Loading...
2005-05-17 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 17, 2005 INDEX Site Plan No. 56-2004 Queensbury Partners 1. Tax Map No. 289.19-1-27 Subdivision No. 11-2004 Diamond Point Realty 21. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 296.10-1-19 FINAL STAGE Subdivision No. 14-2004 Jane Potter 40. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 301.19-1-27 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 25-2005 Boss Hoss Cycles of Stamford 46. Tax Map No. 288.12-1-20 Site Plan No. 22-2005 Swank 49. Tax Map No. 288.12-1-22 Site Plan No. 23-2005 Arthur & Robert deAvila 54. Tax Map No. 303.19-1-52 Site Plan No. 17-2005 Darren S. Miles 57. Tax Map No. 290-1-86 Site Plan No. 17-2004 Douglas & Teresa Miller 67. EXTENSION THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 17, 2005 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT VOLLARO, ACTING CHAIRMAN THOMAS SEGULJIC RICHARD SANFORD ANTHONY METIVIER GRETCHEN STEFFAN GEORGE GOETZ THOMAS FORD, ALTERNATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-MARILYN RYBA GIS SPECIALIST-GEORGE HILTON LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER TOWN ENGINEER-C.T. MALE-JIM EDWARDS STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. VOLLARO-Welcome, all. This is the first regular meeting of Tuesday, May 17, 2005 for the Queensbury Planning Board, and we’re going to be starting off this evening with an application for Queensbury Partners, Site Plan 56-2004. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 56-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED QUEENSBURY PARTNERS PROPERTY OWNER: BRB GROUP AGENT: DENNIS MAC ELROY, EDP ZONE: PO LOCATION: SW CORNER OF BAY RD. & BLIND ROCK RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 174 UNIT MULTI FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON A 34 +/- ACRE PROPERTY. MULTIFAMILY USES IN THE PO ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 13-99 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/11/04 TAX MAP NO. 289.19-1-27 LOT SIZE: 6.71 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 MICHAEL TOOHEY & DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TOOHEY-Good evening. Thank you for having us back. Let me introduce myself again. My name is Michael Toohey. I’m an attorney from Saratoga Springs, and I’m here representing the Queensbury Partners. With me this evening is Dennis MacElroy from EDP who has 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) designed the particular site that we had. We have been before this Board on a couple of other occasions, in an attempt to begin the site plan review process for this particular project. In those, at those times that we were here, there was some concern and consternation as to whether or not the project we had presented it was in fact permitted under the Zoning Code for the Town of Queensbury. We tried a couple of views of the project, and that seemed to continue to be the controlling question that stopped us from rolling on with the site plan review portion of this project. So as to address that, we went to the Zoning Administrator, asked a series of questions. I know, in March, you received a copy of his response. I will not go through all of those. Those are certainly part of the Town’s record, indicating that the proposal for this use is one that is permitted under the PO zone within the Town of Queensbury, and as a result, we would like to proceed with the site plan approval process for this site. For the first time we’ll go through that. The Staff, as normal, has supplied us with extensive notes, and I believe that the best way to address the site plan application and those points are to go through those observations, explaining where we stand with regard to the project, and informing the Board what our intentions are to address the Staff’s concerns on a go forward basis. If that’s acceptable to the Board, we can proceed with that. Okay. The project, as you know, is located diagonally across the street from Town Hall, and what we are proposing is a 174 unit multi family dwelling, the 34 acres of land that are set there. To my left, your right, is a plan that is the original plan that we set in and proposed for this project. The units would be located within a series of buildings with one common structure being a clubhouse, a meeting area, pool, etc. that would be open to the common use of the participants or the residents within the site. The site conditions are such that based on our analysis, and I think supported by the Staff’s analysis, the number of units that we are proposing on the site are permissible under the allowable density rules that apply to this particular section. One of the questions that has come up with regard to this site is whether or not the Army Corps of Engineers has accepted the delineation and issued the comments or jurisdictional determination. I believe that, in fact, has happened. There are maps that have been forwarded to the Town, and there was a letter that was forwarded. We’ve given the Staff another copy of that that addresses that particular concern with regard to the density issue. MR. VOLLARO-Excuse me just a moment. One thing, on the Army Corps of Engineers, have they accepted this delineation and issued comments and jurisdictional determination? Do you have a letter of that type from the Army Corps? MR. HILTON-I do have a letter. It was just handed to me this evening. It’s dated, or there’s a stamp on it December 7. I apologize if we missed it in our records, but it was handed to us this th evening, and it’s from the Army Corps of Engineers. It looks like it’s accepting the delineation, and it’s checked as an approved jurisdictional determination. MR. VOLLARO-And you just got that letter this evening, or have you had it in the file? MR. HILTON-Again, at this time, it may be in the file. I haven’t come across it. When I was writing the notes, I didn’t find it, but, we have the letter now. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You can continue. MR. TOOHEY-The letter we’re referring to was forwarded by the Army Corps in December, and it was copied to the Town. We’re just supplying a backup copy for convenience purposes. The conformance with the Master Plan is the next issue that comes into play here, and the comments on that have to do with sidewalks along Bay Road that are not shown on this plan, and Blind Rock Road, and pedestrian linkages to the Town. We understand that one of the concepts that the Town would like us to entertain is to create more of a focal point for the community at the intersection of Bay and Blind Rock. We will, in fact, incorporate sidewalks along those two perimeter boundaries. We will also work to enhance that intersection so as to make it more of a focal point for the area. The question with regard to pedestrian linkage is something that we will also entertain. One of the concerns and problems that you have is in creating the pedestrian linkage, it has to be linked into something, and one of the things that exists is that there are no sidewalks, either on the Town’s property, on the Town’s intersection, 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) or on the property diagonally across the street. So certainly on our property where we can, we will work to enhance and work towards that plan. Additionally planting and landscaping treatments at the main intersection of the site at Bay Road, as we go through this process, and we recognize that we would have to come back again, because there’s questions here that we will have to give you more data on, what we will do is work to enhance the landscaping features with regard to those locations, especially in regard to the Bay Road corridor idea, as to what you would like to have created on that particular site, or in that particular area. MR. VOLLARO-Are you saying that that plan is now subject to being altered to agree with what the Town’s vision for Bay Road is or? MR. TOOHEY-Well, what I’m saying, and I want to make sure I’m very specific with regard to this. I’m addressing the comments that were given to us by the Staff, and they have to do, first with regard to sidewalks, and we’re agreeing that we would do that. Secondly, having to do. MR. VOLLARO-You’re going through the Staff comments, is that what you’re reading from? MR. TOOHEY-Yes, sir. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fine. MR. TOOHEY-Landscaping treatment at the main intersection. We absolutely can work with the Staff and the Planning Board to do that, and to assist in the creation of a better focal point by whatever town center definition you wish to apply. I think what it means is that at this intersection there’d be more of a focal point, communal/pedestrian access point, and we will attempt to, on our property, as we can, begin to assist in the creation of that particular element of this site plan. MR. VOLLARO-Can I ask you just what section are you, so I can kind of follow what you’re doing. MR. TOOHEY-I’m sitting here, on Page Two of the notes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. TOOHEY-Conformance with the Master Plan. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. TOOHEY-The third paragraph in there are specific recommendations from the Planning Staff. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. If we’re going to talk about the Master Plan, under Strategies, I’d like to get the Master Plan out. If you want to go through with this whole thing, we can, but we’re going to go back and we’re going to talk about what the Master Plan says in certain areas, and I have it with me, and I’ve got it earmarked and ready to go if you want to discuss that. Why don’t you just go down and do it and we’ll get back to the Master Plan when you’re finished going through this. MR. TOOHEY-However you’d like, and the Board would like us to handle this, that’s absolutely fine. For your purpose of following along, we’re at the Bay Road Design Corridor Guidelines. Some elements of this design corridor including locating parking at the rear of the structures. There are four or five parking spaces on this plan that are located in the front. What we intend to do is not only move them outside of the 75 foot setback requirement, but we will remove the parking spaces from the front of these buildings. There’s a distinction that has to be made here. We would like the Board to focus, is that a garage entrance, in other words the driveway to a garage is not a parking space, and that’s one of the things that is unique and distinct in here, is that our parking requirements, the number of parking spaces we have to have 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) to comply with the Code, is driven by the fact, in many respects, in virtually all respects, that we provide garage parking for all the units that we have here, and as a result, the entrance into that garage parking is not a parking space by any definition. It is a driveway. MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to just interject something here. When we were talking about the distance from the road, 179-7-040, concerning the Bay Road corridor, under Streetscape Element C, now if you want to try to get through that. It says building height, and that’s not important right now. I know that you’ve met the 36 foot height because I measured that, but it says, should two story height limit of 36 feet, whichever is less, should be maintained for the entire corridor, as well as 150 feet from each side of the Bay Road. This setback here is 75 feet. That I know, but it talks in here about, in 179-7-040C, in Streetscape Elements, should be maintained for the entire corridor, as well as 150 feet from each side of the Bay Road. That seems to override, in my view, the general 75 foot setback. So I think we have to discuss that just a little. MR. Bob, if you could repeat the Section, 179? MR. VOLLARO-179-7-040, and then go to C, Streetscape elements. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And read that, where it says in Number Two, building height, and then it says a two story limit, height limit, it uses limit twice for some reason, or I did. I’m not sure which one, or 36 feet, whichever is lesser, and you meet the 36 feet, as I said, I measured that, should be maintained from the entire corridor as well as 150 feet from each side of the Bay Road. Now that seems to me to tend to override the 75 foot setback. It’s very specific for the Bay Road corridor. Do you see where I’m talking? MR. TOOHEY-I see where you’re talking, but I respectfully disagree with that, and the reason for that, there would be no reason why the legislature, the Town Board, would have put in three where it says a 75 foot front yard setback is required if in fact they meant 150 feet. What the 150 feet refers to is the width off of Bay Road, in our case in a westerly direction, at which these 36 feet have to be maintained. It is a distance back at which that 36 foot block is drawn. It is not a setback for the buildings themselves. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. I think beyond the 150, you could revert to the height limitation of the zone which is 40 feet. So it’s 36 feet within the first 150 feet, of which only 75 feet, from 75 to 150, is. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s a clarification. It’s a little bit, all right. I understand what you’re saying, and I’ll agree with that. It’s the first, the first 150 feet it’s 36. After that it gets to be 40. Is that what you’re saying? MR. TOOHEY-That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. TOOHEY-We talked about the parking. We will work to do that. Sidewalks, we’ve already talked about. The applicant, one of the comments that is in bold, which is something that has to be done, is the applicant should present signage as a part of the planned submission. We have not done that because we really hadn’t gotten to the point where we were talking about site plan up to this moment, and we will absolutely submit for your review signage that is in conformance with the guidelines for signage along these entrance ways. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Toohey, I don’t mean to keep interrupting you, but I think we want to get some dialogue here so we go back and forth here. Under Bay Road guidelines, I think we jumped right over the fact, and I’ll stay with the Staff notes, since that’s your point of reference right now. As mentioned in previous Staff comments, this property is within the Bay Road design area, which, according to the Zoning Ordinance, contains the Professional Office 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) properties abutting the Bay Road, and from that line, in my view, the way that reads contains the professional office properties abutting Bay Road. Abutting meaning up against, in my view. MR. TOOHEY-Right. MR. VOLLARO-So that’s where we might have a point of departure in discussion. MR. TOOHEY-It also says, in that category, the primary objective of the Bay Road corridor is to create a professional office identity, mixed with high density multi-family residential uses. That’s precisely what we’re doing here. As you go up and down Bay Road, you have that mix being created, and again, the zoning code is the one that controls where the placement of buildings can be built. MR. VOLLARO-That may be true, but let me say this. The way the Bay Road is developing currently, and we’ll go back to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and talk about that in a minute, if you’d like, but what I have done is I have done some measurements on scale drawings of the primary units along the Bay Road, and I’ll just read this to you real quickly. MR. TOOHEY-What primary units? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll get to you. They’re Baybridge townhouses, the Baybrook Apartments, and the Cedars, which I’ve looked at. It encompasses 214 units, of those three installations along the Bay Road. Now there are a few single family residences along the corridor which pre-date the current P O zone. So I’ve eliminated those as being (lost word), but I have measured, using full scale drawings, the building setback from Bay Road of the three installations. Baybridge Townhouses is 890 feet. The Baybrook Apartments is 790 feet and the Cedars of 802. As is past practice on the Bay Road, multi-family residential units are set back on the average of plus or minus 802 feet. That’s what’s been developing on the Bay Road right now. This would be the first time we would be bringing forward, under the description set up by the Zoning Administrator, that we would be bringing residential units right up against the Bay Road. This’ll be the first time that the Bay Road will see that departure from the way it’s been developing. That’s my point. Okay. MR. TOOHEY-Okay. The point in response to that, and it probably has more to do with the legal side of this than anything else. The Comprehensive Plan that you keep referring to, and that I’ve read thoroughly, was passed in 1998. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. TOOHEY-The comprehensive zoning revision was passed in 2002. Between those two time periods, the legislative body and the community, which is in charge of passing zoning which controls land use, had the opportunity to fashion its code so that it could address whatever it wanted to have addressed, and one of the things that it addressed very specifically in here is not that residential, multi-family residential in the P O zone has to be set any distance back from the street other than the 75 feet. The Bay Road corridor doesn’t impose that. MR. VOLLARO-I certainly understand that. I know what the Zoning Administrator said. It’s burned in my mind. I understand exactly what he said. However, I also see how the Bay Road is developing. It’s developing as we had proposed its development. There are people in this room, particularly developers that I know that are in this room, that would have had the opportunity, in the past, to bring residential units right up against the road, as you’re proposing, but have not done so. MR. TOOHEY-Well, they have the absolute right to do that. MR. VOLLARO-They did, but they conform to what we thought we’d like to have instead. MR. SANFORD-Mr. Vollaro, 179 is not our sole source document. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. MR. SANFORD-Well, I get a little offended when the implication is that it is. It is not. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not the total, it’s not totally encompassing, and I agree with that. We have a Comprehensive Land Use Plan that talks about, and you say that was done in 1998. It really isn’t the law. The law is the legislative body. It’s 179, and that’ what you’ve got to go by, but in my mind, it’s kind of a blend between the two. That document sets some kind of vision for the Bay Road that probably in truth wasn’t picked up in 179, but that doesn’t mean that 179 alone is the dictating document, in my mind. MR. TOOHEY-The zoning code of any community is a restriction on the right of people to use their land the way they want, and zoning codes have to be interpreted strictly, as to what the wording says. So I have no idea what the plan was, one way or another. I certainly would never be presumptuous enough to say that the Town Board or Town Counsel didn’t know what they were doing in 2002 when they passed the zoning code that is in existence, except that’s what the rule is. That’s what the rule of law is. It is not something that was incorporated into a Comprehensive Plan, or a plan that other people have chosen to develop according to a certain pattern. What it is is a pattern, that zoning code tells us, and tells, I hope you, what it is that we are permitted to do within the confines of the law, and this Town. MR. SANFORD-That may be a legally disputed topic that has to be litigated for all I know. Getting back to Staff notes Page Two, it says the Primary objective of the Bay Road corridor is to create a professional office identity mixed with, and you said high density multi-family residential uses. It actually says some. The implication there being that what we’re really looking for, and I think we made it clear when you were here before. You weren’t here the first time. You were here the second time, I believe, that what we were really looking for is Professional Office out front, and some multi-family in the rear. MR. TOOHEY-Except that’s not what the Code says we can do. MR. SANFORD-We didn’t agree then. I don’t know why we’re going to agree now. MR. TOOHEY-Because at least at this point you’ve bothered to go through it. The Zoning Administrator, the person who is in charge of your Zoning Code, who is in charge of your Land Use Plan with regard to what can be built where, has very clearly addressed that issue, and nobody on the Planning Board has taken any umbrage with that, at least not to the point where they challenged in court that interpretation of what the Code says, and the time period for that, I believe, has passed. MR. SANFORD-Well, what we’re stating is consistent with what we’ve stated in the past, sir, and that is simply that we don’t, I don’t believe, if 179 was, as you put it, the law, and is the bible or however you want to reference it, I’m not sure there’s really too much of a need for a Planning Board. What the Planning Board needs to do is look at all kinds of important source documents that the Town has prepared, and form appropriate conclusions for the best interests of this community. That’s our job. Our lawyers and our Staff can interpret 179, if that’s the sole document we’re to rely on. I thought we made that very clear in the prior two meetings, and I thought your Staff and your lawyers, who I’m sure reviewed the documents, I think, with all due respect, suggested that how you’re looking at that section is not correct from a legal point of view. This is a legally constituted body that has a legal responsibility to enforce the rules, regulations and laws, the legislative laws, of this Town. The fact that you may not like them, there’s one very good way of doing something about it, is you go and ask to have them changed, but none of them have been changed. What it is is precisely set out within your zoning code. MR. SANFORD-I just don’t believe you’re correct in your statement. I think that the venue for resolution on those types of issues would be the courthouse, not the Planning Board. Do you 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) understand? I mean, what we’re doing is we’re establishing a dialogue with you. We’re trying to communicate two ways on what we see is important regarding the Bay Road corridor, and it’s just not a strict singular interpretation of 179. Okay. I mean, I’m beating this to death, but. MR. VOLLARO-No. I think you’re on the right track, Richard. I just want to read a paragraph from the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. It says the Bay Road corridor has been developing as a mix of office buildings along the road and multi-family residential uses further from the road. Suitability of the soils for septic systems, we don’t have to get into that. You’ve already talked about sewer. That you’re going to go to municipal sewer, so we don’t have to get into the soil structure here. The municipal sewer will take care of that, but the first part of it where it says the Bay Road corridor has been developing as a mix of office buildings along the road and multi-family uses set back further from the road, that is true. That’s a true statement, and that’s the way that road has been developing. It’s the way it is now. So in my mind that’s got some credibility in terms of how it’s developing, and how it talks to 179, for example. MR. TOOHEY-Jumping in to, because I don’t believe, and at some point, we’re going to have to agree to disagree with regard to this, and I have asked you to seek counsel from your own counsel, with regard to what your rights and responsibilities are here, but let me just quote one other section of the Comprehensive Master Plan, because it’s in one of the introductory paragraphs as to why this was created. 2.21 says our purpose of preparing a Comprehensive Land Use Plan is to provide a basis for a Town Zoning Ordinance. What that means is that the Plan is created and then the legislative body sees what it wants and does not want within that Plan and incorporates it into the legislation. It is a guideline. It is not the law, and it is not a rule of development. MR. VOLLARO-I can’t disagree with that, because that’s a point of fact. You don’t disagree with facts, and I understand that. MR. TOOHEY-And as a result, as a fact, the Zoning Code allows certain things to happen. It does not say, as was mentioned here repeatedly in the last two meetings, that multi-family uses have to be 1,000 feet off of the road. MR. VOLLARO-Don’t keep going back to that, because I understand what the Zoning Administrator said, and he did say that, but that’s okay. MR. TOOHEY-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-We’re talking about other things other than 1,000 feet. Just drop the 1,000 feet off and get it off the table and don’t repeat it. MR. TOOHEY-Then if the 1,000 feet is an important, the distance between 1,000 feet and the 75 feet setback is one that allows us to put into that space, that distant space, that 925 feet, any of the uses that are permitted under the Zoning Code. I don’t want to go back to the 1,000 feet. I want you to recognize that the Code says there is a 925 foot swath on both sides of Bay Road in which there are 21 different things that can be incorporated into that zone, and one of those things is multi-family. It does not say, at any point, nor does it infer, that multi-family has to be behind office buildings. It doesn’t say that multi-family is excluded only when it is associated with office building. There is no portion of your Code that says that. The fact that you’ve had other people develop in that pattern may be fine, because that’s the way they chose to develop their property. MR. VOLLARO-No, they didn’t chose to develop it that way. They came before this Board and they acquiesced to what this Board wanted. That’s what really happened. They didn’t choose to do it. They would have made a lot more dollars or money, perhaps, by taking and developing something similar to what you did, as opposed to what they did. What’s right now on the Bay Road, predominantly, is business offices. Take a look as you go down, it shows the development character of that road, in my mind, except the Code doesn’t say that. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. TOOHEY-That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-I know what you’re going to say. You made your point. MR. TOOHEY-Very good. MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Vollaro, I’d like to interrupt and ask Marilyn and Counsel something. After listening to this discussion, I’m wondering, when I weigh and consider an application that comes before me, I’m looking at it, I’m looking at zoning regulations. I’m also looking at Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the Open Space Vision Plan, also the Affordable Housing Strategy, and those are several documents that I thought the Town has adopted as guidelines or criteria for us to evaluate applications. Am I off the mark on that? MR. SCHACHNER-You’re not off the mark, but there are differences between guidelines and criteria. The principles of law that the applicant’s counsel are espousing are largely correct, as principles of law. Remember that when the applicant’s counsel says these, the proposed use is allowed in this 925 foot area, he’s not saying what our Zoning Administrator said, which is subject to site plan review. I don’t think he’s intending to create the impression that he believes that these are allowed as of right. I think he recognizes that these are allowed only subject to site plan review, but remember, and this is the law, although some may not like that, your principal criteria are set forth fairly succinctly on site plan review, not subdivision, on two pages of the Zoning Ordinance, Page 18018 and 18019, all in Section 179-9-080, aptly called, Requirements For Approval. Those two pages, which are fairly detailed, set forth the legal criteria that govern site plan approval. Earlier in the chapter on site plan approval, under the introductory Section 179-9-010, entitled Purpose, one of the stated purposes of site plan review is to consider the application with respect to the objectives of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. That’s where it gets tied in to the extent that you can consider the objectives of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, but be careful. My job is obviously to protect t he Town from any successful legal challenge to the extent I can, and be careful. I guess the way I’m going to phrase this is the principal criteria that you have to evaluate any site plan application, everything I’m saying is generic. It has nothing to do with this particular application, are those listed in 179-9-080, and to use Mrs. Steffan’s lingo, I don’t think it’s inappropriate to look at these other source documents as guidelines, but they do not have the same strengthen or force of law that the legal criteria set forth in 179-9-080 have. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MRS. RYBA-And legal counsel can certainly jump in at any time, but when you do look at 179- 9-080, requirements for approval, there are a number of sections there, and part of it is looking at, is the use in harmony with the general purpose or intent of the chapter, specifically taking into account the location, character and size the proposed use and the description and purpose of the district in which the use is proposed. So there’s other language, I think, in here, that if you look carefully at it, you can try to weigh that requirement for approval against the guidelines proposed, or not proposed, but the guidelines that were adopted in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and accompanying documents. MR. SANFORD-Well, Section 179-9-080, Item E, provides us, I believe, a considerable amount of leeway. It talks about the project would not have an undue adverse impact on natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic recreation or open space resources of the Town and the Adirondack Park, etc. