Dix Avenue within a 258 foot run, which is pretty contradictory to what Glens Falls Transportation Council and our own Staff has recommended. AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone introduce a motion for Site Plan. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 14-2004 NORTH STAR DONUT GROUP (DUNKIN DONUTS), Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Applicant proposes to construct a 2300 +/- sq. ft. Dunkin Donuts facility and associated site improvements. WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comments, and application materials in the file of record, and 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 June 22, 2004; 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, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby Approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. Copy of required Notice of Intent to be submitted prior to issuance of Building Permit. 69 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) 2. All light fixtures shall be inspected by Planning Staff prior to installation. 3. That there shall be dedicated handicapped spaces on both sides of the proposed concrete walk in the spaces immediately closest to the store. 4. The applicant will add two additional street shade trees on the north side of the property line and additional street shade trees approximately every 65 feet on the west side of the property line. 5. That all lighting fixtures shall be inspected by the Town on site prior to installation. Duly adopted Tuesday, August 17, 2004 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. ROBINSON-Thank you. MR. BURKE-Thank you very much. I appreciate the Board’s time and consideration and we’ll do a great job for you. Thanks again. MR. MAC EWAN-George, I didn’t even look in the draft resolution, but we’ve got that in there now, that boilerplate in there about light inspections? MR. HILTON-Yes. It should be. It’s in there now. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 10-1994 MOD. SEQRA TYPE: SEQRA IS COMPLETED LOGGER’S EQUIPMENT OWNER(S): WILLIAM BUCKINGHAM ZONING: LI LOCATION: 435 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN BY CONSTRUCTING A 6,000 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ALONG WITH A NEW 1,600 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE BUILDING. MODIFICATION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLANS REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 32- 2004, SPR 11-89 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MAY 12, 2004 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY N/A LOT SIZE: 3.93 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.16-1-82.1 SECTION: 179-4-020 CHARLIE JOHNSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes, George. MR. HILTON-Really quickly. This item has been, well, the plan has been amended per our previous comments, and I think the only outstanding issue is any engineering comments that may be out there, and with that that’s all I have, unless you have any questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. JOHNSON-Good evening. My name is Charlie Johnson. I’m here representing Bill Buckingham with Logger’s Equipment, and we’ve got a pretty straightforward simple project here, and we’d like to add 5600 square feet of additional truck repair space to an existing business that’s been in Queensbury since 1994. We’re also going to be adding a small standalone 1600 square foot storage building. We’ve met all the Town’s comments, changed our project considerably through zoning. So we’re here tonight. The other aspect of this is that we’re looking for a waiver of parking. Zoning requires 44 parking spaces. We’ve got a very low use for parking. We have a need for 20 parking spaces, per Staff, which leaves another five 70 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) for the retail people to come and go. We’ve got an existing 25 spaces. We show plans for an additional 19 and we have room for the 19, but we’re asking at this point not to be required to install those 19 as there’s no real need for them. At this point, I’d ask the Town to approve our site plan. I’d be happy to answer any questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone have any questions? It seems pretty simple and straightforward. MR. VOLLARO-The letter from C.T. Male of May 20, 2004, was that, has that been, I think it’s your May 20, I notice that the final signoff has not been received on the latest Staff notes. th MR. JOHNSON-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Dated August 17 it says the final signoff from C.T. Male has not been th received. MR. EDWARDS-Right. We haven’t actually signed off on it yet. We have another comment letter of July 20, 2004. MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t have the July 20 letter on Logger’s. I don’t know why I don’t have that, but I don’t. Does anybody else have a July 20 letter from C.T. Male? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think so. MR. EDWARDS-The first letter was April 5, 2004, I think it was. MR. VOLLARO-Right, then May 20. MR. EDWARDS-Right. MR. VOLLARO-And after that, I don’t see anything else. MR. EDWARDS-Everything falls back to that first April 5 letter, as far as whether they’re th addressed or not, and the last one put out was July 20. I thought you folks all got a copy of th that. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t. MR. EDWARDS-It was ongoing stuff regarding grading, drywell design, three inch calculations, parking and things like that, and as of 8/12/04, they did satisfactorily respond to our comments. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So essentially we have a signoff from C.T. Male. MR. EDWARDS-At this point, yes, you do. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you all set? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments? Does somebody want to move it? MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 10-1994 LOGGER’S EQUIPMENT, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: 71 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) Modify a previously approved site plan by constructing a 6,000 sq. ft. addition to an existing light industrial building along with a new 1,600 sq. ft. warehouse building. Modifications of previous approved site plans require the approval of the Planning Board. WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and 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 Tuesday, August 17, 2004; 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, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby Approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: Duly adopted this Tuesday, August 17, 2004 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. JOHNSON-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m sorry you had to sit there so long for a five minute ordeal. MR. JOHNSON-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 12-2003 FINAL STAGE SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED QUEENSBURY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP. AGENT(S): TOM NACE OWNER(S): WARREN COUNTY ZONING: LI LOCATION: QUEENSBURY AVENUE APPLICANT PROPSES TO SUDIVIDE 72.4 ACRES INTO 10 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1.9 TO 11.4 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: N/A LOT SIZE: 72.43 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.12-1-9 SECTION: 183 SUB. REGS TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT 72 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-This is essentially the same subdivision we saw at Preliminary. The only outstanding issue, I believe is, if there are any engineering comments, and that’s all I have on this at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Jim, are you all set with it? MR. EDWARDS-The same story here. August 13 we did sign off on this project. th MR. VOLLARO-Yes. We’ve got that one. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. NACE-Good evening. Tom Nace, for the record, representing QEDC. Nothing to add. Go ahead and approve and we’ll be out of here. MR. MAC EWAN-No questions? Move it, then. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 12-2003 QUEENSBURY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP., Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Applicant proposes to subdivide 72.4 acres into 10 light industrial lots ranging in size from 1.9 to 11.4 acres. WHEREAS, the above is supported with the all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record. 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 at Preliminary Stage of review, 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 which shall be listed on the final plat submitted for the Planning Board Chairman’s signature and filing: 1. Waiver request(s) are granted [Sketch plan, Stormwater, Grading and Landscaping Plan] 2. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 73 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) 3. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. 4. A copy of the required Notice of Intent (NOI) shall be submitted prior to filing the final plat. 5. Prior to the Town’s acceptance of the proposed road, proof that the 14.5 acres north of Lot Number Seven has been merged with the adjacent lands of Warren County and that shall be submitted to the Town of Queensbury. 6. An easement is required from NiMo for the road passing over NiMo property. Duly adopted Tuesday, August 17, 2004 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Hunsinger MR. NACE-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 48-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II PHILIP HAAKENSON AGENT: MICHAEL O’CONNOR OWNER: HERB AND GERALDINE WASSEY ZONING: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: 58 REARDON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 117 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RESIDENCE. EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES IN A CEA (GLEN LAKE CEA) REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 56-2004 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY N/A LOT SIZE: 0.50 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.7-1-16 SECTION: 179-4-30 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-This is before you. It’s an expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA, and it appears that the only issue with this is possibly stormwater. The applicant has shown a stone line trench around the proposed addition, and I guess my only question is, what’s the capacity of that to store the stormwater. As I have mentioned, no calculations have been provided. I suppose we could talk about it this evening. We have our engineer here. I’m assuming, and I would guess that it’s probably adequate, but I can’t answer that, and that’s my only question. Other than that, it looks like a pretty straightforward application. MR. O’CONNOR-Michael O’Connor, for the purpose of your record, with Phil Haakenson, who is a contractor for the owner, Herb and Geraldine Wassey. It’s a pre-existing house. It’s a nine by thirteen one room addition. It’s going to be a peaked roof, and what’s proposed for the stormwater is eave trenches. It’s a crawl space. So that we can fill the eaves trenches down to the basement, or down to the bottom of the footing. You’re talking about an area nine foot by seven and a half foot for each of the two eaves trenches. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems pretty straightforward, actually. Jim, do you have any issues with the stormwater? MR. EDWARDS-I saw this (lost words) here for the first time, but it looks like there’s a two foot wide by four foot deep down to the footing line, as the trench. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, right. MR. EDWARDS-And that wraps from the entire addition, the nine by thirteen on the three sides? 74 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. O'CONNOR-No. We can do it around the three sides, but actually the roof sheds only two sides. I think you’d do it the front and the back of that little room. Why would you do it on the side? MR. EDWARDS-Pitch them down to both sides of the roof? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. EDWARDS-And drain through. Okay. What’s that, Number Two stone with a fabric wrapped around it? Is that what you’ve got here? It doesn’t show that. You’ve got to show a fabric wrapping around that stone. I’d be happy with that. There’s no calcs, but I would think that’s going to be big enough. MR. MAC EWAN-So you want it fabric wrapped? MR. EDWARDS-Yes, I did want to see the fabric around it, just so you don’t get the migration of (lost word) inside that infiltration trench. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Now, I’ll open it up for questions. MR. SANFORD-What we were talking about, Craig, a little while ago, was there was some confusion on the site. I think we were thinking more in terms of the place we saw on Lake George, which is next week. This one, this is pavement going right to the house, and we were thinking that the addition would be there, but I see from your drawing it’s off to the side. That’s fine. There’s no real issues that I have. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t have any either. This Area Variance was really for that 15 feet? MR. O'CONNOR-It was for six inches on the front and three feet six inches on the side. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Something to that effect. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s the relief. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, that was the reason for the Area Variance, 49.9 or something like that from the lake, and it’s supposed to be 50 feet, and the side is supposed to be 20 and it’s 16, 16 and change. MR. VOLLARO-This is pretty straightforward. I don’t have any comments on this. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to move it? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 48-2004 PHILIP HAAKENSON, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: 75 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) Construct a 117 sq. ft. addition to an existing residence. Expansion of nonconforming structures in a CEA (Glen Lake CEA) requires site plan review and approval from the Planning Board. WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and 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 Tuesday, August 17, 2004; 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, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby Approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. That filter fabric be wrapped around the stone envelope which is infiltration trench. Duly adopted this Tuesday, August 17, 2004 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 45-2001 MODIFICATION SEQRA TYPE: SEQRA IS COMPLETED WALLACE R. HIRSCH AGENT(S): JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS OWNER: WALLACE R. HIRSCH ZONING: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: BIRDSALL ROAD EXTENSION APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY A PREVIOUS SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW SITE EXCAVATION AND EARTH REMOVED. MODIFICATIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLANS REQUIRE APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.86 ACRES, 0.78 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-44 AND 45 SECTION: 179-4-030 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-Well, this is seeking modification. There’s been some fill, I guess, placed down an embankment near their pond area, and they’re seeking to keep that there, and additionally they’re looking to kind of continue hauling out fill, or material, earth material from this site. I had mention that a comment from the Highway Department was anticipated. At this point I 76 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) haven’t seen any. I’m going to check the file here to see if we did receive any, as far as their comments on a schedule, but that’s really all I have, I guess, at this point. MR. VOLLARO-I think we need a Highway letter that just says all here is okay. Is that what you’re looking for, George? MR. HILTON-Well, at least their comments. MR. RINGER-There’s a lot of comments from Jim on it, though. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, his C.T. Male letter of August 10 has several issues that I think have to be, th have they been resolved now? MR. SCHACHNER-Also, isn’t this an application that the Highway Department previously has said year round hauling was not okay? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. RINGER-Well, they gave them a timeframe that they wanted. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s what I’m saying, it wasn’t year round. MR. VOLLARO-It wasn’t year round. We could haul when the roads were frozen. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the last I got. MR. SCHACHNER-Same here. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-And now I think we need Highway to say that all year is okay. Is that what we’re looking for? MR. JARRETT-Well, unfortunately we don’t have a copy of the letter in our file. Wally Hirsch spoke with the Highway Department and would have been able, tonight, to report to the Board on his conversation. We don’t have a copy of the letter. The Highway Department has supposedly given permission to haul year round because the condition of the road. MR. HILTON-I can read it. I can read the letter. It’s from Mike Travis to the Planning Board, or Craig MacEwan. It’s dated June 22. It says, “Mr. Hirsch has requested to use Birdsall Rd. nd for the removal of material from his property. Our initial concern was the integrity of the road. We had just paved with a binder when they wanted to use the road. Almost 3 years have past since we paved. At this time we feel there should not be a problem with Mr. Hirsch utilizing Birdsall Rd. This should expedite the removal of the material and put an end to this situation. If you have any questions, please contact me.” MR. VOLLARO-That satisfies that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. It seems pretty simple and straightforward. MR. VOLLARO-I think the only thing outstanding is the letter from C.T. Male dated August 10. They had some significant comments in that letter. I’m just wondering if it’s been th resolved, if all of the stuff, by telephone or whatever. MR. EDWARDS-That’s what we’re trying to get through right now. Our comments were dated August 10. Tom came back with a memo of yesterday’s date, and we’ve gone through these th and tried to resolve them all. I’ve just got a few questions that are outstanding in regards to 77 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) these comments. Do you want to go through those one by one, or do you want to have us resolve those at some later time? MR. MAC EWAN-Summarize, however you want to do it. MR. EDWARDS-It’s mostly grading issues, grading outside the property lines shown on the plans. There’s some grading limits that are going to be extending beyond the north side and the south side that need to be, I guess, at least firmed up with the property owners that adjoin those two parcels. MR. JARRETT-Actually, I think the north side is the only side where there was grading shown off the plan, and that was originally approved by this Board, and then I understand from tonight that that adjoining property owner requested modifications and disturbance on their property, and that’ll be cleaned up as part of our process. I think actually Mike represents the buyer for that property. So I think that’s a minor issue at this stage and it’ll be cleaned up by us when we finish our site grading. It was initiated previously, and the owner of that property asked for that. MR. O'CONNOR-Is that the Cooley property? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-I represent the seller, not the buyer, but the buyer is aware of the project and hasn’t made any objection to it. We made them aware of it, as part of the process. I can’t tell you who they are as I sit here. Milnes. It’s Milne’s daughter from Glen Lake. MR. VOLLARO-What are we doing about that NiMo right of way. Is that? MR. EDWARDS-That was a question. I mean, the south side, Tom, there’s a contour shown there that does indicate there might be some grading to the south side, outside the, what is that, the Pittenger property? On the south side there. MR. JARRETT-The south side is where the wall is, and I think Jim Houston brought that issue up, and actually that wall gets removed as part of this process, and the site, our grade will match the neighbor’s grade in the end. So the wall will no longer be necessary, if that’s what you’re referring to. MR. EDWARDS-The wall on the south side? Where is this wall? I don’t really see a wall here anyplace. MR. JARRETT-The south side is Cooley. That’s the one we just discussed, and that’s the grading that was necessary on that property from the original approval, and then they requested further work on their property, after that original approval. The north side is the one where the wall is. That’s Dineen. MR. EDWARDS-Yes. I mean, they’re both showing some encroachment there with grading, that’s all. That’s what my question is, and do you have those issues resolved, as far as getting the approval from the owners to do that? MR. JARRETT-Dineen I’m saying we don’t actually have to encroach on Dineen at all, and Cooley has requested the work on their property. We don’t show any encroachment on Dineen at all on our site plan. We only show it on Cooley on the south, and they’re the ones who requested it. MR. EDWARDS-The north, that’s what was a little bit confusing. I couldn’t quite tell what was going on there with the contour lines. It kind of stopped at the property line. If you follow the contour lines through there, it looks like there might be something going on there, but it’s, it wasn’t clear, I guess. 78 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. JARRETT-Well, the contour lines from the original site plan are confusing, unfortunately, and that is a little bit confusing, that issue. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re looking at Sheet 2, is that what you were looking at? MR. EDWARDS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the shared driveway starts on the neighbor’s property. That’s part of the problem. MR. JARRETT-Yes, actually that would be removed as part of this, following this project, that shared use would be removed. MR. O'CONNOR-They’ve had, that whole neighborhood has had, at least they have the historical right of ways which run all over, and that’s why you see the different roads shown on there. Some of those are historical right of ways that have not actually been in use. They have two, what they tried to be all encompassing modification of right of way agreements, and my full expectation is that when this thing gets done they’re going to have to do a third all encompassing right of way to figure out exactly where they want the road to run and not run, as opposed to where it’s historically run, but that’s something that they’ve got to work out, once the land gets leveled. MR. JARRETT-Now, Jim Houston also had thought that we were modifying Birdsall Road Extension, which accesses three properties to the north, and we’re not. That’s not being touched. MR. HUNSINGER-I think one of the biggest concerns that we had was the depositing of the boulders, cobbles and whatever else on the, over the bank. MR. JARRETT-I understand. The Hirsch’s could have spoken to that, but when they discovered that was happening, through partially the Town, partially themselves, that was terminated, stabilized, and you have pictures in your package of how it was left, and the only thing we can do is stipulate that there would be no further dumping at all, no further action on that slope at all. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess the question would be, how do we know that that’s going to be adhered to? Because that was a condition of the original approval. MR. JARRETT-Well, the original contractor who did it has been released, fired, a new contractor is going to be brought on board. You can condition it upon us keeping an eye on it, and we’ll report on that. MR. VOLLARO-It’s been stabilized. When we looked at it I could see the stabilization, the cobbles are small to try to stabilize that hill. It’s there. You’re not going to change that. MR. JARRETT-I think we’re going to create more damage by trying to remove it now, and I’m stating on the record that the Hirsch’s are going to be diligent in trying to make sure that there’s no further impact there. MR. RINGER-How does the Town feel, George, with just having it stabilized. I mean, the Town’s the one that put the Stop Work Order on it. MR. HILTON-I guess I can’t speak completely. I didn’t issue the Stop Work Order, but I think that that was done because it was outside of the bounds of what was originally approved. MR. RINGER-Right. 79 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. HILTON-Certainly it isn’t part of the original, or wasn’t part of the original proposal. At the same time, do you want to minimize further damage and just stabilize what’s there? I guess that’s the question. I don’t know. MR. RINGER-I don’t know. I’m wondering who should take a look at that to make sure stabilization is the right way or should it be removed? I don’t know. MR. MAC EWAN-Is it a DEC violation? MR. HILTON-Well, I don’t think that it’s going to be considered a DEC wetland or anything. So I’m not sure if they’d have any jurisdiction, as far as that’s concerned, and it’s not, you know, mining or extensive filling where I think they’d get involved. I don’t know. MR. JARRETT-I don’t believe there was any filling of the wetland. MR. VOLLARO-No, it didn’t go down that far. MR. JARRETT-It did not look like it to me. There’s possibly a couple of stray boulders that rolled into the wetland, but there was no real filling in the wetland that I saw. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s their intention with what they’ve got, the mess they’ve got now? Are they going to seed it, sod it? MR. JARRETT-They’re going to landscape the top of the hillside, and from a stormwater perspective, that’s what we plan to do. There’s no real plan right now to do anything to that hillside except let it fill in naturally with vegetation, and it will eventually. MR. RINGER-Over all that rock and stuff? MR. JARRETT-It will eventually. MR. MAC EWAN-Eventually is like how many years? MR. JARRETT-Not in six months. Probably a few years. MR. RINGER-A lot of that, as I read it, was stumps and stuff they put down there, too. Won’t that rot? MR. JARRETT-The stumps were removed. They were removed. MR. RINGER-The stumps were removed? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. RINGER-I was thinking if the stumps were there and if the stumps rotted, that would change. MR. JARRETT-There’s some soil underneath, but the stumps were removed that were illegally dumped there. They were removed and then rock was placed. MR. RINGER-Yes. I just don’t know who should look at that to say, hey, what they’d done is okay and leave it, or should something else be done? I don’t have a clue, and I don’t know, you know, I’m asking Staff who does. MR. EDWARDS-All you’d see is the top surface anyway. You couldn’t really, without getting a backhoe out there, know what’s underneath. MR. RINGER-Leaving it isn’t going to harm it anymore, or doing it more harm than? 80 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. JARRETT-Have you seen the pictures, Jim? MR. EDWARDS-Yes, I think the surface looks fine. Just some heavy, is that just natural stone that was pulled out? That’s not crushed stone, is it? MR. JARRETT-No. It’s strained from the hillside that was. MR. MAC EWAN-How soon before they want to get back to work? MR. JARRETT-Right away, really. They need to get in there and start moving. They could wait until after Labor Day pretty easily, but they don’t want to wait much beyond that. MR. RINGER-They’ve been working on it for two years now, or three years. MR. JARRETT-Well, they haven’t been working on it since the last four or five months. MR. RINGER-Is Pittenger out of this now? I see the application is just Hirsch. MR. JARRETT-This site plan is for Pittenger and Hirsch. They planned it. MR. RINGER-But all the new stuff says just Hirsch, and the application itself now has Hirsch and not Pittenger on it anymore. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That’s because Hirsch is building a proposed building. I suspect that’s the reason for that. MR. JARRETT-Hirsch is going to go in and once this hillside’s removed and they want to build their new house. We don’t know what Pittenger’s plans are, beyond removal of this hillside. MR. RINGER-Well, the original application was approved for Pittenger and Hirsch. I don’t know, now we’ve got, you know, is Pittenger out of this? I don’t know. I guess I’ve got to look to Counsel. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got the same problem. I have a question, Mark, against Pittenger’s name on my notes that this now seems to be a site plan, not necessarily just reviewing cutting down this hill, but there are drawings here that talk about the proposed future relocation of the year round residence. MR. SCHACHNER-Which is the Hirsch residence, I believe. MR. VOLLARO-Which is the Hirsch residence. MR. SCHACHNER-Not the Pittenger. Yes, I mean, Larry’s absolutely right. The original application, as I recall the applicant was both. It was a joint application for both. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand there were some violations, a Stop Work Order issued. To get back to Larry’s question, I mean, there are two avenues or actually more than two, but a couple of obvious avenues for deciding whether you want this hillside either left as is or more done with it. One is you’ve got the applicant, or at least one half of the applicant group, here before you now seeking, I gather, site plan approval or modification of a previous site plan approval. So you’ve got an opportunity now to, you know, to have what you feel needs to be done with that hillside. If the Board doesn’t really know what that should be, you can either look to C.T. Male or to some landscape architect or to Staff or somebody to make a recommendation. I don’t mean this moment, I mean, you know, between now and next week or next month. The other option is Town Board has certain enforcement capabilities obviously. Town Board, not you, not the Planning Board, to follow up on violations, but it seems like everybody’s here, or the relevant players seem to be here. It’s up to you. 81 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. O'CONNOR-I think the modification or the leaving of Pittenger off is not intentional, because I think some of this work is to be done on their property. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, what’s the deal with showing the proposed house on there? I mean, it was never entered previously. I mean, when we first approved this thing, it was basically, for all practical purposes, a mining operation, removing a hill. MR. JARRETT-That’s all the application is now. The house was shown just for the Board’s understanding as to what, you know, was going to happen in the future. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t want it to be perceived, if we grant a modification to this, that any kind of reference that we’re approving a house or something on there to be built. MR. JARRETT-It says proposed future relocation of year round residence. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think you need to approve the new construction. New construction, so I don’t think you need site plan approval. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, that was my question was whether the residence requires site plan approval or not. MR. MAC EWAN-It will because it’s in a CEA. MR. HILTON-Not unless it’s an expansion. If it’s a brand new construction and it meets the setbacks, regardless if it’s in a CEA, it can just go forward with a building permit. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s compliant. It doesn’t need. MR. O'CONNOR-It has necessary variances which would make it compliant. MR. SCHACHNER-Already has the variances? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it does. MR. RINGER-But if that was the case, you’ve already got a camp down below and you built a house on that, you’d have two houses on one lot. MR. O'CONNOR-The house is being removed. The camp is being removed. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s stick with the removal of the hill here for a minute. MR. O'CONNOR-I think that’s all that we are asking for. MR. VOLLARO-Well, when you’re sitting by yourself, Craig, you know that, when you’re sitting by yourself on your dining room table trying to figure this out, that doesn’t come through. MR. O'CONNOR-I’m sitting here, I’m trying to figure it out. I did the variances and they wanted me to sit in on this part of it. I’m familiar with the variances. I’m familiar with the neighborhood, and what the neighborhood is trying to accomplish. MR. JARRETT-The history of this is that we need, excuse me, if I could interrupt. The history of this was that we were coming in with a brand new site plan showing all the Hirsch improvements, and Staff recommended that we go back and show just the original site plan, but that we show the Board what the intent for the property was. Now maybe we muddied the water. Maybe that’s my fault. 82 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. MAC EWAN-No. Personally, I’m comfortable with the situation with the proposed house. I want to be comfortable with the fact that we’re not getting into legal gray areas, having the Pittenger name taken off this application. I mean, we’re modifying a previously approved site plan that had two people who were applicants. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct, co-applicants. Correct. MR. JARRETT-Yes, the intent was to have both, and the drawing labels both. I guess the only thing we’re lacking is Pittenger’s signature. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, are you all the authorized agents for Pittenger? MR. O'CONNOR-Why don’t we ask, as a condition of approval, that we bring in his signature, and that’ll clear it up, Pittenger. MR. SCHACHNER-By Pittenger, that your authorization is for Pittenger? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that okay with you? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, that seems appropriate. MR. O'CONNOR-We can bring in a signature by him. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I just want to make sure we’ve got our T’s crossed and our I’s dotted. That’s all. Anything else? MR. EDWARDS-On those NiMo lines that are there now, they’re dropping the hill, how many feet is it now, 10, 20 feet? MR. JARRETT-It’s about 20, 25 feet. MR. EDWARDS-Twenty feet. Just physically when you drop those power poles down, now, with those lines, are they going to be kind of brushing against that hillside, if you will? MR. JARRETT-NiMo is reconfiguring that whole situation. They’re setting a brand new pole elsewhere, to accommodate those properties. MR. EDWARDS-I think they have to. If you’re dropping that far, you have to do something with that whole, what is it, just power and telephone in there or something, or what’s carried in those? MR. JARRETT-I believe it’s both, yes. MR. EDWARDS-That’s being pursued with NiMo right now then? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. EDWARDS-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-We’re just dealing with the hill. MR. RINGER-If we approve this, what about the, are we approving what they’ve done on the south side or? I still am not sure if we know. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m just going to reiterate. I think if you have troubles, and from what I’ve heard and seen, it may be appropriate that you want to impose some condition of mitigation on 83 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) what’s been done there, and you certainly have an opportunity to do that, and if you don’t have enough information to do that, you need to get that information. MR. RINGER-Well, I just don’t know. I just have no idea if they leave that, and. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s what I meant by not having enough information. You can look to C.T. Male or to Staff or to a landscape architect or somebody if you want to have some mitigation there. MR. EDWARDS-What was the actual violation, if I can? MR. MAC EWAN-They were not supposed to dump on the wetland side of the road, period. MR. EDWARDS-Okay, on one side of the road then. Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-And a whole bunch of stuff was dumped there. MR. MAC EWAN-And as the photographs show, there’s a lot that’s been dumped over there. MR. JARRETT-Quite a bit was dumped there, and some of it was removed as remediation. MR. VOLLARO-They took the stumps out. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I personally would feel comfortable approving this thing if that was immediately stabilized and, you know, seeded, you know, brought in fill. I don’t want to say topsoil, to surface it and seed it to get it going, not wait for three years or whatever for natural vegetation to show up. MR. VOLLARO-I looked at it. Frankly, in my judgment, I don’t see anything wrong with it the way it is now. It certainly shouldn’t have been done, but I think taking the stumps out and putting the small cobbles down did the job, and going in there with anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, if you tried to take it out, I think you’d be creating a bigger problem than what you’ve got now. MR. VOLLARO-Even distributing topsoil over the top of it. MR. MAC EWAN-My only concern is trying to stabilize it somehow so, you know, runoff sediment from the road and stuff doesn’t eventually get into the wetland. So you would want to try to stabilize it, I would think, in some form. MR. JARRETT-Our plan with the house construction is to provide some stabilization of the top of that bank and keep stormwater on the. MR. MAC EWAN-But honestly, though, the way that this whole project has progressed, this is, what, a couple of years now, on this thing. MR. RINGER-Three years. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, at least three. MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t know how long before he’s going to get around to doing his house. MR. JARRETT-I was just going to say, if you want to condition that now that we do that now, that’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s my thoughts. I don’t know how the rest feel about it. 84 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. JARRETT-I don’t see, I don’t think the Hirsch’s have a problem with that because we’ve advised them to do that. MR. O'CONNOR-My understanding is that they’re waiting for, they have their other home sold, and they’re waiting for Labor Day to accommodate the neighbors, and as soon as Labor Day comes and it quiets down a little bit, they’re going to go full guns with this thing. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, what can we do about that bank right now, where all the stones are rolled over it? MR. O'CONNOR-Labor Day is three weeks away. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, again, in fairness to the applicant, I’m sure everything the applicant is saying is their best information now, but remember, you can’t bank on that. I mean, he can’t represent that this absolutely will happen the day after Labor Day. So, that’s their best intention, you know, fine. If you want, all I’m saying is, you have an opportunity. If you want to require this seeding, if that’s appropriate, and again, that’s not my call, obviously, this is the time to do that. MR. MAC EWAN-Jim, how do you feel about that? MR. EDWARDS-It looks fairly stable, based on the size of the stone that’s been dumped over the side. It looks stable. Why don’t we do this. We’ll put a letter together, some kind of a signoff letter, and we’ll give you a recommendation on that, too, but you want something now, probably, don’t you? MR. JARRETT-You would visit the site with us? MR. EDWARDS-I’d hate to spend the time to do that, but I guess we could, yes. We could do that real quick. MR. JARRETT-I mean, I could stipulate right now that seeding I don’t think would be inappropriate. Spreading topsoil there I would be concerned with. I think that might have a chance to wash. MR. VOLLARO-Until the grass started to grow. That was my concern. MR. JARRETT-Yes, but I don’t have a problem seeding it. I don’t have a problem visiting with Jim. MR. EDWARDS-What about one of these turf reinforcing mat things, or something. Would that stick up there or would that not even establish? MR. JARRETT-I think we’d have to remove the cobbles to be able to do that. MR. EDWARDS-The cobbles right now are helping to stabilize the slope, I think. MR. JARRETT-The cobbles I think have it stabilized. I’ve seen no washing in the four months or so. MR. MAC EWAN-Leave it up to the Town Engineer. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The south bank to be stabilized to the satisfaction of the Town’s Engineer. MR. MAC EWAN-It sounds like a plan. Does that sound like a plan to you, Jim? MR. EDWARDS-Yes. 85 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to move it? MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 45-2001 WALLACE R. HIRSCH, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Modify a previous site plan approval to allow site excavation and earth removed. Modifications to previously approved site plans require approval from the Planning Board. WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and 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 Tuesday, August 17, 2004; 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, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby Approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. That the applicant will obtain a signature from Russ Pittenger. 2. That the south bank shall be stabilized to the satisfaction of the Town’s Engineer, who will provide written documentation to the file, within 30 days. Duly adopted this Tuesday, August 17, 2004 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. JARRETT-Thank you much. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. 86 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) SITE PLAN REVIEW 43-2004 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED CWI BUS GARAGE OWNER(S): COMMUNITY WORK & INDEPENDENCE, INC. ZONING: MU LOCATION: 489 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING PAVING, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES AND LANDSCAPING TO AN EXISTING BUS GARAGE. GARAGE FACILITIES IN THE MU ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 59-2004, SPR 39-95 MODIFICATION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 14, 2004 NCI ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY N/A LOT SIZE: 1.41 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 304.13-1-3 SECTION: 179-4-020 MR. MAC EWAN-I’m going to open up the public hearing on Site Plan No. 43-2004. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-The application will be heard next Tuesday, which would be the 24. th CORRECTION OF MINUTES May 10, 2004: NONE May 18, 2004: NONE May 20, 2004: NONE May 27, 2004: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 10, MAY 18, MAY 20, AND MAY THTHTH 27, 2004, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard TH Sanford: Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Vollaro MR. MAC EWAN-And the only other question I’ve got, and this is directed toward Counsel, is, talking with George today about some rather old applications we’ve got looming out there, going through my archives, I have a Subdivision 19-2003 for Richard and Kim Bender, who were going to go do a Karner Blue thing. We left the public hearing open. MR. SCHACHNER-I remember. Cardinale. MR. MAC EWAN-Procedurally, can we just like introduce a resolution and deny this thing without prejudice and tell them to re-file, just because of the length of time that’s gone by? MR. SCHACHNER-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-Can we do that tonight? MR. SCHACHNER-Did you close the public hearing ever? MR. MAC EWAN-I can close the public hearing right now. MR. SANFORD-Well, wait a second, Craig. On that one, if I recall, that was one where they came, boy, in the wrong season, and there were Karner Blue issues. 87 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/17/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Correct, but what I’m saying, this is Subdivision No. 19-2003. They’ve missed two brooding seasons already. MR. SANFORD-Yes, I guess. I think she was in front of us again, and that’s what I’m confusing myself on. MR. SCHACHNER-Why don’t you have Staff send a letter stating that, unless the information is received in, you know, whatever time you want to put in, some short time, the application will be deemed denied without prejudice for failure to proceed. MR. MAC EWAN-Send a letter out this week, and tell them that we need to have their submission by our September 15 deadline to get it on an October agenda. I just don’t like these th things hanging out there for so long, with public hearings left open. MR. SANFORD-Yes, unless they did the work and they just haven’t been in front of us. MR. MAC EWAN-I would think that they probably, if anything, they’ve abandoned the whole idea of what they were going to do. All right? That’s it, folks. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 88