Loading...
01-10-2013 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/10/2013) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2013 INDEX Site Plan No. 59-2012 Legacy Land Holdings, LLC 1. FWW#4-2012 Tax Map No. 296.15-1-2 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. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/10/2013) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2013 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY BRAD MAGOWAN PAUL SCHONEWOLF DAVID DEEB, ALTERNATE GEORGE FERONE, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT DONALD SIPP ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'd like to thank everyone for coming. I'll open the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board for our Special Meeting Thursday, January 10, 2013. Our first item on the agenda and the only item on the agenda is Legacy Land Holdings, LLC. SITE PLAN NO. 59-2012 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 4-2012 SEAR UNLISTED LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS, LLC AGENT(S) H. THOMAS JARRETT, P.C. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING O-OFFICE LOCATION GENTRY LANE EXTENSION SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 148 APARTMENT UNITS IN 29 BUILDINGS. MULTI-FAMILY CONSTRUCTION IN AN OFFICE ZONE AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF A SHORELINE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FRESHWATER WETLANDS: DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100' FEET OF A REGULATED WETLAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AV 43-12 WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES APA, CEA, OTHER DEC WETLANDS, NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 28.1 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.15-1-2 SECTION 179-9; CHAPTER 94 TOM JARRETT & MICHAEL BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-We had tabled the application from our December 20th meeting. Craig, do you want to summarize Staff Notes? We don't really have Staff Notes for tonight. MR. BROWN-Yes. There's not really any new Staff Notes. What is new is a submittal from the applicant's engineer that was e-mailed to you I think the day that we received it, a couple of days ago, and hardcopies provided tonight. That's going to contain responses to engineering, staff comments and some responses to some public comment that was presented. We didn't really have a chance to prepare new Staff Notes for it. I kind of skimmed through it this afternoon. The two questions that come up for me are there's one item on Page Three. It talks about providing a turnaround for Town highway vehicles on the project site. I'm not sure that's been discussed with the Highway Superintendent or not, if they've agreed to something like that, and then kind of the ongoing issue of this response talks about potential sales in the future, and again, it's kind of a highway issue. One of the Town Code requirements talks about, you know, each new dwelling unit or lot has to have frontage on a public highway, and the question comes up is, you know, is this road going to be constructed to Town Highway standards and potentially might the Highway Department want to accept the road in the future. So, again, I know it's a future thing, but they did reference it in the comments. So those are the only two new things that I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. BORGOS-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, first and foremost, for accommodating us with a Special Meeting. We'll do our best to try to keep it as brief as possible, and toward that end, I'm just going to reference what Craig just mentioned, that we have submitted a response to the Staff comments from last time, a written response that you all have. We're here tonight prepared to respond to any questions the Board might have after the public hearing period, and we've brought along Mr. Wersted who is the traffic engineer who submitted the two page letter at the end of that submission. So we'd be happy to address those questions later on. Tom Jarrett would like to address some of the comments just raised by Mr. Brown with regards to the turnaround. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/10/2013) MR. JARRETT-Well, the turnaround I don't think has been discussed with the Highway Superintendent yet, but we did throw it out that we would offer the property as either a drive through loop without plowing or just a turnaround in any of the parking areas that we maintain. If that doesn't work then we'll certainly re- build the, or leave the turnaround that we have in place right now. We think the more constructive way is to allow plows to go through the loop and go back out Baybridge, but it certainly is at the purview of the Town at this point. The reference to the sales of units was old correspondence, prior correspondence that was repeated in your new letter. So it's unfortunate it's probably creating a little confusion, but we stipulated on the record last time that this is a rental project only, and if and when Dan ever entertains something in the future, he's got to come back to the Town and re-vet the whole thing. As far as the highway width, the road width, it will be constructed to Town standards, with the one exception that we negotiated with the Highway Superintendent to build it slightly narrower, which is in keeping with current trends to try to build roads with less impervious area and as a traffic calming device, not surprisingly. So, other than that, it would be built to Town standards. MR. BORGOS-1 