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m sorry to interrupt. Can I comment on that? Nobody at this table is disagreeing with you that you have considerable leeway. All we’re talking about, I think the question that was asked was to what extent can you, I’m going to paraphrase. I think one of the questions that’s coming up is, to what extent can you use the Comprehensive Land Use Plan as gospel. My word, no one else’s word, and that’s different, I think Mr. Sanford, than what you’re now pointing out. You’re absolutely correct. No one at this table’s going to disagree that you have substantial amount of discretion, I’m going to use the word discretion instead of 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) leeway, under 179-9-080, and that’s why I respectfully disagree with your statement that if we were only governed by these two pages, you wouldn’t need to be here as a Planning Board. You have a tremendous amount of discretion under these very criteria. MR. SANFORD-Explain that to the gentlemen at the table. MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t need to explain that to the gentlemen at the table. MR. TOOHEY-It’s interesting that he had to explain it to you, though. MR. SANFORD-I like to learn a little bit every once in a while. MR. TOOHEY-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Sanford, I won’t get into that, but am I making sense to you, as is my job, I hope? In other words, you’re correct. There’s a tremendous amount of leeway, flexibility and discretion in 179-9-080. Notice, though, that neither D nor E, both of which are the ones that give you so much discretion and leeway, neither of them specifically refer to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. That’s why I was trying to sort of bolster what you were saying earlier with the reference to 179-9-010, which does make explicit reference to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, but again, and if any of the Planning Board members are thinking I’m not being clear on this please ask me to elaborate, but I think the best way to answer the question that Mrs. Steffan first asked was, and Mr. Sanford followed up on, that the principal strongest legally binding criteria are those set forth in the two pages I mentioned which are 179-9-080. Within those criteria many, as Mr. Sanford properly points out, are not, by any means, you know, specific objective scientific, black, white numerical standards. Many of them, in fact, do infuse the Board with a substantial amount of, to use his word, leeway, to use my word discretion, and that’s one of the reasons that you do have a Planning Board. MR. SANFORD-Thank you. MR. TOOHEY-What we would propose to do is to get back to the Staff’s comments on this because obviously this is not the only time we’re going to be here. We’d like to bring these plans back so that we can flesh them out more in a fashion that is consistent with the Staff’s plans, and I agree with the fact that there are very specific sections of your Code that has to do with the authority that you’re given, and that we have all the respect in the world for your ability to comprehend that, but again, my point so far has to be that the Master Plan, in my mind, is not where that is. So where I am, so we can continue to follow this down, is at Page Two. The corridor standards also, it’s the second to last paragraph, call for buildings to have peaked roofs and earth tones or Adirondack colors. Parking is to be located to the rear. We plan to put the parking, as I’ve explained already, to the rear. The buildings, as we will bring them to you, in fact have peaked roofs, are within the height criteria for this particular zone, and will have the, I’m assuming by Adirondack colors, we’re looking for a muted color scheme that is consistent with other structures that are already located along the Bay Road corridor. We will bring you that data on a go forward basis. One of the next questions that come up here is the impact on the school district. We will supply you with data based on like projects within the Capital District, significant projects of the same size, to help you see that the nature of these projects do not generate a significant number of children that would be queued into the Queensbury School District, on a K through 12 basis. So the impact that this has on the School system, as is voiced here, is one that, in act, is very minimal, and we will have to supply you with data that will substantiate that, and that is our intention and our charge. The impacts of the municipal sanitary sewer system, you alluded to that already. It is our intention to move forward with the extension. MR. VOLLARO-I wanted to get into that, because I think that this is something that needs to be discussed, and I will discuss some of it. I guess we have somebody in the audience. Our Wastewater Superintendent is here tonight to discuss some of this with us. Obviously we’ve discussed some of it with him. In order for us to know that this project as it’s presently 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) proposed, 174 units, can, and the effluent that it might generate, and I guess it would be an additional 440,000 gallons. I think that’s what we’re talking about here. MR. TOOHEY-No, that’s not correct. That’s the capacity, at peak, of the entire system. MR. VOLLARO-It’s estimated peak flow from the parcels of Walker Lane up to Cedar Court, that’s right, to be an additional 440,000 gallons. I understand that. What I’ve got to try to determine, and you’ve got to try to determine, in a map plan and report, is to whether or not this system, as it presently exists, can handle the effluent that you’re going to discharge. We had talked about a couple of other things. There are some areas that are north of Blind Rock Road. One is called the Cedars. The other is Mr. Schermerhorn’s apartments that are there. There’s Surrey Fields who have septic systems currently in distress, and there is this building that you’re sitting in here, that we think that if a sewer system is going to be brought up, those units have to be brought on board as well. That’s something we’ve discussed. The map plan and report will have to handle that plus your 174 units, and it also, we feel, and I want to talk to the Wastewater Superintendent about that. I don’t know exactly when we get into that, whether I want to bring him in here now, to discuss this, since we’re on the topic. The pump station that would handle this flow is a pump station that could possibly be modified through different impellors and so on to do that. I really need to have a better view, however, of the gravity feed system that goes from a certain point on Bay Road and heads down toward, from a geographic point, towards Stewarts. It stops there at a drop inlet and then it heads down and goes east on Cronin Road. We’ve got to take a look at the peak flow that goes through that gravity feed line and see whether or not, in the peaks, the gravity can handle that. We are not sure at all that that can be handled, and that’s what I want the Wastewater Superintendent to talk to us about tonight, and you’ve got to look at that in your map plan and report. You’ve got to look at your gravity lines and also the lines that you’re going to be using as force mains. Force mains don’t seem to be a problem. Force mains can, you know, they can go like this. You know that, how they set up, and your pump can probably handle it, and that’s something we have to look at. I don’t know what that pump’s capacity is, but I know it’s got the ability to change impellors and to change motors, to be able to handle additional flow. The choke point may very well be, in this system, the gravity feed. We’ve got to take a look at that. MR. SANFORD-Do you want to do it now? MR. VOLLARO-It might be the appropriate time. I’d like to ask the Board, would they like to discuss this now, as a Board, and not to keep Mr. Shaw here for a real long period of time, but I’d like him just to step up. He’s here. Michael. Good evening. MIKE SHAW MR. SHAW-Good evening. MR. VOLLARO-You are Michael Shaw, for the record. MR. SHAW-Correct, Mike Shaw, Wastewater Director. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess our concern on our Board, Mr. Shaw, is that we’re trying to determine, and we, as a Board, can’t do that. The only thing that can do that is a map plan and report that can determine whether this sewer extension will overtax the system that we have, and I’m trying to determine in my own mind whether certain areas that are under distress right now, mainly Surrey Fields, some portion of Cedar Court, the fact that the Schermerhorn Apartments that sit to the north of Blind Rock should also be considered, and this building should be considered, and the 174 units have to be considered, and I just want your opinion on that. I guess, I know you can’t give us numbers if you don’t have a map plan and report. I wanted to get your concerted opinion. MR. SHAW-Right. You stated really the clincher to the whole thing is having a map plan and report, and identifying the service area, what the size of the service area is, and then identifying 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) downstream problems. Now, in saying that, it’s been envisioned for several years that, you know, sewers would come up Bay Road some day, and it was always envisioned to come up to the Town office building. It was never really envisioned anything beyond that. Certainly anything’s possible, but last year the Town had hired C.T. Male to do a capacity study and a possible scenario for sewering up to the Town office buildings, and that study had identified flows at a certain rate according to build out along Bay Road, and in the map plan and report that Rich Schermerhorn had done a few years ago to extend sewers up to Walker Lane, also had a study similar to that. The numbers that are most recent report brings us to a question of capacity of the downstream pump station, namely the one that Rich Schermerhorn put in, to serve this area, and also some hydraulic piping downstream from there. Ultimately, if you’re talking about sewer or something beyond the Town office building, as you were saying, I guess it really starts to open up a whole can of worms, because you’re trying to put a lot of different flows. As you know, currently we had extended on Route 9 a large sewer district and the area where a lot of that’s running through is Meadowbrook pump station, okay, and there’s a lot of infrastructure piping going to Meadowbrook and into the city, and that has it’s limitations, too. We had done an upgrade about two years ago of that pump station. It’s now at its limits. So when you start opening up something beyond the Town office building, certainly that has got to be looked at much closer, possibly a hydraulic study done by the Town to identify problem areas, or piping, and maybe possible scenarios of how to take care of those problems. What arises with all of that, too, is who pays for that? And that’s certainly a Town Board issue. The Town Board needs to look at that. Do the people in the district help pay for that? Does the developer come on and help pay for that? Does he pay a portion of that? Is there some kind of fund that you create for the future to take care of those problems? MR. VOLLARO-That also comes out in the map plan, I believe, it’s a proposed portion of the map plan and report that says what portion he’s willing to accept. MR. SHAW-The map plan and report has to identify, you know, that there is capacities to handle this, right from their development all the way to the treatment process. It’s required by the State Comptroller’s office to identify those in the map plan and report. So what’s interesting about the Bay Road corridor here, I don’t know what they’re requiring or what they’re requesting in the map plan and report or how big the district is, but it seems reasonable that if they put a pipe in along Bay Road, whether the people along Bay Road are in the district now or not, you would think that some day those people along Bay Road are going to want to use that. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that has to be calculated, I would think, in the map plan and report. MR. SHAW-Correct. You’d want to size the infrastructure that you’re putting out in front of somebody’s property, although they may not be in the district today, to be able to handle that sewage in the future. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. MR. SHAW-And the map plan and report is required to address those issues. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. In thinking about bringing somebody else on line, that’s a question I think that is probably something that I thought of, you know, when I know that we’ve got a sewer that, for example, a line that comes right up to this building, and not be able to handle some of those folks that are in distress very, very close by. I think we ought to at least look at that. We’d be remiss, in my mind, if we don’t. So the extension would get a little bit bigger, is what it would amount to, because you said you don’t have an idea of the size of the extension and neither do I, and I don’t know how to approach that point. The Board has to think a little bit about that, I think, as to whether we, as a Board, feel that we ought to encompass those folks or not, yes or no, that’s a question we have to deal with, I think. It’s a question that I think also the applicant’s got to take a look at and decide. I might ask Counsel that question. I’m in a little bit of a quandary as to just, when we do this sewering project, where does the Planning Board stand with respect to things like helping folks that are currently in distress on their on-site systems? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. SCHACHNER-I’m not sure that the Planning Board has much specific role in that, and I apologize, Mr. Shaw, if I didn’t follow some of the details of your answer, but the gist of what I got is that we don’t really know, until a map plan and report is developed. MR. SHAW-Well, it all depends on what you need. You can’t identify there’s a problem until you know what the request is, and we haven’t had a map plan and report in front of us to know what the request is. The study that we had C.T. Male do last year, okay, had a conceptual plan to sewer Bay Road, okay, and piping size and that was sized to handle Bay Road and it could actually probably go further north. There are some problems associated downstream, okay, with downstream piping and pump stations. If you went further north here they would have to be addressed. So at that point, it’s certainly probably a Board issue, a Town Board issue, but who pays for that. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, I think that has to be fleshed out, how the payment goes. First I’m trying to take a look at whether this system has capacity to handle the projected flows, and then I guess you’ve got to really talk about who gets into paying for this, what’s the pay ratio and whatever. MR. SHAW-If we were just looking at the development across the road, whatever it may be, what it appears now, there’s sufficient capacity to handle that development, but you have to, like I said before, you have to think about putting a pipe all the way up Bay Road, and that pipe getting used at some time, whether those people are in the district now or five or ten years from now. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Well, I understand when you do a map plan and report it’s got to be an end to end study. I mean, they’ve got to get all the way down to the Meadowbrook pump station, in effect. MR. SHAW-Correct, and (lost word) information, too, on the other side of that to make sure, you know, that there is treatment capacity to that Glens Falls, too. MR. VOLLARO-Right. No, I understand that the gravity feed that goes from what we currently know as Lupos, that’s a spot on Bay Road that they sold boats a long time ago, but it happens to be the spot that the gravity starts to go down toward the Stewarts drop inlet, and that happens to be an eight inch pipe, and so we’ve got to take a look at whether that eight inch pipe can handle peak flows. I mean, peak flows is what can nail you. I mean, the linear flow, that can be figured out pretty easily. MR. SHAW-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-The peak flows is what you’ve got to look at. MR. SHAW-One area that you were talking about that is downstream is a pipe that crosses over Bay Road south of Stewarts. That was identified in even Rich Schermerhorn’s development and his engineer identified that as a future problem. So some of those areas have already been identified, but it’s going to have to have a closer look. It all depends on what we’re trying to do here. Are we actually trying to go further north. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. EDWARDS-And one of the problems, if I could interject, Mike, the further north you extend the pipe, the likelihood of putting gravity sewer into the north is not very good because the depth of the pipe gets so excessive as you start to crest out past the Cedars, I believe it is, the Cedars development. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. We’re going to need a lift station there for sure. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. EDWARDS-Anything beyond that point north is going to require a lift station or else it requires an awfully, awfully deep sewer which is going to add to the cost downstream of everybody else. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I know to get up that grade and to cross over Blind Rock you’re going to need a lift station for those. I mean, I’ve already thought about that, because I know that essentially the topography goes like this. MR. EDWARDS-That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-So I get you. They would need a gravity feed all the way down, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-But now that we have this information, there’s really nothing the Planning Board can do with that. It’s up to the applicant to come back with a map plan. MR. VOLLARO-Well, jumping ahead of ourselves a little bit, you’re absolutely correct. There is a line in the Long Form SEQRA that addresses this, and that line says, will the effluent, I believe, I’m going to be quoting it out of SEQRA, but I don’t know whether I’ll get it exactly right. It says that will the effluent be carried off site, yes or no, the question is yes. Will it be taken to an existing sewer system, yes or no, the answer is no. Does that system have sufficient capacity? Unknown, and I see ourselves getting really stuck in the SEQRA with the unknown until a map plan and report is generated, that takes us out of the unknown quantity, and I guess that’s the short that I have on this one. MR. SANFORD-I understand what you’re saying. I think you did a nice job explaining it, and then it’s further complicated by pre-existing developments, and what if they hook up and I guess the Town has to make some kind of priority decision as to whether or not assisting an already existing failing systems is important or as important as perhaps this project sucking up capacity. I mean, you know, these are complicated issues. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think the map plan and report can probably be defined in two ways. One, you take a look at the proposed project here, 174 units, I mean, if that’s what we’re going to wind up with. We don’t know where we’ll wind up in our negotiations, whether we’ll be 174 or something less. Right now, the applicant probably has to look at worst case analysis and say that he gets the 174 units and he has to use those, and then the other portion of the map plan may say, now, in addition, we might want to pick up X amount of units for Surrey Fields, X amount of units for Cedar Court, X amount of units for the Schermerhorn Apartments that are to the north of Blind Rock, and then take a look at the cumulative effect of all of that and decide where we want to cut it off. Maybe we’ll say, you know, the folks that are in distress are just not going to get taken care of. I don’t see us ever leaving them hanging like that, because I know that Surrey Fields has some real problems. MR. SANFORD-But I guess the real point is we can’t get through the SEQRA section on this until we have answers to these things. MR. VOLLARO-That’s fundamental to me, right now. We can’t get past that section of SEQRA that asks those three sections. MR. SANFORD-Yes, and we’re really not the decision makers here. It’s the Town Board. MR. VOLLARO-Essentially it gets down to that, after the map plan and report is done, and it takes a look at costing analysis and it takes a look at things like a supplemental section under map plan and report that talks to Cedar Court, that talks to Surrey Fields, that talks to those Apartments, add that flow onto that cost of the lift pump to get it into the gravity position, taking it down to what’s normally referred to as the Schermerhorn pump, see whether that rough pump can do the job or not, and then getting up to the Lupo and then the critical point in my mind, looking at the system, is the choke point going downhill. I think taking a look at the peak flow in that eight inch pipe, the little bit that I’ve looked at it anyway, says that the peak 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) flows, I’ve used peak flows of about two and a half times normal flow, is what I used, real quick analysis, but I think that’s where I’m coming from, is can we get by SEQRA, though. In other words, if we can’t get by SEQRA tonight, is there any, you know, I’ve been told running meetings takes a long time, and I get longwinded at these meetings and they take too long. I mean, I’ve taken a few hits here and there on that, and I understand that, so I’m trying to get this thing to move. There are other applicants here tonight, and if we can’t move past SEQRA tonight without pos decing it, for that reason, I don’t know whether we should continue with this discussion with the applicant. I’d like to hear what the rest of the Board has to say. MR. TOOHEY-Can we be heard on any part of this? MR. VOLLARO-Sure. MRS. STEFFAN-I think we should continue to let the applicant go through the Staff notes as he started, and let him finish that process. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fine. MR. TOOHEY-The very simple, and I hope short answer, to the question is we understand that we have to create a sanitary sewer system that handles our capacity, our load, all the way down to the plan. We understand that. That is part of our charge. It is the part of the charge that takes us back in, as was related, to the Town Board for an extension of the district. That has always been part of our plan on a go forward basis, and I agree with you. Unless we can, in fact, address that with regard to our capacity and the capacity that is potentially created downstream, in relation to the 440,000 gallons that C.T. Male says you have as a per day peak capacity, then at that point we have a problem. We are prepared to move forward with that kind of an analysis. We’ve always understood we have to do that, and we will address all of the things we’ve just spent some time talking about. MR. VOLLARO-If we were to go to SEQRA now today. MR. TOOHEY-And I’m not asking you to go to SEQRA now or today. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we may decide to. That’s part of what I’m trying to determine, if we do, we can’t get past that point. That’s my concern. MR. TOOHEY-That’s correct, and I would ask you not to do that, because we have clearly stated to you that there’s a number of things that are within the comments that we are planning to bring back for you because, again, this is the first opportunity we’ve had to go through these steps to explain to you what the process will be. So we fully know and understand what the sanitary sewer concerns are with regard to our site and our responsibility both at this level and more specifically at the Town Board level, and they will be addressed. MR. VOLLARO-I think Mrs. Steffan has suggested, and I think I agree, that we could go through and start with probably the next topic is traffic impacts. MR. TOOHEY-Traffic impacts. We’ve already supplied to you a letter analysis that suggests that the traffic impacts, especially at peak hours between a residential development and a built out professional office or office development are significantly less on the traffic, on the residential side. We will supplement that study so as to address those matters that are of concern here with regard to background traffic that now exists within the corridor, etc., so that these specific issues can, in fact, be, we can go forward with them. MR. VOLLARO-May I ask a question? MR. TOOHEY-Absolutely. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. VOLLARO-I have a little note here underneath that, and I’ve said that it needs a cumulative analysis of Bay Road. I’ve said this from this seat and from other seats on this Board that I sit on, that every traffic study I’ve ever seen come before this Board says, you know, there really isn’t a problem, and I’ve always stated I’d like to see a cumulative effect, taking a look at the, you know, particularly what the College puts on this road. At times when the College classes are changing, you get some really peak traffic loads in there. MR. TOOHEY-One of the benefits that you have with regard to a residential use is that it would be better bracketed of a college use than an office use, I believe, but again, that’s part of what we will bring back to you for the Board to study. I have no question, and I understand that we’ve got to do that and we’re willing to do that. Stormwater, do you want to do stormwater? MR. MAC ELROY-Sure. Yes. Stormwater impacts, certainly we recognize that an NOI and a SWWP are required, typical of a project of this nature, and will be submitted as appropriate. The second comment related to DEC stormwater permit requirements may have recently changed. There seem to be more of an emphasis in design to wet ponds and any design revisions that may be appropriate to be compliant with that would certainly be addressed in subsequent submittals. I think the way the stormwater design is, that it is suitable to that type of application. The lower lying basins are in an area that could, without much difficulty, become wet ponds and are broken up into different compartments to achieve that type of design that DEC is trending toward. So we don’t see that as being much of a technical issue there. MR. VOLLARO-We talked about wet ponds. Are these the kind of thing that DEC now recognizes as a wet pond year round type thing? MR. MAC ELROY-And evidently they feel it better addresses water quality, that type of thing. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve always had a problem with some of that, personally, on the mosquito side of the house, whether or not they tend to breed or not breed. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I don’t believe it’s an absolute. The design as provided doesn’t, isn’t based on a wet pond situation, but, you know, we can certainly work through that at the Town level and with DEC to provide a design that’s compliant with the best case situation. MR. HILTON-And, Mr. Chairman, just to kind of expand on my comment, understanding that there would be some level of review with DEC, with the NOI process, and also with our consulting engineer, I guess I’m looking at it from a planning perspective. If there are other requirements, will these basins need to be enlarged? What will the impact be on the design? Will the layout have to change? I think those questions may need to be addressed as we go along here. MR. VOLLARO-I did not see a stormwater management plan here. Do we have one? MR. TOOHEY-I think it was a narrative at one point. MR. MAC ELROY-There is a full stormwater management design that was submitted last July, yes, and resubmitted in March. MR. VOLLARO-I probably don’t have that with me. I didn’t take all of the information with me. I remember seeing it, and there is one. MR. MAC ELROY-If I could just clarify one thing about what you see before you, is, and we made an effort, we had some discussions with Staff, about what to submit here, if we were to get back on the agenda, and it was just what was submitted last August to get on that October submittal, or October agenda. Certainly we’ve heard comments, we’ve made some revisions or know how we will address certain comments that came up in the interim period, but rather 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) than confuse the issue any more than it already is, what you have is the same. It’s as if we were sitting back here last October. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that, and last October 22, 2004 was C.T. Male’s comments on that plan as well. So I’m looking at their comments now and they did look at the stormwater management narrative in there. They have a great amount of questions. There were 16 particular questions in there. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, and there are some elevation issues, none of which I think are particularly. MR. VOLLARO-If they’re engineering issues, they can be fixed. That’s what you’re telling me. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and you can proceed on with that. MR. MAC ELROY-Wetlands, there was a question about the presence of a brook that flows through what is the delineated Army Corps wetlands. I’ve checked on this particular question, and as there’s no DEC wetland within 300 feet, there’s no DEC jurisdiction on that and not required to notify DEC on that. It’s not a jurisdictional issue for DEC. MR. VOLLARO-Do they issue a letter of nonjurisdictional interest, do you know? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I suppose if. MR. VOLLARO-Normally, I mean, the APA does that, and I know DEC does issue letters of nonjurisdictional interest, and that takes, gives me the comfort that says I don’t have to worry about it. MR. MAC ELROY-I’ll certainly check into that. MR. TOOHEY-The next section you’ve got has to do with landscaping. There’s two comments, an observation that the white pines that were proposed along Bay Road are susceptible to road salt, and that other evergreens should be replaced. We will certainly do that, and, you know, get with Staff to make sure that the type of trees that we’re planting to put along the street are consistent with being adjacent to the street, and that’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s listed in 179, you can pick some of the different, out of 179. MR. TOOHEY-And that certainly is fine. The extension of those trees up on Blind Rock, again, what we’re going around the corner, this may be misleading in that they’re saying behind Building 14, behind for this purpose would be on Blind Rock, so again that you have a tree belt that is being created along with the sidewalk belt, and again, that’s fine, that’ll be incorporated. The next part is an awful lot of stuff having to do with lighting. A lighting plan has been submitted to the Town, and we will modify that lighting plan, so that it is consistent with the type of lights that the Town would like to have. One of the things we did is an overall analysis as to lumens and to distance. They wanted one that is more specific as to doorways and other sections, as is alluded to in the notes. That’s fine. We’d be more than glad to do that and conform to the requirements of the Town on those particular issues. MR. VOLLARO-One of the things I’m sensitive to in a project this large, and I want some of the other Board members here to jump in on this, because a lot of us have had some pretty good experience with the Wal-Mart application, for example, and we use that as kind of our benchmark of thought, if you want to call it that, for lighting plans, because we went around and around with Wal-Mart until they finally got a lighting plan that, they really worked on it. They did a nice job, when it was all over. We want to make sure that the different portions of 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) that site, if it develops in that manner, shows where we have four to one ratios, you know, called Uniformity Ratios. I think you know what I’m talking about. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And particularly at entrances in different spots. In other words, you can’t do the, it’s very hard to do a four to one ratio on a site that size. You’ve got to segment that site out to be able to come up with ratios in the right spots. Dennis, you know what I’m talking about. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR. TOOHEY-And what our intention is, is not only to work with the Staff to get you where you want to go with that, we also have a great deal of flexibility with regard to the style of lighting that will be introduced into the area. One of the references in here is to wall pack, whether or not they’re down lit or not. We can work with the community so as to kind of help that along. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve given us some cut sheets in here that tell us a little bit about that. MR. TOOHEY-Right. The site design. Some of the parking appears to be within 75 feet of the setback. We absolutely will remove that. The second paragraph, consideration should be given to providing internal pedestrian access. What we would intend to do as we are developing, and again, the internal roadway here is going to be in a private road. It’s not something that we would expect the Town to take over from us. As we have the curbing, we will ramp that up so that we can have asphalt sidewalks meandering through this, so as to best connect the various sundry parts of this site and we will show that on the plan as we go forward. Sidewalks along Bay Road, Blind Rock, we talked about that. MR. VOLLARO-On those, I guess you’re position is there’s nothing on end to end to connect to. I guess to cut to the chase real quick you’re saying that if you put a sidewalk in, it doesn’t connect to anything, and that’s one of the concerns you have. MR. TOOHEY-One of the concerns that happens, especially with regard to the main intersection, we are more than willing to build right up to that intersection, so that as the Bay Road area continues to develop, certainly in a southerly direction, and as other projects come on line, I’m assuming that the Board would be consistent project to project, you’ll end up having an extension of sidewalks. Somebody’s got to start the sidewalk. We recognize we’ve got to start it and others will connect over the course, over the decades. The concern that you have is with this interconnectivity of the sidewalk as it goes beyond there. There’s nothing across the other side of the street. Certainly with regard to the concept of the Town center, the idea of how do we get over to the Town, well, if you’re going up, we can get you to our side. You come across, there’s no sidewalks that are incorporated on that other side. So, we will do what our share of that is, and we’ll be more than glad to do that. The site plan building elevations show, the buildings are, as you look on the plan, the buildings are, in fact, larger structures, and they are all the same. There is no doubt about that, but as you look at that plan, what you do is see the visual focus line throughout that site never being, or very seldom being the same pattern of visualization of the buildings. In other words, if you look at this, all those buildings are turning, and they are highly articulated buildings. They are not like the buildings across the street in which you have very flat, plain walls. One of the things we also can do with the structures is alter their colors within the palate of colors that the Town believes is appropriate for this area, so that the views of the structures, as you look, rotate, on the exterior of the site, which is important from the community point of view, and also from the interior of the site, so you’re not looking at row house, row house, row house. You’re looking at different views, as you can see on that particular plan. The site plan does not indicate a vehicular interconnect to the south. What that means is as you know, as you go to the south of this site right now, pretty much where there is is the back side of what used to be, I think, the Reid house, and then there’s a church there. Now that’s not to say that those two structures are always going to be. So if the Planning Board would like to have us, we can alter the positioning of the buildings on this so as 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) to have an internal roadway extending from our road to the perimeter of the property. I’m assuming the planning theory behind that is if this corridor develops in a fashion so that there are multiple uses on this west side, you don’t want people to have to hop back on Bay Road to come right off Bay Road. You can run that back. What we can do is set up within our plan and on our site plan, a mechanism whereby, if at some point in the future that is needed, there will be land allocated for that use. MR. VOLLARO-So what you’re saying is you will endeavor to construct an interconnect, the next time we see this. MR. TOOHEY-Yes. There’s no sense in building a road that literally goes to the back of, I’m assuming the parsonage of the church. I’m not sure what that building right there is used for. What we will do is layout on the plan and structure the existing buildings, so that if at some point there is a development pattern there that has something to connect into, we’ve laid out a pattern whereby that, in fact, can be constructed, and I think we’ve talked about the plantings at the intersection before. Again, our intention here is probably to be significantly less combative than my tone may have been at some point, but I believe that this is a project that we have a right to go forward with, but it’s a project that we have to go forward with in conjunction with the concepts that we would like to have and the dialogue that we would like to have with the Town, with the Staff, with the members of the Town, with the Town Board visa vie the Sanitary Sewer district, so as to come up with a pattern of development that is one permitted we believe anyway, and one that also falls within the guidelines of what the Code allows to be constructed. What we would like to do is have the opportunity to come back. You’ve heard the things that we plan to address for you, and you can judge us on how well we get into addressing those particular issues. If there’s any questions of the Board that I can answer, or Dennis can answer, I’d be more than glad to entertain those at this time. MR. VOLLARO-Have you got any questions, Tony? MR. METIVIER-I guess my number one question, and I raised it the last time, what happened to all the professional office space? I mean, last time you went away, you asked us what we wanted, what our input was, and we all told you the same thing, and all of a sudden it’s gone. This project went from bad to worse. What happened? Why are you totally focusing on 174 units? You’re going to argue with us until you’re blue in the face that we, our Code is being misread by us, and that you know it all, and, you know, we asked you and we told you what we wanted, and to have this come back, I don’t get it. What happened? MR. TOOHEY-Okay. One of the things is, I certainly have never claimed to know it all, and proof of that. MR. METIVIER-Well, you’ve argued all night long with us that your interpretation of the Code is correct and ours is not, and yet I’ve read the book, and it’s funny, when they started talking about one section, we ultimately have the decision, based on our perception and site plan review. We told you what we wanted, and you come back with this, and this whole room is full of people that told you what they wanted, and you come back with this. MR. TOOHEY-Actually, at the last meeting we were here, the Board very specifically didn’t tell us what they wanted. We asked for input from the Board, and we received very little, if anything. In fact, we were told very specifically that the Planning Board doesn’t plan your projects, and that’s, I think, a virtual quote out of your minutes. In any event, what we have done is come back with a plan that we believe is legally permitted within this zone. We attempted to have the conversation because you asked us to go through the cost and expense of designing that, and we’ve determined, based on what we’ve now heard from the Town, that what our proposal is is one that is, in fact, permitted within this zone. It is not, before we were being told by this Board that the only way you can do this is if you, in fact, put professional office buildings lining Bay Road, and we found since then that that, in fact, is not true. That’s not what the Code says. That’s not what the belief is, and what we do is develop projects such as this. We believe they’re good projects. We believe good people live in these projects, and as 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) a result we’re proposing to the Town a project that we believe is in fact one that is permitted. Now, we may all end up disagreeing with regard to that, and that will have whatever implications that has, but again, we are here with a proposal that, from the beginning, the first time we came here, we believe was permitted. We believe it’s still permitted. MR. METIVIER-I just find it odd that if you look at the book, all of the exhibits for the Bay Road corridor don’t discuss multi-family units. They discuss the professional office architecture, landscape, parking and everything like that. You come back and say that, you know, this is permitted based on your discussions with Staff, and yet the last time you were in front of us we told you what we were looking for. I was just so shocked to see this application come back and look like this. I don’t know where, and maybe I’m alone, but where the point was missed that we wanted to see professional office in the front of this development. I mean, was that something you just are not willing to work with? Is that strictly off the table for you? MR. TOOHEY-Again, what the client, the builder, the designer of this wants to do is, in our mind, to build something that we have a right to build. We were never, and we never held ourselves out to be, developers of professional offices. From the first time that this came forward, it was presented to the Town as exactly what it is, as a multi-family residential development project. The Town told us, or this Board specifically told us that, no, you can’t do that. You’ve got to put these others in front. We have since found that that, in fact, at least from our point of view, is not true, and we are back to where we were when we started this project. MR. METIVIER-One of the, and I don’t know if I lost my page, under 179-9-080, Section F, Number 10, Page 18019. I just wanted to read what I found to be interesting. The Planning Board review of site plans shall include as appropriate, but not limited to, the following, and there’s 10, and the last one, Number 10 is conformance with the design guidelines, landscaping standards and performance standards of this Chapter. So, our interpretation of the design guidelines of the Bay Road corridor is professional office in the first 500 feet or 1,000 feet, you can argue that all day long, and I thought, you know, again, I’ll just reiterate that the last time you left the meeting, we discussed with you the fact that we wanted professional office in the front, and again, you come back with this plan, and I know that you talked with Staff and you felt that they said this is a specified use in this, but I just, with everything else that we’ve approved on Bay Road, I would just guess you’d have to understand what our design guidelines are. So, you may interpret it one way. I interpret it a completely different way. MR. VOLLARO-Thanks, Tony. Was that it? MR. METIVIER-Yes, that’s it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So are you saying you’re against putting offices in the front? MR. TOOHEY-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. How about reducing the number of units on the site? MR. TOOHEY-The plan as it’s being proposed is the plan that we’re moving forward with. One of the interesting parts that came out of the discussion having to do with sanitary sewer is our responsibility is to supply sanitary sewer that takes into consideration everything downstream. The Comprehensive Master Plan suggests that sanitary sewers were designed to come up to Blind Rock, Town Hall. The suggestion is here that they somehow want to be extended. Unless somebody such as ourselves builds them up to this point, the future of that extension to address the concerns north of us will never come into play. To do all those things, to bring that sanitary sewer line, is an incredibly expensive process, requiring very likely the replacement of the bottleneck that you were talking about before and other design criteria. So to do that, we have to be able to do that which, one, we believe is legal. Secondly, that which we believe is not inconsistent with the concept that the Bay Road corridor is supposed to be professional office 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) with multi-family. It says right in there that it’s multi-family, and as a result, we believe that this is the density that we need to have with regard to this project moving forward. MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s 174 or nothing, in your opinion? MR. TOOHEY-That’s what the discussion is at this point, yes. MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to just, and I’m going to move down the rest of the Board, but I want to go, again, to 179-7-040, and I’m going to read from that a little bit, because I’ve taken that exactly out of context. It says, “This district applies to the Professional Office district abutting Bay Road….Development has extended north from Quaker Road in a generally desirable pattern of professional offices incorporating a residential feel and look. It is the intent of the guidelines for this corridor to continue this professional office theme to the north….The professional office theme is generally composed of one- to two-story buildings that are residential in appearance, with large, attractively landscaped yards.” Under “Design objectives”, it says, “for this district”, that it talks about seven and eight, and I don’t want to get into the 1,000 foot, because that’s where that comes out, but it says, “The primary objective of the Bay Road Corridor is to create a professional office identity mixed with some high-density, multifamily residential uses.” Some. I just don’t see the magnitude of 174 units fitting the word “some”. I mean, I have a diametrically opposed view of those two words. I guess we’re about finished with Staff comments. I think we went down those adequately. MR. TOOHEY-Right. MR. VOLLARO-And I’ve got just as quick comment. On the Blind Rock Road side, does, and I haven’t read your traffic study. MR. SANFORD-Well, Bob, before we get into that, I’d just like to say I agree 100% with Tony’s comments, but to be constructive, here’s how I see the problem. There’s a number of issues that, going through the Staff comments, have been identified, the sewer, traffic, impact on school, stormwater. However, the one issue that I’ll probably never be comfortable and never support this project because of, is community character and the Bay Road corridor. Now here’s the problem that I’m faced with. We have to come up with a direction and some guidance, I think, for you, as the applicant. It’s only fair. I don’t think it’s appropriate for, at the end of this discussion tonight, to send you home with a big assignment to spend a lot of money and do a lot of work on five or six items, and even if they’re all successfully resolved, to come in here and find out that the majority of this Board just can’t get beyond destroying the character of the Bay Road corridor, and so I think we have to decide how we plan to proceed, you know, how we’re going to proceed here. I’d just as soon not say, okay, let’s dodge the real hard issue and have them come back five or six times, after doing tons of work on sewer impacts and everything else, only for us to not approve this project because of the nature of the character being destroyed, the community character being destroyed. So, what I would really like to do is to almost send you on your way without having to incur those expenses. MR. TOOHEY-What we would like to do is to continue this process, as you’ve just spoken about. You spoke about Wal-Mart, the discussions that went on with that. I’m sure that much of that was not settled sitting back and forth at this level. There were discussions that were always had. We understand what our responsibilities are and our costs are, and I believe that there’s aspects of this plan that can be introduced so as to shed light to you, and I would ask you not to curtail it. We understand it’s our money that we’re going to have to spend to do what we have to do and what we have said we are going to do for you. We would ask you for the courtesy to allow us to play the process out as it is now proposed. MR. SANFORD-But it’s a big stumbling block and, Mr. Toohey, the big problem, based on the series that Tom and Tony asked you, is, A, you’re not contemplating professional office in the front and some multifamily in the rear, and you’re not even considering a scale back of the project. I’d hate to see you go, I mean, again, one of the time management, we have time management issues on this Board. It’s become quite a little discussion item on how, on 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) backlogs and things of this nature. I’d hate to see us consume countless hours dealing with all of the multitude of issues that would have to be addressed for a project that we don’t want to begin with. For instance, the Wal-Mart, we accepted the Wal-Mart project. What we wanted to do is to make sure it turned out to be the best that it can be. Here, we’re not buying the concept, and so I’d hate to see all the work be put in to something that is unacceptable from the beginning, and I think you understand what I’m saying, and I’m just trying to be honest with you. I would hate to see you spend months on this, only to find out it’s not going to fly. MR. TOOHEY-And I’d ask the Board’s patience with regard to allowing us to play this process through, not play in the negative sense, but play in the sense that these larger projects always have a give and take that are given and taking. MR. METIVIER-But you’re not willing to give a thing. You haven’t given anything. The question was asked, will you consider professional office. No. The question, would you consider a scaled down version. No. Where’s the give and take here? MR. TOOHEY-This is Neil Swingruber, one of the developers. NEIL SWINGRUBER MR. SWINGRUBER-My name is Neil Swingruber. I’m with Albany Partners, and we are part of the partnership that has put together the concept and the development plan for this project. Let me begin by saying that the very last purpose of my partners and I is to waste anybody’s time, and it’s certainly not on the top of our list to waste our money. It never has been and never will be. However, the reason we’re at where we’re at today is a simple one. We spent approximately $20,000 and put together a, what we perceive to be, a compromise plan, with commercial in the front, residential in the back. It was intended to be a workshop meeting, a meeting of the minds, a cooperation to try to give Queensbury what, in fact, they desired. That’s all we intended to do. That’s all we intend to do today. The reason that Mike Toohey is answering your question as he is is at my direction. My direction was simple. I spent $20,000. I came in with an alternative plan, and, Mr. Sanford, I was rejected, without comment, because it wasn’t an application. That’s why we’re here today. That’s the only reason. Am I willing to compromise? Absolutely. I’ve built in Bethlehem, Rennselear. I’m building in Malta. I know how to compromise. I don’t get projects done of this size, in varying townships, without understanding that. So, yes, we compromise. A great deal, to the tunes of hundreds of thousands of dollars. All I ask is a little bit of your time. We’ve already used too much of your time tonight. We have. We just wanted some of your attention. The last meeting we came to, let’s be honest, we were rejected out of hand, told to go away, after we spent $20,000 coming up with what we thought was a compromise. MR. SANFORD-You could have presented that as an application in front of this Board, instead of not really, it was never clear what that meeting was all about, to me and to others. It was called a discussion item, and yet we have no parameters. We have nothing in our regs, in the way in which we conduct business as a Planning Board, that formally recognizes a discussion item and I wasn’t sure really what this was all about, and so I did object to that. I thought it you wanted to present it as an application it could have been discussed, like we’re discussing this tonight, as an application, and yet you chose not to go in that direction. MR. SWINGRUBER-No, I didn’t make that choice. The impression we were under, while it might have been misguided, to the tune of about $20,000, was that it was an effort for us to put out a talking plan, for us to be a developer within this township, and add something to the community. I’m coming to the conclusion that developers such as us have nothing to add to your community, and that’s okay. That’s okay. We develop other places. We do wonderful project, and in townships that are very rigorous, very detailed, and we have a track record of adding a great deal of value, and we do add value. We’ve turned over park preserves, covered bridges, boardwalks, 8,000 linear feet of sanitary, water, okay, those are additions we made to corridors, and we are getting ready to build, two years of approvals, one million dollars spent, and that’s value added, okay. I probably won’t be back, but I want you to know, we’re not fly 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) by night. We are real. We add value. We are considered, in the communities we are in, good neighbors, and dependable taxpayers, and that’s all, but I want to be very, very clear on this. We’re not obstinate. Our purpose here is not to tell you it’s 174 or nothing, or that it’s residential and no office because three months ago we brought in $20,000 worth of workup of pictures, proposed site, and said, just talk to us, and we were sent away. So, I have agreed to the money at stake, and for that money, all I wanted to do was to be told no. That was all. That’s all. I thought perhaps, as a developer who took the time to take an interest in the Town, that was a legitimate request. All right, and that’s all. I’m not looking to get into an argument with you. MR. SANFORD-No, no, I’m not going to argue. I want to set something straight for the record. We are not opposed to development, but we are very, very proud of what we’re trying to do with this Bay Road corridor, and depending upon where you’re from, you might still have problems with it. I remember when it was all rural, and I thought it was beautiful then, but you can’t prevent progress, and so the Town came up with a vision and other very large successful developers like you embraced that vision, and we have a product now that runs the corridor length. I’m very protective of that, and I think the rest of the fellow Board members here are as well, and we’d be happy to work with you in keeping with that vision for the corridor, and I’m sure you’re top quality, and we’ve never challenged that, but the project that is being presented or has been presented here tonight, is not in keeping with the Bay Road vision, the corridor, and I just don’t feel that I can get beyond that, and I wanted to be honest with you. MR. SWINGRUBER-That’s your prerogative and that’s your stead, and I have no complaint with that. MR. GOETZ-Based on what I’ve heard from you, and from your representation in the last 30 minutes, it sounds like you do want to work with the community. MR. SWINGRUBER-Absolutely. MR. GOETZ-And if you want to work with the community, I would recommend that you go back and review your work and come see us again. You know what you’re up against, but not everybody’s against you. Okay. You may have a chance to get something through, if you’re willing to give and take. MR. SWINGRUBER-And I appreciate that, and let me be clear, I’m a big boy, okay, I mean, if we spent the money and it is to no ultimate use, that’s the business that I’ve picked. That’s okay. It’s just, I had hoped just to be told yes or no, and that was really all it was. It wasn’t an intention of being obstinate. It never was. Okay. It never was, and it was always our intention, if the sewer system needed to be upgraded to some higher level to help neighbors along the way, we’ll do it. We always intended to do that. We’ve already checked out the system pretty well and we know the money it’s going to take. We have a very large number in our projected budget to do that improvement in that extent, and have taken the time to try to understand some of the neighbor’s issues, too. So those are all issues that we see that we should do because we can, not necessarily because we have to. So, but I do appreciate your time, and I appreciate everyone that showed up here, their time, and I will certainly sit with my partners and discuss that and discuss the invitation to come back, but if we do not come back, I do not want, for one instant, this Board or this community to feel that it was an all or nothing, that we were just another developer coming along wanting to abuse the landscape and make money and run away. That was never our intention, and commercial was always on the table, up to the point that I left the last meeting. That’s an honest answer. MR. VOLLARO-I’d just like to inject one thing, as a point of departure for you to take a look at where, if you want to come back, there is a site plan that is an approved site plan for that corridor, for that particular piece. It’s currently, it’s been, I think it’s still a valid site plan. MR. SWINGRUBER-I’m familiar with it. I’ve seen it. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. VOLLARO-And you take a look, and modify that along its lines perhaps. That might be a point of departure for you to take a look at what you might want to come back with. MR. SWINGRUBER-We can certainly do that. We would certainly look at that, but I do appreciate your time. MR. VOLLARO-You’re very welcome. MR. SWINGRUBER-I do appreciate your time, and thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I don’t know what to say at this particular point except that we have a public hearing that’s open, and if anybody wants to come up to comment to this application. We have a public hearing that was left open, and if any members of the public would like to come up to speak to this, you can come right up to the microphone. MR. SANFORD-Bob, I’m not sure if the applicant didn’t withdraw the application. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know. That’s a good point. MR. SANFORD-Perhaps we should ask his agents and representatives if that’s what, in fact, happened. Otherwise I think the public hearing may be unnecessary. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s probably true. It would save us a little time. Mr. Toohey, I guess we’re wondering, on the departure of the developer, was that a withdrawal of this application? MR. TOOHEY-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. Okay. So we can entertain public comment, then. MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, I changed my mind. I don’t care. It’s entirely a Board decision, but I just want to make sure you’re aware of the various legal options available to you now. One legal option available to you would be, since the application has not been withdrawn, to simply continue the public hearing to whatever date the application’s going to come back. If that’s not a date certain, it could be re-advertised, and it’s entirely at the Board’s discretion. I just want to make sure you know, you’re not obligated to take public comment at this time. You can if you wish, but you’re not obligated to. I just want to make sure you’re aware of that. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that, and it’s a good point, but I know there’s a lot of good people that have been sitting here a while. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m not saying you should or shouldn’t. I just want to make sure you’re aware of the options. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you, Counsel. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOHN CURRIE MR. CURRIE-I’ll keep it very short. My name is John Currie. I live up on 1118 Bay Road. We’ve been in business here in Queensbury since 1990. In December of 2003, we purchased the property directly across the Bay Road from the Town Hall to build a professional office. We had looked in several areas in the Town, and Western Avenue, and over in the Industrial Park and several other places, and we chose 10 Hunterbrook Lane because it was a good environment for our type of professional business. In order to build the office that we wanted to build there, as you mentioned earlier, we had to acquiesce because we are the second to the last lot on the Bay Road beautification corridor. It ends at Dr. Sharpe’s office, which is just above us. In order to meet those requirements, we had to plant trees of certain sizes and 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) shrubbery and so on to meet the beautification requirements, and we did that because it is part of the Comprehensive Plan, and we understood that. We see no reason, now, to go back and reinvent this Comprehensive Plan and actually allow development of residences that would actually isolate us from the rest of the professional offices along the Bay Road corridor. It would leave us on Hunterbrook Lane with just two professional offices and the Church on the corner, and then of course this large development to the south. I guess I’m a little bit confused about why we’re here tonight anyway when I heard all the rhetoric back and forth between Mr. Toohey for the applicant and the Board here and everything. I thought, as mentioned by Mr. Metivier, that the idea was that they were going to come back with a plan for professional offices with the apartments to the rear, and as an adjoining property owner, I would support that. There’s several other things here, as far as the planning. If you’re putting in 174 housing units, and you say there’s going to be no increase in children, I have difficulty with that, just with the Schermerhorn Apartments from our office in the evening after school, we have several children that play on the street and play basketball in the parking lot and so on over there. There’s a lot of children for not a very big development. So I think that to say there will be no increase in the number of children through kindergarten and 12, I don’t know how you can base that. As far as the traffic problems, if anyone has ever come out of Blind Rock and tried to make a left on Bay Road, when the College is getting out, and all the cars are coming up the other side of Blind Rock Road by the Town Hall here and coming up to that light, you can sit there for two to three changes of the light if you yield the right of way to the cars that are coming straight across the intersection, because you just can’t make that left. So we do have problems, and we have problems with not only the traffic but also the pedestrians and so on that will be increasing, the number of bicycles and so on with people exercising along the Bay Road. So there are problems that go with that increase in multiple housing in that area, but I think the thing that we want to, what we’d be happy with would be to make a decision so we don’t have to keep coming back here for public meetings and Planning Boards and keeping your eye on the ball so that something doesn’t slip through, and this is the point where I think that the Planning Board should look at other applications and not be spending a lot of time on something that the majority, or I feel anyway, the majority of the people that have professional offices on the Bay Road would be opposed to. So, as a taxpayer and adjoining property owner, I’d like to say that my wife Laura and I who own that property and have a significant investment in that property, we’re not big developers. We use the office ourselves, and we would not be in favor of a big, multi-unit housing development or apartment complex that would, as I said, isolate us from the rest of the Bay Road corridor and, as Mr. Sanford said, ruin the character of the Bay Road corridor. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you very much. Thank you. MIKE SEGAL MR. SEGAL-Good evening. My name is Mike Segal. I live in Queensbury. With all the rhetoric that we’ve been reading in the newspaper recently about this Board, I have to take exception to it. I feel this Board is doing a fantastic job. At the last hearing that we had of this project, the closing shot, if I remember it correctly, was, if we can’t make money on this project, we will not do the project, and putting the corridor in front of the project was not allowing them to make enough money, and it reminds me, and I’ll try to make this as short as I can, reminds me of what we’ve been seeing with corporations for the last number of years, where the bottom line takes precedent over the community, community as large as the United States, or as small as Queensbury, and that reminds me of something that happened in the 70’s when we had a terrible gasoline shortage. A friend of mine was at a social gathering where the President of Exxon was there, and he approached him and he said, how come you’re taking all the gasoline from your refinery in Aruba and sending it to Europe when you’re an American company, and the President said, wait a minute, we are an international company, and we will go where the money is most for us, regardless, I say, of the fact that they are an American chartered company and they get tax write offs. The bottom line is the bottom line and technically and legally Exxon was right, and we heard tonight, technically and legally, they have the right to do what they want, as far as the project is concerned, regardless of what the community wants, and it’s about time the community’s throughout the United States stood up to these corporations and said, 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) wait a minute, we have to pay for the infrastructure. They say, yes, they’re going to help with the sewage and so forth. What about the school buses that come down Cronin Road, south of where they’re building, and disgorging loads and loads of children? I’ve seen bus after bus empty out loads of children to the apartment houses on Meadowbrook Road. I’ve heard before the statistics that say kindergarten through 12 grade will not be affected by these projects. I th don’t know whether to believe what I’m told, believe what I read, or believe my eyes when I see these children getting off the buses. We will have to pay for extra police, extra fire, extra emergency, extra schooling. We know that, and we know that projects will come in. We know that there will be development because the population is growing. It’s growing throughout the world, but it has to be done in a manner that pleases the locality, and it can be done, and so I thank you for your stand, particularly yours, Mr. Vollaro, and yours. We want to see development, but we want our Town to be developed correctly and for us, not for the bottom line. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Anyone else who would like to speak to this application or to this topic I guess we’d call it at this point? ALICE GRETHER MS. GRETHER-Hi. My name is Alice Grether. I’m a resident here on Rockwell Road in Queensbury. I’ve been living here six years, and we chose this area because of its natural beauty, and we just love it here, and it hurts my heart to think that over development make take place. It is wrong. It is not in the best, I think, best interest of the community. It’s not what the community wants, and as that gentleman just said, of course progress will take place, but I sincerely appreciate and believe that we need to do a better job of controlling this construction. Everywhere you look, construction, construction. Where are the animals going to go? Our home is inundated with foxes, because they have nowhere to go. So, I mean, that’s not the point, but it is indicative of the construction that’s taking place. So, that’s all I wanted to say. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-You’re welcome. Anyone else? BERNARD RAYHILL MR. RAYHILL-My name is Bernard Rayhill. I live in Queensbury, and I’d just like to mention one thing with regard to the design of projects, and also our community on Bay Road. If you take a look at the west side of Bay Road, at the professional developments there, you see an awful lot of greenery, an awful lot of trees, and a lot of back space, as you said before. It’s a beautiful area. It’s a beautiful area for a professional to have a residence or to have a business, and this area is perfect for businesses that are businesses that cater to professionals, and we’ve got a great job, and I’d like to say to you because of a good Town Board, we’ve done a good job on the west side of Bay Road. Let’s keep it up and stay with it and go in that direction only. Thank you. JAN URBAN MRS. URBAN-My name Jan Urban. We bought here four years ago. We came from Long Island. We saw the over development of Long Island, and I see it happening here. I’d really appreciate it if you’d really take into consideration, school districts can’t handle the influx of children, and with all the development that’s going on, those schools are going to be over inundated with kids. So, please, keep in mind that one of the reasons people move here is because of the fact that it is a beautiful area. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Anyone else? J.T. BROTHERS 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. BROTHERS-My name is J.T. Brothers. We’ve lived here year round since 1991, and have owned property here for about 30 years. I want to commend the questions that several of you folks have raised, about this application. I think that you understand that we as residents have a stake in this. If we wanted it to look like Nassau County, we probably wouldn’t be living here now. I heard a lot of discussion at the beginning, before 7:30, about sidewalks running parallel to the Bay Road, and I don’t think that sidewalks are appropriate in an area like this, in the way that this area has been defined, and according to what the people who have chosen to live here really want. So I would like to commend you on the clarity of your perception of what really makes this community what the people who live here really want. So, thank you for that. MR. VOLLARO-You’re very welcome, sir. Anyone else who would like to speak to this application, or to this concept or this topic? Okay. Seeing none, I’m going to close the public hearing on this. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. STEFFAN-No, Bob, we don’t want to close it. MR. VOLLARO-We might want to re-advertise, I think. I don’t know, because we don’t have a time certain here that we can table this to. MR. SCHACHNER-What’s the purpose of closing the public hearing? Why don’t you leave the public hearing open, and if we don’t have a date certain, re-advertise anyway? MR. VOLLARO-You do, all right. That’s fine. We can leave it open. No problem. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. TOOHEY-One other concern, one of the many concerns I heard is whether or not, how do the people get notice of, in fact, what’s going on. We will re-advertise. I think that was suggested, and we absolutely consent to that. MR. VOLLARO-Fine, thank you. Okay. We’ll table it to a time uncertain. MR. SANFORD-Well, Bob, it begs the question, and again, maybe we just want to do that, but the other way to go is to do the SEQRA. MRS. STEFFAN-Mark, do you have advice for us? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I don’t think it’s appropriate, because I don’t think you have a ton of information. I understand your frustration. MR. SANFORD-I’m not frustrated. I just don’t know where we are. MR. SCHACHNER-The bottom line has indicated that they’re going to present a whole bunch of additional information, or they may. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what they said, they may. MR. SCHACHNER-And the application has not been withdrawn. So we have an application that’s pending before us. I think I heard at least some Board members indicate the need for additional information, and whether I did or not, I certainly heard the applicant indicating, at least at some junctures, they intend to present a whole bunch of additional information. Given that, I don’t think it’s legally appropriate to conduct SEQRA review because you don’t have all the application materials. MR. SANFORD-That’s fine. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. My perception of what took place here is that they will come back with a plan significantly different from the plan that we see here. MR. SCHACHNER-All the more reason not to conduct SEQRA review on the current plan. MR. VOLLARO-I think what I’d like to do is to table this application to a time uncertain, because I don’t know how long it will take them to come back with another plan. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine. MR. SANFORD-All right. I’ll second that motion. That’s a motion? MR. VOLLARO-That’s a motion, yes, it is. MR. SANFORD-I’ll second it. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 65-2004 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: Tabled to a time uncertain, for the applicant to come back with another plan. Duly adopted this 17 day of May, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2004 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGES SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED DIAMOND POINT REALTY AGENT: JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION: NORTH OFF OAKWOOD DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 17.7 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO FIVE (5) RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 3.152 ACRES TO 5.024 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.10-1-19 LOT SIZE: 17.7 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS RICK MEATH, MICHAEL O’CONNOR, & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MEATH-Good evening. For the record, my name is Rick Meath. I’m an officer of the corporate applicant, I think you all know Michael O’Connor from Little & O’Connor, and Tom Jarrett from Jarrett-Martin Engineers here with me tonight. We’re here tonight on a revised subdivision plan for this property on Oakwood Drive. Obviously, there was some opposition to the original five lot plan from some Twicwood residents. We’d like to point out, however, just for the record that not everyone in Twicwood is opposed to this, the original five lot project. As soon as we acquired this property, we were contacted by over a dozen people who wanted to purchase lots in this subdivision, and they were unsolicited contacts, as we haven’t done anything to market the property or anything like that, obviously. Of the first six requests we received for lots, five of them were from residents of Twicwood. I point this out only to show that not everyone in Twicwood is opposed to this original five lot project. However, in recognition of the opposition that there has been, and based on the comments from members of this Board at prior meetings, we’ve reduced the number of lots down from five to three, which is obviously a 40% reduction in the number of lots. We are, under the density guidelines I believe we are technically allowed 2.9 lots. We are asking for three lots. If my math is correct, we’re asking, therefore, for about a three percent waiver from the density requirements. So we’re here tonight seeking a waiver from those density requirements and also asking for a preliminary approval for this revised three lot subdivision plan, and as I’ve pointed out before at a prior meeting, this Board can grant a waiver when enforcement of the slope provisions are 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) not required in the interests of public health, safety or general welfare. As with the prior five lot plan, we will not be doing any construction on any of the slopes of any type at all. We’re not doing anything that’s going to result in any erosion on the slopes or anything else. I don’t see how anyone can really claim that granting the waiver would be adverse to the public health, safety, or general welfare. I’d also like to remind the Board, as we’ve pointed out before, that all the other residential property which is in this area is currently zoned one acre. In fact, most of the lots in Twicwood are less than an acre because it pre-exists the current zoning. We will have two of the three lots, which will be just over three acres, and the third lot will be over eleven acres. We believe that the waiver is appropriate, and we’re therefore here asking for the waiver and for Preliminary approval. I don’t know if there’s anything else that I’m forgetting to bring out. MR. VOLLARO-I, for one, in just looking at, I did a little extra math in here. Let me start right out at the beginning, as a party of one, I see the waiver. Grant the waiver. I’ll cut to the chase right away. Let me go up and down the Board. How do you feel about the waiver, Richard? MR. SANFORD-I read it over and reviewed this today. I think if the applicant is willing to agree not to further subdivide any of the lots, and I think they’re really only talking about the large lot, and perhaps have a deed restriction to that effect, then I would support the density waiver. MR. VOLLARO-George? MR. GOETZ-I agree. MR. VOLLARO-Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-I agree with the no further subdivision on Lot Three, but it also needs to be, not just in the deed but on the plat. MR. VOLLARO-Tom? MR. FORD-I agree. MR. SEGULJIC-I agree. MR. METIVIER-I’m fine. MR. VOLLARO-I think the waiver is, across the Board, granted. MR. O'CONNOR-I think we would have objection if the waiver is based just on that condition, though. We don’t know if we’re going to acquire additional lands that might make that a combination and something that would be subdividable. Typically with your subdivisions, you don’t require a subdivision plat, note that it not be further subdivided. You don’t require a restrictive covenant that it not be subdivided. We understand that once this is an approved subdivision, a Planning Board approved subdivision, if we make any modification to it, we’d have to come back to you. MR. VOLLARO-We would rather not have that happen, though. MR. METIVIER-But I would agree with him that, you know, the chances of that ever being subdivided again in front of this Board would probably be slim to none, and at that point, if they decide to come forward with another application to subdivide, maybe things will have changed. I just, I can understand Mr. O’Connor’s point. MRS. STEFFAN-My recommendation on the plat notation is just from an enforcement point of view, because there have been some other subdivisions where we’ve had, and if there’s a deed restriction, they’re not enforceable. So that’s why I mentioned the notation on the plat. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. MEATH-I would only hesitate to have a deed restriction only because I can’t presume to guess what might happen 20, 30 years down the road, other property is added to this, they want to reconfigure something. I have no idea, but certainly as this subdivision exists, if there’s a notation on the plat that says there’ll be no further subdivision of Lot Number Three, obviously that can be revised by this Board if, 20 years from now, someone comes along and there’s something that we can’t predict at this point. I would just hesitate to have a deed restriction because then that’s forever. MR. METIVIER-I was just going to say that I do commend them on the fact that we asked for something. They gave it to us. Let’s just move forward with this. MR. VOLLARO-I agree. I don’t have a problem. What I did is I did discuss this with Staff a little bit. One of the things that struck me here would be the first time that we could look at something called a conservation easement, and I don’t know enough about them. I really don’t. I don’t know how they’re funded. I understand we have a land conservancy here in Queensbury that might accept this, but to have this set in perpetuity as an easement or trust from a conservation point of view, would be the first time we’ve ever been able to do that. It’s an ideal piece. If you read some of the literature on this, it overlooks a golf course. It does all the things that a conservation easement ought to do, and I talked to Staff about it and they felt at this particular point they just don’t have enough, it hasn’t been incorporated enough into our Codes. It hasn’t been talked about enough. We don’t know enough about it, but that’s something that I would like to see happen to it. I would like to absolutely see no further subdivision of that lot. As Tony said I think aptly, if somebody was to come back, two, three, four years from now, maybe this Board doesn’t even look like it does today, I think there would be a slim to none chance, to quote what he said about. MR. O'CONNOR-I just hate to give up things that I have no knowledge of how they will affect us down the road. We all presume, I think when this land was rezoned, it was presumed that it was going to go to the Country Club. It was zoned the same as the Country Club property. It wasn’t zoned the same as the other pieces of property that were residential that immediately next to it. I don’t know if that Country Club is going to be there. I presume it’s going to be there for the next 100 years, but you don’t necessarily know that. You don’t know what’s going to happen to the piece that Russo owns that’s on the north end of this piece. So all I’m saying is we understand that your approval would be for these three lots. There’s no presumption that we could come back, but why foreclose that right now if you don’t have your crystal ball that guarantees you what’s going to happen down the road. MR. VOLLARO-In my view anyway, putting a no further subdivision clause into a deed or a deed restriction of that type pretty much guarantees that the land within the confines of this subdivision. MR. O'CONNOR-The way that the APA does it, Mr. Vollaro, is their terminology is that the lots as approved will not be subdivided without further approval of the APA. MR. VOLLARO-That statement by itself tends to open the door to somebody coming in. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but there’s your most conservative planning agency in our region, and that’s as far as they go, and I can give you that language, except for substituting Town of Queensbury for the APA agency, if you want. MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t know, my thought process was just that, you know, we originally had a five lot subdivision, and this is a three, and it’s acceptable as far as I’m concerned, but I’m just not sure, if we don’t put that restriction, then will there be further subdivision? MR. SEGULJIC-And we have some chance to preserve some open space. MR. O'CONNOR-The Town was preserving open space is the ownership. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. SEGULJIC-But we’re creating that at this point. MR. O'CONNOR-No, well, you’re creating limited development of a very large lot. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and that I have no problem with. MR. MEATH-In order to move this forward, I have no problem with a plat restriction that says there’ll be no further subdivision of any of these lots without, when you say it’s with or without the approval of this Board, I don’t really care. What I don’t want to do is have a deed restriction, because I don’t know what’ll happen down the road. I could foresee maybe the Country Club would want a little piece of this for some reason for the golf course. I don’t know what might happen down the road, and I don’t want to foreclose it with a deed restriction. That’s my only concern. MR. SANFORD-Well, that’s a reasonable approach. In other words, they may want to sell a part off to the Country Club and not develop it, and if we had a deed restriction, the Country Club wouldn’t be able to do it, and then that probably wouldn’t be an adverse purchase. Can that legally be done where we don’t do a deed restriction but we do an approval specifying that? MR. SCHACHNER-In other words, putting it on the plat only but not as a deed restriction? MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Absolutely. MR. O'CONNOR-But isn’t that the same thing, Mark? It carries the same weight. MR. SCHACHNER-Absolutely not. MR. O'CONNOR-I think there’s some confusion. MR. SCHACHNER-Absolutely not. Your client, Mr. Meath, seems well aware of the fact that, no, it doesn’t carry the same weight, and he’s absolutely correct. He must be drawing on his earlier background in his career. MR. MEATH-Someone could come back. MR. O'CONNOR-If it’s a condition of approval, we would have to come back to change it. MR. SCHACHNER-Do you want me to answer these questions? MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s correct, but I thought Mr. Meath’s point, and he’s absolutely correct, and again, I think he’s drawing on his earlier background, is that the deed restriction would be much more difficult, if not impossible, to alleviate from, that’s what I think Mr. Meath’s point was, and I agree with him. MR. O'CONNOR-I understand now. MRS. STEFFAN-And in my experience, one of the questions that I asked, on other applications is that there are deed restrictions. We’ve got them all over the Town, and are they enforceable, and unless your neighbor turns you in and that kind of thing, they’re really not enforceable, but 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) if there is a notation on the plat that says there’s no further subdivision, then our Code Enforcement people have the ability to enforce that, and a deed restriction they cannot. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. I’m concerned about misleading the public, applicants, the Planning Board or whomever. It’s not correct that deed restrictions are not enforceable. What I think you mean, Gretchen, is by the Town. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-They’re enforceable among private parties. I think you’re talking about enforceability by the Town. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, by the Town. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s an important distinction. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I’m sorry. MR. VOLLARO-I think what she’s saying is, and I agree with her, too, is when it’s on the plat, it’s something that the correction officer, if you want to call it that, or the Code Enforcement is readily available to him, something on a deed is not. MR. SCHACHNER-No, with all due respect to Mrs. Steffan, Bob, I don’t think that’s what she’s saying. Her point, I think, is, and she’s correct, or if it’s not, this is what I’m telling you as your Counsel, deed restrictions are not enforceable by the municipality. They’re enforceable between private parties. I think the point she’s making is by making it a condition of approval and requiring it on a plat, that enables our Code Enforcement folks to enforce. That’s her point. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Right. I understand. MR. SANFORD-So where, you know, at the end of the day, does the difference reside? MR. SCHACHNER-There’s two significant differences. One is the difference that the applicant identified, and I agree with the applicant 100%, and that is that it’s much easier if, down the road, for whatever reason, this crystal ball that none of us have, somebody wants to come back and seek something that might be classified as a subdivision, they can do that by coming back to the Planning Board, if there is merely a condition of approval no further subdivision that’s recorded on a plat, but is not contained in a deed restriction, because then the other parties don’t have to get involved to try to undo a deed restriction. That’s the distinction the applicant pointed out. The second distinction is the distinction that Gretchen pointed out, which is that there’s a difference in enforceability. MR. SANFORD-I think that’s a reasonable approach. I don’t know what everybody else feels, but I think that’s accomplishing what we really want here. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Does the applicant agree with that, putting in it on a plat? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. We’ll work out the language, do you want us to work out the language with Counsel or how do you want us to do that? MR. VOLLARO-Probably. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. VOLLARO-I would think so. Taking a look at some of the notes that I have here, we want to talk a little bit about the Diamond Point Realty clearing plan, the fall and winter 2005 plan that was submitted with this. Based on what we see now, the three lot subdivision, I have a problem relating the two. So that that plan that was presented in the winter of 2005 now does not reflect, essentially, what is on this new drawing that’s dated, I guess 4/15/05. MR. MEATH-I can answer that fairly quickly. That applied to the five lot subdivision only. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, okay. Fine. So that should be something that we should be upgraded to reflect the three lot subdivision. MR. MEATH-We have existing cutting restrictions in force, based on an agreement with the Glens Falls Country Club, where we have to maintain a minimum of 70 square feet of basal area per acre over the entire property, and with the fewer lots now, there’s going to be a lot less cutting for houses, driveway, septic, wells, etc. I would think those restrictions would be sufficient. MR. VOLLARO-Except that I don’t, you know, that may be something that the Country Club has to say. Now how does the Country Club hold sway over this plot? MR. MEATH-There was an easement, there is an easement down along the very easterly edge of the property, and when that was resolved, there was an issue involving the enforceability of that, and when that was resolved, we reached an agreement with the Club. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the 75 foot easement that’s at the base here? MR. MEATH-Right. There were some legal issues with the easement that dated back to many, many years ago, and we negotiated it with the Country Club, and that was one of the results of the negotiation. MR. O'CONNOR-The cutting restriction is on the entire 17 acres, though. MR. MEATH-Right, it covers the entire property, not just the easement. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know. I’ve never seen that document. MR. JARRETT-That language was actually presented to this Board last year, and we can resurrect that and put it on the final plat. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t remember it, but if you’ve got language to that effect. Do you have it, Gretchen, you said? MRS. STEFFAN-It’s in here. I remember it. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s part of the application. I think you had actually the consent that was signed by the Country Club in this application. MR. METIVIER-There was something from the Country Club that we saw somewhere that talked about that, yes. So it is some document somewhere. MR. MEATH-There’s a permanent easement and restrictive covenant which is on file in the County Clerk’s Office, between the owner of the property, Diamond Point Realty Corp., and the Glens Falls Country Club, and as a part of it, and I’ll, we can certainly provide copies of this, but to make a long story short, it basically covers the entire property and it provides for retaining tree coverage, a minimum of 70 square feet of basal area per acre, well distributed over the entire project, with the exception of driveways, houses and lawns. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s pretty explicit, and we have a copy of this? 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. It’s in the packet. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. One of the things I want to try to get some feeling on is, there’s an approximate disturbance of 96,000 square feet noted here on Lot Number One. What does that, certainly that doesn’t translate all the way to Lot Number Three. I don’t know exactly, is that disturbance only in for Lot One? MR. JARRETT-That was intended to show only an example. Actually, the cutting restrictions that Rick just read would prevail over the entire three lots, and obviously, the basal area requirements would balance out, so that the lot clearing requirements, I better not misquote this. MR. MEATH-We can still clear for the roads and the driveway, and then everything else has to be a minimum of 70 square feet of basal area per acre. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, having said that, does the drawing as it shows, I mean, there’s areas there that show essentially what I would almost relate to a no cut zone kind of. MR. MEATH-I think that the area that shows, and correct me if I’m wrong, Tom, the area that shows along the drive, along the road, along the driveway, and around the house and around the septic is the actual clearing area. That’s going to be cleared in its entirety for construction. MR. JARRETT-That’s the clear cut area, obviously, for the house and the septic and the driveway. MR. MEATH-And then the cutting restriction applies to everything else. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I see where the driveways come in, and that’s going to be cleared. The house is going to be cleared. The septic is going to be cleared. I can see all of that. I understand what you’re saying. MR. JARRETT-Ninety-six thousand, I’d have to go back and double check, but is the entire disturbance for that entire three lots. MR. VOLLARO-It is? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. JARRETT-It’s not just one lot. MR. VOLLARO-You figured it here, here, and here, probably. MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And of course not here. MR. JARRETT-That was for the full disturbance, full clear cutting of the. MR. VOLLARO-So if you were to do sort of a quick analysis, I guess, it wouldn’t be very quick because this is difficult to do, but all of this in here is equal to about 96,000 square feet. MR. JARRETT-The clear cut areas are 96,000. MR. VOLLARO-That’s approximate disturbance limit is 96,000, but does all of this come out? 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. JARRETT-No, that’s the 96,000. MR. VOLLARO-Only this, that’s the 96,000 is in here. Okay, because it’s got a note on it, but it doesn’t clearly define that. Now I see where that 96 is. So I’m happy with that. Anybody else on the Board have any questions with that clearing? MR. SANFORD-I think we can move forward to public hearing on this. I mean, you know, it looks to me like it’s going to be a professionally done project. MR. VOLLARO-Well, a couple of things on the plat that don’t show, I guess, is you’re still proposing that as a private road. MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And there’s nothing on there that indicates that that’s a private road. MR. JARRETT-Well, all of the details that we had presented previously with five lots pertain to this. So the private road, the lighting plan will be the same. We’ll just scale it down. The road will be the same. It will be privately owned, the same width, the same section. All the construction details that we previously presented to you will be the same, just scaled down for three lots instead of five. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-With regards to the driveway, since it’s cutting across the other lots, how is that going to work? Because to get to Lot Three, you’ve got to cut across Lot Number One and Lot Number Two’s property. MR. MEATH-There’ll be an easement for the owners of Lots Two and Three to cross the other lots. MR. SEGULJIC-The other thing is, just a couple of quick questions. There’s the bars at the base of the driveways, are those drainage under the road? What is that? When I first looked at it, I thought it was a gate. MR. JARRETT-The culverts I think you’re looking at. MR. MEATH-Culverts. MR. JARRETT-Those are culverts, yes, and they’re part of an overall stormwater management plan that has been submitted to the Town. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. When I first saw it, I thought it might have been a gate. The other thing is something I just noticed is, why do we have the sliver of Glens Falls Country Club property on the southern edge of the property? MR. O'CONNOR-They own that. MR. SEGULJIC-Just the way it’s always been? MR. O'CONNOR-They kept that so that if they ever had to run a water line into the golf course or hook into the water system, they would be able to do that, at least that was the Board’s explanation when they did it. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I’m all set with the application. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just want to take one thing. There’s two letters from C.T. Male. One dates back to 17 November 2004, and the other one, much more recent one, is March 8, 2005. I 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) guess I would ask C.T. Male that question. Have all the questions on the November 17, 2004 been brought forward into the March 8, so that the March 8 reflects your latest? thth MR. EDWARDS-That’s right. They’re our latest, they’ve been addressed since that time, and I’m not sure I got an actual response letter from Tom’s office, but we have gone through each and every comment, and they have been addressed. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So in effect you’re almost set for a signoff on this project, engineer wise? MR. EDWARDS-That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-There was some, I think some talk in the last, on the five lot section, I’m trying to go back to that, that some of the height exceeded our 20 foot height limit, the height of the poles on. MR. JARRETT-No. They actually never did, and I think the cut sheets clarified that, but there was some confusion over it, but we only intended lamps, I believe, were a maximum of 10 foot high. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HILTON-There may have been a question, and I guess the applicant’s clarified it. MR. JARRETT-Yes. We don’t intend on going anywhere near the maximum height. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HILTON-But again, well, I guess just to kind of touch on one of my comments here, I’ve asked about the freestanding lighting, is it still proposed. It sounds like it is. I guess our suggestion would be that, before any final approval, that those items be shown on a final plat. MR. JARRETT-Absolutely. MR. VOLLARO-That kind of brings us to where I’m coming from, I think. I’d like to do a Preliminary on this tonight, and get a Preliminary approved, and then have you folks come back with a final drawing that really reflects exactly what we’re doing. MR. MEATH-Yes. We show the final lighting plan, the final road sections, I assume. MR. VOLLARO-Right. All of that. So we have a plat that really looks like exactly what it’s going to, transferring a lot of the information from the plat. MR. O'CONNOR-With a cutting notation on there as well. We’d put all that information on there. MR. VOLLARO-Right. You can just kind of extract from the old plan and put it on the new one, essentially. So, with that, we have a public hearing. I believe the public hearing is still open on this, and was tabled on 3/15, and there is a public hearing, and I believe it’s still open. Is that correct, George? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-The public hearing is still open. So I’d like to ask anybody from the public who’d like to come up and address this application to come forward. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN DAVE KELLY 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. KELLY-Yes. Dave Kelly from 30 Oakwood Drive. MR. VOLLARO-Good evening. MR. KELLY-My wife and I are adjoining property owners next to Lot Number One, and since this project was submitted, we, and many of our neighbors, have expressed a number of concerns relating to the applicant’s request of waivers, as well as the visual impacts of the project. We very much appreciate the Planning Board’s commitment and efforts in taking our concerns into consideration and we thank you for your hard work. We believe that the review process has been very helpful. I’ve reviewed the recent submission, and although I still believe that the most optimal outcome would be to deny any density waiver, I do respect the Board’s decision there. However, whether or not the Board decides to grant or deny the density waiver, we still have additional concerns that I hope you’ll address before final approval. Number One, first and foremost is the concern about future development of the same lot, particularly Lot Number Three. You’ve put a lot of hard work and attention and conscientious effort into this review process and I’d hate to see that turned around by a future Board or some fluke and have that Lot Number Three developed. So I strongly urge you, whatever the strongest way you could handle that is to somehow try to give the public some reassurance that that won’t be further developed. They made some comment on the Russo property on the end of the, the north end of this property. Should they purchase that, you know, they may want to develop it further. If you’ll look at the topographical map that’s clearly all over 25% grade, the whole piece. So I don’t think that should play into any, you know, changes of whether or not that should be developed, and there is no other adjoining properties, you know, without going through NiMo easements and so forth. No cut zones and restrictions imposed by the tree management plan. This is very confusing now because the ones they submitted are based on a five lot plan. Now we have a three lot plan, and I think that has to be looked at carefully to make sure that that’s being paid attention to. MR. VOLLARO-They sort of substituted in, for that cutting plan there is a substitution of language, having to do with the area. MR. KELLY-The Order of Consent with the Country Club. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. KELLY-That pre-dates, that Order of Consent pre-dates a subsequent plan set out, I believe, you know, they came back with a stricter no cut zone and stricter restrictions. MR. VOLLARO-Was that the 2005 plan that was presented to us? MR. KELLY-I think that was April, the attorney has it. So now it’s very confusing. I think that has to be straightened out a little bit, and basically what assurances does the public have that the tree management plan will be strictly adhered to? I’ve always had that concern, and thirdly, the visual impact issue. A visual impact assessment and simulation of all the site clearing and cutting proposed should be provided. What guarantees can the applicant make that will ensure some of the larger trees will be left to break up the building outlines and views to the east, as they’ve previously proposed? In summary, I believe the negative impacts of this project can be minimized if the items above are addressed and conditions are adopted as a part of any approval given for this project. Again, I thank you very much for your consideration. MR. VOLLARO-That’s all part of your May 11 letter, I believe. I’ve read your May 11 letter. thth MR. KELLY-This is a summary of that. Right. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. VOLLARO-Does anyone else want to speak to this application? BERNARD RAYHILL MR. RAYHILL-Hi. My name is Bernard Rayhill. I live in the area right near the Kelly’s house, and I know the area very well, and we made a statement at the last meeting. We pretty much summarized everything the residents did, with regard to the property and the development, and if the Board is on base with everything that the residents said at the last meeting, I think that the project, based on what Mr. Kelly has said tonight also, is a go because it’s an opportunity for the community to have three residences, not five, and not future developments, and that’s what the people in the community wanted in the first place, and I think everybody said everything that had to be said at the last meeting. So I think that pretty much covers it. Thank you very much. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. JOHN CAFFRY MR. CAFFRY-John Caffry, the attorney for Dr. and Mrs. Kelly. We do appreciate the Board’s efforts and the progress that’s been made with this application. If it is approved, regardless of the number of lots, it’s very important that there be permit conditions or plat conditions attached to it to hold the applicant to their promises, to make sure that it’s enforceable in the future. I’m very concerned about loose ends, slipping through the cracks. I have no reason to question Mr. Meath, but as these houses are sold to builders or bought, sold, whatever, down the line, it’s got to be in the plat. It’s got to be really clear. It would be even better if they’re in the deeds because once it gets two or three owners down the line, they don’t look at the subdivision plat. They just look at their deed, and if these things aren’t built in the deeds, or if there’s at least not something in the deed that says it’s limited by the plat conditions, the next owner’s not going to know. So there has to be some kind of tie in to really make this stuff enforceable. We do have several concerns about potential conditions that ought to be added, and I’m going to give you some, in a second, some ideas about that, but I thought I’d just go through them. These were covered in our former letters, but again, first and foremost, no further subdivision, and there’s no reason you can’t have it in the plat and as a deed restriction. You can even ask that it be enforceable in favor of the Town. Mr. O’Connor brought up the example of the APA. The APA will do that kind of thing, and this ought to be clearly covered before the final plat’s approved. There ought to be limits on the color of the buildings, earth tone, the type of glass and all that, the lighting on the structures to minimize visibility. I was very disappointed to hear Mr. Meath say, well, we’re not going to do the tree cutting restrictions anymore. We’re just going to go with the 70% thing we had before. As Dr. Kelly said, there was some question about visual impacts and impacts to the forest there, and they came forward with a plan to reduce those with a tree cutting plan. There’s no reason to withdraw that now. It’s not going to cause them any significant problems to keep that tree cutting plan in there. It’s almost like a bait and switch, that now they’re going to withdraw that, and even if they would like to withdraw it, the Board certainly has the authority to tell them to keep that plan as part of the package and include it in the final plans. MR. VOLLARO-One of the things that I see is that that cut doesn’t really reflect the three lot, if we do it and say, and I tend to agree that that might be a good idea, it’s got to be a new plan that essentially reflects this drawing, and that’s one of the holes that I see in this thing. I don’t quite understand yet the limitation of cut imposed by the golf course. MR. CAFFRY-Yes, well, I think one of the things that could be done with this tree cutting plan that they proposed, and we’ve been saying this for a while now, that it needs to be shown on the plat. This whole plan that Mr. Sipperly did I think was done pretty much lot by lot, and there’s no reason it can’t easily be adapted to a three lot subdivision and have these filtered view zones, or whatever they were called, shown on the plat, along with the limitations of cutting that are already on the three lot subdivision. I think that can be done, and they ought to 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) be required to adopt that original Sipperly plan to the three lot subdivision and show it right on the map. Also the no cut zones ought to be marked somehow on the ground permanently so that future owners, again, know where their limits are and they don’t just go out there and start cutting before it’s too late. The Staff brought up an issue regarding lighting. We think that ought to be in the permit conditions, and these things ought to be marked out on the site before any clearing occurs. With regard to re-subdivision, I don’t think they’re concerned about possibly coming in and re-subdividing the north lot, the Lot Number Three, or whichever the northernmost one is, is a valid concern. That piece is basically the narrowest part, it’s undevelopable. As Dr. Kelly pointed out, there is no adjoining land other than the Country Club because you have the NiMo right of way through there, and I think it ought to be restricted permanently, otherwise you have a potential opportunity for some future owner to come back in here when all you people have retired from the Planning Board and they may forget why it was done this way. So I think it ought to be done both in deeds and on the plat. MR. VOLLARO-I would almost say that on the language that ties the plat to the deed would have to be probably constructed by the attorneys. Mark, I didn’t want to interrupt Mr. Caffry’s presentation, but this is something I think that some legal minds might have to construct, and I would like to see some tie-in between the notation on the plat and the deed restriction, so that we’ve got some linkage there. I guess that’s what I’d call it. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, obviously, that’s up to the Board, as to whether a majority agrees with you. As far as the language, people are attaching an enormous amount of mystique to this language. I can tell you that if you want to have a subdivision plat note, you might want to say something like, no further subdivision of any of the three lots, or, no further subdivision of any of the three lots without Planning Board approval. I don’t see a whole lot of mystique involved. That does not tie the deeds, but similarly, if you want to tie up the deeds, that’s about a 30 second exercise, and that’s up to the Board. MR. VOLLARO-And while Mr. Caffry’s there, I’d like to ask the Board whether or not you would like to see the plat and the deed sort of linked. Tony, what do you think? MR. METIVIER-I don’t necessarily think the deed needs to be linked. I can see where the plat, I’m just going back over applications that have come before us in the last year. The Town does a pretty good job of keeping track of everything, how many applications have, you know, come before us in the past with modifications and everything. So I can foresee that we would have a lot of control over this, even if this Board isn’t present 10 or 12 years from now, the Town will keep records. I was just thinking, with all due respect, I mean, what if Mr. Kelly decides to move and somebody else comes in and needs some land to do something and wants to borrow from Lot One? I mean, you know, and they agree to it. If they have three acres and he needs an acre for whatever. I mean, you’re limiting it too much. So, just put it on the plat, not on the deed. MR. SEGULJIC-I think you should put it on the deed. I mean, that’s, we want to see no further subdivision. I think the deed’s the best way to communicate that. MR. VOLLARO-What we’re talking about is putting it on the plat and the deed and locking them together, in linkage, so that the two talk to one another. MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, I’m sorry to interrupt, but I’m hearing three things now, and I want to make sure I’m understanding. I think what Tom was saying was, put on the deed, as a deed restriction, no further subdivision. That’s one choice. Put it only on the plat is a second choice. Another thing I thought I heard you or someone else talk about was not have a deed restriction in the deed that says no further subdivision, but have some notation in the deed referencing the subdivision plat, as sort of a middle of the road. Did I not hear that? MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t hear that. Tony’s position was that we need not do anything with the deed at all. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. SCHACHNER-Right. Tony’s was plat only. Tom’s was, put the condition no further subdivision in the deed as a deed restriction and on the plat. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Then maybe I misunderstood. I thought somebody had suggested the possibility, well, maybe it was Mr. Caffry. I think what Mr. Caffry was suggesting, and maybe the Board didn’t understand this, so it’s timely to bring it up. I think what Mr. Caffry was suggesting was not either of those, but sort of a middle of the road that, although the deed would not contain a deed restriction saying no further subdivision, the deed would reference the subdivision plat, which would have the note on it. MR. VOLLARO-I see. Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s what Mr. Caffry, I believe, was suggesting. MR. CAFFRY-Not quite. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. That is an option. MR. CAFFRY-I assume I get an extension of my five minutes since you guys took some of it up, but I was really talking about two different concepts. One is, one was kind of generic and general. I’m suggesting a variety of permit conditions, many of which are things they’ve promised, and some of which are things I’m hoping the Board will impose, and I just think it’s overall good to say, require them to say right in the deed, this property is subject to all conditions on the subdivision plat, or something like that, because I do enough real estate closings, and once you get two or three owners down the road, nobody has any idea what those conditions are, and there’s some very site specific things here about tree cutting and tree clearing, and the second or third owner down the road is going to have no idea, and all of a sudden some day somebody’s going to go out there and want to clear that view, and nobody’s going to be able, including the Town, is going to know it’s happened until it’s too late. Whereas if it’s in the deed and they’re put on notice, there’s more chance they’re going to catch that. Their lawyer’s going to catch it before they buy or whatever. So that’s one concept. MR. SCHACHNER-And that’s essentially what I was talking about. MR. CAFFRY-All right. That concept could include cross referencing the no further subdivision thing. I think that no further subdivision thing is so important it ought to also be in there. It’s probably not practical to put five or ten in the deed, but I think there are really two major points there. One is the idea of cross referencing all the plat conditions, and the second is the no further subdivision, and I’d just like to make, I think, one last legal point, that the burden of proof is on this applicant to prove that they’re entitled to the waiver. It’s not up to the Town to find reasons to deny it. It’s up to them to prove to you that they meet those criteria, and they’ve talked about it, but you have to find that they, affirmatively find that they’ve proven it, and it’s not just, well, we’re good enough or close enough. With that, I’d just like to hand up our list of suggested conditions. This is really a supplement to, this came from some of our prior letters. We just pulled them out. It’s a supplement to the ones in Dr. Kelly’s letter that he filed last week that you already have. So between the two, those are the issues we think ought to become permanent plat conditions, and be cross referenced in the deed. Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, getting back to the discussion of the restrictions, it would make the most sense, as Mr. Caffry said, to tie it back to the plat. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think so. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s how I understand it. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. VOLLARO-Is there anybody else? I don’t think there’s anybody else from the public that wants to speak. I don’t know. I didn’t see any. So I think the public hearing is essentially closed. I will close the public hearing now. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The restriction on cutting has already been recorded in the County Clerk’s office. It is already a restriction on that property. It will show up in every piece of title or every title report that’s issued for that property, the restriction that Mrs. Steffan read. That’s been recorded. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t see any harm, however, in trying to tie these things together. It’s merely words that protect this property in the future, and it can be seen in either the deed or the plat. Somebody like myself, when I bought my piece of property from Mr. Vasiliou, I looked in detail on the deed for every dotted I and crossed T, not on the deed but on the plat, to make sure that I knew what I was getting. MR. MEATH-I feel very strongly about this. I have no concern about the cutting restrictions, because the cutting restrictions are, in fact, on file in the County Clerk’s Office. Anyone who buys this property, their attorney’s, one of the first things they’ll see will be those cutting restrictions. I do feel strongly, however, that the subdivision restrictions should not be in a deed. As sure as you and I are sitting here today, ten years from now or 20 years from now, something’s going to happen, I have no idea what it’s going to be, the Country Club may want to acquire a little tiny strip of some of this. A neighbor may want to acquire a few feet for a septic system. I have no idea what it might be, but if we put the no further subdivision restriction into a deed, that becomes then an impossible problem to overcome. If you put it on the plat, nothing can be done without them coming back here, and I don’t want to preclude something that I cannot foresee at this time. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I know, but I think taking a look out in the future like that as to what might or might not happen is very problematic, in my mind at least. MR. MEATH-I can take one very good guess. I happen to be a golfer. So I know a little bit about the Country Club, and I can certainly foresee where the Glens Falls Country Club, at some point in time, will approach the owner of one of these lots, and want to work out some type of an easement to an acquisition of a few feet of one of these lots in order to slightly expand a golf hole or something like that. Because from a golfing standpoint, the Glens Falls Country Club does not have very much acreage. They’re really pressed for property there. So that’s something that I’ve always felt might happen down the road. If we put a deed restriction in, you’re then precluding that from taking place down the road, and I just don’t want to do something that, again, we can’t predict what it might be, except it’ll be a mistake. MR. O'CONNOR-One thing that was considered, and has been discussed but has never been finalized, is whether or not the Country Club ever puts a bridge from the first green over to the second tee, and because of the configuration and where that property line is, they may have to do an extended bridge to get there and land it on a portion of what’s Lot Three, and bring it down back into the golf course. I mean, you know, we’re just talking about allowing the owner, whoever the owner is, and the adjoining owner, to come in here and make a case to you whether or not what they are requesting is permissible. I’m not asking for carte blanche approval. If you put a deed restriction, then you not only have to get this Board’s approval, but you would have to get the owner of Lot One, the owner of Lot Two and the owner of Lot Three to all agree. Because if they bought relying upon that restriction, they would then be in a position that they would be at the table and would have to consent to it. I mean, you just make it a very cumbersome problem for something that we don’t even know is going to happen. I mean, you don’t do this, how many subdivisions have you approved? The number that I’ve been involved in, I have not had that in any of those restrictions, imposed by this Board. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. VOLLARO-Okay, that’s true, but we’ve never been looking at a property as unique as this one, in terms of preserving the beauty of it. MR. MEATH-We just don’t think it’s necessary because if it’s on the subdivision plat, that should cover it, and it will cover it. MR. METIVIER-I mean, Bob, you’re talking about 18 acres, three lots. MR. SANFORD-Yes, I’d have to agree with Tony on this, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll listen to the Board. MR. SANFORD-I think that, if I was Dr. Kelly, I would be very pleased with how this turned out, after all, compared to the five lot subdivision, most adjoining neighbors all over Town, I would say 99.9% of them, don’t have this kind of consideration granted to them on subdivisions that are going to be developed. I think if we put it on the plat, I think that it was a compelling argument that the Country Club may want to purchase a little bit of space to improve their course, and I think they should be able to come in front of the Planning Board and discuss that and not have a deed restriction. MR. VOLLARO-That’s a good point. I would essentially go along with that. How do you feel about that, George? MR. GOETZ-And I agree with it totally. I would hate to see their hands totally tied, because it could effect, in the long run, what might happen as a safety feature for the Glens Falls Country Club. If they have to put a bridge in, it would be for the safety of its members and its guests, and I’d hate to see them not be able to do that. I commend you. I think you’ve been very community oriented on this project, and you’ve listened and you’ve come back to the Board and trying to do what’s right. My only advice is don’t cut down too many trees because I have a big slice. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess the consensus here is to put this on the plat only. How do you feel about that, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-I’ll go along with what the Board says. MR. VOLLARO-Tom, what do you think? MR. FORD-I feel comfortable with that. MR. VOLLARO-On the plat only? MR. FORD-I was feeling very comfortable with what Counsel also recommended, about the notation in the deed without the restriction being there, making reference to the plat. MR. VOLLARO-To the plat. MR. JARRETT-That’s fine, reference to the plat. MR. O'CONNOR-From a title point of view, I have a reservation, because then I’m not sure if we then give those people standing that would create a problem. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t follow. MR. O'CONNOR-It makes it of a nature of a restrictive covenant by referring to it, subject to the conditions on the plat, and it’s the same thing as spelling out those conditions in that document. You’re back dooring what I’m trying to avoid, without any real agenda or knowledge, but you’re back dooring the same issue, I think, from a title point of view. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. SCHACHNER-First of all, I wasn’t suggesting anything. That’s up to the Board, but the third option I identified would not be saying subject to the conditions of the plat, because I believe the applicant’s counsel would be correct. What I was expressing as a third potential option, was merely a notification in the deed that there is a subdivision plat in existence, plat number whatever, filed in the Warren County Clerk’s Office, and that people should be aware of it, some sort of notice, but not subject to language, because I would agree with that contention. I’m not recommending that. I was just identifying that as a third option. MR. O'CONNOR-We’re going to refer to the plat. We’re going to refer it to the plat on the deeds. I don’t know if Rick’s idea is to do a metes and bounds description, which is an actual survey description, and then say, being Lot Number One, as shown on a map filed in the Warren County Clerk’s Office, in file such and such, and such and such a date, or he’s simply going to say, all that piece of parcel described on the map as being Lot Number One. Different developers do it differently. MR. SCHACHNER-Either way, so long as it refers to the plat, that was the third option I was referencing, not language, I was not making reference to a third option subject to. MR. O'CONNOR-We can tell you that there will be a reference to the plat on file at the County Clerk’s Office as part of the conveyance against. MR. SCHACHNER-In the deed. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, that’s the third option I was getting at. MR. VOLLARO-That sounds like the better of all of them, because now there’s not that deed restriction that they talked about. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-There merely is a recognition that the plat exists. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. That’s all I was suggesting as a third option. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I like that option, by the way. I think it’s a good one. Okay. I think we’re okay with that. Now, you folks have gotten the comments from the applicant’s attorney. This piece of paper that was handed to us this evening is basically a condensation, it looks like, of Mr. Kelly’s letter. MR. SCHACHNER-And I have a couple of comments on them, if you want, at some point, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Now? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-You’re talking about the proposed six conditions, right? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I am. MR. SCHACHNER-Obviously it’s up to the Board as to whether you wish to impose any, none, or some, but from the legal standpoint, I’ll tell you that I would strongly urge you not to impose the last sentence of Condition One, because I think it can’t work legally. I think it has a cart in front of the horse problem. It says no final approval or signoff by the authorized Planning 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) Board representative should be granted until proof of the above condition being recorded in the covenants for the subdivision is provided. You can’t record them, you shouldn’t be recording the deeds until the mylar’s been signed and the subdivision’s been approved, and therefore I don’t think that would work. I think that puts the cart in front of the horse, and proposed Condition Number Three I think is too subjective to be easily enforceable by our Code Enforcement personnel. MR. VOLLARO-And the rest of them are acceptable? MR. O'CONNOR-Three through Six, I think, go to, or Three through Five, at least, appear to go to what we’ve said we will indicate what we’ve recorded as a cutting restriction on this property. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. Mr. Caffry, you’ll recall, did say that some of the proposed conditions are already reflected in things the applicant has agreed to do. When you asked me, are the rest acceptable, remember, I’m only giving the legal advice, but from a legal standpoint, the comments I have are the ones I made on proposed conditions numbers one and three. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand that. MR. O'CONNOR-We have no problem with six, but I think three through five contradict what Mr. Meath has said is his intentions here for tree cutting. The tree cutting outside of the clearing area for house, septic and roads, driveways, will be that he will leave at least 70 basal square foot per acre of trees six inches and greater. MR. VOLLARO-And why can’t that be, those words be converted to a? MR. MEATH-We’ll put those on the plat. MR. O'CONNOR-We have no problem putting those on the plat, but that’s kind of different than what he’s suggesting here. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it is. I think what their attorney was trying to say was to take what was presented in the 2005 Comp Plan and define it so it reflects the three lot subdivision. I think that’s what he was saying. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but our suggestion is that we are going to substitute this language that I’ve just recited and put it on the plat. That’s our offer, as far as tree cutting goes. MR. MEATH-Which is a little different than the earlier plan which was really designed for the five lot subdivision. Now that we’re down to the three lots, the restrictions which you have a copy of really should cover. MR. O’CONNOR-That’s also going to be policed by the party that’s most affected by that tree cutting, Glens Falls Country Club. MR. VOLLARO-And it’s really their document, more or less, that we’re using here, essentially. MR. O'CONNOR-They have a concern, you know, about what is going to be visible to the immediate area of play and some other areas on the course. They’re the only one that have a potential visual impact. If you went up or down, I think it’s Round Pond Road, you’ll see there’s a line, and I’ve done this three or four times since this has come up, there’s a line of trees. You can’t see into this area where this subdivision is going to be, and unless somebody removed that whole line of trees, which is unlikely, you’re never going into that, and you’re coming the other way, by Russo’s house, you get a quick look, but, boy, I think you’ve got to watch that road because you’re right on a curve, instead of taking a look up into the trees to see what you see, and I’m not 100% sure if you can actually even see over the crest. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. SEGULJIC-Any concerns with Item Number Two? MR. METIVIER-I have concerns with Item Number Two myself. Each structure built as part of the subdivision is required to be of a natural earth tone color, have no glare or glazing or glass. Does that mean you can’t have any glass? MR. O'CONNOR-You’d have to buy a very expensive special glass like they do on some of the lakes, but I think your Counsel has said that he thinks that that is not going to be enforceable. MR. SCHACHNER-No, that’s not correct. I didn’t comment on Condition Number Two. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. METIVIER-I guess, and I might have to go back to Mr. Caffry for some clarification, because I just don’t understand what it’s saying. MR. O'CONNOR-There’s a special glass that is a no glare glass. MR. CAFFRY-It’s a special kind of glass that reduces reflectivity, and would reduce the visual impacts. They said they wanted to reduce the visual impacts. This is a common condition in many (lost words). It was not to say that there should be no glass. It was intended to be non reflective, no glare glass, and this is a common type of subdivision condition, at least in some areas, in order to reduce visual impacts, and the applicants had said they wanted to minimize visual impacts, and we were suggesting this as alternative, just like we think the Sipperly 2005 tree cutting plan really is better than the 70% thing with the Country Club for minimizing visual impact, and we think the Board ought to hold them to it and not let them pull it back, which is what they’re now trying to do. MR. O'CONNOR-I do applications on Lake George, Bolton, where they’re very concerned with visual impacts. They’ve gone away from the requirement of trying to require this glass because of the difficulties with it, and I’m not 100% sure where they are. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t see it as. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m not so concerned about the glazing on the glass. MR. O'CONNOR-I mean, there’s houses all along. MR. SEGULJIC-How about the earth tone colors? MR. MEATH-I’m a little concerned with that, only because I don’t want to have someone come along and spend a lot of money in a nice location for a premium house, and they might want a color that some neighbor doesn’t necessarily feel is an earth tone. I just feel it’s awful restrictive. MR. METIVIER-I guess it, to me, honestly, I don’t know what earth tone colors are. MR. MEATH-And the only party that truly is going to be very much affected by this development, again, is the neighbor to the east, the Country Club, and they haven’t raised anything about that. MR. METIVIER-Again, I’d just go back to the fact you’re looking at three lots on eighteen acres. I just, I don’t know. MR. VOLLARO-I really don’t have much, you know, I don’t like Number Two either, to be honest with you. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. GOETZ-With all due respect, could we move this along? I think pretty soon we’ll be telling them what color they have to paint their house, what curtains they should have and all that. It’s time to move this on. MR. SANFORD-Let’s just move this thing. It’s really going on. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’ll do the Preliminary on this, and then they will come back with all of the information that we talked about on the Final. MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, you might want to think about closing the public hearing. You might want to think about some SEQRA review. MR. VOLLARO-I closed the public hearing. MR. SCHACHNER-We didn’t think so, but okay. MR. METIVIER-Yes, he did, actually. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-And we want to go to SEQRA. We have a SEQRA on this tonight, I believe, and is it a Short or Long Form? MR. JARRETT-We had provided you a Long Form before, previously. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I know you did. MR. METIVIER-Do you want me to read it, Bob, tonight? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ve got it here. MR. METIVIER-“Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?” MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. METIVIER-Small to moderate? MR. VOLLARO-Small to moderate, yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Sorry to interrupt again, you have to identify the impact before you go to small to moderate. MR. METIVIER-Okay. Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater? MR. VOLLARO-No, I think the answer to that is no. MR. METIVIER-Construction on land where the depth to water table is less than three feet? No. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-Construction of paved parking area of 1,000 or more vehicles? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-No. Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within three feet of existing ground surface? No. MR. VOLLARO-No. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. METIVIER-Construction that will occur for more than one year or involve more than one phase or stage? MR. VOLLARO-Don’t know the answer to that, but I would assume that it’s no. MR. METIVIER-No. Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material? MR. VOLLARO-No. So what we’re saying is no impact on land, based on those examples. MR. METIVIER-Well, I’m not quite done. Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. METIVIER-Construction on a designated floodway? No. MRS. STEFFAN-No. MR. METIVIER-Other impacts. So really it’s a no. MR. VOLLARO-It’s a no. Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 11-2004, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: DIAMOND POINT REALTY, 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. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) Duly adopted this 17 day of May, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think what we want to do is go through a Preliminary approval. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2004 DIAMOND POINT REALTY, 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: Subdivision No. 11-2004 Applicant/Property Owner: Diamond Point Realty PRELIMINARY STAGE Agent: Jarrett-Martin Engineers FINAL STAGE Zone: RR-3A SEQR Type: Unlisted Location: North off Oakwood Drive Applicant proposes to subdivide a 17.7acre property into three residential lots ranging in size from 3.02 acres to 11.05 acres. Tax Map No. 296.10-1-19 Lot size: 17.7 acres / Section: Subdivision Regs Public Hearing: 11/23/04, Tabled; 3/15/05 WHEREAS, the application was received 8/16/04, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 5/13/05, and 5/17/05 Staff Notes 5/11/05 Letter to Bd. From D. & S. Kelly 5/2/05 Meeting notice sent 4/21/05 FOIL Request: Caffry & Flower 4/13/05 Revised Submission 3/16/05 PB resolution: Tabled 3/15/05 PB minutes 3/15/05 Figures presented by D. Auer 3/15/05 Public Petition Presented at PB Meeting 3/15/05 Public Comments: N. Wilder, B. Rabida, M. Mulshine, K. Angleson, K. Sonnabend 3/15/05 Staff Notes 3/15/05 Fax to Caffry & Flower: info as requested 3/11/05 PB from G. Hilton: Staff notes 3/11/05 PB from Caffry & Flower 3/11/05 Fax to Jarrett-Martin Engineers: Staff notes 3/9/05 CTM engineering comments 3/8/05 Notice of Public Hearing sent 3/7/05 Fax to Caffry & Flower: Pg. Of 3/11/05 Jarrett-Martin Eng. letter 2/28/05 Meeting Notice sent 2/23/05 G. Hilton from K. O’Brien NYS DEC 2/17/05 G. Hilton from Caffry & Flower 2/10/05 Revised Submission 2/7/05 Town Clerk from C. Brown: FOIL request response 1/24/05 Jarrett-Martin Eng. from G. Hilton: Keeping one copy of 1/18/05 submission, returning balance 1/21/05 Jarrett-Martin Engineers from G. Hilton: material incomplete 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) 1/20/05 FOIL request: Caffry & Flower 1/18/05 Submission: Incomplete 11/26/04 Transmittal to D. Dougher: Caffry & Flower FOIL request 11/23/04 PB resolution: Tabled 11/23/04 PB minutes 11/23/04 Application for Public Access to records: Caffry & Flower 11/23/04 PB from Caffry & Flower 11/23/04 PB from G. Hilton: Staff Notes incl. 11/17/04 CTM eng. comments, 11/2/04 Highway Dept. comments, transmittal to applicant of comments from S. Smith Qu. Fire Marshal 11/22/04 Fire Marshals from Jarrett-Martin Engineers agent 11/22/04 PB from S. Smith [revised comments] 11/16/04 Notice of public hearing sent 11/16/04 G. Hilton from R. Meath: road, HOA creation 11/4/04 Transmittal to Applicant from M. Ryba: Fire Marshal comments 11/4/04 Fire Marshal comments 11/3/04 Transmittal to CTM Associates: agent response 11/2/04 Highway Dept. comments 11/1/04 Transmittal to H. Brechko re: FOIL request 10/28/04 FOIL request: Caffry & Flower 10/12/04 PB from Dr. & Mrs. Enhorning 10/7/04 PB from D. Lusignan 10/5/04 FOIL request: D. Kelly 9/27/04 PB from D. Kelly 9/23/04 CTM engineering comments 9/22/04 ZBA resolution: Approved 9/21/04 Notice of Public Hearing sent 9/21/04 Letters from public 8/20/04 Transmittal to CTM: application sent for review 8/16/04 Application Materials / Maps 7/20/04 Staff Notes 7/20/04 PB minutes 7/2004 Vicinity Map 5/14/04 Sketch Plan application submission 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 held on 11/23/04 & 3/15/05, 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 with the following note: 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) 1. Waiver request(s) are granted - Density calculations regarding slopes, Sketch plan, Stormwater, Grading and Landscaping Plan Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. JARRETT-One final question. What are our opportunities for inclusion on a future agenda? MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got to take a look at that. MR. O'CONNOR-By June? MR. HILTON-If the Board stays with the seven and seven and fourteen items, and there’s no special meeting, I would say highly unlikely. My suggestion would be, if you’re tabling this final application, that you maybe do it to an unspecified date, or the next available agenda and we will plan accordingly. MR. JARRETT-We obviously would like to go to June, but could we request that we certainly not go beyond July? MR. HILTON-I mean, you can request it. It’s certainly up to the Board. MR. VOLLARO-Let’s take a look, if it’s necessary to get them on, in other words, if there’s a July. MR. SCHACHNER-Somebody said something about tabling. You’re not tabling. MR. METIVIER-No. I was going to ask the question, too. We’re pretty much set with this one. I can’t foresee it being anything more than a quick review. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. What I would say to that is, George, can you just, what we’ll do is ask him to fit it in somewhere, and. MR. METIVIER-I mean, we’re becoming a more flexible Board, so I think that we should. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I understand that. MR. MEATH-I think this Final would be very quick. We’ll have the conditions on the map. MR. SANFORD-Why don’t we just say see if they can get in subject to the agenda limitations in the month of June. If they can’t, we’ll squeeze them in in July. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. JARRETT-That’s all we ask is your best effort. MR. O'CONNOR-We’re going to be a little late on the June submittal. That’s all. MR. VOLLARO-That was May 15. Yes, I understand. th 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. O'CONNOR-We can turn it around very quickly, Mr. Jarrett says. MR. VOLLARO-If it doesn’t fit in in July, we’ll just take it as a Number Eight, if we have to. MR. JARRETT-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-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. VOLLARO-I’ve got just a couple of questions. There’s a fire hydrant in the front that I see there, right along. MR. STEVES-On Ferris Drive or on Sherman? MR. VOLLARO-No, it’s on Ferriss. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-And I see in the drawing that it looks like you’ve accounted for it in your drawing. There’s a dot there that looks like about right where it is, right in the middle of the two driveways. MR. STEVES-No. The fire hydrant is to the west. It is shown where the eight inch existing water line comes in, and intersects the hydrant, just to the west of Manhole Number Two. MR. VOLLARO-To the west of Manhole Two. MR. METIVIER-To the left of 83.74, Bob. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. That’s the symbol for hydrant, HYD. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. I just wanted to make sure that it wasn’t anywhere near where these proposed drives are. MR. STEVES-No. MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine. Okay, and I’m going to want the application to have a receipt of a letter of approval from the Highway Department for this layout. We’re going to condition our approval on something from the Highway Department that says I go along with this. MR. STEVES-Fine. MR. VOLLARO-And at the time of this writing, we don’t have any C.T. Male signoff. Has that been received yet? MR. EDWARDS-Yes. I think the issue was reviewing the stormwater management report and the driveway locations again, and again, the result of the stormwater management is there’s 10,000 square feet of impervious area. We have no problem with it. Eaves trenches, infiltration trenches, and we’re prepared to sign off on it. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So there would be a signoff from C.T. Male. Based on that, is there any other comments from the Board on this application that they’d like to talk to? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I have a question on the public comment from the 15. I understand we th have a stormwater report and part of that was in response to some of the neighbors situation with water in their basement. Have we addressed that particular issue, or have we done any further investigation on that? Because I’ve got written down excessive water problems, water table is pretty high, and the folks, I think it was Mr. Gilligan, they’re having some water problems, and so does the stormwater report deal with? MR. STEVES-Yes, does it address that? Yes. For the record, my name is Matt Steves. I represent Jane Potter on this application. In the previous meeting there were questions regarding that new drainage easement or system that had been put in for Queensbury Forest, and whether or not this property would affect any of those properties, or overload that system, and Tom Nace who designed that system and also has done the engineering for this, has reviewed that, looked at that, and incorporated any of the runoff into his stormwater report and the answer is no, it will not affect that system or those neighboring properties. MR. VOLLARO-I think he states that in his April 2005 stormwater report. I think I read that. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. EDWARDS-Again, this project is really, there’s no road installation. It’s just four driveways, four rooftops, 10,000 square feet of pervious area, over 100 some thousand square feet. So minimal impact to the groundwater elevation. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Anybody else have any comments on this application that they’d like to put forward from the Board? We have a public hearing that’s open on this application. Does anybody want to speak to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, we have a letter. MR. VOLLARO-We have a letter? MR. HILTON-We have a letter. MR. VOLLARO-Read it into the record. MR. HILTON-Okay. It’s from Richard and Lisa Lashway, 25 Evanna Drive. It says, “I’m writing regarding the above referenced subdivision. We are the owners of Lot 5 on Evanna Drive, which is the only property in our development that will have any impact by this proposed subdivision. Our lot is the only lot to have one of the four proposed homes built directly behind it. Not only did we choose our lot for the size and location, we chose it because there were no other homes located behind us, and the deep woods provided much peacefulness and privacy. As much as we would like the woods to remain untouched, we understand that growth takes place and do not blame the property owner for wanting to develop it. Our one and only concern in reviewing the proposal is that there doesn’t appear to be a no-cut buffer in place along the property boundaries. When Evanna Drive was developed, a thirty foot no-cut buffer was placed on all the lots that backed up to houses in Queensbury Forest. I am sure this was to protect the privacy and investment of the Queensbury Forest residents, and to provide a noise barrier. We are asking that the same protection and privacy be extended to us. We would like you to consider enforcing a thirty-foot no-cut buffer where our property boundary lines meet. We would also like to see this no-cut buffer added as a covenant on the property deed to make sure any and all future property owners will adhere to this stipulation. Considering the 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) lots are ranging in size from .85 to .91 acres, this is only a small portion of property and should have little to no impact on the property itself. This no-cut buffer and covenant will help to put our minds at ease throughout the coming years and will protect the privacy and peacefulness we love so much. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Richard and Lisa Lashway” MR. VOLLARO-Is that along the northern boundary of this lot. MR. STEVES-Easterly bounds, I believe. Evanna Drive is to the east of this property. MR. VOLLARO-Is to the east of this property. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-So what they’re asking for is a no cut zone on Lot Four only? MR. STEVES-That would be correct, on Four only. MR. SANFORD-So you, as the applicant, are agreeable to this? MR. STEVES-That’s where Evanna Drive is. This is his property. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SANFORD-Is there any problem with that? MR. VOLLARO-That’s all he wants is a 30 foot cut zone. MR. SANFORD-That seems reasonable. MR. VOLLARO-It seems reasonable to me. It’s 177 feet. MR. METIVIER-What’s that, the northern boundary of Lot Four? MR. VOLLARO-No, it’s the eastern. MR. STEVES-Extreme easterly boundary of Lot Four. MR. VOLLARO-Go to Lot Four and take a look at the easterly boundary on Four, and that’s 177 feet that he wants to put a no cut. I would go along with that. MR. STEVES-Thirty is fine. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We will put that no cut zone on the eastern boundary of Lot Four. Any other questions? Okay. With that, I think we have to do a SEQRA on this. MR. STEVES-Do you want to close the public hearing, Bob, or no? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. We can close the public hearing. Nobody else is looking to talk to this. So let’s close the public hearing and go to a SEQRA. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-It’s a Short Form I believe. MR. METIVIER-Short Form. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. SANFORD-How come, in the prior application which was also listed as Unlisted we did a Long Form, and on this one we’re doing Short Form? MR. METIVIER-The other one was submitted as a Long Form. This, I believe, was submitted as a Short Form. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So we have discretion on that. I just wanted to see if you wanted to do it again on the Long Form. MR. STEVES-I don’t know, Counsel, I believe all subdivision applications require a Long Form. MR. HILTON-And they did submit a Long Form. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s why I was confused why we were doing the Short Form. MR. METIVIER-I thought it was a Short Form. My apologies. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 14-2004, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JANE POTTER, 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 17 day of May, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2004 JANE POTTER, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 14-2004 Applicant: Jane Potter PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: Richard Baker FINAL STAGE Agent: Van Dusen & Steves SEQR Type: Unlisted 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 Public Hearing: 11/16/04, Tabled; 3/15/05; Tabled WHEREAS, the application was received 8/04, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 5/13/05, and 5/17/05 Staff Notes 5/2/05 Meeting notice sent 4/22/05 Revised Submission: Stormwater Mgmt. Report & Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan narrative dated April 2005 w/ maps S-1, SPPP-1 revised 4/12/05 3/16/05 PB resolution: Tabled to 5/17/05 3/16/05 PB minutes [Draft] 3/15/05 Staff Notes 3/15/05 PB from Glen & Hillary Dwyer 3/15/05 C. Hunsinger from Michael & Jennifer Brown 3/11/05 PB from G. Hilton: Staff Notes 3/11/05 Fax to agent: staff notes 3/8/05 CTM engineering comments 3/8/05 Notice of Public Hearing sent 2/28/05 Meeting Notice sent 2/15/05 PB from Jonathan Lapper: Submission for March 05 PB agenda w/maps 1/25/05 PB minutes 1/24/05 Fax to C. Radner 12/20/04 Jonathan Lapper from G. Hilton: Incomplete application 12/15/04 PB from Jonathan Lapper 11/23/04 J. Potter from PW: transmittal of resolution 11/16/04 PB resolution: Tabled 11/16/04 PB minutes 11/16/04 PB from G. Hilton: Staff notes w/11/11/04 CTM eng. comments 11/16/04 PB from R. Missita Highway Superintendent 11/9/04 Transmittal to CTM from PW: Application materials for review & comment 11/9/04 Notice of Public Hearing 9/21/04 PB from G. Hilton: Staff Notes w/9-15-04 CTM eng. comments 9/20/04 C. Brown from T. Nace: response to 9/15/04 CTM comments 9/17/04 Town Board from Matthew Chase 9/15/04 FOIL request from 14 Hampton Ct. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) 9/14/04 Notice of Public Hearing 7/30/04 Water Dept. comments from B. Ostrander, Deputy Superintendent 7/26/04 Transmittal to CTM from G. Hilton: Application materials for review 7/26/04 Affected Applicants: Review submitted for August bumped to September 7/13/04 Application materials submitted 5/12/04 K. O’Brien, NYS DEC from D. Roberts, Roberts Environmental Consulting, Inc. 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, 3/15/05, 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 as per resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. SANFORD-Are you going to request that the 30 foot no cut zone along the eastern boundary of Lot Four be recorded in the deed, as the letter writer suggested, or not? MR. VOLLARO-If it’s on the plat, I think it’s, we’ve never done that before. MR. SANFORD-That’s fine. I just didn’t know. MR. VOLLARO-If it’s on the plat, it’s on the plat. I don’t want to necessarily crowd the deed with it. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2004 JANE POTTER, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 14-2004 Applicant: Jane Potter PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: Richard Baker FINAL STAGE Agent: Van Dusen & Steves SEQR Type: Unlisted Zone: SR-20 Location: Sherman Avenue 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) 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 Public Hearing: 11/16/04, Tabled; 3/15/05; Tabled WHEREAS, the application was received 8/04, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 5/13/05, and 5/17/05 Staff Notes 5/2/05 Meeting notice sent 4/22/05 Revised Submission: Stormwater Mgmt. Report & Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan narrative dated April 2005 w/ maps S-1, SPPP-1 revised 4/12/05 3/16/05 PB resolution: Tabled to 5/17/05 3/16/05 PB minutes [Draft] 3/15/05 Staff Notes 3/15/05 PB from Glen & Hillary Dwyer 3/15/05 C. Hunsinger from Michael & Jennifer Brown 3/11/05 PB from G. Hilton: Staff Notes 3/11/05 Fax to agent: staff notes 3/8/05 CTM engineering comments 3/8/05 Notice of Public Hearing sent 2/28/05 Meeting Notice sent 2/15/05 PB from Jonathan Lapper: Submission for March 05 PB agenda w/maps 1/25/05 PB minutes 1/24/05 Fax to C. Radner 12/20/04 Jonathan Lapper from G. Hilton: Incomplete application 12/15/04 PB from Jonathan Lapper 11/23/04 J. Potter from PW: transmittal of resolution 11/16/04 PB resolution: Tabled 11/16/04 PB minutes 11/16/04 PB from G. Hilton: Staff notes w/11/11/04 CTM eng. comments 11/16/04 PB from R. Missita Highway Superintendent 11/9/04 Transmittal to CTM from PW: Application materials for review & comment 11/9/04 Notice of Public Hearing 9/21/04 PB from G. Hilton: Staff Notes w/9-15-04 CTM eng. comments 9/20/04 C. Brown from T. Nace: response to 9/15/04 CTM comments 9/17/04 Town Board from Matthew Chase 9/15/04 FOIL request from 14 Hampton Ct. 9/14/04 Notice of Public Hearing 7/30/04 Water Dept. comments from B. Ostrander, Deputy Superintendent 7/26/04 Transmittal to CTM from G. Hilton: Application materials for review 7/26/04 Affected Applicants: Review submitted for August bumped to September 7/13/04 Application materials submitted 5/12/04 K. O’Brien, NYS DEC from D. Roberts, Roberts Environmental Consulting, Inc. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) 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, 3/15/05, 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 and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plat submitted for Planning Board Chairman’s signature and filing: 1. A 30 foot No Cut zone along the eastern boundary of Lot No. Four (4). 2. Recreation Fees in the amount of $500.00 per lot are applicable to this subdivision upon submission of building permit. 3. Waiver request(s) are granted: Sketch plan, Stormwater, Grading and Landscaping Plan. 4. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 5. Copy of NOI shall be submitted to Staff prior to filing of final plat. 6. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. STEVES-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thanks. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 25-2005 TRANSIENT MERCHANT SEQR TYPE II BOSS HOSS CYCLES OF STAMFORD PROPERTY OWNER: KENNY-BROCK PARTNERSHIP AGENT: DON MILLER ZONE: HWY COMMERCIAL – INT. LOCATION: 1468 STATE ROUTE 9 DISPLAY AND DEMONSTRATION OF BOSS HOSS MOTORCYCLES FROM JUNE 6 THROUGH JUNE 11, 2005. CROSS REFERENCE: SUP 60-2004, SP 40-1994 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/11/05 APA, CEA: NONE TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-20 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) DON MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MILLER-My name is Don Miller. I represent Boss Hoss from Dwyersburg, Tennessee, and also Stamford Boss Hoss, from Stamford, Connecticut, and we’re here tonight just to try and get your approval to put, during Americade, the factor tractor trailer and the dealer’s tractor trailer in the lot that you have in front of you out by the road, to do demonstration rides and just show the product, which involves 15 motorcycles that are viewed, and the people can ride on them. It’s a pretty simple process. You have to be at least 30 years old. You have to have a current driver’s license so that, with a motorcycle endorsement in whatever State you live in, and it’s run by the factory. There’s a million dollar liability policy and a four million dollar umbrella that’s in place, and I don’t know what other information you need from us. MR. SANFORD-Now I’m not sure we even need that. I mean, Mark, didn’t, last night, the Town Board pass a reg, for lack of a better word, on exactly this type of thing? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and it’s actually part of the Town Code, but it’s not in effect yet. That’s why this is still (lost word). MR. SANFORD-When does that go into effect? MR. SCHACHNER-It would be effective once filed with the Secretary of State, and that hasn’t happened yet. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-It will happen soon. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Because this is June 6 to June 11. It might very well be filed by then, thth and they can just go in and get their permit. MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t know if this falls within the Code or not, the amendment that is, but it’s not in effect yet, is the bottom line. MR. SANFORD-All right. MR. MILLER-We didn’t know. We were just trying to follow the rules and regulations of the community. MR. SANFORD-I’m wrong, you’re right. You’re right, actually, you needed to do this. MR. VOLLARO-Was there a site plan of some kind shown with this? MR. MILLER-Yes. We did a drawing of a lot without the equipment there, and then a drawing with the equipment there showing where it would be placed. MR. VOLLARO-Where is this exactly? MR. MILLER-Reebok stores, on Route 9. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MILLER-Just before 149. There’s a golf store there also. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MILLER-It would be out front by the road area. MR. VOLLARO-Have we done this before? 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. MILLER-You’ve done something similar to this across the street, at the shoe store. It used to be called a different name. Now they changed the name, but Lehman Trikes does demonstrations and shows their product, and that’s been going on for years. MR. METIVIER-Actually, Yamaha shows up, too, up at the. MR. MILLER-Yes. We’ve done a lot of research on this, and a lot of the manufacturers go into the Lake George area. Anybody that’s been around during Americade knows there’s a tremendous amount of traffic increase, because a lot of people come and look. It’s really not the motorcycles. It’s the cars. It really is. You go up to Lake George on a Thursday, Friday, or Saturday night, you hardly see any motorcycles moving because the cars, the people just come through. It’s become like an event, almost like a parade of people looking at the equipment that’s just parked on the side of the road. MR. VOLLARO-You say you’re going to set up on Monday, June 6, 2005, that’s your set up time. MR. MILLER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-And display motorcycles when manufacturers, between 8:30 and 4:30. How long will this last? How many days? MR. MILLER-Well, we won’t do any, I mean, there’ll no real display or any demo rides done on Monday. That will start on Tuesday. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. What’s your span of time? MR. MILLER-Tuesday to Saturday. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Tuesday to Saturday. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s Americade week. MR. MILLER-Right. It’s just in conjunction with the same time that Americade. MR. VOLLARO-For that period of time, I don’t see any problem. MR. SANFORD-I don’t see anything here, yes. MR. VOLLARO-There’s no SEQRA on this. It’s Type II. There is a public hearing on this. So let me just find out if there’s anybody from the public that wants to address this application for Boss Hoss? Seeing nobody, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-No SEQRA is required on this. It’s Type II. We can go right into an approval on this. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 25-2005 BOSS HOSS CYCLES OF STAMFORD, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Goetz: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) Site Plan No. 25-2005 Applicant: Boss Hoss Cycles of Stamford Property Owner: Kenny-Brock Partnership Transient Merchant Agent: Don Miller SEQR Type II Zone: Hwy Commercial - Int Location: 1468 State Route 9 Display and demonstration of Boss Hoss motorcycles from June 6 through June 11, 2005. Cross Reference: SUP 60-2004, SP 40-1994 Warren Co. Planning: 5/11/05 APA, CEA: None Tax Map No. 288.12-1-20 Public Hearing: 5/17/05 WHEREAS, the application was received on 4/15/05; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 5/13/05 and 5/17/05 Staff Notes 5/11/05 Warren Co. recommendation: No County Impact 5/10/05 Notice of public hearing sent 5/2/05 Meeting notice sent 4/25/05 TB res. 202,2005: referring ap. to PB 4/21/05 Warren Co. referral sent 4/21/05 Memo to TB from C. Brown: re. Transient merchant applications 4/20/05 PB from D. Kenny: agent authorization 4/18/05 D. Vetti from C.Brown: request for additional information 4/18/05 TOQ from D. Kenny: agent authorization 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 5/17/05; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby Approved. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got it. MR. MILLER-Thank you. Could I just ask one question? What do I do next? I don’t know. I’ve never done this before. MR. HILTON-Well, I think this is part of the Transient Merchant application, and I believe you’d probably have to go back to, or have final Town Board approval. I guess the suggestion would be you can certainly call us tomorrow at the office, and I can give you my number in a second, and I can give you more details. MR. MILLER-But I can tell the factory they can come, right? And there’s fees that we have to pay. MR. VOLLARO-I’m not sure. There’s a transient fee, not a fee, but a transient application has to be given here, I believe. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I mean, the best answer, really, is to call Staff tomorrow. I believe there is a per week fee. It might be $15. MR. VOLLARO-You can call him tomorrow. You know you’ve got an approval from the Planning Board to do this. You go to your next step, you call Mr. Hilton. MR. MILLER-All right. Thank you very much for your time. MR. SCHACHNER-Excuse me. I don’t want to create false hope. I’m just looking through the Code real quick. That’s for a peddler/solicitor. It might be as much as $500 a day for a transient merchant, but the bottom line is Staff will know that tomorrow. MR. VOLLARO-They have the answer for you tomorrow. MR. MILLER-Okay. Thank you very much. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you for waiting. MR. MILLER-It was my pleasure. SITE PLAN NO. 22-2005 SEQR TYPE II SWANK PROPERTY OWNER: DAVID KENNY ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 1444 STATE ROUTE 9, SUITE 7 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ERECT A 30’ X 45’ TENT AS PART OF A SEASONAL SALE FROM JULY 1 – 31, 2005 STST AT THE ADIRONDACK FACTORY OUTLET MALL. EXPANSION OF A RETAIL USE IN THE HC-INTENSIVE ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 7-1997, SP 54-2004 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/11/05 TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-22 LOT SIZE: 4.64 ACRES SECTION: 179-9- 020 KATHY HILL & DAVE KENNY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MS. HILL-Good evening. My name is Kathy Hill. I’m the Manager of the Swank Factory store. Swank has been in the Adirondack Outlet Mall for 18 years. We’ve had a total of 21 tent sales at this location, 14 on our own and 7 with the Mall for the Balloon Festival. The July tent sales is very important to my store and to the Company. We can’t afford to lose. Not having it would be a hardship. The tent sale is 25% of my (lost word). We are a true factory store. When we have a tent sale, we sell at greatly reduced price from retail. Ninety-five percent of my items I sell are below $10. Ladies wallets, $5.99, leather belts, $5.99, the same items that would sell for $14.99 in the store. I have been using a 30 by 45 white tent, white because colors of items are hard to tell under colored tents. The first year we had a tent sale, we did have a yellow and white striped tent, but it really did look like a circus tent. The location of the tent is perfect, 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) down in the corner away from the traffic. We’re 67 feet back from the sidewalk and 113 feet from the Mall entrance, and on the other side of the tent is an embankment that goes down to a driveway that’s 29 feet wide, and another five and a half feet to the other Mall. In this location, we can be seen as people are coming up Route 9. So there’s no sudden stopping to see what’s going on. I know the Board has been very concerned with rubbernecking in the area, but we’re a tourist area, and that goes on all the time because everybody coming up the road wants to see what kind of stores are located all around. Because it’s all new to them. In the summer, this traffic does slow way down. A lot of times it is going bumper to bumper, so it is a little easier to navigate around. Caution tape was brought up at one of the meetings, and we’re using the caution tape because it was brought up by the Fire Marshal to use, to keep the vehicles back 20 feet away from the tent. This sale is an established event. We have customers calling us and asking all the time, when are we going to have it so they can stock up for Christmas and whatever. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Is this in front of the Easy Spirit? Is that where you’re located? MRS. STEFFAN-They’re there, but their tent is. MR. VOLLARO-Their tent is, okay, it’s right, pretty close to the road, and it’s going to be from July 1 to July 31? st MS. HILL-Yes. That’s the days of the sale. Like set up would be, like the tent would go up the 29. I set up the merchandise on the 30, and August 1 I pack up. The sale is July 1 through ththstst July 31 , and I pack up all my items on August 1 and the tent is down by August 2. We’ve ststnd always been making sure everything is down. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve done this over a number of years? MS. HILL-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Has the PORC Committee discussed these tents at all? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, and we came to no conclusion on this. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I neglected to read a packet that I think that was given to us by Marilyn and a letter. I haven’t read it all. I just didn’t have a chance to digest all that. MR. SANFORD-I think that was addressing the issue that was discussed last night, although I’m not sure, which is merely the seven day or less tents. I’m not sure where we’re going to go as a Board, but up until this year, we were permitting these regularly, and then we decided that they were causing problems and they were becoming almost additions to the stores. Some would go for the whole summer season. They’d want them for two months, two and a half months, and so we haven’t, to my knowledge, approved a single tent in 2005. MR. VOLLARO-No, we have not. MR. SANFORD-And we’ve had a few requests. So now we’re kind of in an uncomfortable position. In all fairness to the prior applicants who we haven’t approved, we now have you in front of us. You gave a nice compelling story for it, but I’m not sure how, in an equitable fashion, we can approve this when we haven’t approved the prior ones, and that’s why I asked my initial question as to whether or not PORC has finally addressed this tent issue. MR. VOLLARO-And they have not. MR. SANFORD-Because that’s what the referral was. We sent the referral to PORC to basically deal with it. MR. SEGULJIC-Weren’t the other applications for the whole season, though? 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. SANFORD-Well, all right. MR. SEGULJIC-This is only for a month. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-I, personally, don’t have problems with the tents. For a month, I don’t think. MR. SANFORD-I know. Again, I don’t feel comfortable either way with this. I just really wish we would decide, one way or another, and have a consistent policy. MR. VOLLARO-I think most of the applications that came before us were for more than 30 days, though, if I recollect. I’m not sure, but I think they were more than 30 days. MR. METIVIER-Most of them were from Fourth of July through I think it was Columbus Day, wasn’t it? MRS. STEFFAN-Right, they wanted it. MR. VOLLARO-All the way through. MR. METIVIER-Maybe we should have a 30 day limit on these things, and I think that would justify this application and future ones going forward. MR. SANFORD-I’ll go with that, Tony. MR. VOLLARO-Because I think the other ones were. MR. SANFORD-They were for the season. MR. VOLLARO-For the season. This is only 30 days, and maybe Tony’s got a point. In the absence of direction from PORC, we look at 30 days as being the absolute amount that we leave a tent up. MR. SANFORD-I mean, again, I’m not going to fall on my sword on it. MRS. STEFFAN-There is a recommendation that we got on April 11 from Marilyn Ryba, and it th talks about temporary tent sales, very similar to special sales, and things that we should consider. As with special sales event permit review would be an administrative action and review criteria would be listed similar to that noted in the special sales event. Temporary tent sales would also be of short duration. Items to be considered are nothing to be construed as disallowed outside sales as part of an approved site plan, per Chapter 179 of the zoning. Temporary tent sales are not applicable to such activities taking place on municipally owned property, include a list of exemptions, as with the transient merchant’s law. Tents used in temporary tent sales may only be used for sales and temporary storage of merchandise used in conjunction with such sales. Temporary tent sales are limited to two per year for a total duration of up to seven days each. The Fire Marshal must approve the application/plan for temporary tent sales which must meet New York State Fire Code requirements. MR. SANFORD-This is that one week thing. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Yes. I guess the way it was left, if I recall at last night’s meeting, was anything beyond that has to come in front of us for site plan, and that’s what we’re doing, but, you know, we could discuss this. I’m just going to go with what Tony suggested, which is it’s a month, 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) maybe we live with that, and if the other applicants get wind of it and want to come back, we’ll consider them for a month. MR. VOLLARO-I think the 30 days, in absence of the, obviously the seven days you don’t even have to come here, the way the new law would be written. I believe that’s correct, Mark. Anything over that you have to come to do what you’re doing now, which is called site plan review. I think 30 days is a reasonable benchmark to go with. That’s my opinion as one member of the Board. I’ll poll the Board. Richard’s already given his opinion. MR. GOETZ-Well, I have no problem with that. I only have, I have two concerns about temporary businesses coming in for road side or tent sales. One of them is sales tax, the collection of the sales tax, and I don’t know what kind of enforcement the Town Board does to make sure that we get our fair due of sales taxes. Now you’ve been here, what, you said 14 years or something like that. MR. KENNY-They are a year round business. MRS. STEFFAN-They have a store. MR. GOETZ-You have a store here? MR. KENNY-Swank is a store at the Mall. MR. GOETZ-Okay. All right. MR. KENNY-So it’s additional sales to their store. MR. GOETZ-Well, I’m sure that. MR. KENNY-The same as Sutton’s has a tent sale. MR. GOETZ-And my other, and this is just to state an opinion of mine. I have problems with temporary businesses coming in with some of their signs. Now, I’ve looked at your sign, it’s great. It’s fine, but a lot of them have going out of business sales for four months, and that type of thing, and I have problems with that, but I’m, really, that has nothing to do with your application. It sounds fine to me. MR. VOLLARO-Gretchen, how do you feel? MRS. STEFFAN-We didn’t approve other folks, and I guess they can come before us, and, you know, one of my concerns about the tents is that they look so cheesy, and you talked about the Fire Marshal requiring the caution tape, and that’s one of the things that just distracts and makes things look really awful, and so, obviously, that’s an issue that we need to address, but, you know, for a month duration, I could live with it if the rest of the Board felt it was a good move. MR. VOLLARO-Tom? MR. FORD-I don’t have an objection. I don’t want to get petty on the thing, but I would, I could go with 30 days. That’s more specific than a month. MR. METIVIER-Actually, in fairness to this application. This has to be 34 days, no, 35 days, because of set up and break down. So how do we handle that? Just for a period? MR. VOLLARO-Well, you know, what we can do is we can confine it to a 30 day period, including set up and tear down. We’ve got to box it some way. We’re talking about a four day difference. I don’t think it’s going to make a lot, a lot of difference. 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. METIVIER-How about 31 days? MR. VOLLARO-I’m saying we hold it to a 30 day period. MR. METIVIER-I was actually pushing for 31 days because it’s July, and she, actually, her sale is the 1 through the 31. stst MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thirty-one days is fine. We’ll go with 31 days. That makes sense to me. MR. SANFORD-All right. MR. FORD-My rationale for the 30 was that somebody else could come in for another month, and it’s a 30 day month, and at least we’d be consistent that way. MR. VOLLARO-I’d prefer to box it around a 30 day period myself, because it’s something that’ll stick. You know, I’ll know that when we come back here again, if I’m up doing this kind of thing again, that we’ve done 30 days and 30 days will become a standard with me in my mind. Because somebody’s going to come in here and say, well, you gave them 31. We want 31, and we need 32, really, because of, and, you know, the thing begins to grow. I would like to stick to 30 days, from set up to tear down. That’s my feeling anyway, as one Board member. Use a 30 day standard, so we know what we’re doing. MR. METIVIER-That actually is fine. MR. KENNY-Could I make one comment on that? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. KENNY-They rent these tents through an outfit out of Albany, and I don’t know if anybody’s had a wedding in their backyard. They could be done with the tent sale on Saturday the 30, and if they company doesn’t get in there until Tuesday or Wednesday to take the tent th down, are they going to be penalized? I mean, it’s a tent, you know, they rent a tent. MR. VOLLARO-I understand. MR. KENNY-And it’s not always taken down the day they go out of business. It’s up to the company that rents them the tent. The tent sale, for all intents and purposes, is over with. There’s nobody there. It’s an empty tent, but then the company has to come up out of Albany, Sunshine, or whoever they rent from, and take it down. They could be taking down 20 tents that day. They might not get there until Tuesday or Wednesday to take that particular tent down. We have no control over, really. MR. SANFORD-I think what we’re saying, at this point, you can go 30 days and arrange to have the tent taken down with a tent company or you can wait for PORC Committee to deal with it, and my advice to you would be to take the 30 days. MR. KENNY-I was just making a request. MR. SANFORD-Again, I think what we’re trying to do is, in the absence of true guidelines here, we’re just trying to be accommodating, as best we can, but we really can’t get involved with all that. MR. VOLLARO-If the sale is done in 30 days, and you call the guy up and say, look, we’re going to be done on 31 July, you need to get here and take the tent down. If you’re out of the inside of the tent and it’s empty, I don’t know. I don’t know what to do with that. I would say, you know, they’re finished with their sale in the time they said they would be, and if they can’t get the tent down because somebody can’t get there, in a day or two, you know, we’re nit 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) picking the thing. I don’t want to do that. So I’m going to say that we go forward with this for a 30 day period, just as it’s proposed. MR. KENNY-One other thing, in fairness to the applicant, with other applications you’ve had before you, every site has got its own different thing. This tent takes no parking. It doesn’t effect the retail in the Mall. There’s 14 other tents in the Mall now that won’t object to it. It’s not encumbering on. MR. VOLLARO-Everybody that comes before us has another story. MR. KENNY-Every site is different. That’s what site plan is for. MR. VOLLARO-Every site is different. Based on that, since we don’t have to do a SEQRA here. The public hearing has been closed, I believe. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. METIVIER-I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 22-2005 SWANK, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 22-2005 Applicant: Swank SEQR Type II Property Owner: David Kenny Zone: HC-Int Location: 1444 State Route 9, Suite 7 Applicant proposes to erect a 30’ x 45’ tent as part of a seasonal sale from July 1 - 31, 2005 at stst the Adirondack Outlet Mall. Retail uses in the HC-Intensive zone require site plan review and approval from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: AV 7-1997 Warren Co. Planning: APA, CEA Tax Map No. 288.12-1-22 Lot size: 4.64acres / Section: Public Hearing: 5/17/05 WHEREAS, the application was received on 4/8/05; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 5/13/05, and 5/17/05 Staff Notes 5/11/05 Warren Co. recommendation: No Co. Impact 5/10/05 Not. Of Public Hearing sent 5/2/05 Meeting Notice sent 4/21/05 Warren Co. referral sent 4/13/05 RPS, Govern info 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 5/17/05; and 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby Approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following condition which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. The tent be allowed to be set up for a period of 30 days. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. VOLLARO-You’re all set. SITE PLAN NO. 23-2005 SEQR TYPE II ARTHUR & ROBERT DE AVILA ZONE: CI LOCATION: 34 LOWER WARREN ST. APPLICANT PROPOSES A RETAIL STORE AND SEEKS APPROVAL FOR THE USE AND FOR AN EXISTING 336 SQ. FT. ADDITION. RETAIL USES, AND EXPANSIONS OF USES, IN THE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 19-95, SP 29-90, BP 95048 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/11/05 TAX MAP NO. 303.19-1-52 LOT SIZE: 0.81 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020, 179-9-020 ARTHUR & ROBERT DE AVILA, PRESENT MR. A. DE AVILA-We’re looking to put an antique store down at the old Steakhouse on Lower Warren Street. We’ve had an antique shop on Glen Street for 20 years, and I think there was an issue with an addition the last owner put on. MR. R. DE AVILA-Well, two owners ago they put on the addition, and now I guess we have to get approval to use this addition that’s been there for five or six years. It’s been there for six years. MR. A. DE AVILA-He told us, Mr. Hatin told us to go get an engineer. We drew up plans for it, submitted it to him. It was all done right. The setbacks were right. We had to put in a few screws in this one section, and he’s got to stamp it, if you allow it, I guess. MR. R. DE AVILA-But we’ve already given him an engineer report on the structure. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve given it to Mr. Hatin? 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. R. DE AVILA-To Mr. Hatin, with a building permit application for an existing building. Again, I guess they said we had to show it to you. He actually wants us to pretend that the building isn’t there. It’s that section right there. MRS. STEFFAN-So it’s this piece? MR. R. DE AVILA-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Now it comes together. MR. R. DE AVILA-But he asked us to pretend that the building wasn’t there. MR. VOLLARO-The drawing that shows the new addition, existing addition is right here. MR. R. DE AVILA-Yes. That’s the addition, there on that back. MR. VOLLARO-So it’s already there. MR. METIVIER-Shouldn’t that read proposed existing? Sorry. MR. A. DE AVILA-And it’s not even visible from the road, either, and it’s in that back corner, and it’s over 30 feet from any property line. MR. VOLLARO-The fact that it’s already there and it’s pretty unobtrusive. I’d entertain a motion for approval of this. MRS. STEFFAN-And you said you had an engineer look at it. MR. R. DE AVILA-We have engineered drawings right with Dave Hatin. MR. A. DE AVILA-It’s all 100% structurally sound. MR. VOLLARO-Was this plan developed by an engineer? MR. R. DE AVILA-This is a copy of the site plan, identical to the site plan approved just five years ago by the Steakhouse, just modified with the handicapped ramp. It’s a little different, and with the addition. MR. VOLLARO-You didn’t answer my question. Was this drawing done by an engineer? MR. R. DE AVILA-No, it says right here, Robert DeAvila. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fine. Because you said something, you had the engineer do the drawing. MR. R. DE AVILA-Well, no, we had an engineer do the drawing on the existing addition, and we had to file a building permit for this addition that’s been there for six years. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m surprised we didn’t get a copy of that drawing. MR. R. DE AVILA-He’s going to do the final approval, and whatever. MR. VOLLARO-No, he doesn’t do the final approval. We do it here. MR. R. DE AVILA-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-We give you site plan. 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. R. DE AVILA-We didn’t even know that the existing addition was going to be part of the site plan. MR. VOLLARO-It is. Absolutely. George, did you see anything at all on that from Dave? I don’t see his footprints anywhere on here. MR. HILTON-Yes, no. MR. R. DE AVILA-Yes. I gave him a couple of copies. There’s two copies by an engineer from Saratoga, Engineering America. MR. VOLLARO-Because he’s saying, apparently he had a drawing done, and he’s going to give an approval on this addition. I don’t understand that at all, because the Planning Board gives you those, not the building inspector. MR. R. DE AVILA-I don’t understand why we had to get a building permit for an existing addition in the first place. I could see getting engineered plans to see if it’s structurally sound, but he wanted us to get a building permit for this addition, which the Barbers put on when they did the Steakhouse. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ve got you. MR. R. DE AVILA-And then since then the bank has owned it, and now we own it, and I doubt that there’s ever even been a complaint filed against that addition. MR. VOLLARO-I’m just trying to understand Mr. Hatin’s involvement in this. I’m not clear with it at all. MR. R. DE AVILA-I’ve never been clear with it. MR. VOLLARO-Because, you know, we should have the drawing here that they’re speaking of, because we will give them a site plan approval. Then they go back and get a building permit, it seems to me, after site plan approval. Isn’t that the way it works? MR. SCHACHNER-That would certainly be the general process. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I would think so, and so what we’re going to give you tonight, I think, based on what the Board does here, but I think we’re going to give you a site plan approval. I would have liked to have seen the drawing that was done by the engineer, because this is fine, but it’s not an engineering drawing that, Mr. Hatin’s got the engineering drawing, when it ought to be, have been submitted to this Board. MR. R. DE AVILA-Yes. I had another copy. I should have brought that, but I can. MR. VOLLARO-How does the Board feel about this? MR. METIVIER-Let’s move forward. MR. VOLLARO-Do you want to go forward with it tonight? MR. SANFORD-Well, Mr. Hatin said to pretend the building wasn’t built. We could pretend that that’s the engineering drawing. All right. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s fine. Okay. Based on that. MR. HILTON-You do have a public hearing scheduled, and we do have one piece of written correspondence. 69 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Okay. Go ahead. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. BARDEN-This is dated May 12, 2005, from Jerry Brown’s Used Auto Parts, and it’s addressed to Town of Queensbury Planning Board, specifically Chris Hunsinger, Secretary. “Dear Mr. Hunsinger: I am in receipt of the Notice of Public Hearing regarding the Site Plan as referenced above. Please be advised that we have no objection to the request of the applicant, Arthur & Robert DeAvila. We do, however, ask that you and the Planning Board members be made aware that your proposal will abut our business property and that we are a New York State licensed auto dismantler, repair shop and used car dealership. In addition to the state licenses, we have the approval of the Town of Queensbury to operate what is commonly known as a “junkyard” (copy of license attached). Our business has been located at its present site for many years and we look forward to continuing in operation for many more. Again, I am expressing our lack of objection to the retail store project and am asking that the Board recognize the approved business use of our property adjoining the proposal site. Sincerely, Mr. Larry B. Brown Vice President” MR. VOLLARO-Fine. Thank you. There’s not an objection. As a matter of fact, there’s an agreement. MR. R. DE AVILA-And I even understand it’s a main intersection and we will, you know, make it as nice as we can. MR. VOLLARO-What are you going to do with it? MR. R. DE AVILA-An antique store. MR. VOLLARO-An antique store. Okay. MR. R. DE AVILA-Yes. We were on Glen Street, 200 Glen, for 20 years, and my parents sold that building. My brother and I purchased that building, and I’m glad we’re able to have an antique shop. I was worried. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. With that, can I entertain a motion for approval on that. Does anybody want to speak to this application? No? The public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-I’ll entertain a motion for approval. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 23-2005 ARTHUR & ROBERT deAVILA, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Seguljic: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 23-2005 Applicant/Property Owner: Arthur & Robert deAvila SEQR Type II Zone: C1 Location: 34 Lower Warren St. Applicant proposes a change of use from a restaurant to a retail store and an approval of a 336 sq. ft. addition. Cross Reference: SP 19-95, SP 29-90 Warren Co. Planning: Tax Map No. 303.19-1-52 Lot size: 0.81acres / Section: 179-4-020, 179-9-020 Public Hearing: 5/17/05 WHEREAS, the application was received on 4/12/05; and 70 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 5/13/05, and 5/17/05 Staff Notes 5/11/05 Warren Co. recommendation: No County Impact 5/2/05 Meeting notice sent 4/21/05 Warren Co. referral sent 4/13/05 RPS, Govern info 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 5/17/05; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby Approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. R. DE AVILA-Thank you very much. MR. A. DE AVILA-We really appreciate it. MR. VOLLARO-Go back to Mr. Hatin. SITE PLAN NO. 17-2005 SEQR TYPE II DARREN S. MILES PROPERTY OWNER: M/M LARRY KING ET AL AGENT: STEVEN MILES ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: 862 RIDGE ROAD, JUST NORTH OF DAN’S GARAGE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME ON A PROPERTY CONTAINING WETLANDS. FILLING WITHIN 50’ OF A WATERBODY OR WETLAND IN THE SR-1A ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: NONE WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/9/05 TAX MAP NO. 290-1-86 LOT SIZE: 11.86 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 STEVEN MILES, PRESENT 71 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. MILES-Good evening. I’m Steven Miles, Darren’s father. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MILES-What we’re proposing to build is a single-family home on 11 acres, a little bit above. MR. VOLLARO-This is just north of Dan’s Garage? MR. MILES-Just north of Dan’s Garage. Due to the unique nature, being adjacent to wetlands, we’re very limited as to where we can situate any kind of building. Our first impression and try was to put it in the center of the property, further back, because it’s such a huge parcel. However, with all the current restrictions, we’re forced to push it to one side or the other. Right now we’re leaning towards the right side, because there’s an additional 50 feet that Dan’s Garage had purchased in order for some encroachment problems and feels there’s going to be a better buffer to the right side rather than to the north side of the property. MR. VOLLARO-Are you the owner of the property now? MR. MILES-No. It’s contract vendee with my son. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and is your son Larry King? MR. MILES-No. That’s the seller. Darren Miles. MRS. STEFFAN-Darren Miles is his son. MR. VOLLARO-Now one of the problems, I’m just looking at the Department of Army Corps permit application number. Issued to Larry King. Who is Larry King? MR. MILES-He’s one of the current owners. MR. VOLLARO-He’s one of the current owners. Okay. You own the property now, though, is that correct? MR. MILES-No. Mr. King owns it, along with two other partners. They’ve owned it for like 17 years. MR. VOLLARO-Are you going to, you’re going to build your house on their land? MR. MILES-Correct, based on purchasing it very shortly, like tomorrow, hopefully. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. This is what you’re trying to do. Okay. I wanted to make sure. Now, this Department of Army, nationwide permit, I’m trying to determine whether this is going to be issued to Mr. Larry King. Is it transferable to the new buyer? Because it has signature page on here, signature of the permittee, to be issued on a certain date. MR. SCHACHNER-They generally run with the land. MR. VOLLARO-They do? Okay. That’s fine. As long as that, because I didn’t recognize the Larry King name, and the applicant’s name as being, I didn’t know the relationship between Larry King. MR. SCHACHNER-I think you have somebody buying land, the contract vendee, and then they’re going to build a house. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and this Department of the Army nationwide permit runs with the land. 72 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. SCHACHNER-They generally do. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just wanted to make sure of that. With that, you’re going to purchase, is it 10 acres? MR. MILES-A little over 11 acres. MR. VOLLARO-A little over 11. Okay. MR. SANFORD-It’s awful wet there. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the 10 acres will be deeded over, or a conservation easement? MR. MILES-That actually has to stay in a deed restriction. So it’ll be forever wild. MR. SANFORD-Why is this in front of us, because it’s wetland? MR. VOLLARO-Within 50 feet, I think, of a wetland. MR. SANFORD-Yes. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to have to bring some fill in here, I would assume. MR. MILES-Quite a bit, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Because your house next door, I think we pulled in their driveway. They’ve got some fill. MR. MILES-Just north of there, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Right, just north of your lot. MR. MILES-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Did C.T. Male look at this at all? MR. EDWARDS-Yes, I did. I didn’t get them to you by Friday, I apologize for that. I do have a few comments tonight, if you want to go through them. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. EDWARDS-It’s pretty straightforward, actually. The first one is the fill. It showed in the cross section you’ve got about six feet of fill proposed, at the point where the footprint is being placed for the building. MR. MILES-Correct. MR. EDWARDS-And that building is fairly close to the road, by the site plan, like within 30 feet. MR. MILES-Right. MR. EDWARDS-That’s going to provide you an awful steep slope for your driveway and your front yard. Is that going to be terraced or something to get down to the road? MR. MILES-It has to be terraced. Yes. It’ll be step down. MR. EDWARDS-And the driveway is going to be awfully steep unless you curl it around. 73 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. MILES-It’s going to be a side load garage. MR. EDWARDS-That’s something you probably ought to just indicate when you go for a permit, is to make sure you’re driveway’s not in excess of 10 to 12%, that kind of detail, you know. Show a little bit of grade information as to the finished floor of the buildings versus finished floor of road, the driveways sloping up to the front of the house and the garage. MR. MILES-If we had our druthers, we’d probably be closer to 75 to 100 feet off the property, but in order to stay within the guidelines set by the setbacks, with 75 feet of fill from the building, and then still not fill over half an acre total, on a one acre parcel, that we can use, that’s how tight it was to get the building in. If we were to put it in the middle of the property, it wouldn’t even allow for a 20 foot by 20 foot building, because of all the setbacks. MR. SANFORD-Have you considered looking at a different site? I mean, I don’t know why you’re so attracted to this particular site. We looked at it, and it looked soaking wet to us, and we didn’t walk it, but it looked awful wet, and you might be getting yourself into a whole lot of trouble with, you know, septic systems and having them work properly and everything else, and so, if you don’t own this property now, I guess, it’s none of my business, but I’m wondering why you really want to buy it. MR. MILES-With an Eljen system, it’ll work fine. I’ve already been with the engineer, and it should be fine. Just based on what I’ve talked with the engineer and having built probably 100 homes in my lifetime. That should be fine. MR. EDWARDS-That was my other comment was pertaining to the septic system. It looks like it’s going to be at least partially built in the fill, the Eljen is, correct? MR. MILES-Yes. MR. EDWARDS-Because again, you’ve got this really steep slope coming from the front of the house towards Ridge Road, and you’ve got the septic system shown, just off the property line of Ridge, which is also a concern. I believe you need 15 feet, don’t you, off the property line from the septic, the edge of the Eljen. In any event, it’s going to be on that side slope where the fill is, and there’s a certain restriction on that, too. The Town Code actually has a section, and I think it’s section, whatever it is, about septic system design, and that goes along with the New York State Department of Health guidelines for septic design, also. Just bear in mind, that’s a tough place to put a septic. Not only because of the fill, but also the slope, and you’ve got to carry those Eljens at a certain slope. Longitudinally as well. So that’s got to be designed by a P.E., I assume, before it goes for a permit anyway. It’s got to be stamped and signed and sealed and all that, and I’m not sure if it’s going to be partially in fill and partially in the ground, or all in fill. That’s the kind of detail you need to bring out. MR. MILES-Yes, we’re going to put, obviously we’re going to have to have something to slow it down so it doesn’t perc right down fast. MR. EDWARDS-Right, and the same thing with the fill that you bring in for the site, it’s got to be controlled perc rate fill, obviously. MR. VOLLARO-I think the Code 136 for on-site systems is what would probably prevail on the design of the septic, I would think. MR. EDWARDS-Yes. There’s a specific fill system spec in the Code that you need to follow, and I’m sure (lost words) is going to be going back to the Code to refer to it. MR. MILES-What’s going to help us a little bit is the drop off. There’s probably two to three feet of drop off right off the side of the road there, and that’s what helped the property that they just built about three years ago, that Larry Clute built that raised ranch, just north of that. 74 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. EDWARDS-Well, the property falls off the road, you’re saying. MR. MILES-Yes. MR. EDWARDS-Okay. That will gain you a little bit of ground there. MR. MILES-Right. MR. SANFORD-What do you think about this, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Well, your comment is well taken. I mean, it’s wet. It’s going to be wet. I think they’ve probably looked at it pretty well themselves. If they want to risk it, it’s, I guess, with the permits they’ve got to do this from the Army Corps and so on, if they want to risk doing it in this kind of a wetland, I guess I’m okay with it. The only thing I want to make sure of is that it’s done in accordance with our Code 136, our Chapter 136, which, it regulates on-site septics, and it’s going to be looked at from that point of view, when you go to get your building permit. MR. MILES-Right. MR. EDWARDS-Actually, there’s one other comment I want to bring out, too, that the, again, it’s the slope of the fill, and where you end the tow of the fill is part of your permit, right, from Army Corps? MR. MILES-Yes. MR. EDWARDS-That plays into your amount of site disturbance and your fill and you’ve got to take into account you’ve got some erosion potential on that fill. You definitely want to show some silt fencing wrapping around the tow of the fill area, and general guidelines of the DEC stormwater regs. So that’s something you definitely need to show, I think, before a permit also, you need to show a limit of silt fencing on your tow of your fill. MR. MILES-That’s actually right on the permit from the Corps of Engineers that talks about that. MR. EDWARDS-It discusses it. It doesn’t show it. It discusses allowing any effluents into the wetlands. MR. MILES-Right. MR. VOLLARO-That is not shown on any of the drawings. I don’t see that. MR. EDWARDS-That’s correct, it’s not. No, I recommended showing that, the silt fence line at the tow of the fill. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So we would have to table this and not approve it until we get a drawing that reflects some of the comments from the engineer. Do you have his comments? MR. MILES-Yes. We’ve been trying to get this through since actually last Fall, and I can tell you for sure that the people who are selling the property, they’ve been in Florida for the winter, and they have made it very certain that if it doesn’t pass tonight, that they are no longer going to put it up for sale, and they are going to approach the project themselves. This has been pushed, if I will, or stalled, a couple of times, and unfortunately we’re here tonight hoping, as a last straw, to get through with it. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any comments from our engineer. Usually we need a comment from our supporting engineering people that approve these drawings, and I see there’s some 75 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) comments that were done verbally, but I don’t know what to tell you. I would really like to see a set of drawings here that reflect the engineering comments that have been made. MR. MILES-There is a fill line there, where it’s. MR. EDWARDS-Yes. Basically, I would think, Bob, the extent of the drawing revision would be to put a note on there about your septic system design criteria, and also show the. MR. VOLLARO-He has some note. He says the Eljen system requires 53 linear feet for a four bedroom home with a minimum perc rate of 1.5, but that doesn’t take into consideration this slope you’re talking about, and that’s one of the things I’m concerned about is having the septic on any kind of grade. MR. EDWARDS-That’s what goes, I think, to the, when he goes for a permit, this system has to be designed by a P.E., stamped and sealed by a P.E. before it’s even issued a permit. So that’s one of the steps he’s got to take anyway before he goes to Dave Hatin for a permit. It’s just got to be a stamped designed system, which if it’s going to be Eljen, that’s fine. It probably will work better than anything else, and the biggest change to the drawing would be a note pertaining to the septic section and also just showing the silt fence limits around that fill line. So it’s pretty minor in terms of the drawing revisions, I think, Bob, but I apologize, again, for not getting these comments to you before tonight, but I was pushed pretty hard last week. MR. SEGULJIC-All those seem to be details that can be worked out. The Department of Health would be there to inspect the septic system anyway. MR. EDWARDS-Yes, but there’s been no perc tests done on the site, that I know of, where the septic’s going, but again, it’s all going to be in fill, and it’s going to be a controlled design system anyway without the need for a perc test at that location. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. He’s estimating a minimum perc rate of one to five minutes, and that would be in-fill, I would assume. MR. EDWARDS-That’s a regulated import material, right. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, technically, what are we approving? Are we approving fill or we’re approving? MR. VOLLARO-We’re approving this site plan as he’s proposed it. The site plan is lacking in certain things, as our engineer was saying, he’d like to see some comments on the site plan. We could probably approve this conditioned upon a site plan notations. Some of the Board members could help me out on this. What we’re trying to do is get some of the engineering comments on here. Most of them are relatively minor. MR. EDWARDS-They’re all minor, as far as the revisions go. MR. VOLLARO-So if you could give us some of those comments, just write them down for us, we’d put them into the motion for approval, that they have to be incorporated on the drawing. Can you just scratch something like that out for us, real quick. MR. EDWARDS-Sure. MR. SEGULJIC-How about the special conditions attached to the? MR. VOLLARO-I think they’re meeting those special conditions. You mean in the Army Corps of Engineers? MR. SEGULJIC-On Page Two of, I guess the permit from the Army Corps, the permittee shall effect a transfer of deed. 76 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. VOLLARO-Where are you, on Page Two? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Where? MR. SEGULJIC-Special Conditions. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m in Special Conditions. Where are you? MR. SEGULJIC-Where they talk about the permittee shall effect a transfer of deed on 10.26 acres of remaining parcel to a local conservation organization, and if transfer of the deed is not possible. MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, if you look at my Staff notes, at the very last paragraph there, I mentioned, I guess, you know, a stipulation that you could consider, which I think addresses what you’re talking about right now. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. I mean, is that going to take care of itself? MR. VOLLARO-I think Staff has come up and said that the offer that a local conservation agency or deed restriction so that the remaining property is protected as a wetland resource. MR. MILES-That has to be in part of the deed. MR. VOLLARO-And I think that that’s, those words are included in the Army Corps permit, and what Mr. Hilton has done is brought them forward as a note on his Staff notes, that a restriction has been included in the property deed that protects the remaining lands as a conservation area be provided prior to final signature by the Zoning Administrator and that no future clearing or filling be allowed beyond the limits as shown on the plan. So I think that that pretty much locks into the. MR. SEGULJIC-So that, we would we carry that into our motion, then, essentially. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. If we can get a couple of notes from engineering that we can put in our motion to have the plans annotated accordingly to that. I think we can go ahead and pass this. How does everybody feel about that? Tony, are you okay with it? MR. METIVIER-Yes, I’m fine. I do think we have to open up a public hearing. We have to open up the public hearing. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Okay. I can do that. Anybody here want to speak to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DAN IMRIE MR. IMRIE-My name’s Dan Imrie, and I own Dan’s Garage. His site plans, he had two possibilities for site plans, one building on the north side of the property, one building on the south side of the property, and it sounds like he wants to build on the south side of the property, and I just feel that it would be more appropriate to build the house on the north side of the property next to another house, other than next to a business, because I would not like to have to come back here for having conflict of interest with a resident while I’m running a business. MR. VOLLARO-How close is this? 77 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. IMRIE-He’s talking about building right up to the line. MR. VOLLARO-Up to the line with respect to the setbacks. MR. IMRIE-Right, 10 feet off, you know, whereas if he was on the north end of that lot, there’s going to be a substantial buffer zone between myself and the residence, which would be forever wetlands. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know whether he can get back that far. MR. IMRIE-He submitted two site plans. MR. MILES-The only reason we leaned against going to the north side was that we would literally be. MR. IMRIE-You’re going towards the south side. MR. MILES-Yes. If we go towards that yellow house, we’ll be right up top of the house. The reason why we steered away from the left side was basically we’d have to, again, be 10 feet off the property line, and it looks like they brought fill right to their property line, and basically we would be probably within 30 feet of that building. MR. VOLLARO-Of the building to the north. MR. MILES-Correct. MR. IMRIE-You’re going to be how close to the building to the south? MR. MILES-Ten feet off their property line, and then to the nearest structure probably 40 feet, Dan, roughly, I would guess to that storage shed that was the encroachment problem. MR. IMRIE-Yes, no, about 30 feet to the storage shed. MR. MILES-Okay. MR. IMRIE-And, you know, I’m up there cutting wood all weekend, usually, every weekend, all summer long, and, you know, I can foresee complaints. I’ve worked in places where this has happened before, and, you know, I’m just trying to alleviate this situation before it occurs. I mean, I’ve got a good buffer zone on my south side. MR. MILES-If I had my druthers on the setback, I would have placed it in the middle of the property, because there’s about 355 feet of road frontage there. MR. METIVIER-And you can’t do that because of the fill situation? MR. MILES-Because of the fill situation, and being stuck with the, only being able to bring fill into one half an acre. As it is now, with the design we have pushing it as close as we can to the property line, we’re filling in about .424 acres. So we do have a little bit of room where we can push it another five feet or so, but as soon as we start moving the building around, it gets very critical to going over that .5 acres. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, that .5 is in the Army Corps permit requirement I know. MR. MILES-Correct, and if you go for a different permit to go above the half acre, then you’re looking at a minimum of a year, according to the Corps of Engineers, to try and do anything. This has already been going on for about a year. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the way I see it, are you going to be the owner of the house? 78 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. MILES-Yes. My son is. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Your son is. The question is, your son recognizes, I guess, in doing this, that you have a neighbor who cuts wood with a chainsaw and can make a lot of noise and get up early in the morning and start cutting before or after breakfast. MR. MILES-Working on vehicles, yes. MR. VOLLARO-And so he’s got to recognize that that’s the problem, and I think that you’ve come up and you’ve stated your case, and I think that it’s been on the record and you’re on the record as saying you tried to alleviate this situation. The applicant doesn’t have very much room to do this in compliance with the Army Corps of Engineers. You did say he supplied two. MR. IMRIE-Well, when I went to the office today, they couldn’t tell me which site plan he was using. MR. VOLLARO-There was two. MR. HILTON-If you look in the materials submitted, there are two different versions that show a different location of the house, and I guess it would be ideal to nail down where, which plan the applicant’s going with. MR. GOETZ-I feel concerned for the fact that the owner of the property is telling you you have to make a decision by tomorrow, but we’re here trying to make a decision for the Town of Queensbury, and I see us making a decision. Now I’m fairly new on this Board, where I’ve seen people, you know, almost thrown out of the place for trying to build in a section such as you’re doing, where you’re so close to the property line, where it’s so wet, where there’s a possible septic problem. I went up to walk the property, and I couldn’t walk it because there was so much water at the time, and I just would really have trouble approving it. MR. MILES-I’ve walked it in the Fall. It’s not bad at all in the Fall. It just depends on where you are. As you go back, Halfway Brook is probably. MR. IMRIE-Half a mile back. MR. MILES-Yes. It’s quite a ways back. MR. EDWARDS-There’s no doubt, this entire property is considered a wetland. Isn’t it? By the Army Corps? MR. MILES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. EDWARDS-So it’s acknowledged that the whole site is potentially wet. The amount of fill they need to bring in here is extensive. It’s six feet of fill across a pretty good size area. So they’re going to force it to be, dry this site out. You couldn’t put a foundation in the way it is today. There’s no way it would work. It wouldn’t drain, you couldn’t put a basement in there. MR. MILES-Right. MR. EDWARDS-You couldn’t construct it. It would be so difficult to build it and make it, you know, make it structurally sound. It would be soaking wet all the time, too. I would imagine it’s going to limit your choice of houses, too, right? It’s going to be a raised type situation, I’m assuming? MR. MILES-The whole house is going to sit on a minimum of two feet of fill. 79 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. VOLLARO-Are you going to have a basement in this house at all? MR. MILES-Yes. MR. EDWARDS-It’s unique. It’s a unique site plan. You don’t see single family site plans. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we very seldom see it. This is unique in that he’s filling within 50 foot of a wetland. That’s why we’re seeing this. MR. EDWARDS-Yes, that whole site is a wetland. The whole 11 acres. MR. IMRIE-The whole 11 acres is technically wetland. You are filling wetland. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I think that that’s one of the unique things. I mean, I haven’t been around a long time, but the fact that it’s an Army Corps wetland and that they’ve approved this, you know, so that there’s a conservation easement on it, so it will be forever wild, that, I guess it’s got my curiosity because I’ve never seen it before, never heard of that before. MR. VOLLARO-The Army Corps really doesn’t, they’re just saying we’ll allow you to use this and take, I think it’s, is it a half acre of fill that they’ve allowed, and that’s their position. If you can do something magic with that half acre, just go right ahead, but we see the downside of that. They’re giving a permit to do, you know, to do a half acre’s worth of work, but we’re trying to take a look, and we don’t get into single family stuff very often on this Board. This is kind of new, in a way, and I’m a little uncomfortable with it, except that, you know, I guess I’m into the thing that’s called a buyer beware. You know what you’re buying. You know what you’re building, and if you can get a building permit to do this, after site plan, particularly after we put something down on this drawing that restricts, you know, that tells us what the engineering restrictions are on here, I don’t know what else to say. You’re going to have to get a building permit. You’re going to have to get the Department of Health to approve that septic tank as well, the septic system, actually, that you’re going to put in, an Eljen system. A lot of it’s a risk on your part. I think it’s a lot of risk here, for you to do this, personally. I wouldn’t do it. I know that. MR. MILES-I think in the last few years since the availability of property has gotten so short in the Town of Queensbury, these properties, I watched them fill, over the last few years, with stuff that, the property just north of there, and I’m sure Dan saw the same thing there, and my question at the Building Department was, how come that was allowed to be filled, and they said well, we think that was existing, not that it was, because everybody saw them dropping in fill over the years, but this property hasn’t had any fill dropped into it, and therefore it fell into this wetland preservation. If you look at the State DEC map, which I have a copy of, it actually shows Halfway Brook way down to the south part of where the first duplex was built, and that’s technically where the wetland is, according to the State DEC map, and it goes way out behind Dan’s property and this property. Probably 1,000 feet back I would guess. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t know. Let me poll the Board here and see what we want to do. It’s getting late and we’re trying to figure out how to handle this thing. Tony, what do you think? MR. METIVIER-I’m fine with moving forward with this. I mean, you stated it best, buyer beware, and I know we’re not supposed to say that, but anyway. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s true. I think it’s true. I think in this case it’s true anyway. MR. METIVIER-I do think, I mean, Mr. Miles, are you really pushing towards the right, or can you keep the house to the left? MR. MILES-I guess I’m open, but we’d prefer to the right. 80 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. VOLLARO-He’s only got about five feet to go. MR. MILES-Well, we could move the whole project to the left side of the property and to the north side and build next to that raised ranch. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s the Lands of Norton. MR. MILES-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Right, or is it Green? MR. METIVIER-I mean, you realize what you’re building next to. MR. SANFORD-I just don’t think it’s good planning. I feel for you. Normally we don’t get involved with one piece of property, one house, and so I do have a lot of, you know, concern for you, and I want what’s good for you and your son. On the other hand, I just don’t think it’s good property to build on, end of story, and I think that it’s not, you know, it’s not going to be an enhancement to the Town of Queensbury, and I think it could be problematic down the road, and I know it’s not going to be popular, but I’m not going to support the approval, but I’m probably going to be in the minority. I don’t think we should have construction on such troubled property. MR. GOETZ-As I said before, I can’t approve it at this time. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Tom, what do you want to do? MR. SEGULJIC-I, personally, wouldn’t do it, but they do have the Army Corps permit to do it. MR. VOLLARO-All the Army Corps says is you can take a half acre, and what you do with it is your business. It doesn’t say that the end result is going to be good. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct, but we have the Department of Health. I, personally, 19,000 cubic feet of fill, 19,000 square feet, I guess that’s a lot of fill. I wouldn’t do it, but I’d be in favor of it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Mr. Ford? MR. FORD-I’m concerned that we’re addressing a wetland in this manner. I’m concerned about building on the wetland. I’m also concerned that this has been worked on now for a long period of time, apparently, and yet there are still engineering concerns that have yet to be addressed. I’m not in favor of it. MR. VOLLARO-Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-I could be persuaded either way, just because they’ve got the Army Corps stuff, but I don’t think we have a majority. MR. VOLLARO-No, we don’t, because I’m not inclined, myself, to approve it in this fashion, because I see it as a, you know, I just don’t see it as a good idea to build a house in a wetland like this. I don’t think it’s the right thing to do, myself. I think, as a couple of other people have said, the probability of success is, in my mind, marginal, and that’s one of the things I’m concerned about. You can put a lot of fill in here, but fill settles and, you know, I don’t know how stable that’s going to be, and what kind of problems that house is going to have downstream. It just seems to me like the wrong thing to do. So I’m going to have to go along with other members of the Board and say that I couldn’t approve it under this basis. I’m sorry. MR. MILES-Okay. Can I just say one thing? They, three years ago, built the duplexes, the four plexes, and also that raised ranch. I know that there’s been no problems with the property just 81 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) to the north of there, the raised ranch. I just think that, seeing those, seeing the ones at the end of where it intersects with Ridge, Haviland, those have been built right there, and that’s actually right on Halfway Brook. MR. FORD-And there are issues, right now, with septic and water supply. MR. MILES-I believe it, because I can’t believe they didn’t build those up. They built those right flat level with the ground. MR. IMRIE-They dug out, when I was a kid, that was a hayfield, and then it just grew up. They cut down, dug out all the stumps, and then brought in, I think it was over a million yards of fill up there, and I listened to them driving tandems in there for three months bringing fill in. MR. SANFORD-Most of us weren’t on the Planning Board when that was approved, and maybe some of us were, but I wasn’t, and every time I go by there I think of what potential ecological damage is being done to the quality of the water in Halfway Brook because of that project. So I would not have been favorably inclined in evaluating that either. MR. IMRIE-I agree, because it’s right on the Brook. MR. SANFORD-Yes, and to me, I don’t know what the Planning Board was thinking, but that pre-dated me. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think we have a majority of the Board that is not going to approve this. I don’t want to take this on too far. I think we’re going to have to make a motion for denial of this application. So if somebody wants to make the motion, or I will, and I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO DENY SITE PLAN NO. 17-2005 DARREN S. MILES, 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: Site Plan No. 17-2005 Applicant: Darren S. Miles SEQR Type II Property Owner: M/M Larry King et al Agent: Steven Miles Zone: SR-1A Location: 862 Ridge Road, just north of Dan’s Garage Applicant proposes to construct a single-family home on a property containing wetlands. Filling within 50’ of a water body or wetland in the SR-1A zone requires site plan review and approval from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: None Warren Co. Planning: 3/9/05 Tax Map No. 290-1-86 Lot size: 11.86 acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: 5/17/05 WHEREAS, the application was received on 2/15/05; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 5/13/05, and 5/17/05 Staff Notes 5/10/05 Notice of Public Hearing sent 5/2/05 Meeting notice sent 4/4/05 Additional information received: 2 drawings 82 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) 3/23/05 S. Miles from CB: request for additional information prior to placement on agenda 3/9/05 Warren Co. PB recommendation: No Action 3/1/05 RPS, Govern info 2/24/05 Applicant from C. Brown: Bump list, items not being reviewed in March 2/16/05 500 ‘ map / list 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 5/17/05; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby Denied in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff, for the following reasons: 1. We believe this site, because of groundwater or wetland conditions, is not suitable for construction, 2. We believe the amount of fill that would be required to stabilize the site would be excessive, 3. We believe that the location of the house may prove to be problematic to the neighbors, 4. That septic systems could also prove problematic and may possibly fail. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ford, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Vollaro NOES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan MRS. STEFFAN-Sorry. MR. HILTON-You have before you, I handed it out tonight, a request from Adirondack Sports Complex, Doug Miller, to, I guess, extend an approval of a site plan that is set to expire on May 27, and we’re presenting this to you tonight. You can consider it tonight, you can set a future, th a date, that would probably be the only opportunity to do that would be next Thursday, and Mr. Miller is here, but, again, just to make you aware that I did hand you that. MR. SANFORD-The only thing we would be deciding is to give him an extension. MR. HILTON-At this point, yes. MR. SANFORD-I don’t see it as a big deal. 83 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/17/05) MR. VOLLARO-Is that the Sports Complex off of Sherman? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and he’s asking for an extension of what? MR. SANFORD-Six months. MR. HILTON-Six months. MOTION TO EXTEND SITE PLAN NO. 17-2004, DOUGLAS & TERESA MILLER, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Extension is for a period of six (6) months, or until November 28, 2005. Duly adopted this 17 day of May, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Vollaro, Chairman 84