Loading...
2004-11-16 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 16, 2004 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN LARRY RINGER ANTHONY METIVIER ROBERT VOLLARO RICHARD SANFORD THOMAS SEGULJIC GRETCHEN STEFFAN, ALTERNATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-MARILYN RYBA PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. MAC EWAN-Just as a note for our agenda tonight, under Old Business, which we were scheduled to be hearing Site Plan No. 12-2002 for Home Depot, seeking a modification. They’ve asked to be tabled to our December meeting, which we will. CORRECTION OF MINUTES September 21, 2004: NONE September 28, 2004: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2004 AND SEPTEMBER 28, 2004, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: Duly adopted this 16 day of November, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Vollaro OTHER: PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE: PZ 6-2004 THE TOWN BOARD IS SEEKING A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD ON A PROPOSED CHANGE OF PROPERTIES ZONED LC-10 TO LC-42A. MR. MAC EWAN-The Town Board is seeking a recommendation from this Board on a proposed change of property zoned LC-10 to LC-42A. Marilyn? MRS. RYBA-The Queensbury Town Board initiated a proposed zone change to change all Land Conservation 10 Acre parcels to Land Conservation 42 Acre. The large map shows all of those land areas which are in the dark green. The proposed change effects almost 400 parcels and it totals 8,486 acres. One of the things that George Hilton, our GIS map person, and planner, put together in front of you is a map showing parcels by acreage and the areas that would be 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) affected there, so that you can see the delineation, in terms of how many parcels currently are 10 acres or 20 acres or 42 plus acres, to give you some idea how that breakdown occurs. Items that were submitted to you include the Long Form Environmental Assessment Form, for SEQRA purposes, and there are, the typical questions that are asked, any time there is a proposed zone change, and attachments included excerpts from the 1998 Town of Queensbury Comprehensive Land Use Plan as well as the Open Space Vision Plan and Map, and right now the Town Board is looking for a referral. The Town Board will have a public hearing on this on December 20, th and if you have any questions, I’ll try to answer it to the best of my ability. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Discussions, comments amongst the Board? MR. RINGER-Marilyn, the sheet you passed out here tonight. MRS. RYBA-Yes. MR. RINGER-There’s 385 parcels that we’re talking about? MRS. RYBA-Yes. MR. RINGER-So 385 different parcels would be changed by this? MRS. RYBA-That’s correct, although as you can see with the breakdown, there are some that are already 42 acres and above. MR. RINGER-The 5,870 are already 42 acre, plus the 81 acres there. How many landowners does this involve? MRS. RYBA-Well, the parcel’s, I mean, somebody, more than one person can own a parcel, so I don’t really know. MR. RINGER-Right. I know that. MRS. RYBA-But there are 385 parcels. I’m not sure how many owners. MR. RINGER-Okay. Well, I read your letter. It seemed like the City of Glens Falls is owns the majority of all this land we’re talking about? MRS. RYBA-George, maybe you can kind of fill them in better with your explanation. MR. RINGER-This letter here I’m referring to, Marilyn, that says project description, and it talks about the proposed zone change requested by the Town, all lands currently zoned R-10 are proposed to be changed. The proposed change affects four parcels totaling, that’s the City of Glens Falls land? MRS. RYBA-That was a zone change, that’s not this particular zone change. That was on last month’s. that was for Park Land Recreation. MR. RINGER-Okay. All right. Then I’m confusing the two. Thank you, Marilyn. MR. MAC EWAN-A quick calculation, over 400 property owners. Any other comments? MR. SANFORD-Yes. Mr. Chairman, our goal here is to give a recommendation to the Town Board, and my feeling is that because there’s a lot of people that are affected by this, I think this is a perfect example of a project that should be viewed by the PORC Committee, based on my understanding of one of the tasks that that Committee was charged with. It seems that for us to give a recommendation and for the Town to act on it, while this Committee is standing, is inappropriate because that’s one of the core reasons why this Committee was established in the 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) first place. So my recommendation would be that the Town recommend that the PORC Committee address this issue in conjunction with their review of Section 179. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anyone else? MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I’ve reviewed this proposed zone change that we’re going to recommend to the Town Board, and after looking at all the data that I, and I haven’t really had a chance to analyze what we’ve been given tonight, but I did take a hard look at the numbers that were given to us before that, and I don’t really see any real beneficial change to this proposed change in zone. So my position is to leave it like it is. Ten acres is an awful lot of land. I just don’t see any reason to change it. If I was going to be forced to change that, by whatever edict came down from wherever, I’d ask to have it changed to an LC-20 as opposed to LC-42. That would give people with ten lots or more an opportunity to use those lots at least, because the 20 acres would be divisible by the 10. So if they’ve got two 10 acre parcels, they would be able to develop that under a 20 acre zone. So I think 42 is far too much. Besides a lot of these lands are in the APA district, and the APA’s requirement for subdivision is 8.5, I believe. Is that correct, George, 8.5 acres in that? MR. HILTON-For the most part, yes. The majority of these parcels are within what I believe is called the Rural Use classification from APA, which is 8.5 acres. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s why I don’t see very much benefit in doing this, unless we went to something like take LC-42, or LC-10 to LC-20, but that’s as far as I’d want to go with this. MR. SANFORD-Well, Bob, just one other comment. It could also be that if the PORC Committee took a good look at this, they may say, well, look it, up at the watershed it may make sense to have the 42 or something large like that, but in other areas, it might make sense to keep it at 10 or to move it to 20, and so I don’t think, I think it’s complicated. MR. VOLLARO-Well, your recommendation is well taken. MR. SANFORD-Yes. I think it’s a complicated issue, and the watershed might not be, it might have different compelling reasons to have a different zone than the rest of the area affected. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. We could make some of that a watershed overlay zone. That would be something we could look at, but just on the numbers that I was given by Staff, and having analyzed those to some extent, and doing my own, not having a GIS at the house, was a little hard to do, but we did it by pencil and paper, but it seems to me that the 20 acre compromise does, if we’re going to change it all, that’s what I would recommend. MR. RINGER-I tend to agree very much with you, Bob, that, you know, I think 10 acres is a density that’s pretty strict as it is, and I also agree with Rich that maybe the PORC Committee will come up with something different but more specific. So I’d be tempted to leave this, recommend we leave it as it is, for now, until the Committee finishes their projects, and they may have a recommendation that we could see more clearly. MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s a reasonable approach. MRS. STEFFAN-I like that approach as well, that the Ordinance Review Committee should look at this. When I looked at the definition of Land Conservation zone, it’s a less restrictive zone than for example Parkland Recreation, and if the goal is to keep the land rural, not developed, then we’d need to look at other options, and I think the Ordinance Review Committee is the ideal place to look at that. Because if conservation is our goal, then we have to look at other options, overlay districts and things like that. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I absolutely agree. I agree with what’s been said here. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe just to follow up, and kind of like summarize our position here, is that we feel that the way it is right now, we don’t want to see any changes made to it, but we would recommend to the Town Board that they refer this to the Planning Ordinance Review Committee, for them to take under consideration and make suggestions and research it. On top of that, I guess my thoughts are is if you just take a broad brush approach to this thing and just change all this property from LC-10 to LC-42 in the Town, I mean, there’s already a lot, a good number of parcels that are in this zone already that have got natural restrictions to them, whether it’s through they’re landlocked, or they’ve got slopes. They’ve got wetlands on them, they’re in the APA. I mean, there’s already restrictions on them that prohibit intensive development on them as they stand. If the Town’s looking to preserve certain parcels in the Town, maybe the thing to do is to take like the watershed property in Town and make a watershed conservation zone that would either strictly prohibit development or very limited development on those parcels. To ensure that they’re conserved. MR. SANFORD-Agreed. Yes. I think it has to be looked at in a more comprehensive way. I agree with everybody. Are you looking for a motion? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you know, toss some ideas out on how we want to word this thing. MR. RINGER-Well, we could make a motion that we would not approve the Zone Change at this time, but it should be referred to the PORC Committee for part of their review and discussion. MR. SANFORD-I’ll second that. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’re not approving anything, I don’t think. We’re recommending to the Town Board. MR. SCHACHNER-I was just seeking clarification. What I believe Larry’s motion is, is to recommend that the Zone Change not be made, and to recommend that it be referred to the Ordinance Review Committee? MR. SANFORD-Right. MR. RINGER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I was concerned that you were going to only make the recommendation that it be referred to the Committee, which is fine if that’s all you wanted to do, but I was going to point out, just so I made sure that you knew, you could be passing on your opportunity to make a recommendation. The Town Board obviously can go forward without referring it to that Committee, but as I understand the motion, and I think it’s been seconded as well, is motion is to not change the zoning and to refer to the Ordinance Committee. Is that correct? MR. RINGER-That’s correct. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and that’s what the second was I believe. MR. SANFORD-Right. MOTION THAT WE WOULD NOT RECOMMEND THE ZONE CHANGE NO. 6-2004 AT THIS TIME, BUT TO RECOMMEND THAT IT SHOULD BE REFERRED TO THE PORC COMMITTEE FOR PART OF THEIR REVIEW AND DISCUSSION, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: Duly adopted this 16 day of November, 2004, by the following vote: th 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE EXPEDITED REVIEW: SITE PLAN NO. 62-2004 SEQR TYPE II TIMOTHY LEPPERT AGENT: FRANK DE NARDO ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 6 ANTLER ROAD, PRIVATE RD. #1, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A DOCK AND OPEN SIDED BOATHOUSE/SUNDECK. BOATHOUSES IN THE WR-1A ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. LGPC, APA, CEA CROSS REFERENCE: AV 72-03, AV 1346 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/10/04 TAX MAP NO. 240.9-1-3 LOT SIZE: 0.63 ACRES 179-4-030 FRANK DE NARDO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes? MR. HILTON-As I’ve indicated in the Staff notes, the applicant has requested waivers from providing stormwater management plan, grading plan, lighting and landscaping plans. The applicant has submitted drawings showing the boathouse. As indicated, the height of the boathouse above the mean high water mark as well, which the applicant has supplied from a calculation from October 13, 2004. This is a SEQRA Type II, an Expedited Review item, and that’s all I have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. DE NARDO-Frank DeNardo for Tim Leppert. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions? This is under Expedited Review. MR. VOLLARO-I do. I have some questions. Should I go forward with those, Mr. Chairman? MR. MAC EWAN-If you’ve got questions, go. This is listed under Expedited Review. MR. VOLLARO-Well, in looking at the drawing that was submitted, I’ve kind of established that, even though there’s no scales listed on the drawing by Coulter and McCormack, that they are a 20 to 1 scale. MR. DE NARDO-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Given that, a Drawing Number Three shows 692 square feet for the dock, which is okay. This is the dock surfaces. MR. DE NARDO-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-However, the dock top, including a portion of the walkway, measures 20 by 38, which is 760 square feet. Now, the size of the dock, of the upper deck of the dock in 179 is not addressed. I looked at that very carefully, and it does not talk about the upper level square footage over the top of the docks themselves. So this is sort of a Planning Board call, I think, but I want you to know that it’s 20 by 38, that’s 760 square feet. That’s one issue. The second thing is that the applicant claims that he looked at the Roger’s Rock reading on 10/13/04 and it was 3.28, and that yielded a mean high water mark of 11.3 and a mean low of –18.2. Now, if you go to the applicant’s drawing, where he puts the mark on the dock, the drawings showed that the mean high water mark is 18.2, as opposed to 11.3. So I really don’t know how he arrives at his 14 foot, having put the wrong numbers on the dock. Having said that. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. Say that again, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You’ll have to go to his drawing, and I’ll take you to it. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m looking at it. Where he’s listed his mean low, mean high on there. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-He shows the mean low in the lower right hand corner of the dock, as 11.3. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and 11.3 is really the mean high, not the mean low. MR. DE NARDO-That would be the mean low water mark, 11.3. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. He’s got his. MR. DE NARDO-And the mean high would be the 18.2. MR. MAC EWAN-He’s got his nomenclature correct. MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s, if you go to the actual Lake George, I didn’t bring it with me, unfortunately, but if you go to the Lake George scale for the Roger’s Rock, at 3.2, which is the reading from Roger’s Rock at 3.2, when you make the phone call in to Lake George, the mean high water mark is 11.3, and the mean low is – 18.2, and the marks on the drawings are just the reverse of that. Now, I’m not going to make a big deal of that, but I did talk to Craig Brown about that just, I guess it was yesterday, and they are going to make a measurement. MR. DE NARDO-I hope so. MR. VOLLARO-To determine the height of your dock. So I just would caution you to be careful when you actually build it that you’re building it to the right water mark. MR. DE NARDO-We always have the Park Commission come in and verify our mean high, when they come in, and we usually have our docks pinned and marked for the Park Commission and the Town of Queensbury when they inspect. We actually have a drawing and a pin in the dock. MR. VOLLARO-Just make sure you’ve got your numbers right, because I think you’ve transposed them. MR. DE NARDO-Okay. I believe they’re right, though, according to what we just, but it wouldn’t be the first time. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. Now, the SEQRA says, your SEQRA says, that you need a permit from the Lake George Park Commission. This is Number 11 on the SEQRA Short form. MR. DE NARDO-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Now, it also says you’ve got to have a permit. Now, are you waiting for our decision to go to the Lake George Park Commission? MR. DE NARDO-The Lake George Park Commission has already given the okay, but they’re waiting for your okay. Once you give your okay, they will give me the permit. MR. VOLLARO-The way the SEQRA form reads, and I don’t know. My interpretation of looking at that SEQRA form is that the applicant should come before us with the approval from the Lake George Park Commission. I may be wrong on that, just looking at the way the reading, take a look at the Short Form, Number 11, it kind of reads that way to me. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) MR. SCHACHNER-Because of something the applicant wrote, or you’re saying the form requires that? MR. VOLLARO-The form itself. MR. SCHACHNER-The form does not require any particular order of seeking approvals. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m just wondering whether we needed that. It says on Number 11, does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or approval, yes or no, and the answer is no. Here. So it means when we when get then, he goes there. So a condition of approval then that you get a permit from the Lake George Park Commission. MR. SCHACHNER-It doesn’t have to be. He has to get that whether you condition your approval on that or not. That’s entirely up to you. Regardless of what this Board says or does, the applicant needs approval from the Lake George Park Commission. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. In any event, having said all of that, with respect to the top deck, since 179 does not talk to the square footage of the over deck, if you want to call it that, I think it’s a Planning Board call if we want to let it go at 760, that’s fine with me. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, but how did you come up with 760 there? MR. DE NARDO-That would be including the mansards over the outside of the dock. That’s not including the surface area of the. MR. VOLLARO-Twenty by thirty-eight. One seventy-nine says that you do the analysis including the walkway. If you take a look at your drawing, I think you’ve excluded the walkway from the dock up to the top of the, see this little spot here, that isn’t included. What he did was he included the 34, as opposed to his previous drawing which shows 38. It’s 38 by 20. Now 20 is my number, because I used the Coulter and McCormack drawings at 1 to 20. So he has a 20 by 38 deck, which comes out to 760 square feet. MR. MAC EWAN-Sixty square feet too big. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I would think so, but really if you get down to 179, it never really addresses the top deck. It only addresses, and Craig Brown and I went through this yesterday again, and I’ll talk to Staff about that now, but our 179 does not address the square footage of the upper deck. MR. MAC EWAN-I think that has to be somewhat a commonsense approach to this. I mean, if you’re telling him that the main deck, that the boat slip portion of it has to be 700 square feet maximum, you know, someone could build a 2800 square foot sundeck. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s why I said it’s at the Board’s discretion. MR. DE NARDO-Could I make a comment on that? If you have a twin slip dock that’s still 700 square feet, and you have a 30 by 30 dock on top of it, you’re going to be way over the 700 square foot reading. So how would you go about doing that then? I mean, according to the Park Commission, it’s a 700 square foot dock, versus. MR. VOLLARO-The dock itself, and you’re in compliance with that. MR. DE NARDO-Right, and the sundeck is never addressed on any of this, other than it can’t go past the outside edge of the 700 square feet, the footprint of the dock itself, and that’s the only address that I’ve ever been, in all the years that I’ve been doing these. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) MR. VOLLARO-As I said, 179 does not address this subject. It does not address it. So in my opinion, you could come in here with a 1,000 square foot, and then be at the mercy of the Board whether the Board wants to give you a 1,000 square foot deck or not, but 179 does not address it. So I think what we’re saying here is, and I think what the Chairman is saying, is the commonsense approach is that the upper deck shouldn’t be anymore square footage than the lower deck. I think that’s what our Chairman is saying. Is that correct? So it’s a call by the Board, if you want to allow that extra 60 square feet, that’s something the Board would have to. MR. SEGULJIC-No, I would agree with that. It should be the same size as the dock below. No more than 700 square feet. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments? MR. SEGULJIC-I just wanted clarification. I wasn’t able to go visit this site. On the drawing there’s a pair of single docks. MR. DE NARDO-There’s two docks, a double slip and a single pier. MR. VOLLARO-They’re going to removed. MR. DE NARDO-Both of those will be removed. We’re putting a single slip. MR. SEGULJIC-A single U-Shaped dock? MR. DE NARDO-A single U-Shaped dock, and bringing it into conformity. Right now it’s nonconforming. Right now it’s about a 50, according to their survey it’s wrong. On measurements that I have, the dock there is probably 52 feet long. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s pretty long. MR. DE NARDO-It’s huge, and it’s nonconforming. It’s new owners there. He wants to make it conforming. It’s actually a lot smaller than what’s going to be there, and it’s not going to look like a marina anymore. I mean, it was an illegal marina at the time. MR. SEGULJIC-And then the property on the lake is 106 feet? MR. DE NARDO-I believe so. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s what I see on the drawing. I’m just verifying that. MR. DE NARDO-106.32, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments? I’ll open up the public hearing. Anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to move it? MR. SANFORD-We don’t have SEQRA on this? MR. MAC EWAN-No, Type II. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 62-2004 TIMOTHY LEPPERT, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: To construct a dock and open sided boathouse/sundeck. WHEREAS, the application was received on 10/15/04 and WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 11/16/04; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby APPROVED in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following condition which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. That the upper deck be no more than 700 square feet in dimensional size. Duly adopted this 16th day of November, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Frank. MR. DE NARDO-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Could we back up, just for a second, to the Petition for Zone Change. Just as a note, would you be sure that the Town Board gets a copy of our minutes from our discussion, so they’re familiar with where we’re coming from. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 63-2004 SEQR TYPE II QUAKER ELECTRIC SUPPLY D/B/A U-RENT-ALL PROPERTY OWNER: JEAN WEEKS ZONE: HC-MOD LOCATION: 20 SWEET ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO OPERATE AN EQUIPMENT RETAIL AND RENTAL BUSINESS. RETAIL BUSINESSES IN THE HC-MOD ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 35- 02, BP 02-877 [SIGN], BP 92-761 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/10/04 TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-44 LOT SIZE: 0.96 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030 LARRY & MARK DICKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) MR. HILTON-The applicant proposes to operate a U-Rent-All retail business. The existing building, the property is zoned HC-Mod. The project is a SEQRA Type II action. I’ve indicated the waivers that are being requested. As part of the plan, as you can see, the curb cut along Sweet Road is being reduced in size. I guess consideration should be given to including some street landscaping, as listed in the Zoning Code in this new proposed landscape area, and based on the plans, and as indicated in the application, no lighting or exterior changes are proposed as part of this plan. That’s all I have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. L. DICKINSON-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are? MR. L. DICKINSON-I’m Larry Dickinson. MR. M. DICKINSON-Mark Dickinson. MR. MAC EWAN-Tell us a little bit about your proposed project. MR. L. DICKINSON-We plan on taking our existing business, which is U-Rent-All, and moving it to that location. We are planning on changing the, along Sweet Road right now it’s basically all open. We want to try to square it up so that it’s a bit more friendly, as far as getting in and out of. We’re going to, towards Gamble’s side, make that about a 50 foot wide grass area, and then approximately a 40 foot wide driveway coming in, and then a grassy area along Sweet Road which would be about 118 feet long, give or take. We would kind of show where the parking area is, and prevent people from going in and out of Sweet Road that way. The parking area would be about 10 foot wide along Sweet Road by 118 feet, and the only other changes is actually making a smaller parking area in the back, would be 20 by 45, which would be way in the back part of the property, for employee parking. The building itself, we have no changes planned at all. It’s practically a move in situation for us. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re not going to update the façade on it or anything like that? MR. L. DICKINSON-No, not at the present time. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. L. DICKINSON-Yes, I think so. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. We’ll go down our criteria sheet. Anybody got any questions relative to design standards, building design, layout, signage, anything like that? MR. VOLLARO-The only thing is, you asked the question, Mr. Chairman, about the façade. Do you plan to, in any way, advertise your business with some sort of a sign? MR. L. DICKINSON-We are not sure what we’re going to do for the signs, but it was our understanding we needed a permit anyhow from the Town for the sign. No, at the present time, we’re trying to buy the building, is what we’re doing, and we want to make sure, before we buy it, we can move our business to it. As I say, we haven’t gone as far as having signs or anything like that, but, again, that would have to be done through the Town, with a permit. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions under design standards? Site development criteria? Vehicle access, traffic patterns? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I just have one on that, and just a question I had. I went down to look at this again, after we did our site visits, but what is the slope of the grade at that 40 foot entrance? Do you have some feeling for that? Because it’s pretty steep, and I’m wondering, during the wintertime, how vehicles come, because you’ll have a lot more traffic than I think the towing business had before you. I don’t know. MR. M. DICKINSON-No, not necessarily. MR. L. DICKINSON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Will people be able to get in and out of that grade where there’s ice and snow? MR. L. DICKINSON-Yes. Actually, that is the least of all the grades all the way down through. That’s one of the reasons why we wanted to grass the other part is that it is a very steep grade there. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. That was my only question on designs, there, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Question on stormwater sewage design? MR. VOLLARO-No. They show their septic field out back. It’s an existing field, and we and they know little about it’s condition, I assume. MR. L. DICKINSON-It’s not that old. MR. M. DICKINSON-It was replaced within the last, I think, six years. MR. MAC EWAN-Nobody has issue with the fact that they asked for a waiver on stormwater management report? MR. RINGER-They’re not changing the building or anything. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’m just asking the question. That’s all. MR. VOLLARO-No, I looked at that, Craig. I didn’t see a need for it. MR. MAC EWAN-Lighting? Anybody got questions on lighting? MRS. STEFFAN-I had a question on that, because it asked for a waiver, but I’m not really sure, with the increased parking and new layout of the building, I’m not sure whether a waiver is appropriate. Even though it’s a commercial use, it’s still a different use, and we are going to have folks, like this time of year. We’ve got parking spaces all around the building, and it’ll have to be adequately lighted. I’m not sure whether the existing lights will be appropriate. So that’s why I wanted to raise that question. MR. M. DICKINSON-Basically, with my business, people are in and out. No one’s really coming in, parking, you know, I’m not a shopping center or anything like that. They’re basically, most people pull right to the front, come in and pick up their equipment and leave. There’s no one that really comes in that’s parked to stay. So if anything, it’s going to be a real short period of time. There is a light on the side over there. MRS. STEFFAN-So all pick ups will be from the front of the building? MR. M. DICKINSON-Yes. Because that’s where we bring them out the big doors. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. M. DICKINSON-And just load them into the car from there. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) MR. RINGER-Your hours of operation are generally daylight hours? MR. L. DICKINSON-Eight to five. It’s not a nighttime operation. Actually, where we are now, we don’t have any lights. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions on lighting? MR. VOLLARO-No. They’ve got a 175 watt pole there. I think that’s probably adequate for what they need. MR. MAC EWAN-Landscaping? MR. VOLLARO-There was some question, though, about landscaping along that 18, that 8 foot front, I guess it was 118 foot front. MR. L. DICKINSON-Right. MR. VOLLARO-I looked at that, when I went over to take a look at this grade, and I really don’t see a need to landscape that front with anything. I think it looks okay the way it is now. I don’t know as I’d necessarily put any deciduous trees in there. MR. RINGER-Plant grass and stuff? MR. L. DICKINSON-Yes. Basically we’re going to take out the gravel that’s there. MR. M. DICKINSON-We don’t want people coming down anywhere through there. That’s why we wanted that. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m always concerned about putting trees along a road like Sweet Road like that. In the wintertime, those plows are going to be dumping tons of snow on that area anyway. With all the salt, the trees have a slim chance. MR. L. DICKINSON-Yes, and grass we can reseed. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a road by use, an old road by use, I should say, that’s been converted over the years, or taken or deeded, however you want to phrase it, so there’s not like there’s a setback, so to speak, from the edge of the road where you could plant in there and not have to worry about stuff dying. Environmental? Neighborhood character? Any involved agencies? MR. VOLLARO-None. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you gentlemen wanted to add? MR. RINGER-A question on outside storage. Are you going to have, you rent, I’ve rented from your place once one of these bear cats or cub cats or whatever you call them. I mean, we had fun with it, but that’s a big piece of equipment. Is that inside or outside storage? MR. L. DICKINSON-Actually, no, we think we can get all of it inside. MR. RINGER-Okay. So that you’ll limited outside storage? MR. L. DICKINSON-Yes. MR. RINGER-And if you did, that would be in the back? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) MR. L. DICKINSON-Yes. MR. RINGER-Thank you. I didn’t have anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-Do we do a SEQRA on this, Mr. Chairman? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. SANFORD-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to move it? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 63-2004 QUAKER ELECTRIC SUPPLY D/B/A U- RENT-ALL, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: To operate an equipment retail and rental business. WHEREAS, the application was received on 10/15/04; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 11/16/04; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby APPROVED in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 16th day of November, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, folks. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) MR. M. DICKINSON-Thank you very much. MR. L. DICKINSON-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2004 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED JANE POTTER PROPERTY OWNER: RICHARD BAKER AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SR-20 LOCATION: SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 3.52 ACRE PARCEL INTO FOUR (4) RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.84 TO 0.91 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 4-98, SB 8-03 TAX MAP NO. 301.19-1-27 LOT SIZE: 3.52 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes? MR. HILTON-Applicant proposes to subdivide a three and a half acre property currently zoned SR-20 into four lots, ranging in size from .84 to .91 acres. This actually is a SEQRA Unlisted action. The applicant has included the Long Form EAF. I’ve listed the waivers that are being requested by the applicant. I guess the first comment we have is on vehicular access. We made the comment that consideration should be given to constructing a vehicular connection between Peggy Ann and Sherman Avenue. I guess in this case that would be extending Ferris Drive to Sherman Avenue. Secondly, consideration should be given to providing no cut buffers between this property and adjacent residences. Based on a review of data available to Staff, it appears that there could be the potential at least for wetlands in this area, and I guess the question is, has the applicant submitted jurisdictional inquiries to New York State DEC, and the Army Corps of Engineers. The applicant has included correspondence from DEC concerning Karner blue butterfly. This plan has been forwarded to C.T. Male for their review on stormwater and grading. As far as stormwater, the applicant has requested a waiver from providing stormwater. I guess if the Board feels that that’s appropriate, the applicant, I guess, should discuss any potential impacts that this could have, that this development may have on existing stormwater/groundwater conditions, given the history in this area, and the last comment is that since this project involves the disturbance of more than one acre, a Notice of Intent and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan are required, and any approval of this application could be conditioned on the applicant providing a copy of the NOI prior to signature by the Planning Board Chairman, and that’s all I have at this time. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves. I represent Jane Potter on this application. Going through quickly on the Staff comments, we do have the signoff letter from C.T. Male, dated November 11, reviewing the grading plan and the subdivision layout, and going on to Deb th Robert’s letter with the Department of Interior and Endangered Species, that there isn’t any on there, and that was confirmed, and I believe Staff has that letter as well. Craig? MR. VOLLARO-That’s included with our package, yes. MR. STEVES-Okay. Charlie Maine was asked to do the soil test pits as well as look at it for wetlands, and give report, which I believe a copy is, I don’t know if it’s attached to the map, but on the bottom it says no wetland areas occur on this property, and he is certified by the Army Corps of Engineers to do so, and there is no State DEC jurisdictional wetlands on this property either. The soils in that area are all sands. There are some areas of mottling at around 31 22 inches, in that area. That’s why if you look at the plans, the houses will be raised up and most likely be on a slab, no more than two foot into the existing ground. A question on the stormwater, the grading plan, Tom Nace was the engineer on this, and he was also the engineer on the stormwater issues with Ferris Drive continuing over what the Town had done a few years ago, and he says there would be no impact on that, and since there is no new road proposed, so therefore no stormwater measures for drywells, detention areas would be necessary because of the sandy soils in this area. As far as the buffer zone along the northerly lots, we have no problem in implementing some type of a no cut zone in there, 10 feet, 15 feet, 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) somewhere around in that area would be no problem with us, and I would leave it open to any questions the Board may have. MR. MAC EWAN-What about an interconnect from Ferris Drive over to Sherman Avenue? MR. STEVES-Interconnect, well, as far as, for a couple of reasons, I don’t think the people in Queensbury Forest would be too happy with it, and for the four lots, it’s just not cost effective to build a road for 450 feet or 420 feet to accommodate four lots. It’s just not cost effective, and we understand that, you know, what the Town is asking, when this land was for sale at one time, and if the Town was really interested in an interconnect, maybe they should have looked at purchasing it at that time, but like I say, as a development standpoint, it’s just not cost effective to put a road in for that 400 feet. MR. MAC EWAN-Did you get a copy of Rick Missita’s, he’s the Highway Superintendent’s, memo to us regarding this application? MR. STEVES-I’m not sure. MR. MAC EWAN-It came out today. I’ll just read it in. It’s from Rick Missita, in reference to the Jane Potter proposed subdivision, to the Planning Board, today’s date. It says, “I’d prefer to see Ferris Drive extended to Sherman Avenue to make a complete loop. The proposed driveways on the hammerhead will be significantly inundated with snow. Prospective buyers need to be aware that there is going to be a problem with snow being dumped due to the fact that this is the only place it can go.” I guess maybe a question I would ask, is there maybe a better utilization of this land, as far as the configuration of lots? MR. STEVES-Well, with the shape of the land, with that “L” around the back side of the lands of the State of New York, it’s kind of tough with the current zoning to develop another plan that would still give you four lots and not access off of Ferris Drive. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe the thing is you only have three lots, or two large lots, that are both on Sherman Avenue. I mean, just on face value, it looks to me like you’re just trying to cram an awful lot into a small chunk of land and try to make it work, and it just not, to me, in my mind, I guess, a very good plan. MR. STEVES-Well, it’s 20,000 square foot zoning, and I think our smallest lot is 36,000 square feet. I believe we took into consideration the size of the property and the area zoning. It’s just not conducive, for development purposes, to construct a road. It’s not cost effective. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you can see what Mr. Missita’s, it’s the same problem I’ve got on my drawing. I made notes. I said, I know that. MR. STEVES-Well, that has been addressed in other areas. Wincoma Drive has a 25 foot wide, I believe, along Dr., I don’t remember his last name now, an easement onto the property for the snow plows to turn around, to accommodate that. There are other options for that, and we can certainly accommodate that. MR. MAC EWAN-It just seems like we have an opportunity here to do something that’s beneficial to this Town as a whole, you know, easing traffic patterns and such like that, and just given the layout of this subdivision, to me it’s just like cookie cutter. MR. STEVES-Well, with the, like I say, with the configuration of the property, I don’t see any other way to do it. MR. VOLLARO-I think there’s going to be a constant interface there between those two proposed driveways coming on to Ferris Drive and the Highway Department having traditionally used that area to dump snow in. People are probably not, I think what Mr. Missita 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) is saying in this letter is be aware, you may not be able to get out of your driveways. I think that’s what he’s really driving at there, which is a strong point. MR. RINGER-Mark, on the applicant’s concern, talking about the cost of building a road, I understand. I don’t know our position, you know, on something, I think I’m looking for Counsel here. You say it’s not going to be cost effective. That isn’t one of our concerns, really, although we’d have to go with the applicant in some cases. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I think you’re right to a degree that specifically cost effectiveness is not listed as a specific criteria of subdivision approval, but it’s sort of implied, in a way. I mean, you’re allowed to factor that in as to the reasonableness of a proposed condition or not. In this case it sounds like your concern stems from the Highway Superintendent’s comment regarding snow removal and the relative accessibility or inaccessibility of the proposed residential lot’s driveways. That’s clearly an appropriate. I mean, I’m not saying I agree or disagree. That’s not my place, obviously, but that’s clearly an appropriate thing for this Board to consider, and if snow removal concerns, due to the configuration of the lots, or the configuration of the driveways leading to the lots, is not going to work, that’s totally within your control and concern. MR. RINGER-Well, I was thinking that, and also what we’ve been trying to accomplish as a Board is to connect these developments wherever we can or connect, you know, and a proper question is, is a proper question to the applicant. What are we talking about cost wise to build a road. Is that a proper question to ask? MR. SCHACHNER-Sure, because you’re allowed to factor in the reasonableness of a proposed connection or not. Sure, you can ask. By the way, the applicant is not obligated to give you that information, but you can ask that. MR. RINGER-I mean, I have no idea what it costs to build a 485 foot road, not a clue. MR. STEVES-About $50,000. MR. RINGER-So it would be an additional $15,000 or $12,000 per lot increase. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the other thing is, I’ve taken a look at building a 50 foot wide road through Ferris Drive, and we would have to reconfigure these lots in order to do that as well. MR. RINGER-Yes. You’d have to do something with that. I understand that, Bob. I really would like to see that road through there, and if it means they’ve got to raise the price of the lots, I don’t know. MR. SEGULJIC-No, it would make sense to connect Ferris Drive with Sherman Avenue. MR. RINGER-From a Town standpoint it would, because it would give another opportunity to relieve traffic on some of those, Peggy Ann and Sherman Avenue, to some degree. MR. MAC EWAN-Another access for emergency vehicles. MR. RINGER-Another access for emergencies, and it would really affect, to any great degree, the traffic flow into the Victoria Grant subdivisions, or all those other subdivisions up there. It’s only local people, for the most part, that will be using it. MR. SEGULJIC-And no disrespect intended, but it doesn’t look like there’s a lot of creativity here. It just looks like you made it fit to what it had. MR. STEVES-I don’t disagree, but at the same time, like I said, it’s not like I have a lot of options on this small piece of property. It’s not like a large piece of property where I have numerous design options. I mean, you’re not looking at a 30 or 40 acre piece of property here. You’re 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) looking at 30 or 40 acre piece of property here. You’re looking at a piece of property that “L’s” around the back of another piece that fronts on Sherman Avenue, and abuts an existing Town road on both sides. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess from my perspective, you’ve heard me say this on more than one occasion in the last few years, is that we’re getting to the point in Town where maybe not every piece of property can be developed to its maximum potential. Just because of issues like this. MR. STEVES-Does the Board want me to take this to Rick Missita and discuss it further with him? MR. MAC EWAN-No. We don’t see a need for that. MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. RINGER-I’d like to see a site plan with a road, what it would look like to come onto Sherman Avenue. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, there’s obviously enough property there to do that, make a cut through, I mean, just by repositioning the footprints of the houses on Lots Two, Three, and Four. Another alternative is to eliminate one lot, make it a three lot with, you know, as much as I don’t, that’s not even a good idea, I guess. I was thinking of a shared driveway off Sherman Avenue, but then you’ve got two curb cuts within a couple of hundred feet. MR. METIVIER-Can I make a suggestion? What about if he came back with a plan that delineated the road, but the Town would incur the cost of putting a road in? Is that something we could possibly do? MR. MAC EWAN-No, absolutely not. We can’t. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, that would tie into the selling value of the property. MR. METIVIER-No, it wouldn’t? What would tie in? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we’re not in a position where we could approve any subdivision in this Town saying that the Town would pick up the cost. MR. METIVIER-No, that’s not what I implied, but, you know, it just, to me, you’re looking at, and I understand everybody, and I’m going to be totally out in my little left field here, but, you know, you’re taking the brunt of Sherman Avenue and placing it on one woman’s lot. I mean, where else, in all the planning, have we ever done where we, you know, told somebody they had to have a cut through on a four acre lot to relieve some of the congestion of the Town? I mean, in certain areas, yes, we have, with Schermerhorn and Schiavone, but you’re talking, you know, massive lots compared to four, and I just think, you know, we should look at the fact, yes, we would love to have a drive through here, onto Sherman from Ferris, but, you know, is it, it’s not economically feasible here for her, and why are we putting the burden on her? I know what you’re going to say, that, you know, it’s good planning and it’s here in front of us now, but it just, to me, I mean. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s any number of answers you can give to that, Tony. I mean, one, I mean, we have to take into consideration the Highway Superintendent’s memo, and he’s got concerns about snow removal at the end of the hammerhead. MR. METIVIER-Well, that could easily be alleviated. MR. MAC EWAN-Another side of the coin is, maybe this isn’t a four lot subdivision. Maybe the best plan here is a three lot subdivision. I mean, I think the position here, I think the Board 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) is leaning toward, they’d like to see the interconnect come through some how, some way. Whether that can be achieved, I don’t know. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, could I just say one thing? When I looked at this application, one thing that struck me was that the pre-application form that normally is filled out is blank, and I think a lot of the things that we’re talking about here, and it says here, by the way, effective immediately, all applicants must meet with Staff for a pre-application conference prior to completing their application and submitting it to the Community Development Department for processing. This one is blank. These questions that are being asked are all very good questions, but I think they should have been explored in a pre-application rather than at this meeting. A lot of these things should have been taken care of at a pre-application conference. For example, we ask, in the Staff notes, we say, is there a potential for Federal DEC wetlands and has the applicant received jurisdictional determinations from DEC and ACOE. Well, those are questions I think that could have been appropriately addressed at a pre-application conference. MR. STEVES-And they were. MR. VOLLARO-They were? There is a pre-application conference? MR. HILTON-Yes, we do have a form. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Why I got a blank, then, I’ll never know, but that’s what I was. MR. STEVES-No, we did have a pre-application conference. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So long as you did. MR. MAC EWAN-Could we go back to your test pits and Charlie Maine’s verified that there were no wetlands on there, no Army Corps jurisdiction, I think you said, there was no DEC jurisdiction? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Why are you needing to raise the foundations up now? MR. STEVES-Because of the depth to mottling. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the depth to mottling? MR. STEVES-Thirty-one inches, twenty-four inches, twenty-two inches. MR. MAC EWAN-Why is it so high over there? MR. STEVES-Just high groundwater. That is not wetland. It’s sand. It’s all sand. MR. MAC EWAN-Are we going to have inherent problems like we had with Queensbury Forest a few years back? MR. STEVES-Not to my knowledge. MR. MAC EWAN-It was right at the end of Ferris Drive where all the problems were. MR. STEVES-Okay. As I started off my presentation, that Tom Nace did the engineering on this, and Tom Nace did the engineering for that stormwater for Ferris Drive and Queensbury Forest, and that’s one of the reasons I had him do this so that he could make sure that everything would be incorporated into that, it wouldn’t have any adverse effects, and he said it 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) would not. I believe that the work that was done on that, alleviated that problem, and I’m sure he doesn’t want to add to that. MR. VOLLARO-I think in your Long Form SEQRA, you talked about depth to groundwater being two feet. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And this is one of the reasons why you’re talking about putting these houses on slabs, I suppose. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Also because you’ve got in-fill systems going in here for septic. MR. STEVES-Right. MR. VOLLARO-And you’ve got your two foot minimum clearance in the fill system. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Anybody from the Town or DOH witness the test pits being dug? MR. STEVES-The Department of Health is an involved agency on a four lot subdivision. We had Charlie Maine and Tom Nace do the test pits. MR. VOLLARO-My drawings are now dated, these are newer drawings, I think, that I’m looking at here. MR. STEVES-Town review comments, revision of 9/20/04. MR. VOLLARO-Right. That’s what I’ve got as well. MR. STEVES-That was the Town Engineer. MR. VOLLARO-I did not see test pit information on these drawings. It’s on the old drawings but not on the new ones. Okay. Because I don’t have the old drawings. All I’ve got is the updated. MR. STEVES-I apologize. In this sheet from Charlie Maine, it was just inadvertently left off the additional, but in the original drawings, that was photocopied right on to the sheet. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You put that on the original drawing. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-See, I don’t have the originals. I’ve got the updated 9/20’s. MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. Do we have different sets of drawings floating around here? MRS. STEFFAN-Mine are June 7. th MR. MAC EWAN-Mine are June 7. th MR. STEVES-June 7 was the revision block. th MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t have a revision block. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, you do, up in the top. MR. MAC EWAN-9/20/04. MR. STEVES-That’s the one. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s what I’ve got. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. MR. VOLLARO-But the 9/20/04 drawings don’t have test pit information on them. The updated drawings do not have the test pit information on them. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the latest revision of the drawings we’re supposed to be looking at? MR. VOLLARO-9/20/04. MR. STEVES-9/20/04. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s for Sheet S-1. S-2 is 9/20/04, or D-1, I mean, and the Stormwater Prevention Plan as well is 9/20/04. MR. VOLLARO-Now they’ve been upgraded from the original June 7’s drawings. th MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-But a lot of this test pit information didn’t get transferred. MR. STEVES-The test pits are shown. It’s just the actual test pit data didn’t make it. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I mean, mostly, it is the actual test pit data. MR. SANFORD-Mr. Chairman, I think there’s a number of issues here, but I really don’t think we should spend any time talking about redesign here. I think that’s up to the applicant. I think, at this point in time, what I’ve heard, with perhaps one exception, it seems to be the consensus of the Board that the current configuration presents some problems, in terms of the snow removal, and I think it’s appropriate to ask the applicant if they’d care to redesign this and bring it back, that’s fine, but, you know, I don’t know if anybody here feels comfortable about moving forward with this with the Ferris Road situation, and also there seems to be some lingering question regarding how wet the property really is, but, you know, in terms of trying to talk in terms of economic feasibility for a cut through road and three lots or two lots, I mean, that’s up them. I just think what we have in front of us is probably not acceptable. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I think the consensus, do you want to see a layout with the road going through? MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. RINGER-I’d like to see a plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s appropriate. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you be interested in seeing, asking him if he could put an alternate plan together that would maybe have three lots all on Sherman Avenue? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s, again, I think Rich is correct. Rather than us trying to design it, let him design it to the best of his ability, but that’s certainly one of the options, Mr. Chairman, that he could use. MR. RINGER-I would think that if we asked him to come back with a plan with a road, and he doesn’t feel that’s feasible, he’d probably come back with a plan for three lots, if he thought we were going to insist upon that road, he’d probably come back with a three lot subdivision. MR. METIVIER-How can you expect him to come back with a three lot subdivision if you’re asking him to put in a $50,000 road? MR. RINGER-No. I’m saying we ask him to come back with a different plan, either showing another road, or another plan, and if he doesn’t come through with another road, then he may come through with either the same plan or a three lot subdivision, or a plan with a road through. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, let’s be very specific about what we want to do. Our priority is that we want to see this four lot subdivision with a connector road from Ferris Drive to Sherman Avenue. Correct? MR. RINGER-I’d like to see a plan showing that. MR. MAC EWAN-If he wants to do something, or come up with something other than that, we’ll let him do whatever he wants on his own. The Board would take it under consideration, but that’s what we’d want to see, I guess. MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Just my personal position on it, and I don’t know if I’m going to have support on this, is if and when we get down the road with this a little bit farther, I would want to see the Town witness test pits being dug again. MR. STEVES-Who from the Town? MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll have our Town consulting engineer witness the test pits again. I would feel comfortable having it verified by the Town Engineer. No disrespect to you or your staff or your consultants, but I would feel more comfortable. MR. STEVES-I can’t argue with you on that. I would never second guess Charlie Maine ever, but that’s completely up to this Board. MR. MAC EWAN-I only say this because of the history in the Queensbury Forest area, the fact that you want to raise foundations up above high water table already. MR. STEVES-Yes, because we realize it’s there. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d feel comfortable with a signoff from the Town Engineer. Okay. MR. SANFORD-I also agree with that comment, Mr. Chairman. MR. STEVES-I believe you have a signoff from the engineer, but you wanted to have him to actually witness the pits? MR. MAC EWAN-Correct. Anything else? MR. SANFORD-That’s it. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HILTON-We have a letter. MR. MAC EWAN-You have a letter. MR. HILTON-It is a letter from Matthew Chase. It says, “Last month my wife and I purchased the home at 8 Hampton Court in Queensbury Forest. For numerous reasons the house and property were attractive to us including the undeveloped area posterior to our lot. The woods provide us a certain degree of privacy as well as a barrier of safety for our young children. I recently received notification that there is a proposal for development of this property. I, therefore, am requesting that the Board include a no-cut zone of no less 25 feet adjacent to the existing properties. Thank you, Matthew Chase” And that’s all we have. MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to do a tabling motion, and be specific. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2004 JANE POTTER, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: What we’re looking for is a redesign of the subdivision to include a connector road from Ferris Drive to Sherman Avenue, we well as new test pit date witnessed by the Town Engineer on any and all lots that are proposed for development in your new configuration. Duly adopted this 16th day of November, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Metivier SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2004 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED RINO LONGHITANO PROPERTY OWNER: H. RUSSELL HARRIS ESTATE AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: RAINBOW TRAIL APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 7.63 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 4.1 AND 3.4 ACRES CROSS REFERENCE: AV 94-91, SB 3-92, SB 18-91 TAX MAP NO. 279.15-1-61 LOT SIZE: 7.63 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-The applicant proposes to subdivide a 7.63 acre property into two lots, both being the minimum lot size for the zone, which is SR-1A. The subdivision is a SEQRA Unlisted Action. The applicant submitted a Long Form EAF. As I’ve indicated, it’ a proposed two lot subdivision, two proposed homes on private wells and septic systems will be constructed on these lots, and I guess our question was, have any test pits been performed in the area of the two proposed septic systems to verify soil conditions and separation distances from groundwater, and just a note, as proposed, it appears that there’s enough residential density to accommodate the proposed development, and the proposed development appears to meet required wetland setback. With that, that’s all I have at this time. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves, again, representing Rino Longhitano on this application. This is a two lot subdivision of property on Rainbow Trail. Russell Harris Estate is the owner of it. It’s a seven plus acre lot that they will have, both lots will have a 75 foot road frontage, large wooded area, putting the houses back behind the wooded area. On the open areas, there was no additional cutting for the house, just slightly for one septic system. The soils 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) in the area were looked at by Charlie Maine on the previous subdivision, as well as looking at it at this particular lot, and as long as we stayed up into that area of about the 324, 325 contour we had no problems with groundwater or mottling. We did have John O’Connor from New York State DEC come out and flag the wetlands, as delineated on my map on the bottom of the bank, and then have shown the 100 foot setback from the DEC wetlands, which would be their no disturb zone, and we can accommodate that for both lots, and I do have his letter in my file. I believe we submitted, as well as addressed it in the Long Form. MR. MAC EWAN-Who’s letter is that referring to, O’Connor’s? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-John O’Connor’s? MR. STEVES-That’s correct, and this is an SR-1 Acre zoning, and even taking the area out for the wetlands, a very small amount of wetlands within the property, even removing the buffer zone. We’d still have 3.67 acres outside the buffer, and 2.72 acres outside the buffer. So as far as each lot is well over an acre above the requirement for the zone. MR. MAC EWAN-Questions from anybody? MR. VOLLARO-Do you want to go down your checklist, or do you want to just throw them open? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know. Let’s go down the checklist, I guess. Design standards. Has anybody got questions with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, density calculations, clustering criteria? Development criteria, site conditions? MR. RINGER-I always have problems with these driveways that go on and on and on, but that’s my own personal. MR. VOLLARO-Well, both driveways are over 600 feet long. MR. RINGER-Yes, both of them are over 600. MR. MAC EWAN-Site conditions, utilities, street design and layout, traffic patterns, pedestrian access and circulation. That seems to be what you guys are talking about. MR. VOLLARO-Well, yes. I think one of my questions was the same as Larry’s. The driveways on A and B lots are both close to 600 feet, if not over. MR. RINGER-They looked like a little over 600. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, a straight line from this Rainbow Trail road all the way out to the proposed house is exactly 615 by scale, but that doesn’t mean much. It’s close. Around 600 foot drives. Pretty long. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s longer than that, because you’re looking at 132 feet right there and you’re looking at 565 all the way to the end. What did you say, Bob, what was your number? MR. VOLLARO-Six hundred and fifteen, by scale. This is a 50 to 1 scale. MR. STEVES-They can easily pull the houses farther forward, I mean, to show that everything fits, as far as the well, septic and house, and the setback from the wetlands. MR. VOLLARO-Why did you set them so deep anyway? What was the, just because, is there any reason for that? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) MR. STEVES-Just to show them in the open area, that’s all. I mean, there’s no particular reason. They can go forward, and as far as a driveway, there is the potential to have a common drive down the center and then branch off the both houses. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that old pasture land back there or something? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, when we went up and did our site visits, obviously when you park right there by the road where the sign is posted, it’s incredibly wet right there. There’s standing water, I don’t know how deep it is right there, but how far back in there does it go? Because as far back as we could see was just standing water. MR. STEVES-That tapers off to the south and east. You can see the contours. They kind of show them. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m kind of looking at your aerial photograph here, and it looks like there’s a natural drainage swale or something that runs right along through there, just about. MR. STEVES-Like I said, I had John O’Connor look at that as well, and he said it is not wetland. I’m not disagreeing that there’s some drainage in there, and that’s primarily on Lot 10B, near the 324 contour on the road. So it wouldn’t have a problem with putting in a common drive centered on the lot line. MR. MAC EWAN-This is just as a side note here. Bob, who was the guy who gave that session last week up in Bolton? MR. VOLLARO-It was Connelly was the moderator, but I don’t remember the guy that did it, but I know the comment that you’re going to talk about. The foot. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I say this tongue in cheek when I say this, it just amazes me that there’s two guys that both work for DEC, well, one works for DEC. One works for the APA, and their definition of a wetland is about as far removed as you could get from each other. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s not the two guys. It’s in their regulations. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s almost two guys, in a sense. They’re both going by their own regs, but they’re saying different things because of the regs. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. What I’m saying though is it’s not because two guys think differently. The law is different. MR. MAC EWAN-So the APA’s regulations on the definition of a wetland is different than DEC’s? MR. SCHACHNER-Dramatically so. MR. MAC EWAN-And they’re both State entities. Isn’t that amazing. MR. VOLLARO-The comment that was made by the APA guy was very interesting. It stuck with me like glue. He said all you’ve got to do is step into an area and it goes squish, squish, it’s probably a wetland. MR. SANFORD-Did you do test pits on this property? MR. STEVES-There was test pits performed all the way around it in the previous subdivision, and I had Charlie Maine look at this site, yes. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. That’s a double phrase. MR. STEVES-There was test pits done on the original subdivision, and then I had Charlie look at this particular lot as well. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Were there test pits done on these two lots? MR. STEVES-He said that because of the proximity of the other test pits and him looking at the site, he didn’t have any reason that the groundwater mottling would be consistent with what was on the Lot 9, from the previous subdivision, and he didn’t have any issues with it. MR. MAC EWAN-What was the previous subdivision? MR. STEVES-That was Rainbow Trail, 1992. MR. MAC EWAN-1992. Ten years ago. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I have a question about that previous subdivision. I might as well throw it out here, for whatever it’s worth. I notice that the lots are Lots 10A and 10B. Is there any previous subdivision approval where there was a statement for no further subdivision? Because why don’t we have a lot called Lot 10 and Lot 11, rather than 10A and 10B? MR. STEVES-I can name it anything you would like. I just wanted to let you know that it was all part of Lot, the original Lot 10. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. There was no statement on the past subdivision about no further subdivision of this lot? MR. STEVES-No. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Sometimes what happens is the word is, we didn’t really subdivide, it’s still Lot 10. That’s what crossed my mind. You’ve answered the question. MR. STEVES-Previous subdivision, the test pit data. MR. VOLLARO-Was on Lot Nine only. MR. STEVES-Right, well, it was all around this area, but we showed the closest one, nine inches topsoil, nine and twenty-five sands, twenty-five to sixty-one fine sands, mottling at thirty-five inches. MR. MAC EWAN-That was 10 years ago? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-And roughly about, well, 700 feet away from where these proposed houses are? MR. VOLLARO-Close. MR. MAC EWAN-Far and away removed from the wetlands. Is it worth it to ask to have test pits done on these two parcels? MR. VOLLARO-I think so. MR. MAC EWAN-Considering their proximity of the wetlands. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) MR. SANFORD-I think so, too. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think they should be. He can move his houses forward away from that 100 foot line if he wants. That’s his prerogative, but I think I’d like to see test pits wherever they plan to put the final drain fields. MR. MAC EWAN-Where is the APA line on Ridge Road? MR. STEVES-Above 149. MR. HILTON-Yes, roughly 149. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s above 149? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I thought it was just above Sunnyside East, when you head down the dip, you hit the first dip there on Ridge Road. MR. SANFORD-The dump is in the APA. MR. MAC EWAN-As you start up the incline right there, isn’t the sign right there? MR. HILTON-It’s right above Jenkinsville, above Jenkinsville park. MR. MAC EWAN-Above Jenkinsville. What do you mean by above? MR. SCHACHNER-The Park. He’s saying the Park. MR. HILTON-The Park that’s on Jenkinsville Road, the APA blue line is above that. MR. SCHACHNER-Before the intersection of Ridge and Jenksinville, which is where the Transfer Station is. MR. SANFORD-So, well, this might be, then, this is APA then. MR. METIVIER-No, that’s not true. MR. VOLLARO-No. It’s outside the line. MR. MAC EWAN-Because the line jogs through there, is what you’re saying. MR. VOLLARO-This is below that line. Is that what we’re saying? It’s below the line. MR. HILTON-Below that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So the APA was advertising their little park about a half a mile too soon. Right? MR. STEVES-Is this something that the Board would want to see test pits before an approval or a condition of approval to bring back to Staff to show that it is suitable? MR. MAC EWAN-You’re asking me, I’m only one of seven. MR. STEVES-I’m asking the Board. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I would like to see this, I would like to view this with test pit information myself, personally. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) MR. SANFORD-Well, what are you contemplating, building on slab here again? MR. STEVES-No. MR. SANFORD-Okay. I would like to see the test pit information. MR. VOLLARO-See, you’ve got mottling here at. MR. STEVES-Thirty-five. MR. VOLLARO-Thirty-five. So that’s three feet, just about, and it’s not too dissimilar from your prior application on the Potter. There it was two. MR. STEVES-Agreed. The whole subdivision was predominantly that on the previous subdivision, and you see the type of houses they’re building there. MR. VOLLARO-So how do you plan on, you know, having three feet to groundwater going down to a basement? It sounds to me like that’s a marginal, a little bit. You’re looking at the buyer of the next house. MR. STEVES-Knowing, going in, I mean, most of the houses in there raise, you know, raised ranch style or some fill brought in around them, understandably so, but I mean, on, you know, three and a half acres, we didn’t see that as a problem. MR. MAC EWAN-What did you say earlier, with the Potter application, what was the threshold that DOH does when they, five or more? MR. STEVES-Five lots of under five acres. MR. MAC EWAN-Five lots of under five acres, okay. MR. STEVES-That triggers Department of Health, and the Department of Health, if you did three this year and three next year, you would be jurisdictional, by Department of Health. I think it’s five years in between creating five lots or less of five acres. It’s actually four lots or less. If you go over four lots of under five acres, that triggers the Department of Health. Otherwise they won’t look at it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Test pits. Is that where we’re going with this? Have them verified by the Town Engineer? MR. VOLLARO-That’s okay with me. I don’t have a problem with that. MR. METIVIER-I’m just wondering if they would make any difference where you put the houses, where the test pits should be or the test data should be, test pit data should be. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I mean, typically you do a test pit, and correct me if I’m wrong, in the proximity of where you plan on putting the house. MR. METIVIER-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-If the test pit should come back and say, gee, that’s not a good place to put a house, then you relocate the house someplace else on the parcel. MR. METIVIER-Well, I’m just thinking, that’s going to be done anyway. Is it necessary to send him away, without requiring him to do test pits, if. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what we’re asking. We’re saying that, yes, we want test pits done, and what now I’m asking is the Board’s consensus, do they want them verified by the Town Engineer while they’re being done? That’s the question I’m asking. Yes? MR. VOLLARO-I’d say yes, but I would also probably say that we could condition this approval, if we’re going to approve it, on the fact that he does exactly that, he has the test pits dug where he’s going to build the house. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the consensus is we get the test pits first. MR. VOLLARO-First? Fine. I would prefer it that way, but I would have gone if the Board wanted to go the other way. Either way. I guess I’m going to ask the question again, so that I’m comfortable. Do we have a pre-application conference on this? I guess the answer has got to be yes, because I don’t have the benefit of a pre-application conference paper in my notes. We did have a pre-application conference? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you wanted to add, Matt? MR. STEVES-Just to make sure that that’s all the concerns you had. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s talk about the driveway thing. A couple of people mentioned a concern about the driveway. MR. SEGULJIC-I think a common driveway makes sense to me. MR. VOLLARO-And split them off to the two houses. MR. METIVIER-Why is that? I don’t understand the logic behind that? MR. SEGULJIC-Instead of having two driveways right next to each other, just have one. MR. METIVIER-When you’re talking about 600 foot driveway, though. MR. SEGULJIC-No, no. We’re not saying you have to put the houses back here, though. I mean, to me, if they want to build a 600 foot driveway, I think it’s kind of foolish, but if they want to. MR. METIVIER-That’s just it. If somebody wants to build a 600 foot driveway, who are we to tell them they can’t? MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not a matter of us telling them they can’t. It’s a matter of us having to look, as part of one of our duties, to look out for the health, safety and welfare of the Town. MR. METIVIER-But I don’t understand where that’s coming from. I just don’t get it. I must be missing something. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re not saying that as definitely a safety issue. It’s something that we’re asking about. We’re questioning about, a 600 foot length driveway. Fire apparatus could be a problem. We had a subdivision up on the top near Butler Pond here, I don’t know, how many years ago was that, Larry, five or six years ago, where there was no way in heck a fire truck was even going to get up to that guy’s property because of the slopes and the length of the driveway. These are questions we’re obligated to ask. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) MR. METIVIER-I understand that. I’m just very confused where you’re going with the common driveway for these two lots. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that was just a proposal laid on the table by one Board member. That doesn’t mean we’re going to agree with it. MR. METIVIER-I mean, I understand, in different areas on West Mountain Road, Sherman Avenue, highly traveled speed, you’re looking at two little lots in a remote area of the Town. That, you know, you talk about snow removal, if you have a common drive with two people, I mean, I don’t know. I’m very confused by that. I don’t get it. MR. STEVES-I think it’s a bigger issue when you have a longer driveway, and correct me if I’m wrong, but if you have steeper slopes involved, you know, in an instance like this, it’s an existing lot now. If somebody wanted to build a house back there, they could do it. I think the person’s right to do that. If they want to have their house 600 feet from the road. MR. MAC EWAN-I think from a personal point, on common drives, is you remember the one we had off Country Club where the guy wanted to develop way out behind the Animal Hospital and he had like five or six lots that were all served by one common driveway, and just from a property owner’s liability, I guess, I would look at it not favorable, because it concerns me, years down the road, you get neighbors squabbling with who’s turn it is to plow out. MR. METIVIER-Well, I’ll tell you what, that’s exactly what I’m thinking about here is a common drive, 600 feet, you’re going to have neighbors squabbling about who’s going to go out and shovel the next foot of snow. I mean, leave it up to each other, and to take it a step further, yes, we have problems with fire apparatus in some of these subdivisions, but you’re looking at two lots here, with flat slopes, relatively flat. I mean, there’s no steep slopes here. I’m very confused by that. I don’t understand why you would require a common drive here. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re not. We’re not, Tony. It was just brought up as a suggestion. I don’t think we’re really pushing that issue. It was brought up as something to talk about because a couple of Board members, earlier on when we started discussing this application, had concerns with the length of the driveways. MR. SANFORD-Actually, from a safety point of view, even though it’s redundant, the two driveways perhaps would be better because if you have like four or five homes on a common drive, and they’re narrower, you could have a bottleneck situation, or, you know, you could have a blockage problem, if there’s a fire at one, etc., etc. So I’m not as concerned about that. My only real preference here is to make sure we know what we’re dealing with in terms of test pit data. MR. STEVES-I just want to make sure, you know, because I want to go back to my client, we started this process last fall, and we came in to you for a concept and we realized that you had a question on the wetlands. So by the time we got a hold of DEC and they could get out here, it ended up being in the spring, because then there was snow on the ground, and it’s a process that started last November. We’re now in November again. I just want to make sure that when I go back I have all my T’s crossed, so when I go to my client. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m just curious, when you first contacted DEC to ask them to come and do your wetland delineation, how long did it take before you actually saw them on site? MR. STEVES-I think my original letter was back last fall, and they came in in May, I believe, of this year. MR. MAC EWAN-So they’re running like five, six months behind. MR. STEVES-Well, they can’t do it when there’s snow on the ground. They really, they can, but it’s not suitable. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) MR. MAC EWAN-What’s APA’s back up, about the same, isn’t it? MR. VOLLARO-About the same. MR. MAC EWAN-Five, six months, and they do it year round, if it doesn’t have a lot of snow cover. They can delineate wetland year round. MR. STEVES-They can all do it year round. It depends on their workload, but it’s a lot easier not to do it over the winter, a lot easier. Because then you can’t rely just on the quick auger. You have to auger every inch of the way. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m trying to make you feel better. I mean, you’re asking for a guy to come out of Warrensburg. With the APA it’s two guys covering the entire Park, for wetland delineation, the entire Park. All right. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BETTY FRANCETTE MRS. FRANCETTE-I’m Betty Francette, 48 Rainbow Trail. My concern is where the driveway is going to, driveway or driveways is going to come out. It’s right near us. MR. FRANCETTE-We’re at the end of the drive. MRS. FRANCETTE-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-The driveways would come out very close to where that public notice sign was posted. That’s where they would come out. MRS. FRANCETTE-Right. There’s a waterway going through there. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s very wet in there, yes. MRS. FRANCETTE-Very wet, and there’s a culvert under the road for some reason, right? The water to go through there. What are you going to do with the water? MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll ask him that when we get him back up here. MRS. FRANCETTE-Okay, because we live at the end of Rainbow Trail, and it goes down to a slope, and the plow goes around the curb, it could be feet of snow at the end, and that snow has to have some place to go. That’s our main concern. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll ask him that question. MRS. FRANCETTE-Okay. That’s about it from us. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MRS. FRANCETTE-We’ve lived there 42 years. So it’s a big concern. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Thank you. We’ll ask him that question when we get him back up here. MRS. FRANCETTE-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) JOHN SALVADOR, JR. MR. SALVADOR-Just a couple of general points, as I listen to you deliberating. There’s really no good reason for these agencies to have conflicting regulations with regard to wetlands. The New York State legislature established a law, passed a bill, in 1976, in which they defined a wetland, and they defined a wetland as those lands commonly known, those are the words used, commonly known, as marshes, swamps, bogs and sloughs. That’s it, and why these agencies can’t get on board. This is the law of the State. This is what a wetland is. We shouldn’t be bothered with these, trying to sort out the DEC and the APA and the Army Corps and all that stuff. MR. VOLLARO-One would think, John. One would think that would be true. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. By the way, the State has preempted, when the State legislature establishes a law, passes a bill, it’s a statute, they have preempted all the other agencies of the State. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s not true, Planning Board, just so you understand. That’s a legal comment by this commenter, and I apologize for interrupting him, but I don’t want you to believe that comment, because that’s legally incorrect. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. In any case, the State legislature in, I believe it’s 1976, that’s the bill, and that’s the definition. With regard to test pits, recognize that if you do this at this time of the year, it’s the time of the year when the soils are the driest, and that’s why we rely on soil mottling, to establish the high seasonal groundwater level. That’s important. With regard to shared driveways, definitely it could cause a problem downstream for the homeowners, and this is sorted out through what is called the homeowners document, and there’s even provision in the law for establishing a document that addresses the issue of a diminimus interest, for instance, there’s just a road, and that can be done also. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? MR. HILTON-We have a letter, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-A letter. Okay. MR. HILTON-It’s a letter from Joe Martin, 54 Rainbow Trail. It says, “I received the notice of request to subdivide the lot next to and behind our property. I believe we have the most to lose on this subdivision. If the builder keeps to his plan regarding dwelling location and his septic systems actually work, the layout looks good. I do however believe that there is one fundamental flaw in this. There is a matter of a small stream that doesn’t appear to be on the map. I discussed this with a gentleman in the planning department. He informs me that, in most instances, the board members walk through the property. The exception is if there is nothing to see – e.g. structures, etc. I would hope this has been walked through, but in case it hasn’t, I would like to point out that on the more southerly lot a stream that feeds water year- long runs under the road at right angle and diagonally occupies most of 60 ft. (as I paced) of the southern end of the lot’s frontage. My concerns are private driveways, as this gentleman in the planning department informed me that the DEC frowns highly on diverting streams, but then, if the DEC doesn’t know about until it’s done, then it’s too late, right? There are arrows spray- painted on the road over the culvert, however one would have trouble viewing the extent of its path because of the overgrowth. I also don’t know how the stream might factor into the placement of the house on the southern property, and being that it’s so wet out there another possible concern may be septic systems. Wetlands must mean the “wettest” land as earthworms crawl out of the dirt on this property as I walk around in late spring. It is probably coincident that you are looking at this in the fall instead of spring when the ground is very soft. Whoever buys these houses won’t be thinking of it. Well, that’s about it. It may be relevant to table this and walk it through if it hasn’t been done. Make your decisions on items that are 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) relevant. And I will pray that they don’t decide to clear-cut the trees so that we have a buffer between our back yard and their front. Sincerely, Joe Martin” MR. VOLLARO-Did Mr. Martin say which lot he was on? Is he on Lot 9? MR. HILTON-He said 54 Rainbow Trail, and I guess I couldn’t tell you if it was nine. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it, no other letters? MR. HILTON-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? I’ll leave the public hearing open. Matt? A question that Mrs. Francette had relative to that culvert, isn’t that right about in the proximity where you’re talking about putting the driveways? MR. STEVES-As I said, that’s on the south and westerly portion, right where about the 324 comes across. We’ll depict a culvert that’s on there underneath the road, the drainage swale. I did have the DEC look at that extensively as well as the back of the property, and they say it is not jurisdictional by them. It is a drainage. I will have, when we do the test pits, Mr. Edwards look at that as well, and if it is necessary to put a driveway in the location of that, we will have a culvert so that it is not blocked. We will not impede the flow of the drainage that comes through there. MR. SEGULJIC-And can you map that stream on the? MR. STEVES-The drainage swale and that’s not a stream. MRS. SEGULJIC-Drainage swale. MR. STEVES-You’ve got it. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else from Board members? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, just one thing. If we do a test pit at this time of year, as much as I hate to say it, me and mottling have never gotten along well, as a science, I have a problem, because I can’t see it. I’ve been out there, and I’m just not good enough to understand what I’m looking at, but it would be nice to know what the seasonal high groundwater really is. MR. STEVES-Right. Mottling is a layer, (lost word) layer in the soil that establishes where water sits for a minimum of two weeks a year. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I know what it says, I just have a problem with seeing it when somebody says, well, that’s it, and I just don’t, you know. I’ve tried to do it. MR. STEVES-Understood. That’s why we rely on the experts. MR. VOLLARO-So I’d like to see a test pit dug so we know what the seasonal high groundwater is. MR. STEVES-Certainly. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Does somebody want to move it? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’ll make the motion. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2004 RINO LONGHITANO, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: That the tabling will be based on: 1. Having two test pits dug in the proximity of their drain fields that would be put on Lots 10A and 10B. Test pits to be verified by the Town Engineer. 2. The applicant will give the new drawing, if we’re going to get a new drawing, an indication of where the swale exists on the western most side of this lot, Lots 10A and 10B. Drainage swale should be shown on the plat. 3. Refer the subdivision plat to the Highway Department for their comments regarding the culvert that goes under the road and the location of proposed driveways. Duly adopted this 16th day of November, 2004, by the following vote: MR. SANFORD-Would we want to have proposed driveways indicated on the plat, the revised plat? MR. VOLLARO-Well, that would be highly dependent on where he finally sets the house. I mean, he can put it on the plat, but I can tell you that what they’re going to be doing, when they set the house, they’ll try to set it where they’ve got the best drainage position for their septic field. AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE SUBDIVISION NO. 16-2004 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGES SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED MICHAEL CRAYFORD ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF CHESTNUT RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 16.61 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO (2) LOTS OF 13.53 AND 3.08 ACRES CROSS REFERENCE: BP 98-84, BP 98-88 TAX MAP NO. 290.00-1-22.12 LOT SIZE: 16.61 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MICHAEL CRAYFORD, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-As I’ve indicated, the applicant proposes to subdivide a 16 plus acre property into two lots, both meeting the minimum lot size, and the applicant has requested a stormwater management plan waiver, as well as a grading plan waiver and Sketch Plan waiver. The subdivision plat indicates a wetland delineation from the previous delineation and the density calculation provided indicates that there, it appears that there’s enough allowable density for this subdivision. With that, that’s all I have at this time. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves representing Michael Crayford on this application. This is property that lies on the east side of Chestnut Ridge Road, which was part of the previously approved subdivision for Crayford and Higgs, back, I believe, in 1997, and we’re taking what was Lot Three, which was the farmhouse with the barn, and then further subdividing that into two lots of 13.53 and 3.08 acres, to break the barn away from the house. So no new dwellings are proposed. It is the refurbishing of the existing barn. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the intent with the barn? 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) MR. CRAYFORD-The barn is a structure that I would like to refurbish, providing it’s engineered, or is structurally sound, into a residence, and that’s part of my plan is to attack that problem. MR. MAC EWAN-And if not? MR. CRAYFORD-Then I may have to take the barn down and build a new house. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions relative to design standards? MR. VOLLARO-This is pretty straightforward, I think. MR. MAC EWAN-Development criteria? He’s asked for a waiver on stormwater. He’s asked for a waiver to landscaping, sketch plan, stormwater and grading. Any questions in general from anybody? MR. VOLLARO-A letter of jurisdictional determination from Army Corps. Is that something we need here? MR. STEVES-On the previous subdivision, when it was approved, all the wetlands were flagged and delineated by Roberts Environmental, and they report, and went to Army Corps at that time, and it’s the same piece of property. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. In this instance, I believe, there is a pre-application conference that I have, and in that letter, and I guess it was Craig Brown who did this interview, and he’s asking for, a request for jurisdictional letter. When you met with him on 6/15, June 15, he asked for th that, and I just happened to notice that on the pre-application conference. MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-It doesn’t say, in other words, when you talked to him and he asked that question, did you say to him, okay, we don’t need it because we’ve already got it? MR. STEVES-Yes, and there was letters in there from Roberts Environmental. I don’t know if I had the whole file at the time. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. STEVES-Because he knew the areas of wetlands, and then he superimposed what was already on the existing subdivision plan that’s been filed in the Clerk’s Office, and approved by this Board. It’s the exact same one. It was delineated in 1997. MR. VOLLARO-Other than that, in looking at this, I also see mottling here at 27 inches, by the way. That’s, seasonal high groundwater is at 27 inches. So if you had your mottling at 27 inches, and you decide to build the new house, let’s say the barn couldn’t be done because of engineering or structural problems, would you be then developing that as a slab with mottling at 27 inches? MR. CRAYFORD-Well, the grades in the back of the building drop off quite substantially. The front of the barn is grade, and then if you go down behind the barn, you’re down one level. So I don’t think it would present a problem, because your house would still be replacing where the barn foundation would be, basically. MR. VOLLARO-I know if I was developing a piece of property with a high seasonal groundwater at 27, I’d want my finished floor to be at least, at least a foot and a half above that. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) MR. CRAYFORD-Yes, well, the barn cellar floor is where the animals were kept, the cow barn, where all the stanchions are, and that’s all still there, and there’s no evidence of any water ever coming up into that area at all. MR. VOLLARO-Pretty dry. MR. CRAYFORD-Yes. So I don’t propose that we would put a foundation in any deeper than that. MR. VOLLARO-Well, other than that, I don’t have any further comments on this subdivision. It looks like you’ve been delineated. Got the Roberts letter, and I don’t see anything else on here, myself, Mr. Chairman, that I want to comment on. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments? MR. SANFORD-Well, just your, the stone structure, is that what’s marked as a shed here? There’s a very small? MR. CRAYFORD-Yes, that’s a shed, yes. That’s the stone building. MR. SANFORD-And that’s going to remain, I take it? MR. CRAYFORD-It remains with the house, yes. MR. SANFORD-With the house, okay. No, I always thought that was kind of an attractive little building. MR. CRAYFORD-I’m trying to keep it attractive. MR. SANFORD-Yes, okay. MR. CRAYFORD-My plan is to try to keep the property as a whole looking the same as it always has, as a historical thing. So if the barn can be saved, it’s in disrepair, then this would become, you know, part of the established. MR. SANFORD-It’s a funny siding on that barn. MR. CRAYFORD-Stucco, yes, old stucco. Different stuccos. MR. SANFORD-Yes, okay. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s Dutch Colonial design. Isn’t it? Pennsylvania Dutch? MR. CRAYFORD-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-A question for Staff. Marilyn Van Dyke, I thought at one time, somewhere in her endeavors, a Town wide inventory of all the barns in the Town of Queensbury, those that had historical significance, I guess, those that should be preserved. Do you know if there’s anything in the archives on this particular barn? MR. HILTON-I don’t know. We can research it. MR. CRAYFORD-I can answer that question. I know Marilyn Van Dyke personally, and had her come over and view the property before I finished renovating the main house, to find out if she had any information that would support anything else that I had there. She really had no other evidence about that particular property that would give any historical significance, other than it’s 100 years old. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) MR. HILTON-I mean, we can research, talk to her. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think the applicant has just told us what the situation is. MR. HILTON-Yes, and they’ve indicated. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not on the historical record. To your knowledge it’s not. MR. CRAYFORD-No, it’s not. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like Staff to look it up. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s fine. MR. HILTON-I’m pretty certain it’s, I’m almost 100% certain it’s not on any national or state registry. MR. MAC EWAN-No, no, and I wasn’t going that way. It was something that Marilyn had done, or a committee had done in Town, to inventory all the barns of historical significance in the Town of Queensbury. That’s as far as it went. MR. HILTON-And I believe we have access to that, if you’d like us to research it, we can. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you think the barn is structurally sound now? MR. CRAYFORD-Not all of it, no. The one end with the silos are not connected, the roofs on the silos have been blown off and they will probably have to come down anyway because they’re a hazard. That end of the particular barn is in sad disrepair, a lot of rotted timbers. Whether it can be resurrected, I don’t know, but I’ve got a company out of Syracuse that just specializes in barns to take a look at it. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s a couple of guys over in Vermont and New Hampshire, that’s all they do. They’re very good at what they do. MR. CRAYFORD-The barn is very unusual, in the fact that it doesn’t have post and beam construction. There’s a truss every 15 feet, and it’s conventional framing in between, which is unusual for a barn that’s 100 years old. So it’s like new technology then. 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. They submitted a Long with their application. It’s only a two lot subdivision, we can do Short, can’t we? MR. STEVES-Your Subdivision Reg’s require a Long Form now, for any subdivision. Sorry. MR. METIVIER-“Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance?” MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. SANFORD-Well, we’re actually researching that. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) MR. METIVIER-Yes. I was just going to say, we don’t know that, but, actually, let’s see, proposed action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. So that would be no. MR. SANFORD-Right. MR. METIVIER-Are there any fossil beds located on the site? No. Is it in an area designated as sensitive for archeological sites on the New York State Site Inventory? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. SANFORD-No. MR. METIVIER-So it would be no for that. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 16-2004, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: MICHAEL CRAYFORD, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 16 day of November, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to make a motion for Preliminary, please. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 16-2004 MICHAEL CRAYFORD, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: To subdivide a 16.61 acre parcel into two lots of 13.5 and 3.08 acres WHEREAS, the application was received 8/04, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment (n/a at sketch plan), and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 11/16/04 and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Preliminary Stage is hereby APPROVED in accordance with the resolution prepared by staff Duly adopted this 16th day of November, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to move Final. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 16-2004 MICHAEL CRAYFORD, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: To subdivide a 16.61 acre parcel into two lots of 13.5 and 3.08 acres WHEREAS, the application was received 8/04, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment (n/a at sketch plan), and application materials in file of record; and 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 11/16/04 and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Final Stage is hereby APPROVED in accordance with the resolution prepared by staff. Duly adopted this 16th day of November, 2004, by the following vote: MR. SANFORD-Mr. Chairman, at your request, Staff is going to check with the Town Historian regarding historical significance. So how do we condition it? MR. MAC EWAN-Just leave it out, because really I was looking at it from, whether the Town has inventoried it or not wouldn’t carry any weight on preservation of the barn. I think it’s only done as a historical note to inventory the barns here in Town. MR. SANFORD-Okay. That’s fine. AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Mr. Salvador wants to speak. Five minutes. JOHN SALVADOR, JR. MR. SALVADOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Actually, I’m coming here tonight just delivering some information to you. There are two documents here that I have and the reason I’m delivering this information to you is that both of the subject matters in these documents go to the issue of our site plan, which is before your Board next week for review. The first of these I have copied you as members of the Planning Board, but I didn’t leave the copies with the Planning Department because I just issued it yesterday, and your packets had already gone out. So I’m delivering it here tonight. The second one deals with the text of a statement I made before the Zoning Board of Appeals October 20, and as I say, both of those go to site plan. th With regard to the statement before the Zoning Board of Appeals, I’d just like to read Mr. Stone’s comments of that meeting. He said your presentation was very learned, very erudite, very long, but very informative. So I’ll leave that with you. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, may I? 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) MR. MAC EWAN-You may. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. This is to the attention of the Board. I plan to make a motion this evening, and I’ll read the motion for everybody. Resolved, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury shall reduce the number of applications it will review each month during the Year of 2005, from the current number of 16 down to 12. This amounts to a 25% reduction. The Planning Board will continue to meet twice a month during 2005, and will review six applications at each meeting. The reason for this reduction is to significantly reduce the probability of late night sessions by allowing the Planning Board sufficient time to go through and review each application without going past 11 p.m. We believe this will be beneficial to both applicants and the Town. Now Be It Further Resolved that we the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury either approve or deny this resolution by the following vote, and Mr. Chairman, would you please call Maria for the vote, or. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, let’s discuss it first here. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Before you do anything, and you’ll need a second on that, before you can move it. MR. SANFORD-I’ll second it. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, let’s discuss it. MR. SANFORD-I thought you seconded it for discussion. MR. VOLLARO-Do you want to discuss it first? MR. RINGER-Well, if you make a motion, then you get the second. If you didn’t make a motion. Are you making a motion? MR. VOLLARO-I made it. MR. RINGER-Then you need a second, then you can discuss it. MR. VOLLARO-Well, Mr. Sanford just seconded the motion. What’s the sense of the Board here on this? Mr. Chairman, why don’t you try to poll the Board. If you want me to read it once again. MR. RINGER-Well, I’m not going to be on the Board next year. I sent a letter to Dan today. My term is up and I asked him not to be reappointed. So I won’t be here, but, you know, I feel, I would like to comment on. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. MR. RINGER-I think when you’re given an appointment or a responsibility to a job or a Board, and I look at this as a job, so to speak. MR. VOLLARO-So do, I. MR. RINGER-And the job is to serve the Town, and the Town is the public and the applicants, and I think you take, you accept the responsibility to be on the Board. You take the applications as they come. If you have to go to three meetings, you have to go to three meetings, or, you know, I just don’t feel that that’s the way to handle it, Bob. So I’m actually, I’ll abstain on this vote because I won’t be here next year, but I just don’t feel that, when you accept the responsibility to be on the Board, you accept the responsibility to accept the workload that comes with it, and that workload may be eight applications a month or sixteen applications a 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) month or twenty applications a month or sometimes five applications a month. It just comes with the territory. MR. VOLLARO-That’s true, Larry, but what I’m trying to get at here a more thorough review of these examinations. If we’ve got 16 applications a month, plus a completeness review, which you and I have had to do, homework that has to be done on these, you know, the time spent on this Board, in this seat, when we review applications, is a small time, small amount of the time spent when you have to review these applications at home. MR. RINGER-Preparation does take time, but again, my opinion is, you accept the job, you do the job as it comes. Sometimes it takes more hours than you plan, sometimes it doesn’t. It’s a responsibility, I feel, to the applicants and to the Town, but, you know, that’s my opinion. MR. VOLLARO-Listen, I mean, everybody’s got a right to their opinion on the Board. No question about that, and you voiced yours, and I understand your position. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments? MR. SEGULJIC-I would say tonight that, well, it’s not so much the number. It’s the complexity of the applications. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, that’s inherent. MR. SEGULJIC-Tonight might be a bad time to bring that up because tonight was a relatively light night. MR. VOLLARO-Look, we’re talking about our experience over the Year 2004. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I would have to agree with Larry. It’s a responsibility we have. We took it on. We chose to do it. MR. SANFORD-I don’t see where it’s minimizing the responsibility. It’s merely organizing the responsibility. I mean, you know, he’s not saying we’re not going to hear applications. He’s saying we’re going to deal with things in a manageable context. MR. SEGULJIC-But the problem comes in, I mean, how are you going to organize, how are you going to look at the complexity of applications? MR. SANFORD-Well, right now we limit them. He’s merely changing, or suggesting that we look and change the parameters. It’s not like, I mean. MR. VOLLARO-We’ve already said sixteen. So we’ve already established the fact that we won’t deal with any more than X. I’m saying I’d like to reduce X by 25%. So that we get the ability to really do a good job on each one each one. Some of the applications that go through here, late at night, at a quarter to eleven, when my mind begins to fizzle, if I had a very complex application, I’d like to be the last one, at 11 o’clock, because this Board turns to mush at 11 o’clock. MR. SEGULJIC-I would agree with that, but that’s why we have 11 o’clock. MR. RINGER-I think you’ve done two things, Bob. You’ve eliminated, you’ve reduced it from eight down to six, but you’ve also said in your motion that there’d be no more than two meetings. See, I think that. MR. SANFORD-I’d feel better if you didn’t have the two meeting restriction. MR. VOLLARO-Well, wait a second. The Planning Board will continue to meet twice a month during 2005. Our charter is twice a month now. Under special conditions, we go to three, but 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) right now, if you look at our consistent operation, we do two meetings a month. Occasionally we have an extra, and that’s at the discretion of the Chairman. MR. SANFORD-Okay, well, I just don’t want to. MR. RINGER-I think it takes it out, the way you, it takes away from the discretion of the Chairman, with that motion. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it says will continue to meet twice a month. MR. MAC EWAN-The left side, the left wing wants to get involved here. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. METIVIER-I just, I mean, at this point, I mean, I think we have been able to manage eight pretty well. I’m just thinking in my mind how many large projects we could possibly have coming up in the next few years, because, frankly, there’s no land left, but. MR. VOLLARO-You’d be surprised, Tony, how innovative these people will get. MR. METIVIER-I know, but I mean, if you look at the magnitude of the projects that we’ve had in the last few years, I mean, I just don’t know how many huge projects we have. I don’t know. I think the workload’s going to become more manageable, moving forward, but I could be naive. MR. SANFORD-Well, you never know, Tony. Someone might decide to build houses and make them look like boats or boats and make them look like docks, and, you never know what’s going on. MR. METIVIER-I know, but I guess I have no problem. I think if we could adhere to the, I think our biggest problem is, and we have to get a handle on this more than anything else, is the backlog that’s created every month from tabling applications, and I think it’s good planning, but at the same time, you know, it would be great if we didn’t have to table so many applications that really extends our workload a lot greater on any give night. MR. VOLLARO-Well, just let me say something about that. One of the reasons that we get to tabling, Tony, in my opinion, is that when you do a good personal review on these things, at home, and understand these applications well, and ask the right questions to the applicant, that’s why things fall out and we have to table them. If we went and just skimmed over the top of a lot of these, we would pass them. MR. METIVIER-I agree with that, and I didn’t mean to say that we wouldn’t table applications, because I think. MR. MAC EWAN-I think what Tony’s trying to say, thank God there’s no applicants in the room, but the applicants did a little better job preparing their applications, knowing the philosophy of this Board, it would save probably 50% of the tablings we typically do, if they had just done their homework up front. MR. VOLLARO-That’s absolutely true. MR. METIVIER-And what surprises me is that once in a while you’re, well, no, I won’t say it on the record. MR. SANFORD-I guess, Mr. Chairman, we have a motion and a second, but, you know, I wouldn’t be, again, I don’t see any magic in these numbers, and I think a compromise would probably be, you know, from 16 to 14, as opposed to 12, also accomplishes a little bit about what Mr. Vollaro was hoping to do, and, yet, you know, it’s incremental. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Gretchen, did you have a comment? MRS. STEFFAN-As I consider this, obviously my experience is newer than the rest of you, but when we have this many applications to review, you know that the Community Development Department Staff has got all of the preparation work to do, in addition to, you know, conferences that are happening for some future meetings that occur, and so I’m concerned that between the capacity of the Community Development Department and then what we’re seeing, that it might be a good idea to reduce the number of applications that we see each month. There’s always the opportunity to expand to more than two meetings, if we got into a situation where we got. MR. MAC EWAN-I have trouble with the definition of having the two meetings in there. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we can take that out. MRS. STEFFAN-But we’ve, but in the past, you know, there have been three or four meetings in a month, and I think that’s before me, and the other thing is that sometimes we table something and then we put it in the agenda, even though we have a limit of 16. We’ve bumped that up, and so I don’t see any reason why that couldn’t happen, if we go down to, if we do a 25% reduction and go to 12 items on the agenda, if there was something that needed to be postponed, we could probably continue the practice of postponing those for the applicant. MR. SANFORD-Plus we do, when we get, like when we had The Great Escape, we did special meetings. Recognizing just how time consuming they would be. MR. MAC EWAN-Wal-Mart, there were several they were all by themselves. MR. SANFORD-So, you know, I think I would feel more comfortable with Mr. Vollaro’s motion if he just left it silent on the number of meetings. MR. VOLLARO-I did. I took out, the Planning Board would continue to meet twice a month during 2005 and will review six applications at each meeting. I’ve deleted that from this motion. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask this. Why the need to do this now and tonight? MR. VOLLARO-Well, because we’re approaching the Year 2005, Mr. Chairman, that’s part of my reason is to establish a position for the next year, as to how we’ll operate. MR. MAC EWAN-My thoughts on this are two pronged. One, I’d certainly like to give an opportunity to everyone involved at Staff level to throw a comment or two at this and see what their thoughts are, because they’re actually the ones that are in, you know, they’re at Ground Zero fighting day in and day out trying to make sure applications are complete, responsible to make sure that we get all the stuff that we’re looking for and making sure that the applicants are staying on top of their game. That’s partly my reason. The other part I’m thinking of is I’m inclined to wait until the first of the year, just to see where this PORC Committee’s going to go, and I would like to give that Committee, it’s got a meeting this week, and it’s got a meeting next month, a meeting on Saturday of this week, to see how that’s going to shake out, give them another month to shake out and see what kind of direction it’s going to get. The moratorium thing I don’t think is totally off the table, although I don’t think it’s something that’s at the forefront of consideration, but I’d like to see where this PORC Committee’s going to go, and what’s going to shake out of that. MR. SANFORD-Yes. On the other hand, though, Craig, I mean, what Bob’s suggesting almost compliments the concept of the moratorium, in a roundabout way. In other words, the moratorium is holding the line to say we’re not going to. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) MR. MAC EWAN-The other side of the coin is if this is done tonight, if it’s done next month or if it’s done or if it’s done the first of January, that’s a policy change, for the Planning Board. It’s part of our policy and by-law procedures. That goes into effect the minute that thing is passed. It’s not a 30 day wait. It’s not, you know, get a memo out to everybody and their brother so they understand. It goes into effect that day. MR. SANFORD-Well, this would go into effect effective January 1, 2005. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I’m proposing it to do, the first of the year. It’s kind of looking forward to 2005. MR. MAC EWAN-Has anybody got a calendar for December? What’s our meeting dates in December? MR. SCHACHNER-The meeting dates for December would be the third Tuesday in December is December 21, and the fourth is December 28. stth MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the Thursday in the week of the 21? What’s that date? st MR. SCHACHNER-The 23. rd MR. MAC EWAN-The 23. That’s when the PORC Committee would meet. rd MR. HILTON-I don’t know if anybody’s going to be meeting that night. We, the Town offices are closed all day Friday, the 24, and half day Thursday, the 23. thrd MR. MAC EWAN-And you’re telling us this because? MR. HILTON-I don’t think there’s going to be much activity the evening of the 23. rd MR. MAC EWAN-So then we’d need to back that up. It would be the Thursday before that, then, would be the 16. So let’s do this. Let’s put this on your agenda and we’ll take care of it th the 28 of December. th MR. VOLLARO-We have a motion on the floor. Why don’t we take a vote on it. Just so the vote goes down as on the record. MR. MAC EWAN-Based on the way you had read it originally, because that what you’ve got. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll change the motion to. MR. MAC EWAN-You’ve got a second up there, so your motion’s up for a vote right now. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, he can change the motion if the second changes. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to rescind it and modify it? MR. SCHACHNER-He can withdraw his motion if the second withdraws. Yes. MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-We don’t have to get too hung up on the order, but that, all those options are available. MR. SANFORD-All right. Withdraw your motion. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll withdraw the motion. I’ll restate it. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) MR. SANFORD-And I’ll agree to that, as the person who seconded it. MR. VOLLARO-And I’ll restate the motion as follows. The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury will reduce the number of applications it will review the number of applications it will review each month during the Year 2005, from the current number of 16 down to 12. This amounts to a 25% reduction. The reason for this reduction is to significantly reduce the probability of late night sessions by allowing Planning Board sufficient time to thoroughly review each application without going past 11 p.m. We believe this would be beneficial to both applicants and the Town alike. Now, Be It Further Resolved, that we the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury approve or deny this resolution by the following vote. MR. SCHACHNER-You’re not moving to approve or deny, are you? MR. VOLLARO-Well, the Board has to either approve or deny this motion. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. SCHACHNER-The motion you just read said to approve or deny. It seems like you want to be moving one way or the other. MR. MAC EWAN-You want it to approve. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. All right. I wanted the Board to have the opportunity to deny. MR. MAC EWAN-You don’t get the votes and they’re denying it. MR. SANFORD-Okay, now I want to be a little bit technical with you, Bob, I know you’re going to love it, but the reason that you wanted to revise this, you wanted to revise this so that we could have a third meeting or possibly a fourth meeting, but the way your revised motion read is we were limiting how many applications per month. Why don’t you say, per meeting day, six. That way we can have, no more than six on a meeting day. That way if we have a special meeting, we could do it. Do you follow me? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, sure. Okay. MR. SANFORD-You’ve got to redo it and then I’ll second it. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll redo it one more time. MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY SHALL REDUCE THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS IT WILL REVIEW EACH SESSION DURING THE YEAR 2005 FROM THE CURRENT NUMBER OF EIGHT (8) DOWN TO SIX (6). THIS AMOUNTS TO A 25% REDUCTION. THE REASON FOR THIS REDUCTION IS TO SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE PROBABILITY OF LATE NIGHT SESSIONS BY ALLOWING THE PLANNING BOARD SUFFICIENT TIME TO REVIEW EACH APPLICATION WITHOUT GOING PAST 11 P.M. WE BELIEVE THIS WILL BE BENEFICIAL TO BOTH APPLICANTS AND THE TOWN ALIKE, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: Duly adopted this 16 day of November, 2004, by the following vote: th MR. MAC EWAN-Just so I understand it, what you want to do is change your meeting dates, not specifying how many dates you have, but no more than six items on the agenda per meeting. MR. VOLLARO-Per session. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) MR. MAC EWAN-So if we have, let’s hypothetically say if we have another Great Escape come in next year, and I say, as Chairman, I want to put them on a meeting all by themselves. MR. SANFORD-You can do that. MR. MAC EWAN-So one meeting we’re going to have five and one meeting we’re going to have six. One meeting we’re going to have one. MR. VOLLARO-You could do that. MR. METIVIER-No, you could have six, six, and one. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not what they’re saying. MR. SANFORD-You could have six, six, and one, is what the intent was. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not what you’re saying. MR. SCHACHNER-I think it is. MR. MAC EWAN-They’re saying that will be limited to six items. MR. SCHACHNER-How ever many meetings, yes, you could have, the way I’m understanding the motion, you could review 186 applications in a 31 day month, if you meet every day, but however many times you meet, every time you meet, your maximum number of applications is six. MR. MAC EWAN-Be careful what you wish for, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Look, you know, we can can this. I’m just trying to do this for the benefit of the Board. If the Board’s reaction is they don’t want to do this at the present time, I’ll withdraw this motion and we can. MR. SANFORD-No, I think we’ve got to call the vote, and it really should read, Bob, again, as to no more than, because like Craig’s saying, this is saying it has to be six, and if we have a Great Escape, it’s only one, but I think it’s understood. That’s understood. MR. VOLLARO-I would think so. MR. SANFORD-I second it, and, do you want to call the vote. AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro NOES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan ABSTAINED: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-The reason I’m saying no is I’m not opposed to it. I want to revisit. I want to revisit it on our last meeting in December, and I want to rework the language a little bit on it, and I also want Staff’s comments and input. I think the right thing to do is to ask Staff, because they’re the ones who are affected even more than we are. MR. VOLLARO-Well, on an unofficial basis, I’ve already talked to some members of Staff about this. MR. MAC EWAN-Fine. I’d like to get their public opinion of it. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) MR. METIVIER-And, Bob, I just want to state that I am not opposed to this, but I’ll tell you what, I am, it’s a selfish motive for me to vote no, but it’s difficult enough for me to be around two Tuesdays a month with my job. If I have to go three and four Tuesdays a month, I might as well resign, because I just can’t do it anymore. I mean, I’m in Syracuse and I rush home at, you know, quarter of seven. I don’t get to eat. I change sometimes. Sometimes I don’t. I never see the kids. If I have to keep doing this three and four times a month, I just am not going to do it, you know. I’d rather be here. I’m committed to here. I’m here at seven o’clock. If I have to stay until 11:30, 12:00 o’clock, so be it, but to have to, you know, struggle every Tuesday to be home, it’s killing me. So that was my motive, and besides that, I appreciate it, and I understand where you’re coming from, but, you know, I wouldn’t mind staying later because I’m already here. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The position then is, is it the Board’s position that we want to revisit this around the December timeframe, maybe the first meeting in December? MR. SANFORD-That’s agreeable to me. MR. MAC EWAN-I want to put it on the agenda for the 28. That way the PORC Committee th has now met three times before that meeting. We’ll have ample time to discuss it with Staff. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Can I ask you a question, Mr. Chairman. If we’re going to do this on the 28of December, would you undertake to write the motion? th MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Just one more thought, my position, I’m not so sure that 12 is the number to go to. I’m willing to compromise, maybe somewhere in between. MR. VOLLARO-Fine. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know if 12 is the number. Honestly, Bob, my biggest concern is Staff. I mean, they’re the ones that are burdened most by this, and they’re affected more by it than we are. MR. VOLLARO-You have a Staff member here. I would ask the Staff member on the record, how do you feel about? MR. MAC EWAN-One does not make a majority. MR. HILTON-And I’ll probably give you an unofficial answer and say that, you know, given time to provide official comment, I would take that. I certainly see some benefits to allowing Staff and the Board to take more time to address the applications and provide, potentially provide a thorough review. I do also understand the concerns about, you know, backlog and things like that. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I think Larry’s come up with a very good point. I mean, when we took on this job, it goes with the job. MR. HILTON-But I guess, you know, there’s something to be said for thorough review. MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely. I think there’s good arguments on both sides of this, and I think that’s why I wanted to take a step back. MR. HILTON-But having said that, I mean, we would provide an official comment on the 28. th 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I think I know where Staff’s going to be on this. I just want to hear officially. That’s all. MR. RINGER-George, if we reduce to 14 or whatever, if Staff gets 20 applications, they’ve still got 20 applications. It’s only the Board, right, that’s going to be reducing them down to 14. So what savings will Staff have? They’re still going to have to take the 20 applications and get them ready for review, and some of them are going to be carried over to the next month. I’m having trouble understanding the savings for Staff. MR. HILTON-I think right now, the way we have been doing things is we have a, you have a 16, in your bylaws, there’s a 16 item limit. We’ve been factoring that in, and anything over 16 has been put on a bump list to the next month. My understanding, before the discussion this evening, was that if that number went to 12, we would take number 13 and put that on a bump list. MR. RINGER-But you’re still going to receive 20 and you’re still going to have 20, and you’re going to have a pre-conference and all that with 20. What I’m looking for is where is Staff saving it’s time? MR. HILTON-Well, again, I think if you’re looking at a lesser number of applications, it potentially could allow the Board and Staff to look at things more in-depth, potentially could allow Staff to not only review applications, but get into some of the, I don’t know, longer range planning projects in the Department that we have been meaning to for so long, but have been so busy with current applications. MR. RINGER-I guess Staff is still going to have 20 applications. MR. HILTON-But we wouldn’t, if you set that at 12 or 14, whatever that number is, let’s assume it’s 14, items 15 through 20 we’re not going to look at for that month. We’re not going to review them and provide comments because they’re over the. MR. RINGER-You won’t provide comments, but you’re still going to have to look at them. You’re going to have to have a pre-conference. MR. HILTON-Certainly. MR. RINGER-So the only thing is Staff notes that you’re not going to prepare, and then next month, let’s say you go from 20 down to 12, next month you’re going to have those 8 left over plus the new ones that you’ve got to look over the 20 new ones, we’ll say, plus you’ve got to re- review the other eight that you didn’t, you know, I’m having difficulty seeing a tremendous savings to Staff. I see a savings for the Planning Board, certainly, in time, but I don’t see a savings for Staff, but again, you’ve got Staff to discuss this with, but looking at it from the outside of Staff looking to Staff, I don’t see where you’re going to save a lot of time, but you guys know your job better than I, certainly. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not just a question of time, though. It’s a question of them doing a better and more thorough review, Larry. MR. RINGER-It seems that that’s going to put Staff further behind, every time, if they get 20 applications in January, and they’re only going to accept 12, or we only accept 12, then they’re going to carry eight over into February that they’ve already reviewed preliminarily in January, plus, say 20 from February. Now they’ve got 28 applications. Now they can only, you know, you’re not going to get that many every month. MR. MAC EWAN-And this is exactly why we should not entertain this thing tonight. Because Staff may have some thoughts on it. I mean, I look at it from the perspective of if Staff is responsible for looking at 16 applications right now and making sure they’re complete to get on next month’s agenda, and that 16 just dropped from that number down to 12, that’s four less 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/04) applications they’ve got to worry about that are being totally ready to go for this month, that they can just tell the applicant, when they want to come in for their pre-ap meeting, we’re booked this month. You’re not going to be on until November, come on in here on October such and such a date and we’ll sit down with you. MR. RINGER-They can’t tell the applicant that until we have your completeness review, which is in mid-month. MR. SANFORD-Actually, we already had our discussion period. MR. MAC EWAN-They’re having their pre-ap meetings before they even have your completeness review meetings. MR. RINGER-Right, but they don’t know. MR. MAC EWAN-So if they had 20 people walk through the door tomorrow, say I want to get on the Planning Board agenda, and we have a 12 agenda limit. You’re going to send, you know, eight of those people or six of those people packing, saying don’t even bother coming in this month. We’ll see you in two months. MR. RINGER-I don’t think they can do that. I think they’d have to take the application. MR. MAC EWAN-This is why I want them to comment. MR. RINGER-Yes, and then it’s a snowball thing. They just keep getting further and further in the hole. MR. MAC EWAN-This is why I want them to comment. So we’re all on the same page. MR. RINGER-I’m thinking of Staff, too, and I’m just not seeing a savings for Staff, that’s all. MR. MAC EWAN-If what we can do will help accomplish what I hope it would do, and that’s eliminating or decreasing, and this is no disrespect to Staff, bad applications from getting in front of us, stuff that the applicant could have done their homework ahead of time, which would ultimately save us tabling applications to a further date because, X, Y, and Z weren’t accomplished. When, if there’s a little bit more breathing room, a little bit more time for Staff to make a more thorough review with an application, and they know what this Board looks for, and they can tell an applicant, you need to have, this, this, and this, then come back and see us, and that’s going to help out, I think, everybody all the way around, and more importantly, hopefully, it would free up some time for Staff to do things other than just Planning Board service. That’s a pie in the sky dream, but. So, that’s your mission. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 49