Loading...
2004-01-27 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/27/04) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 27, 2004 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, SECRETARY LARRY RINGER RICHARD SANFORD ROBERT VOLLARO THOMAS SEGULJIC MEMBERS ABSENT ANTHONY METIVIER PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. MAC EWAN-Before we begin a couple of announcements. During our public hearing, we’re going to limit public comment to four minutes per speaker. Everybody will be given an opportunity to come back up again, and hopefully it will help move things along a little bit smoother, and, secondly, considering the way our agendas have been the last couple of years, we will exercise, also, the option of suspending our meetings at 11 o’clock at night to refrain from being here until the wee hours of the morning and carrying those meetings over until, what we haven’t gotten to, to our next regularly scheduled meeting, and considering the way tonight’s agenda is, I don’t think we’re even going to come close to that tonight. CORRECTION OF MINUTES December 4, 2003: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP MINUTES OF DECEMBER 4, 2003, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: Duly adopted this 27 day of January, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. MAC EWAN-Next item, just a brief announcement. Everyone should have received tonight a memo from Chazen referencing the Great Escape’s Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement. According to the consultant, they’ve deemed that, at this point, it seemed to be complete. We did get a little bit of additional information from the applicant tonight, just some corrections to the application, which I guess Chazen is also aware of, and Staff has passed along a note where they’d like to sit down with a committee from the Planning Board, hopefully early some time next week, to sit down with Chazen and Staff to quickly review the application and deem it complete and we can bring it back to the Board as a 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/27/04) committee. I’d like Rich and Bob to sit in on that committee with us, with me next week, and I’ll set up a time with Staff early next week to set it up and go over that. MR. VOLLARO-Send out an e-mail to me? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I’ll notify you by e-mail. Okay. With that, let’s move right into our agenda. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLANS SITE PLAN 3-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED GLENN KELSEY PROPERTY OWNER: GARY CARDINALE AGENT: PAUL CUSHING ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 38 EAST QUAKER SERVICE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 2592 +/- SQ. FT. ACCESSORY STORAGE BUILDING IN ASSOCIATION WITH A MOTORCYCLE/SNOWMOBILE SALES BUSINESS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 14-94, SP 11- 91, UV 10-91, AV 11-91 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 1/14/04 TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-19 LOT SIZE: 2.04 SECTION: 179-14-080, 179-5-020 PAUL CUSHING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; GLENN KELSEY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 3-2004, Glenn Kelsey, Meeting Date: January 27, 2004 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 3-2004 APPLICANT: Glenn Kelsey is the applicant for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to construct a 2592 sq. ft. accessory storage building at the existing Sportline Honda site on Quaker Rd. LOCATION: The subject property is located at 38 East Quaker Service Rd. EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned HC-Int. Highway Commercial Intensive. SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Unlisted action. The applicant has submitted a short form EAF. PARCEL HISTORY: The ZBA approved an application on January 21, 2004, seeking relief from the required 50 ft. separation distance between principal and accessory buildings (§179-5- 020(B3). The Planning Board approved Site Plan 14-94 on May 26, 1994 for the construction of a commercial building at this location. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposes to construct a 2592 sq. ft. accessory storage building. The building appears to meet the property line setbacks for the HC-Int zone. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has requested the following waivers: Stormwater Management Plan - Grading Plan - Lighting Plan - Landscaping Plan - The applicant has requested a lighting plan waiver, however the applicant proposes new wall pack lights on the proposed accessory structure. Cut sheets and other information on the proposed lights should be submitted for Staff review. Are the proposed lights cut off lights, and are they downcast? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/27/04) Additionally, a wall mounted light on the west face of the existing building is a concern. This wall mounted light is not downcast, and comments received by Staff indicate that this light creates visibility and safety concerns for drivers entering this site.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff comments. MR. HILTON-The applicant proposes to construct a 2592 square foot accessory storage building at the existing Sportline Honda. The applicant has requested several waivers including stormwater management plan, grading plan, lighting plan, landscaping plan. Although a lighting waiver has been requested, the applicant does show new wall packs on the proposed structure, and I guess along with that, we haven’t seen any cut sheets or any other information concerning this light, whether or not it’s downcast. Additionally, it’s come to our attention that a wall mounted light on the existing building is not downcast and some comments we’ve received state that it’s possibly a safety concern, and just to bring that to your attention, and at this time that’s all we have. C.T. Male has reviewed this. We have a comment letter from C.T. Male of January 21, 2004, and I believe that’s our most recent and only correspondence at this time, and that’s all I have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. CUSHING-Good evening. Paul Cushing, architect/agent for Mr. Kelsey. Mr. Kelsey is on my left. He is the owner of Sportline Honda/Kawasaki business. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours, Mr. Cushing. MR. CUSHING-We have made a presentation to both the Zoning Board and to your organization relative to the site plan review tonight. We have received the approval from the Zoning Board relative to the placement of the building 14 feet removed from the existing building, and I received the copy of Mr. Edwards’, your consultant’s, letter to Craig Brown relative to his review of the site plan. My basic comment is that I don’t have any real basic concerns. I am somewhat surprised, and I learned this morning, that the consultant never had an opportunity to review the existing file, and that seems to be the case in every situation. So, evidently, he was coming just from start page one right now. Relative to his letter of January 21, items one through five that he addresses, the proposed grading results in steep slopes greater than five degrees on the west side of the accessory building to the new crushed stone area. Basically, he is correct, in so far as the slope of what was shown on the drawing. I did that basically because of the simple fact that the pitch of the roof of the proposed structure is in 90 degrees opposite to that, and I was trying to lessen the amount of construction relative to the site. There is no real difficulty adding a little bit more fill, in order to modify that situation, and change that aspect to a five degree slope on that northwest corner. Item Two, the additional proposed grading information is needed on the east of the proposed building to provide a positive drainage area on this side. It’s shown as a 330 foot contour along the building face, and another 330 foot contour at the interval of the bottom of the slope to the east. Positive drainage to the north should be provided. Well, with a one foot differential on the topographical survey, you have a plus/minus situation that wouldn’t show up of five to ten inches, basically a half a foot either way. I’m sure that that is what is there existing. Although it was not shown on the survey map that we have. We would be happy to show that on a revised drawing, indicating that the 29 contour would come further to the south to pick up that situation, a very tight situation. Item Number Three, how will the stormwater runoff from the roof be accommodated? Consideration should be given to installing eaves trenches along the building faces or a depression in the non-paved area on the northeast corner of the property. That question and Number Four, which asks for a construction detail of the proposed crushed stone area, indicating pavement thickness, stone size, and fabric if required would have been available to him had he been able to review the existing. The original drawings for the construction of the existing building indicated an eight inch crushed stone DOT Number Four stone setting down into that area. Number Five, regarding the lighting, the plan shows wall lights on all four sides of the building. The applicant should submit information about the proposed lighting. We did indicate the proposed lighting fixtures as indicated on our waiver of 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/27/04) information that was included. The light fixture that we are proposing, and I have a cut of that particular fixture, shows a light fixture that, similar to this, the interesting thing about this GE fixture is the fact that it has an internal glare shield option that one can specify, which would create a downcast light situation with regard to the lighting. I think I got overzealous, somewhat, in trying to show a little bit too many lights. We showed two lights on each of the long elevations basically east and west elevations and one on the south elevation. The one on the north, which goes off into never, never land perhaps can be eliminated. Basically, those are our answers to the questions that Mr. Edwards asked for, except for one that was raised by the Staff, relative to the situation regarding a wall mounted light on the west face of the existing building, this wall mounted light is not downcast, and comments received by Staff indicate that this light creates visibility and safety concerns for drivers entering the site. Granted, this light is part of an existing situation and was installed on the original building. The comment relative to the visibility and safety concerns for drivers entering this specific building site, you know, is a little bit moot, in my opinion, because basically the entrances to the building site are 90 degrees from this particular light. Granted, that this lot does not have a shield, granted that you can see this light from Quaker Road when you’re moving from west to east, and frankly it’s about the only indication that there is a building there and that you have an access situation coming up from Quaker Road to the Service Road. There are no signs indicating, other than the little street sign, which doesn’t show up very readily on either end of the access of that Service Road, and I think that that covers our comments relative to Mr. Edwards’ concerns. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does anybody have any questions regarding design standards, building design and layout, signage? MR. VOLLARO-The building itself looks, it looks like a prefab building, to me, just the way the drawing is set up. MR. CUSHING-It’s a metal building, sir. It’s open on the two long sides. It has sheeting covering on the two short sides. It’s a three bay building, as shown. One, the middle bay, has a portal frame in order to stiffen up the building. It’s to store all the cartons of new equipment that you see sitting off at the west side of the property at the present time. That’s the reason for this. In order for my client, Mr. Kelsey, to clean up the area, to make it more presentable to the Town and to his customers, and remove that operation back out of view of the general public. MR. SEGULJIC-So the proposed building is located behind the existing building. MR. CUSHING-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-So you wouldn’t be able to see it from the road. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anybody have any questions regarding site conditions, soils, geology/hydrology, slopes, etc.? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I have one. MR. MAC EWAN-Go. MR. VOLLARO-There’s a note on the waiver request, Note A, I believe it is, it talks about the sewage disposal field, and there’s a note on the drawing itself that the existing sewage disposal laterals are installed and so on, but the note talks about the original plans in field. This was relocated at one time apparently, and I’m just wondering if we can verify that it’s at least 100 feet from the property line? MR CUSHING-One hundred feet? MR. VOLLARO-Ten feet. I’m sorry. There’s no way to tell exactly where that is. I mean, there’s a dot on the drawing here, but it doesn’t mean anything to me. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/27/04) MR. CUSHING-Unfortunately, you’re absolutely correct. In the process of building the original structure, as built drawings were requested. They have not been located in any of the files to date. I only have the note from the inspector’s job visits that it was placed 10 feet inside the property line, but there is nothing more that’s available, unfortunately. MR. MAC EWAN-That would have been a requirement when they built the original site. MR. CUSHING-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It’s just that he states in here that there was a change, in other words, there was a site drawing, and that site drawing was changed in the field. We wanted to get an as built. The as built should have reflected the change. Apparently, he has a document from our inspection department that he met that. Did you get to see that, George, anything on that at all? MR. CUSHING-It was requested and we never were able to locate it in the file. MR. HILTON-I, personally, haven’t seen it. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. HILTON-No. MR. VOLLARO-If this wasn’t a change, it wouldn’t be a problem to me, but with the change from the original drawing, the site plan drawings, you know, this was obviously an in field change. It was probably done correctly, but there’s no way to verify that. MR. MAC EWAN-We can always make it a condition of approval that the as builts be reflective of what’s out there in the field. MR. VOLLARO-He says he can’t find them. That’s my problem. He can’t find the as builts. They’re not locatable. MR. CUSHING-The Department asked for as builts, and there is no indication that they were ever delivered, and that there’s no records have been found in the. MR. VOLLARO-And you don’t have an inspection report to indicate that either. MR. CUSHING-Sir, I do not. The only inspection report that I’ve read is the fact of the one that’s in the files for this particular building project originally. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-When Building and Codes does their site inspections for new septic systems, I mean, they go out there with their ticket and they measure it off the property line to ensure that it meets the setbacks. Right? MR. CUSHING-Correct. That’s my understanding. That’s always been my experience. Yes. MR. HILTON-Okay. Personally, I honestly don’t know what their process is, but I would assume that, one way or the other, they verify it, either through a stamped drawing or a site visit. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that it, Robert? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just want to see that I’ve got something right here. This print’s a little hard to read, but I think I can, there’s an existing water line that comes in right off East Quaker Service Road there? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/27/04) MR. CUSHING-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Now, where does that enter the building? It’s a line under pressure, and I’ll tell you what I’m driving at so you know why I’m asking the question. A line under pressure has to be set aside from the septic system by I believe it’s 20 feet. I believe that’s correct. MR. CUSHING-Well, I’m sure, sir, that. MR. VOLLARO-I’m trying to locate where this line enters the building and where the line from, because you’ve got a location of the septic tank here, and I see that. Now the chances are that comes right in to the building, but I don’t know that. I don’t know where the water line enters the building. MR. CUSHING-The water line enters in to the building on the east side of the building. The sewage disposal system exits from the building on the west side of the building in through that manhole and then on out into the sewage disposal field. MR. VOLLARO-That’s not what the print says. The print just shows me where the water line comes in off the road. Then it stops. The print has a line, and the line terminates. MR. CUSHING-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-And once that line terminates, that means that line can go anywhere, and I’m just wondering where does it enter the building? That’s all. That’s all I want to know. MR. CUSHING-On the original drawing, it shows it coming in about halfway up in the building. MR. VOLLARO-Do you have an original drawing? MR. CUSHING-I have a copy of the drawing that I was given from your files. MR. VOLLARO-Because if you’re operating from a different drawing than I’m operating from, then we’re not on the same page. That’s all. MR. CUSHING-Well, I’m operating from the information that I received from the Department which indicated that the water line was coming in on the east side of the building. Whether, in fact, that it’s in the exact spot that it shows on the drawing, I truly do not know. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Kelsey, where does your water line come in to the building? MR. KELSEY-I don’t have a clue. MR. MAC EWAN-You don’t have a clue. MR. CUSHING-No, he wouldn’t. It comes along on the east side. MR. KELSEY-It comes along the ground. MR. MAC EWAN-Where’s your meter? MR. KELSEY-I do not know. I mean, the only place I would suspect it is, is back in our utility area, which is where the furnace is. MR. MAC EWAN-And where is that located, approximately? MR. KELSEY-That’s in the center of the building, east side. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/27/04) MR. CUSHING-Which is where, approximately where it shows on the original drawing, but I have no verification of that, because we do not have, in the Town’s records, an as built drawing. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, are you under the impression that you think the potential for the water line is to totally circumvent the building and come around on the septic side of the building? MR. VOLLARO-No. I don’t, but I don’t know that. I mean, you know, strange things happen when people build buildings, you know, in field stuff, and I’d just like to be able to verify that a line under pressure is set the correct distance away from the septic. You can poll the Board. Maybe the Board feels it’s fine. I would just like to know that. See, this drawing doesn’t say very much about those kinds of things at all. It doesn’t mention anything. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I know, but there’s a certain sense of assumption you’d have to make when you’re looking at this drawing. MR. VOLLARO-If I were to make an assumption, I would say that it comes in to the east side of this building. MR. CUSHING-And I would agree with you, 100%. MR. SANFORD-And of course the septic system is up here. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right. So, if that’s the question, but there’s no, see, I’m making an assumption on the. MR. SANFORD-I know. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let’s move along. Does anybody have any questions regarding vehicle access, traffic patterns? Emergency access, stormwater? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think one of my questions are, the applicant answered the C.T. Male letter. Is that sufficient, or does C.T. Male have to sign off on it? MR. SANFORD-We would condition it, wouldn’t we? MR. RINGER-I would expect C.T. Male would have to signoff, but we could condition it, though, as Rich suggested. MR. MAC EWAN-I think Mr. Cushing’s explanation is absolutely correct. So if it was a matter of conditioning approval on a signoff from C.T. Male that Staff forward a copy of the original site plan so they could see, you know, how this is in addition to what’s already there. It’ll explain 99% of that letter. Sewage disposal, any questions on that? Potable water supply? Flood planes, retention/detention pond design? Any questions relative to lighting? MR. VOLLARO-I think the lighting is pretty benign. I’m not going to question that. MR. RINGER-George, where did you get your comment on the lighting being a problem? MR. HILTON-Well, that was brought to my attention as part of a Staff review. Internally we were reviewing it, and, you know, various people in our Department comment, and one of the comments was that, you know, there’s a pretty bright light out there that. MR. RINGER-You went in at night? Or just an observation that the light was there? MR. HILTON-I, personally, didn’t, but someone made that observation. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/27/04) MR. CUSHING-Someone that goes by there every day, and of course at this time of year it’s dark relatively early. MR. KELSEY-What I find a little bit interesting about this comment is I had called Mr. Turner, several months ago, because I had a safety concern about our entire access. As you know there’s no widening of the highway for people to pass. People are forced to stop, to turn in to the access road, not into our area, but into the access road. We’ve had several accidents there, and I asked Mr. Turner if he would consider putting a light there, at least for wintertime visibility, and he hasn’t gotten back to me. This was, as I said, several weeks ago, or months ago. He indicated that I was requesting it for security reasons, for my property. Well, as you can see from the map here, there’s a significant distance from the access road to the building, and, frankly, there is a safety concern here that should be addressed, and I think that the lighting on the side of the wall is not really the issue. It’s that it’s so dark to the access road. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t see a problem. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions relative to landscape design. Anything revolving around environmental issues, wetlands, noise, air qualities, aesthetics, historic, wildlife, etc.? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Neighborhood character? MR. SANFORD-I’ve got a question totally unrelated to everything. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that was my next one. It says other criteria not yet reviewed. MR. SANFORD-Well, this is sort of just a curious question. You have NiMo power lines running. Are you allowed to test, you know, some of your equipment down there or what are the regs on that, if any? MR. KELSEY-That’s a great question, and NiMo’s actually approached me, and they’ve asked us to restrict that area by the public, and they wanted me to put signs up, etc., and I told them that, you know, our folks, first of all, we’re fenced, basically, to the access. We do not use the access. We respect NiMo’s right of way there, but, frankly, there is a tremendous amount of off road vehicles that go up and down there, including automobiles. MR. SANFORD-No, I’ve been down there with my dogs, and I just was wondering if it was appropriate. MR. KELSEY-Right. Now, we do not test in that area, for sure. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So you don’t use it, and as far as you know, really, people shouldn’t be using it. MR. KELSEY-NiMo would certainly, I think, strongly prefer that nobody used it. MR. SANFORD-Okay. I didn’t know, because it looked like it would be perfect for people in your business to be able to test equipment. MR. KELSEY-Yes. Again, NiMo’s made it clear that they don’t want that to happen, and I need to respect that. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/27/04) MR. SEGULJIC-Just a clarification. With regards to the new building, are there going to be any services in there, like water, septic in the new building? MR. CUSHING-None, no heating, no water. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, just storage. MR. CUSHING-Just storage. MR. KELSEY-Minimal lighting. MR. CUSHING-Minimal lighting inside. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-Short Form, right? MR. MAC EWAN-I believe it is. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 3-2004, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: GLENN KELSEY, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/27/04) 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 27 day of January, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s talk about a motion, conditions. MR. HUNSINGER-Most of them seem to be related to the C.T. Male comments. Would we want to address them individually or just say that he obtain a final signoff? MR. VOLLARO-Just a signoff. MR. RINGER-A signoff. MR. MAC EWAN-I think would predicate that and ask. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, we would ask for a signoff anyway, but do we want to identify, you know, that the northwest corner be raised to achieve a slope of less than five percent, or, you know, that the 329 contour line be shown on the plans as the applicant had identified? MR. RINGER-I think the applicant should address it with C.T. Male. If he doesn’t agree with C.T. Male, then he can sell C.T. Male on his thoughts and C.T. Male will give him a signoff, but I think all the items of C.T. Male should be addressed. MR. MAC EWAN-I think if C.T. Male has an opportunity to look at the original site plan approval that has the construction details on it, a lot of these questions would go away. MR. RINGER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-So we can condition it on that aspect, I would think. MR. HILTON-I just have a question of the applicant. You mentioned with the lighting, the proposed lighting, as I understood it, an optional glare reducing feature. Is that something that you were going to include in the wall pack light? MR. CUSHING-Yes. MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. CUSHING-It is an accessory option that is included in the package, and we would, as part of our design permit drawings, indicate that those lights be furnished with that type of glare barrier, yes. MR. HILTON-Okay. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/27/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have a copy of that cut sheet that he was showing us? MR. HILTON-No. MR. CUSHING-No, he does not. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you give that to him tonight. MR. CUSHING-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-And we’ll make that part of the record. MR. RINGER-The comment from Staff on the wall mount light that’s already there, do we want to do anything with that? When we went up, I didn’t pay any attention to it, but we were there in the day time. Apparently someone from Staff has seen it at night and has some concern. I don’t know to what degree. George, it wasn’t you. It was someone else from Staff? MR. HILTON-No, I haven’t been by here at night. MR. MAC EWAN-I, personally, don’t have an issue with it. MR. VOLLARO-The light, it doesn’t even appear on the drawing, but even if it did, I wouldn’t have a problem with it, either. The reason I think it stands out, and I think the applicant has made a good point, it’s very dark there and that point source of light just stands out in the darkness, and I wouldn’t make a comment on it. MR. SANFORD-All we need is a signoff from C.T. Male, right? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 3-2004 GLENN KELSEY, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 3-2004 Applicant: Glenn Kelsey SEQR Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Gary Cardinale Agent: Paul Cushing Zone: HC-I Location: 38 East Quaker Service Road Applicant proposes the construction of a 2592 +/- sq. ft. accessory storage building in association with a motorcycle/snowmobile sales business. Cross Reference: SP 14-94, SP 11-91, UV 10-91, AV 11-91 Warren Co. Planning: 1/14/04 Tax Map No. 303.15-1-19 Lot size: 2.04 / Section: 179-14-080, 179-5-020 Public Hearing: January 27, 2004 WHEREAS, the application was received on 12/15/03; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 1/23/04, and 1/27 Staff Notes 1/21 CT Male engineering comments 1/21 ZBA resolution: approved 1/21 ZBA staff notes: sign variance 1/20 Notice of Public Hearing 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/27/04) 1/14 Warren Co. Planning: NCI 1/3 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on January 27, 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, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Agency Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1. That we get a C.T. Male sign-off based on C. T. Male’s review of the original construction drawings. 2. That the light fixture for the accessory shed will be similar or equal to the cut sheet that was provided tonight, and that the north light be deleted. 3. That any conditions placed in this motion be added to the final drawing. Duly adopted this 27 day of January, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. CUSHING-Thank you. MR. KELSEY-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLANS SITE PLAN NO. 69-2000 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED MODIFICATION JEFFREY SCHWARTZ PROPERTY OWNER: IDA OF WARREN WASH. CO. AGENT: PETER BROWN ZONE: LI LOCATION: 53 CAREY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 10,600 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE ADDITION RELATED TO AN 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/27/04) EXISTING WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTION FACILITY. WAREHOUSE USES IN THE LI ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 60-00 TAX MAP NO. 137-2-1.12, 1.22/308.20-1-2, 4.1 LOT SIZE: 2.62 ACRES SECTION: MR. MAC EWAN-Is there anyone here representing Mr. Schwartz? We’ll hold it over, then, a little bit. NEW BUSINESS: SPECIAL USE PERMIT SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUP 1-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED MARIE LAURSEN AGENT: ROBERT KELLY ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 167 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPLICANT IS SEEKING PLANNING BOARD RECOGNITION AS A PRE-EXISTING CLASS A MARINA SPECIAL USE PERMIT. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 1417 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 1/14/04 LGPC, APA TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-32 LOT SIZE: 0.88 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 BOB KELLY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MARIE LAURSEN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Special Use Permit 1-2004, Marie Laursen, Meeting Date: January 27, 2004 “APPLICATION: Special Use Permit 1-2004 APPLICANT: Marie Laursen is the applicant. REQUESTED ACTION: Applicant seeks Planning Board recognition as a pre-existing Class A Marina. LOCATION: 167 Assembly Point Road EXISTING ZONING: This property is currently zoned WR-1A, Waterfront Residential One Acre. SEQRA STATUS: SEQRA Type: Unlisted, the applicant has submitted a short form EAF. PARCEL HISTORY: Use Variance 1417 (resolution date unknown) was approved in order to allow the expansion of a porch related to a second dwelling unit at this location. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant is seeking recognition as a pre-existing, non-conforming Class A Marina. The applicant has submitted information, which includes affidavits that indicate that the owner(s) of this property have rented dock space at this location as far back as 1984. Should the Planning Board determine that this application does not meet the requirements to be recognized as a pre- existing non-conforming Class A Marina listed in § 179-10-035 (B) then this application would be subject to a comprehensive review as a new Class A Marina. As part of any comprehensive review of a new Class A Marina, the standards for Special Use Permits listed in §179-10-050 would apply to the review of this application.” MR. MAC EWAN-George, Staff notes. MR. HILTON-Just briefly. The applicant is seeking recognition as a pre-existing, nonconforming Class A Marina. The applicant has supplied information that indicates that they have rented spaces, dock space, that is, as far back 1984. Should the Board, Planning Board determine that this application doesn’t meet the requirement to be recognized as a pre-existing, nonconforming Class A Marina, this application would then be subject to a comprehensive 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/27/04) review, as a new Class A Marina, and just for your information, as part of that comprehensive review, the standards for Special Use Permits, as I’ve indicated in the notes, of Section 179-10-50 would apply to the review of this application. That’s really all we have at this time, if you have any questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. KELLY-Good evening. My name is Bob Kelly. I’m Mrs. Laursen’s counsel on this particular matter. I believe the Board has before it pretty much all the facts concerning the use of the property. We’re not seeking to change anything that hasn’t occurred before. The facts that should be brought to your attention are that, in 1984, one dock on the parcel was rented. There is a plot plan showing the location of the docks. In 1989 a second one was rented, and since 1989, two docks have been rented on the premises. There was no problem recognized by Mrs. Laursen until just last year when somebody from, I believe the Lake George Park Commission, said, hey, this could be a problem. The boats that are on the docks are both equipped with self-contained marine heads. The owners take care of their own trash. There is no complaint that we’re aware of that has occurred concerning the usage of the property, as it has been in existence at any time, really. We are looking for this Board to put its imprimatur on the proposed use and allow Mrs. Laursen to continue the usage as it has been since 1989. We do recognize that the Class A Marina statute came actually into effect in ’82, but given the usage and the non-impact in any significant way, on anything we ask this court to grant a Special Use Permit based thereon. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I will open up the floor to questions from anybody on the Board on it. MR. VOLLARO-Well, Mr. Chairman, I’ve looked at this many, many, many times, trying to determine whether there is enough information here, in terms of receipts. I don’t see anything in here that talks about a wharf permit or anything, not a wharf, but a dock registration. There isn’t any firm data here that I can hang my hat on, in terms of, other than some of the affidavits that appear in here, and those aren’t really the kinds of things we’re looking for to determine whether this marina has to status or not. MR. KELLY-Mr. Vollaro I can speak to a dock permit issue. I know, since at least 1989, and probably before, there have been the appropriate permits issued by the Lake George Park Commission for the docks in question. This past year, 2003, they did make it a more comprehensive permit, given the recognition that there were two boats on it and this might be a Class A marina application, as opposed to the ordinary household residential marina that it had been permitted for in prior years. MR. SANFORD-Can I jump in, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Sure. MR. SANFORD-Yes, you know, this is a confusing issue. The way I understand it is, if the applicant showed up to the Town Staff and demonstrated through showing a permit issued by an appropriate agency like DEC or Lake George Park Commission, then this perhaps could be grandfathered in administratively, and I assume that you did that, and Mr. Brown apparently felt there wasn’t sufficient enough information to grandfather it. Am I correct? MR. KELLY-I believe that may have been the assessment. MR. SANFORD-Because here’s what happens. If a person can show that they had a permit, and the way it reads is, another involved agency, okay, and that would be something like DEC or Lake George Park Commission, then this could be administratively approved. In the absence of that, the test changes, and we come back now to, in the case of a marina, you have to show continuous use, to date, without interruption and seasonal use does constitute continuous use, but it has to be since prior to 1981. Now, you don’t have to necessarily like the way it reads. I, for one, don’t particularly like it either, but that’s the way it reads, and in these affidavits you 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/27/04) speak in terms of 1984 and after that. So basically, it looks to me, in terms of a strict interpretation, 179-10-035, you can’t get grandfathered in here in the absence of having an approved permit, and you’d have to go through application for a Special Use Permit. Now, that’s just the way I’m interpreting this, and I think I would be interested to hear what other people have to say. MR. RINGER-Well, I look at it a little bit differently, Rich. I think that we can, with the information given, make a determination if we can grandfather something like this in, and I really, personally feel, with the information that the applicant in the sworn affidavits, that would be enough for me to consider grandfathering. I know you’re following the letter of the law, but I think that we’ve got some latitude here to determine the information that they’ve given us does provide enough evidence to allow a grandfathering, so to speak, and allow it. MR. SANFORD-Well, see, I don’t see where we have the latitude, Larry. MR. RINGER-And it’s an opinion and I was just stating mine. The idea of this, of all the discussions we’ve previously had on here was to allow existing marinas to continue their use, if the people could provide verification that they had been used by that, and that’s what I’m looking at, and it’s written a little bit differently and more stringent, but I’m looking at it from that interpretation. MR. SANFORD-You may recall at the workshop I was clean on Item A1, but then when we got to Item B, I questioned the inherent logic of the 1981 date, and in the absence of having the DEC or the Lake George Park Commission permit, and I was told, well, that was the date that the Lake George Park Commission started to issue them and everybody, and that’s what the Town Board approved, and here it is, and I’m not so sure, through reading this reg, that we have the degree of discretion that you’re suggesting, although I appreciate your point. Would Counsel care to weigh in on it? MS. RADNER-I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to. I think that you folks need to (lost word) criteria and you have to use your discretion to determine what applies here. MR. VOLLARO-That may be true, but I do know that, and I think Mr. Sanford has mentioned it before, this application has been before Mr. Brown, who has a stack of applications on his deck, I know, and this one didn’t pass the test. That’s why it’s here. MR. RINGER-Right, and I think his hands were tied because he doesn’t have that discretionary options that we have, that I feel we have. I think Craig’s hands were tied and he couldn’t do it, and that’s why it came to us. MR. SANFORD-Well, Larry, what basically the way this Reg reads is if A is not met, which is the Zoning Administrator cannot feel comfortable in administratively approving it, then B kicks in, which basically states the uses which do not qualify for title exemption shall submit information demonstrating one, two, and three, and Item Two states that the use of the property and associated structures has been continuous to date, without interruption, since prior to 1981 for marinas, prior to 1967 for all other uses. Consistent seasonal use may qualify as continuous use, and so regretfully I think my conclusion, at least, is that clearly Item Two cannot be demonstrated since the affidavits speak in terms of 1984 and later. MR. RINGER-And that’s where I feel we should use our discretionary options. MR. VOLLARO-If this wasn’t a local law, Larry, I could go along with that, but this has been a local law approved by the Town Board, whether we like it or not. MR. RINGER-It’s just my opinion, and I, for one, would not vote against, you know, I would vote for this tonight, but I may be standing alone here. I think the whole idea, none of us on this Board wanted to be involved in this to begin with. We are, and now we’ve got to make some decisions, and our decision as a Board really was that these things, if the applicants could prove 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/27/04) that they were there, then we should use whatever leniency we can, and grant them, but that’s, again, my opinion. MR. VOLLARO-If we could move this out of a local law into a document that said, you know, something like guidance document, like we see, then, then you’ve got a lot of latitude in a guidance document, but I don’t know. MR. RINGER-I just see all these applicants that have come before us and the hell we’ve put them through, for something that’s been going on for years, and has been demonstrated here that they’ve been doing it for years. MR. VOLLARO-Larry, you’re so right. MR. SANFORD-You’re preaching to the choir. MR. VOLLARO-If you go back and check the minutes, I railed against this. MR. RINGER-I know you did, Bob. MR. SANFORD-So did I. MR. VOLLARO-And so did Mr. Sanford. We both didn’t want to get into this. MR. SANFORD-But, this is where it finally settled down to. MR. RINGER-And we’re going to vote on it, or we may vote on it, tonight or we may not vote on it tonight. I’m just expressing my view. MR. SEGULJIC-Could you just clarify for me. The docks were built in 1971, I believe you said? MR. KELLY-Yes. The docks were built with the original house, and I believe that was in 1971. There is a sketch of the dock, and I think that has a date on it, it was built in that same. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So they were built in 1971. MR. KELLY-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Why weren’t, so then there were no permits? You didn’t obtain permits then? MR. KELLY-There was a permit in the Building Department of the Town. They have a very old hand drawn, there was a building permit issued for the residence itself. I don’t believe there was one necessary for the dock. MR. SEGULJIC-So when did the docks get their first permits from the Lake George Park Commission? MR. KELLY-I believe since the Lake George Park Commission has been in existence. There’s stickers there as long as the stickers have been required. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to ask the same question. MR. SEGULJIC-Then you qualify. MR. SANFORD-Then you could qualify. Mr. Brown should be able to approve this. If you could show a receipt from what we call, what was the word the Reg calls it, an involved agency. What we’re looking for here is the Lake George Park Commission or DEC, if you basically had these docks registered, and you have a receipt of this or you can go to the agency and they can substantiate it, then that should be presented to Mr. Brown, for grandfathering in the pre- 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/27/04) existing status. That was my question initially. Was that done, and did he somehow feel that was inadequate? MR. KELLY-My understanding is that there were stickers placed on the dock, Lake George Park Commission stickers ever since stickers have been required by the Park Commission. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that’s an easy test to solve. Just go back to the Lake George Park Commission and ask them to pull out your file dating back to when you started getting permits. MR. KELLY-The stickers, however, would not say it was a Class A Marina type of use. It would be for a regular dock usage, the same as every dock on the lake carries at present. That’s, if you, picking up the difference here. Every dock on the lake carries. MR. SANFORD-I’m not sure we are picking up the difference, and that’s something that we haven’t been able to resolve amongst ourselves as to whether or not, we’re grandfathering in a pre-existing use, which is the docks were being used. I’m not sure we’re making that fine distinction that you’re bringing up between the Class A, Class B, that kind of thing. MR. KELLY-I believe we can satisfy you that the docks were properly permitted as docks going back to the beginning. MR. SANFORD-Well, I think we would need to see that and since it’s in our court at this point, probably better, Mr. Chairman, for us to see it than rather than to go back to Craig Brown, but that would be your call. MR. MAC EWAN-We may be able to bounce it back to him. MR. SANFORD-Whatever you think. MR. VOLLARO-I mean, he may not have that now. MR. RINGER-George, did Craig have an opportunity to talk to you about this, you know, we’re trying to speak for Craig or what not here. MR. HILTON-We’ve talked about it, you know, not in great depth. I guess, and that’s just it, a guess. I’m not speaking for the Zoning Administrator, but in the absence of a permit from another valid involved agency, it’s my understanding that he couldn’t issue the administrative permit, and that’s why it’s before you. MR. RINGER-It would seem to me that if Craig got this application and he didn’t have the permits, he would say to the applicant, do you have the permits? You don’t know it, because Craig’s not here to answer that, and obviously he didn’t ask you for that? MR. KELLY-No, I don’t recall that question coming up. MR. RINGER-It seems like a logical question that would be asked. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re comfortable you can trace the history of these docks back to the Lake George Park Commission, pre-1981? MR. KELLY-Yes, I know I can to at least ’89. MR. MAC EWAN-You need to go back farther than that. MR. KELLY-I can go back further than that. I just don’t know how much further. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/27/04) MR. SANFORD-Well, hold on. In terms of the permit, the Reg is very specific, and it says, with a current permit issued prior to April 1, 2002, that could be March 2002, it has no bearing as to the second part which is B, which goes back to ’81. MR. KELLY-I understand. MR. SANFORD-Well, that’s an important distinction that we wrestled with ourselves. So if you have a permit, as long as it pre-dates April 1, 2002, you ought to be in good shape. If you don’t have the permit, unfortunately then the test becomes more strenuous and you have to show that it’s been in use since ’81. MR. MAC EWAN-Prior to April 1, that it’s operating as a Class A Marina. That’s the permit st that you have to have from the Lake George Park Commission. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes, I was going to say. He has to have a marina permit before April MR. MAC EWAN-Which you don’t have. However, he is confident he can substantiate the history of the docks as just being permitted docks from the Lake George Park Commission dating back to 1981. MR. RINGER-The permit will only say the dock was there. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. It’ll say private dock on it, more than likely. MR. SANFORD-Yes, and the reg doesn’t address the Class A bit, which is something we’ve always had a problem with. We don’t know really what that means. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, why don’t we table this application, give you an opportunity to get to the Lake George Park Commission. We’ll table this application to our first meeting in February. How do our agendas look for February, both February meetings, are they light? MR. HILTON-Fairly light, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s table it, what’s our first meeting in February? MR. HILTON-The 17. th MR. MAC EWAN-The 17. I’ll open up the public hearing and leave it open until the 17 of thth February. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion to table please? MR. VOLLARO-There’s a hand in the audience. MR. SANFORD-Do we have a public hearing? MR. MAC EWAN-I just opened it, and we have one speaker. As soon as we get done doing this motion, I’ll let him come up and speak. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MS. RADNER-I don’t think you want to table it before you allow the speaker to speak. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Can I ask you people to remove yourselves from the table for a moment? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/27/04) JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. By way of clarification, and as you know, I was deeply involved in this permitting process in 1981. In 1981, there was only one permit granted, that you could apply for and it could be granted, and it was granted by the DEC, not the Park Commission. The DEC granted a permit to operate a marina. Permits for docks are construction permits. It’s a one time thing. You build a dock, you get a permit to build it. It’s over with when the dock is done. That’s it. Most people, most people, other than bonafide full scale marinas like our own, did not make application for a marina permit because it was very, very deep in the regulations as to why you would require such a permit, and most people, like the Laursens, didn’t pay any attention to this, but they did register their docks. They registered the dock, and they were, because of that registration, regardless of whether or not the dock was legally built, they were allowed to continue to use it, but that’s the extent of the 1981 program. It was left dormant. This program was left dormant for another six years, until the Park Commission was reconstituted, and this program was rolled over into their regulatory program, but that’s, by way of clarification. There was only one permit. It was a marina, a permit to operate a marina on Lake George, and there was a dock registration program. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Chris, do you want to do your motion, if you would, please. MOTION TO TABLE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 1-2004, MARIE LAURSEN, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: To the February 17 meeting. The tabling is so the applicant can submit additional information th to support their application. Duly adopted this 27 day of January, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll see you on the 17 of next month. th MR. KELLY-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-And I did leave the public hearing left open on that application. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED QEDC PROPERTY OWNER: WARREN COUNTY AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: LI LOCATION: EAST SIDE QUEENSBURY AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE 72.4 ACRES INTO 10 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1.9 TO 11.4 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 303.12-1-9 LOT SIZE: 72 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 11-2003, Preliminary Stage, QEDC, Meeting Date: January 27, 2004 “APPLICATION: Subdivision 11-2003 (Preliminary Stage) 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/27/04) APPLICANT: QEDC is the applicant for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 72.4-acre property into 10 lots. LOCATION: The subject property is located on Queensbury Avenue. EXISTING ZONING: This property is zoned LI, Light Industry. SEQRA STATUS: This action is a SEQRA Unlisted action. The applicant has included a Full Environmental Assessment Form with the subdivision application. PARCEL HISTORY: The Planning Board previously reviewed this item as a Sketch Plan subdivision on July 22, 2003. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 72.4-acre property into 10 lots, which are currently zoned LI, Light Industry. The proposed lots meet the area requirements for the LI zone. The subdivision plat contains ACOE delineated wetlands, along with a density calculation for the proposed subdivision. The applicant has submitted a stormwater management plan and report, which has been submitted to CT Male for their review and comment. STAFF COMMENTS: The subdivision plat indicates that Lot 10 will be retained by Warren County. As indicated on the subdivision plat, this parcel does not have the required street frontage. This property should either be merged with other Warren County lands to the north or the applicant should seek an Area Variance to allow this lot to be created without the required street frontage. Has NIMO offered any comment on the proposed road construction across their property? Any comments from CT Male should be addressed during the review of this application.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-The applicant proposes to subdivide an approximately 72 acre property into 10 lots. The property is currently Light Industry, LI. The proposed lots meet the area requirements for the LI zone. The applicant’s subdivision plat contains Army Corp of Engineers delineated wetlands, along with the density calculation. The applicant has also submitted a stormwater plan and report, which has been forwarded to C.T. Male for their review and comment. As indicated on the plat, Lot 10 will be retained by Warren County. However, this lot shows, it appears that it does not have the required street frontage. The property should either be merged with the Warren County lands to the north, or the applicant should seek an Area Variance to allow this lot to be created without the required street frontage. Just a couple of questions, or one question, actually. Has NiMo offered any comment on the proposed road construction beneath their power lines, and lastly any comments from C.T. Male should be addressed during review of this application. There is a public hearing scheduled this evening, and we do have some public comment in the file that I can read when you open the public hearing, and that’s all we have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, Tom Nace, of Nace Engineering, representing QEDC. I guess first, to address the one Staff comment regarding Lot Number 10, we have modified the subdivision plat, with a note, a large note on Lot Number 10, specifying that it is to be retained by the County, and that it’s to be merged with their adjacent lands, which have access on Queensbury Avenue. So that that will become one parcel with adequate road frontage on Queensbury Avenue, to make it a legal lot. We do have comments from C.T. Male. I’ve addressed some of them. I have not, a couple of them are going to require some additional work that I have not been able to complete yet. So we will be able to address the rest of them, 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/27/04) but that’ll follow shortly in the next week or so. The ones that are taking a built more work are on the stormwater. I’m revising some of the stormwater design, to adequately address the comments, and there was one comment regarding the short term or the early development sewage flows being not sufficient to flush through the force main and possibly creating odor problems and we are working on that to come up with a solution for that. MR. MAC EWAN-The lot that you’re going to maintain and merge with the additional QEDC property, was that the part of the parcel that had the high bedrock on it, that was undevelopable? MR. NACE-That is correct. Okay. This is Queensbury Avenue. This is north. The airport is up there. The power lines are across here. You demarcate approximately across here, the bedrock starts to get fairly shallow, and up in this portion the bedrock is very shallow. So this is the area that we felt inappropriate for development. It will be merged with this piece here, that the County owns, to create one future lot that would have frontage out here on Queensbury Avenue. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else that you wanted to add? MR. NACE-No, that’s all. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. MR. NACE-Yes. The other issue with the power line crossing, we have done, completed the surveys to assure that we do have adequate clearance on the power lines. The plans right now are being finalized to go down to NiMo for their final review. MR. MAC EWAN-How about Karner habitat? MR. NACE-The issue hasn’t come up because the soils and the vegetation are totally different than this normal Karner blue butterfly or blue lupine. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s Staff’s standard operating procedure these days with the Karner stuff? I mean, are we only forwarding applications that are within those defined areas in the Town? MR. HILTON-Yes. I think there’s a certain, well, I know there’s a certain geographic area where they, the soils and the vegetation are likely to support the habitat, and that’s generally the western sandy areas. I can tell you that this isn’t, is not identified in any DEC area as a potential protection area or an area of interest. So, when an application is within that area, let’s say west of the highway, then we alert the applicants to say you should contact DEC. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Design standards. Has anybody got any questions relative to lot design and layout? MR. VOLLARO-Only one, and that’s the, I guess you’re going to ask for a waiver on that 1816 foot cul de sac, aren’t you? MR. NACE-Yes. We already have, I think at Sketch Plan we submitted a request for waiver on that. MR. VOLLARO-It seems like the logical thing to do. I would buy it. MR. NACE-We looked at other alternatives, if you remember, I think at Sketch Plan, we discussed the fact that we had looked at other alternatives for access to that parcel, and were kind of shut out by NiMo, what they would and wouldn’t do for us on the substation property. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/27/04) MR. VOLLARO-What about easements over the NiMo right of way? Are you going to be looking, because you’re going to be putting that road right through there. MR. NACE-Yes. The request to NiMo is for the road easement plus there’s some storm drainage facilities taking place underneath the power line. Those will be included in the right of way request, or the easement request. MR. VOLLARO-I’m in favor of, obviously it’s a piece of Light Industrial property and I’m certainly in favor of retaining anything we can in this Town in Light Industrial. Because we’ve got precious little, and the fact that we’re going to be putting a sewer in here, or looking to do that, is. MR. NACE-Well, sewer service is already there. The force main was run all the way over, when they did the. MR. VOLLARO-So we’ll have essentially almost shovel ready kind of sites here, by the time you get, is that what you’re planning to do? MR. NACE-Well, no, the sites won’t be pre-approved, if that’s what you, not for administrative approval, at this point. MR. MAC EWAN-We did that with the Glens Falls Industrial Park. Remember we went through that whole Generic Environmental, GEIS on that, and that was approving certain footprint sizes, certain building styles, heights, uses. That is a shovel ready site. MR. NACE-It’s real tough to do, especially on a place like this, because you have no idea what size building somebody is going to propose. The lots, some of the lots we have designed relatively small with the anticipation that a larger user may want to combine two lots. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I can see that in 14 and 15 would be one just like that. That would work. MR. SANFORD-Four and five. MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry, four and five. MR. SEGULJIC-The lot to the south of Lot Four, I guess the area to the south of Lot Four and to the northeast, northwest of it. MR. NACE-Okay. This? MR. SEGULJIC-What is that? MR. NACE-That’s the NiMo substation. Actually, that should probably be labeled on the plat. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. How about to the northwest of Lot Four? Right there. MR. NACE-Here? That’s a private lot, separate lot. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. SANFORD-Nothing’s there now? MR. NACE-There’s a house on that lot. MR. MAC EWAN-Residential. MR. NACE-There’s a house on this lot, and I believe there’s a house on this lot as well. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/27/04) MR. SEGULJIC-To the west of Lot Four? MR. NACE-To the west of Lot Four, correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. NACE-Yes. Here, let’s see. Here’s the substation. There’s a house on this lot, and a house on this lot, and I’m pretty sure there’s a house behind the trees on this lot here. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you show us where the County owns additional land as well? MR. NACE-Okay. This is, the piece that we’re, the County is retaining is this piece here. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. NACE-The additional County land is this, and this, and I think this piece also. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That’s what I thought. MR. NACE-Okay. This, if you go up there, this is wet down through here, there’s an old quarry along part of that in the back, and there’s some little quarry holes up in here. MR. HUNSINGER-And you don’t see any way, I mean, I know there’s some real slope issues through that site. You don’t see any way to loop the road back to Queensbury Avenue? I mean, I’ve got some real problems with an 1800 foot dead end. MR. NACE-Loop it back out? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. NACE-No, it would be very difficult, and it really wouldn’t, most of this is not desirable for industrial development, because of the very shallow bedrock. Everything would have to be blasted to get services through there. That’s not to say, I mean, with the design of it, I suppose if the one lot, the one larger lot in the back here never sold, that you might be able to, you know, in the future, take a road out through. The pressure for industrial land would have to be very, very high to make that practical for development. MR. HUNSINGER-I was thinking more of access, rather than development. MR. NACE-Then it becomes very expensive to try to develop it, and the cost of the development of the land becomes impractical for QEDC. MR. HUNSINGER-What about shortening the road and making some of the lots larger? MR. NACE-Shortening and doing what? MR. HUNSINGER-Shortening the length of the roads and then making some of the lots larger. MR. NACE-Well, we did that with the lots back in the back here? I mean, these are five, six, nine acre lots back in the back here purposely, to try to keep the road short, and part of the driving is, one of the constraints driving the design are the location of the wetlands in here. Even though these are existing fields back in here, the wetlands are delineated by the soils in the lower part of the fields, but it just made the most sense to get a cul de sac back in here where you could actually come up with a lot that would be able to utilize this large chunk of upland here. MR. HUNSINGER-So you were trying to get behind that wetland area? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/27/04) MR. NACE-Correct. We’re trying to make this piece back here usable. MR. HUNSINGER-Are you sizing the lots according to some specific type of industry that this would be marketed to? MR. NACE-No. As I said, it’s entirely possible that some of these smaller lots, like One and Two, or Two and Three, or Four and Five might be combined, if somebody wanted additional area. We were looking at probably 10 acres as a normal maximum size, and, you know, two, two and a half acres as a minimum size, but beyond that, no. MR. MAC EWAN-Lot Four, are you able to retain a buffer there for what we’ll assume at this point is a residential property? MR. NACE-Lot Four, it’s large enough that it could yes, and like I said, it’s possible that Four and Five could be combined if somebody wanted more, but there is, if you, in your Code there’s a required buffer between the uses. MR. MAC EWAN-One hundred feet I think it is. MR. NACE-Yes. The design of this lot, you know, takes into account that that buffer will have to be provided. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any. MR. MAC EWAN-No other questions? I’ll ask you to give up the table for a few minutes, Tom. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BILL DUELL MR. DUELL-Good evening. My name’s Bill Duell. I live on Queensbury Avenue. That area that they’re talking about is wetlands. That whole area is wetlands, and I’m concerned with the water problem, drainage and stuff like that. They just recently put Queensbury Avenue in, raised our water table two feet. We’re still pumping water out of our cellars. So anything that gets done in our area is going to have a tremendous impact on our water table. MR. MAC EWAN-What do you mean when they redid Queensbury Avenue your water table went up? MR. DUELL-They put in two drywells, one on each side of the road. Pitched the drywell on the east side to the west, and for 100 and some odd thousand years that water’s been running west to east there over to BOCES, and it’s still running through the ditches now. They had to dig the road all back up. Brand new road. So we get any impact in that area, it makes a tremendous impact. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that basically at that end of Queensbury Avenue that’s like that. MR. DUELL-Well, the fellow that was here. He left. He lives right in the old (lost word) property which borders it, which is right down there on the south end of that, and he’s still pumping water. We just finished pumping water recently. We’ve never pumped water this time of year. Ever. So that little bit of change, had that drastic impact on our water table in the area. I’m very concerned with this, and don’t get me wrong. I’d love to see some development go out there, but in the springtime they have Dickinson’s Dairy blanch that thing, and they have the eight wheel drive tractors that get stuck out there because it’s so swampy. I mean, I’m talking anywhere out there. Well, where the fields are, you can see the fields in the picture. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/27/04) That’s what Dickinson used to plant, his cornfields. I’ve lived on that road since I was 16 years old. That’s a long time ago. I rode on those fields with motorcycles and four wheelers, and it’s swampy out there. So any impact that they do there is going to directly affect everybody around us, I’m afraid. So I just want to bring it to your attention now, so that we don’t miss anything with water, drainage. MR. MAC EWAN-Just so you understand how the process works, should this subdivision be approved, as each site is anticipated to be developed, it would go through site plan review for each individual site, which, typically do the neighbors get notified on that sort of thing? MR. HILTON-Site plans? Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-You would get notified for every site that goes in there. MR. DUELL-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-And at that time, that’s when we address stormwater detention basins and that sort of thing. MR. DUELL-Okay, and say it slips through, it doesn’t slip through, but everybody says, it’s not going to happen, and all of a sudden it happens, then what? That’s what we’re concerned about in the area. Because this road was supposed to have no impact at all on our water table, but it did. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I mean, one of the requirements of site plan approval, which isn’t part of this application, is that stormwater is to remain on your site. It’s in our Code. So if there was a potential problem, that any particular site plan that was approved in the stormwater system, proved not to work, they have to remedy it to keep the stormwater on the site. MR. DUELL-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-All right? MR. DUELL-I guess so. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anyone else? No other takers? I’ll leave the public hearing open for the time being. MR. HILTON-A letter received January 26, 2004, from Karen and Rick Cunningham. It says, “We own property on 8 Courtney Lane off Queensbury Ave. We are writing this letter because of concerns on the engineering of the new road because of the surface water created and the flow in which it runs. When the new road was completed in the fall of last year, the surface water was not engineered to flow correctly. The water has backed up into everyone’s property causing basements to flood and septic tanks to become full. This problem was brought to the attention of the foreman, they cut a new road, opened the pipe that was used in the first place. This pipe has all surface water and spring run off flowing east toward the proposed site and area in question tonight. The concern is where and how will this water be engineered if flowing east toward proposed area. What is to be done with water from the new area when developed? Thank you. Karen & Rick Cunningham” MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the name again? MR. HILTON-Karen and Rick Cunningham. That’s all we have. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom, can you go back over this briefly, and tell us where you are with the C.T. Male comment letter of January 22? nd MR. NACE-Okay. You got my response letter of today. Items One, Two. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/27/04) MR. MAC EWAN-No, we didn’t. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t have them. MR. NACE-I faxed a letter over to Craig Brown today, just to kind of summarize where we are with C.T. Male comments. MR. HILTON-We do have a letter in the file. We just received it today, but, per your policy, the Planning Board’s policy, we don’t hand things out the night of the meeting. MR. NACE-Okay. Items One on, well, I’ll just go one by one. Item One on C.T. Male, we’ve made the correction. Item Two, we’ve made the correction as suggested. Item Three, the sewer invert elevations we’ve corrected. Item Four, the grading, we’ve extended to provide the freeze protection around the fire hydrant at the end of the cul de sac. Item Five is being done. It has not been finished at this point, and that, I’ll speak to the overall stormwater in a minute. Item Six also speaks to the stormwater. That is not completed yet. That is being completed. Item Seven has been completed. The wetland boundaries have been added. However, the additional topographic survey, away from the road on the rest of the lots, is being completed now and has not been added to the plans yet. MR. MAC EWAN-So that’s only partial. MR. NACE-That’s only partial on Number Seven. Number Eight, the catch basin and pipe invert elevations have been added as suggested. Item Nine, the note has been corrected, or removed. Item Ten, a detail has been removed as suggested. Item Eleven, is not yet addressed. I’m still waiting for information on the sewage force main from Jarrett Martin Engineers in order to complete that item. That’s the sewage pump station and force main issue. Item Twelve is being corrected. It is not, the stormwater pollution prevention plan has to be coordinated with the stormwater plan when it’s finished, and also Item Thirteen, the stormwater management report has to reflect, has to be changed to reflect the final stormwater design. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. NACE-Speaking just briefly to the stormwater issues, I’m not quite sure where on Queensbury Avenue these residents are. I think one person said they were here. The other person, can you tell me where? SUE NASSIVERA MS. NASSIVERA-He left. MR. NACE-Okay. He left. Okay. He lives here? MS. NASSIVERA-No, he lives across the street. MR. NACE-He lives on the west side? MR. MAC EWAN-If we’re going to have a conversation here, we’re going to need her on the record. We’re going to need to get her name for the record. MR. NACE-Okay. MS. NASSIVERA-Hi. My name is Sue Nassivera. I’m at 148 Queensbury Avenue, on the east side. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/27/04) MR. NACE-You’re on the east side. MS. NASSIVERA-As a matter of fact, I think I’m right here. MR. NACE-Okay. You’re here. The previous gentleman? MS. NASSIVERA-Is down on the west side down here. MR. NACE-Down toward Dix. MR. MAC EWAN-Bill’s house would be that, see that kind of flag shaped lot, right there? His is the next lot down. MR. NACE-This one. Okay. Okay, great. MS. NASSIVERA-And the one that he’s talking about that’s still pumping should be right here. I believe it’s right there. MR. NACE-Okay. Basically, what we are doing with stormwater, the existing parcel drains southerly and easterly. You can see the tree brush line through here, where the existing drainage swales go. The lower wet areas, that wetland extends up in here along that, and up into here. Those areas all drain this way, and that drainage will be maintained. In fact, one of C.T. Male’s comments was that in our design of the stormwater system, we inadvertently were picking up water, upland water from here, into our system, and instead we should be passing it by with culverts around our collection system, but we will be providing collection for what’s on the road, and that’ll be detained in a low area down in here, where we’ll create a basin, but all of the site will maintain drainage in its existing direction toward the southeast. I can’t really speak to whatever they did on Queensbury Avenue. If it was recent during the construction of the water or the sewage force mains in there, those sewage force mains come down Queensbury Avenue and turn up along the power line to go over to Quaker Road. I think part of the disturbance, recent disturbance, was probably of a culvert that crosses or storm line that crosses Queensbury Avenue with this flow of water that goes this direction down through this wet area. So that may have been part of it, but I don’t think that would speak to this area down here. I will ask and see if I can determine any additional details that would speak to this, but I don’t think with our development, we should not be affecting any upstream areas of the development, only passing the existing water that drains off down through, and with each individual lot development in the subdivision, they’ll have to provide stormwater controls on site for their new impervious areas. At this point, our stormwater only addresses the infrastructure, just the roads. MR. VOLLARO-Have you had a chance to dig any pits there at all to see what the depth to groundwater is? MR. NACE-Yes. We dug quite a few, and in the low areas, as the one gentleman described, in the low areas around the wetlands, the mottling is fairly high. It’s within a foot of the surface, okay, and that’s why they’re hydric soils, they get the classification of wetlands is based, in both of these areas, is based solely on the soil documentation, and it’s just the fact that within those areas the groundwater is within a foot of the surface during the spring. These other upland areas, I’m sure the soils are wet, as the frost goes out. It’s a typical Washington County silty, loamy topsoil with clay underneath. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? MR. VOLLARO-When each lot comes in for a site plan review, though, we’ll have to be looking at the depth to groundwater very carefully at that time. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/27/04) MR. MAC EWAN-We’d have to be looking at all the stormwater and drainage design for every parcel. We can’t move forward on this thing tonight anyway because one of the things that we actually need in order for us to get through SEQRA is a stormwater management report. MR. NACE-Sure. MR. SANFORD-For the subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-For the subdivision. MR. SANFORD-Sure. We’d have to have a lot more than what we have now before we could even approve the subdivision. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Would it make sense, in this case, Tom, to think about the stormwater report for the whole build out of the park, since it’s such an issue? MR. NACE-Not really, because each lot is going to have its own characteristics of how it develops. To try to design for that at this stage of the game is really not doable. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m thinking of an industrial park that I used to manage in Vermont, where, you know, we had, you know, even though it was, I think, 60 acres, we had all the infrastructure design, including all the stormwater management designs, but we didn’t have a subdivision, and it was done on purpose so that, you know, we could modify the actual subdivision itself, depending upon the type of tenant and the industry that came in, but we had pre-designed where the stormwater basins would be located relative to the road infrastructure, but I mean it was a very different site. We didn’t have to deal with wetlands like you do here. MR. NACE-Right. I think with the wetlands. MR. HUNSINGER-But that would begin to address some of the concerns from the neighborhood, I would think, and avoid us having to, you know, look at it on a case by case basis, and not the cumulative impact. MR. NACE-You’re going to be looking at it on a case by case basis anyway, and I, you know, to try to design now stormwater facilities for the entire site, not knowing how much of each parcel, you know, I’m going to have to make some fairly conservative assumptions as to the impervious area on each parcel in order to do what you’re suggesting, and it’s going to oversize facilities, and be encumbering to the development of the park, okay, it’s going to require a lot of upfront money for the park to start to develop, and I’m not sure if QEDC is in a position to do that. MR. SANFORD-But, Tom, I mean, in order to come up with your configuration of lots, I mean, wouldn’t you have to factor in just how wet those properties are and if you haven’t done that, how do you know they’re buildable? MR. NACE-What do you mean? MR. SANFORD-Well, I mean, I’m hearing some debate as to whether or not some of these, I mean, when tractors are getting stuck in swampy land, I’m not so sure you don’t have a major water problem here. MR. NACE-Okay. I don’t doubt that tractors are getting stuck, but what you’ve got, and I guess what I was trying to get at, if you read between the lines, is that if you look at a lot of these wetlands that we’re not developing, not going to be putting parking or building or anything on, 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/27/04) a lot of these are actually out in the middle of the fields that are now being plowed. Okay. So, yes, I know Nate and his son, I’ve talked to them several times, and they do have to wait until later in the spring to get on some of this to till the land, because these low areas, which are wetlands, are wet in the spring. Okay, but they’re not part of what we’re going to be developing for the lots. MR. SANFORD-You haven’t drilled pits. You don’t know how wet your dry land is. I mean, right? MR. NACE-In doing the wet land, we dug quite a few holes, okay, in doing the wetland to delineate each of these out in the fields, you know, we dug shovel holes to classify the soils and figure out where the soils became hydric, okay, and to develop each of these lots will take fill, when you are coming in with a site plan for each one of these. There’s no question that it’s going to require fill in order to produce the building sites and the grading you want, and at that point, they’ve got to shape the lot, and incorporate in that shaping of the lot, incorporate on site stormwater detention. It’s not hard to do. I mean, we do it all the time, but to do it now, for the whole facility, requires, you know, a lot of assumptions that may or may not be true when you’re all said and done. I mean, it just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to design for the unknown at this point. MR. MAC EWAN-Will the test pit results be part of your stormwater management plan? MR. NACE-I can incorporate, yes, what we have. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you? MR. NACE-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-And the other question I guess I would ask for you is do you anticipate, as these sites would get developed, that you would bring in fill to raise the elevation of the buildings? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-What will that do to the water table? MR. NACE-What will that do to the water table? That should not affect the water table because we’re not really impeding the existing movement of water. The existing movement of water is in this direction, away from Queensbury Avenue, and it will remain in this direction. All the stormwater controls on the individual lots will be outletted toward these lower areas, and the water will go that direction. The addition of fill, we’re not constructing a road that’s going to cut off groundwater movement or surface water movement from one side or the other, you know, this road through here will have the culverts, in fact, that C.T. Male was suggesting, or that, and the stormwater facilities that we have proposed, that will allow water to follow its natural course. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you plan on infiltrating the stormwater from each parcel? MR. NACE-No, it will not be infiltrated. It will be outletted. It will be controlled in a basin on site. The soils are tight enough on the site that infiltration is not really practical for stormwater control. Therefore, what we’ve proposed for the subdivision is very similar to what you’ll have for each of these lots, which will be shallow basins that will retain or detain stormwater and gradually meter it out at the pre-developed rate. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. NACE-Okay. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/27/04) MR. MAC EWAN-But the plan is, as the site gets developed, you’re not going to alter the existing drainage patterns on site? MR. NACE-That’s correct. Yes. In order to make the stormwater facilities on each of the lots work, you’ve got to maintain an outflow, which is directed in the same direction as the existing runoff. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any now, Craig. I’d be looking to look at the development of each individual lot, though, I think is going to be kind of tricky to develop those lots, but we’ll see as we go along. MR. SANFORD-I mean, when we were looking at Home Depot, we looked at the whole plaza site. MR. RINGER-Because we had an applicant that was doing a subdivision and, you know, we don’t have that here. MR. NACE-Yes, this is really no different. You just did the development down here on Bay Road for Rich Schermerhorn, okay. The professional park, okay. When we did the initial subdivision, we incorporated stormwater controls for the subdivision road. Then as we’ve developed each lot and we’re, I don’t know, we’re on our fifth or six lot as far as site plans go, we developed stormwater controls on each of those lots to serve the development on the lot. If we had started from scratch, when that was first proposed and developed stormwater for the entire thing, it would be totally different because as the different uses for each lot have developed, they’ve been greatly different than what we anticipated in the beginning. MR. SANFORD-Fair point, but, you know, I’m just wondering how wet this is. I mean, this might not be a good site for anything. MR. NACE-The developable portion of this is no wetter, the soils are really not much different than down here on Bay Road. MR. SANFORD-Well, I mean, I don’t know, Tom. I mean, that’s not what people who live around there are saying, I mean. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, what you need to do is you need to you need to listen to what the public’s input is going to be during the course of this review. You need to, just like any other application we look at. We need to look at the information that the applicant is going to provide us to support their theory on how this is all going to work out, and you make your decision. That’s how it works. MR. SANFORD-Well, I know, but again, at the risk of repeating myself, for the 100 time, in th controversial projects like this, I certainly would feel more comfortable if we had a true independent analysis on the degree of how much water is this parcel, rather than relying on, A, the applicant, who may, who the public who are not experts may challenge. It’s a difficult process, and when we don’t have a true, independent, objective evaluation, and this could be a situation where, as much as we all like the concept of Light Industrial development, it could be a situation where it’s problematic in terms of the water, and I’m not going to have necessarily a comfort. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess I would ask you to keep that as an open mind, as a possibility of an avenue to pursue, but I would also ask you to give the applicant an opportunity to provide the updated information we’re looking for, inclusive of the stormwater management plan. So we can review it and we’ll take it from there, and if the Board, as a whole, feels at that point you’d like to have an independent analysis of the site, then, you know, at that time, we’ll explore that opportunity. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/27/04) MR. SANFORD-Thanks, Craig, but, you know, really what we’re seeing, and we’ve seen in the last couple of years, is as Queensbury is becoming much fully developed, what you have left are some more questionable lands that are being developed. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve been saying it for five years. MR. SANFORD-Yes, and now here we are, and I just, I have a concern for these neighbors. MR. MAC EWAN-And you have to take it on a case by case basis, and you have to come to a comfortable conclusion that in your mind, as a member of this Board, that you feel that the site is going to be developed without having an adverse impact on neighboring properties. The SEQRA is going to tell you that. MR. VOLLARO-Is there a way to expand, one of the things I noticed that C.T. Male does is they pretty much study the prints and make their comments on the drawings. Is there a way for them to get more involved with the applicant’s engineer, or maybe even go out just take a look at this piece of property themselves, in other words, expand their portion, because they are the independent engineers that work for us. MR. MAC EWAN-There is a provision in both the Ordinance and, the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Regs that give this Board the power to ask for third party analysis of something, but given that, you need to have the blessing of the applicant, because they’re ultimately the ones that are going to foot the bill, and I think the magic number is $1,000, I think is when it goes over, but I’d ask, you know, I feel like we’re getting the cart in front of the horse here. Let’s give the applicant an opportunity to complete the stormwater management report and revise things that he needs to do, and give C.T. Male a second look at this. Maybe along those lines, we could request that Staff send a note to C.T. Male saying that, you know, when this resubmission comes in, the Board is asking C.T. Male to take a particularly close look at stormwater issues on the site. Is it designed adequately in their mind. MR. RINGER-We have, on occasion, asked C.T. Male to actually go physically look at the property. I mean, we’ve done that where there’s questions that have come up. MR. MAC EWAN-Who lives up here, is it Jim Edwards or Jim Houston? MR. NACE-Jim Edwards. MR. MAC EWAN-Jim Edwards? MR. NACE-Yes, he lives down in Moreau. MR. MAC EWAN-So he could take a run up here and look at the site before he went to work. MR. RINGER-We could put it in our tabling motion. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I think the proof of the pudding is going to be in each individual lot as it’s developed. MR. MAC EWAN-I would encourage the Board to take it slow, review it thoroughly, and be totally comfortable with it like we do with any other application. I’m a bit uncomfortable when I, I don’t want us jumping to conclusions without all the facts in front of us. Give the applicant an opportunity to put those facts in front of us, and make a sound decision based on that information. If you’re still not comfortable with what’s provided at that point, then we’ll move to Plan B. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/27/04) MR. SANFORD-Fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Curious question, has QEDC got any potential buyers lined up at this point? MR. NACE-As far as I know, no. MR. MAC EWAN-Then if we say that we’ll table this to our first meeting in March, are you comfortable with that? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Because it seems like February’s agenda is starting to get a little bit full here. I’m not so much thinking a rush judgment here. I’m just thinking the time that you’d need to prepare this stuff. MR. NACE-No. I would anticipate needing a couple of weeks to get back and forth with C.T. Male anyway. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. What’s our first meeting date in March, it would be the 16? th MR. HILTON-It looks like the 16, yes. th MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone introduce a motion, please. Did you want to come up and speak? ROBERT NELSON MR. R. NELSON-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. NELSON-I just want to clarify, Robert Nelson, all over Queensbury, okay. I’ve got a house across from this, too, but it doesn’t make any difference. On the west side of Queensbury Avenue, which has got nothing to do with this gentleman at all, I guess, what are we, are we rezoning all of this or just his? MR. MAC EWAN-What you see outlined in red has already been rezoned. MR. R. NELSON-I see. MR. MAC EWAN-It is Light Industrial, and that whole parcel, they want to subdivide the parcel out. MR. R. NELSON-It is already rezoned? MR. MAC EWAN-It’s already been done. MR. R. NELSON-Okay. Is there any chance of the other side being done the same way or not? MR. MAC EWAN-If you’re a property owner on the other side. MR. R. NELSON-I am. MR. MAC EWAN-And you are interested in having that rezoned Light Industrial, what you need to do is approach the Town Board and ask them to consider it. What they would do is bounce you back to this Board who would make a recommendation. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/27/04) MR. R. NELSON-Yes. I believe it’s all residential. That’s why I sold some of it already, because I didn’t feel that there was anything that I could do with it, according to Mr. Hatin. ANDREW NELSON MR. A. NELSON-(Lost words) or could go Light, it could be more valuable. MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely. MS. RADNER-Sir, could you just state your name for our records? MR. A. NELSON-Andrew Nelson. MS. RADNER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the procedure you’d need to make, go to the Town Board and ask for them to consider rezoning it. Okay. MR. R. NELSON-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. I will leave the public hearing open, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Are you ready? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE, QEDC, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: To the March 16th meeting so that the applicant will have time to address the January 22, 2004 letter from C. T. Male Associates. Duly adopted this 27 day of January, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You weren’t here, by any chance, representing Mr. Schwartz tonight, were you? MR. NACE-Who? MR. MAC EWAN-Never mind. Thought I’d ask. Would you mind notifying Mr. Schwartz that we’ll hear his application in March. MR. HILTON-First meeting, second meeting. Do you have a preference? MR. MAC EWAN-Put him on for the second. We’ve already got one on for the first. So let’s move him to the second. I’d ask him to have someone here, please, and I’ll leave the public hearing open on that one. MR. HILTON-That’s a modification. A public hearing isn’t required. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/27/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Thank you, and that’s the March 23 meeting. rd MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Considering, let me ask a silly question as to how could that be a modification if it’s going to require him to merge two lots, particularly when he’s got one part of his building extension going on to a lot that is not presently merged? MR. HILTON-There is a previous site plan associated with this parcel. Based on that fact, it’s been determined that it is a modification of that previously approved site. That fact that it is shown going over a property line could be handled by perhaps a stipulation that says that the lots be merged before a building permit is issued. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other business? One thought before we close tonight is don’t forget to get your comments to Staff by February the 2 regarding the Great Escape documents. nd MS. RADNER-I don’t think it’s appropriate, when I’ve got two Zoning Board members who are interpreting the Ordinance, to be the casting vote. Because really it’s Craig Brown’s job to interpret our Zoning Ordinance, and that’s why even though giving you legal opinions is what I do all the time, I didn’t think it was appropriate in this circumstance. I just wanted to explain that. MR. MAC EWAN-So noted. All right. Is that it? Meeting adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 34