would like to mention, I know there's typically a three minute comment period for the public hearing, but I just wanted to go on the record and say I've spoken with the Homeowners Association attorney a couple of times since our last meeting and tried to have an ongoing dialogue, and it's my understanding she's going to try to address all of the Association's comments together as herself, speaking on their behalf, and we certainly have no objection to exceeding that three minutes to allow that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BORGOS-That's certainly an accommodation that's in all of our best interests' to try to consolidate that. It's been expressed that that is the intention of the group of Homeowners Association, to try not to repeat the comments that have been voiced previously and keep things moving along. So we appreciate that and want to go on the record as saying that's acceptable to us. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you want to summarize at all the new submission? A lot of it, I think, was verbally summarized at the last meeting, but I don't know if there was anything that you wanted to point out for the benefit of the members of the audience? MR. BORGOS-I'm going to let Tom summarize that. He's the author of this letter. We did think that it was largely communicated at the last meeting, but we wanted to put it in writing, and Tom was able to substantiate a lot of what was verbalized then, but I'll let him hit the highlights now. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thanks. MR. JARRETT-Thanks, Mike. The letter, the latest submission to Craig, referred to basically has three components. The first component deals with Staff comments, and the vast majority of those comments were with regard to the SEAR form which we addressed last month. We had updated it to represent the re-designed project and we just re-stated that in this letter. None of that is new information. It was all discussed last month. The next section deals with Town Engineering comments, and subsequent to the last meeting we've met with the Town Engineer, and I'll let Craig hopefully support what I say that we had very productive meeting, and I believe we are well on our way to resolving those technical issues, and they should be resolved shortly. We came to agreement on most issues, and I think there's a couple of minor questions that still remain that we're going to iron out, and I'll let Craig answer that in a second. The third component is the public comment, and again, I'll let the public speak if they wish, but, to these issues, but most of the public comments received in that last packet were a reiteration of what was provided to the Town back in September, and we actually re-stated our response from an earlier letter in this letter now. So I don't think there's really any new information or any significant new information presented in this package. MR. BROWN-And for the record I can confirm I had a conversation with Sean Doty from Chazen, who said similar comments as Tom did. They had a conversation. They kind of theoretically agree on how things need to be done with the caveat, you know, Sean needs to see the plans updated, but that's in the works. So it sounded like they were, like Tom said, well on the way to resolving all the outstanding issues. MR. HUNSINGER-Now was that before or after the new information was provided? MR. BROWN-It was yesterday I think I spoke with him. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-You spoke with him after my letter came to the Town, but our meeting was prior to that letter. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/10/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. JARRETT-We've not really, the comments, well, it's hard to explain, but basically the letter reflects the fact that we have agreement on most of these issues. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else that you wanted to add? MR. BORGOS-Not at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll open it up for questions, comments from members of the Board. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What is the width of the road? You just said it's less than it was. MR. JARRETT-It's a 20 foot driving lane with two foot shoulders, I believe. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. Well that is, 20 foot is the standard. MR. JARRETT-It's 24. MR. BROWN-I think it's 22 with two foot wings. MR. JARRETT-I'm going to have to go back and check, but it's slightly narrower than the standard road. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, but I mean as far as emergency vehicles, 20 feet is. MR. JARRETT-Yes, it's not anything that anybody has objected to. It's just slightly narrower than the old standard. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So it's still a compliant plan. If you took the plan and lifted it out and held it up here, it's compliant with the Code. Is that what you're telling me? MR. JARRETT-I'll ask Craig that. The Highway Superintendent has agreed to it. It's slightly narrower width than what the Town standard is written to, but it's certainly serviceable for emergency vehicles. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, 20 feet's the State. All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from members of the Board? Did you want to talk at all about, you mentioned you had your traffic engineer here. Was there any specific information that you wanted him to present, or is he just here in case there's questions? MR. BORGOS-Again, in case there were questions. We think everything that needs to be addressed is contained within the two pages of your letter. It's rather straightforward. It's nothing that we hadn't discussed before. We do think that everything there is compliant with the intentions of what we've expressed in each of the meetings we've attended. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BORGOS-And consistent with Mr. Jarrett's opinion that he gave last time about traffic calming devices and the speed of vehicles through that had been raised by the public comment. In other words, I believe everything has been well planned out. There's been an awful lot of thought that's gone into the planning, and we've tried to absorb and review all of the potential suggestions that have been raised, and the plan that's before the Town now is the one that we believe is the most appropriate and acceptable. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-1 had a quick question, and I talked to Tom there over the holiday, because I've just been mulling on it, you know. Trying to find a happy medium to appease everybody, and I mentioned moving that one road over to bring it down Walker Lane, so you'd have one, and Gentry and one coming down Walker. MR. JARRETT-I did look at that again. We'd looked at it originally during the early design. Craig, can you refresh that? When we were first conceptualizing the project, we looked at building the connection right here at Walker, or actually even here, and here, as well as here and felt that, in the future, Baybridge is where the traffic light is probably going to be warranted, and traffic is going to migrate to Baybridge to go right into Town, and probably even left to go north during ACC traffic period. So we didn't feel that this was (Queensbury Planning Board 01/10/2013) going to be conducive, either one of these entrances would be conducive to alleviating that problem, and frankly we don't think it's, from a property perspective, it's not very easy on Walker. In between, which I think the neighbors would like us to consider, is problematic from several perspectives. We don't think it solves the problem. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, there's two schools of thought on that. If you had a road at either end of the projects, what you've done is divide the project in half, and when you divide a, and I've been on a few of these apartment things over my illustrious career, and if you take an apartment development like this and you have a stop sign, whatever you have in the middle, the people on the right side will go out one road because they don't want to drive around, and the people on the left side will go out the other road. Obviously they're going to go out. MR. JARRETT-Craig, could you pull up what's called traffic diagram. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They're going to go out the lane on the left, and I think if they went out Walker Lane on the right, and not go down Baybridge Drive, that that would. MR. JARRETT-Well, what this diagram is, is a division, in my mind, of how residents in the Cottage Hill complex will utilize the existing, or, excuse me, the proposed connection. We've drawn a line right here, and I'm saying this group of residents in Cottage Hill will probably go through here Gentry Lane. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's correct. MR. JARRETT-And this line here to the north will use Baybridge. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. It will be better, I think, if they used the other road. MR. JARRETT-And this is approximately two-thirds to three-quarters of the population. Whereas this is about a third, a quarter to a third, and actually there are more units here to be impacted by traffic than there are here. So actually we think that it may be a good division. MR. SCHONEWOLF-See one of the problems you've got, I mean, is that the roads and the houses in front of it are not very good. Okay. They're not really a wide road with curbs and sidewalks. If they had that. MR. JARRETT-In the existing development? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. If they had that, if that existed, I think the people wouldn't be walking in the road and taking their life in their hands when they go out of there. When you add that traffic behind it, no matter where you flow it, it's going to be bad, but if you were flowing it on both sides, I think it would be easier. That's just my opinion, and it's not something I would hold the project hostage for because the project, as one of my associates here pointed out, is Code compliant, but I think the developer would, you know, has a responsibility to try to make the traffic flow as best he can, and he has another, you know, he has another opportunity to go out the back, but that's only going to cause, the people that live back there aren't going to like it, A. B, he's got a lot there which he doesn't want to give up to a road. So that doesn't look like something that's going to get done. So, I just, if you take people, an apartment complex, and if you can get half of them to go one way and half them to go the other way, I think you solve a lot of problems for yourself. Because there's going to be accidents. There's going to be speeding. There's going to be problems. MR. JARRETT-We talked in recent days amongst ourselves about another traffic calming device. Ken from Creighton Manning who's with us tonight recommended to us that we put in a traffic hump, not a bump, but a traffic hump. We have a wetland crossing right here that is a slight rise. We can reconfigure that slightly to be, to meet the standards of a traffic hump, and we think that'll be a traffic calming device right there that might benefit both residents of Cottage Hill and Baybridge. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Most Highway Departments, or most Highway Superintendents don't like that because it interferes with their plan. MR. JARRETT-They don't like bumps. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They don't like bumps. MR. JARRETT-Humps are a different, well, I'll defer to Ken. I'll let him speak to it, but he certainly talked that configuration with us and recommended that a hump would make sense, and usually the Highway Department, in fact, this would be plowed by Dan, not the Highway Department, but we think the Highway Department would be amenable to it as well. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/10/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-It's amazing, when they're constructed correctly, and I've seen them, they work well, and even though you only have to raise the road a little bit, as cars approach it, you see them all braking. MR. VALENTE-Right. MR. JARRETT-Yes, and what Ken has recommended to us is we don't put in something so sharp that they hit the brakes hard and accelerate again, but they slow down early and then not worry about jumping on the gas coming out of it. MR. VALENTE-Yes. We believe in looking at that that if anybody was going to gain speed, it would be coming down that Gentry Lane side. At the top, you have an intersection. There's a stop sign there, you know, they've got to come to a stop. So, and I believe, and Ken hopefully later will pass this recommendation along, that that eventually becomes a four way stop. Right now it's a little unorthodox. You have one stop sign at Dorlon at that intersection. So the other people have of way. So once we put our access there and we put a stop sign, we'd like to create a four way there which would help everybody. Also if we, talking about re-locating that road to the north, part of the other issues are headlights when people are pulling out, they're going to be shining into those people's units in Baybridge if that road is offset. Those people aren't going to be too happy with that. In this case, they're entering straight, the lights stay straight, and they're heading right down the road. There's no impact to those neighbors at that point. So I don't have, I don't own the property directly in front of Walker Lane, so I don't have a clean access to Walker Lane, and like Mike said, Mr. Borgos said, that, you know, ultimately there will be a light at Bay Road and that road is going to be the access. So to funnel people down Walker and then push them to a non-light area, I think down the road is counter intuitive. MR. KREBS-We should all remember that Walker Lane was the only access up until three years ago when you developed the commercial subdivision and put Gentry Lane through, Baybridge Road through. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, thank you for re-visiting that and explaining that in more detail. Because I feel better now. MR. VALENTE-These were all looked at at the initial stages. MR. JARRETT-We actually re-visited the whole thing. MR. MAGOWAN-Sometimes it looks a little bit better on paper than it does actually in reality. MR. VALENTE-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-That's why we need you, Tom. MR. HUNSINGER-So in terms of the four way stop, is that something you're proposing this evening or is that something down the road you'd be? MR. JARRETT-We are proposing it, and we'll have Ken put it on the record that he recommends it, but it is a Town Board issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-So I don't know how we should handle it from here, but we think it's a (lost words). MR. HUNSINGER-And how about the hump, is that something that you're? MR. JARRETT-I'm willing to stipulate that, and, Dan, I think you agree with me. MR. VALENTE-Absolutely. Yes. I think it's a great idea. I really do. MR. JARRETT-We think it benefits both parties. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Do you have any other questions on the traffic? MR. MAGOWAN-No, not right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-That was my only question. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/10/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We did table the public hearing until this evening as well. Just to follow upon the applicant's comment, if I could get a show of hands how many people had planned to speak this evening. There is just one. MR. KREBS-She represents all the people. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What's the will of the Board, I mean, do we want to waive the three minute rule? How long would your comments take, do you know, roughly? KARLA BUETTNER MRS. BUETTNER-I have more than three minutes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, I mean, do you have a 15 minute presentation, do you have 10 minutes of comments? MRS. BUETTNER-Maybe 10 minutes. It depends if the Board has questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-She's representing everyone. If you take everybody who would like to speak and you times it by three, I'm thinking that she can do it in less amount of time I hope. MR. HUNSINGER-Of course. MRS. BUETTNER-I hope so. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. As I had mentioned at the last meeting, the purpose of the public hearing is for members of the public to provide comments to the Board. I would ask anyone who wishes to address the Board to state their name for the record. We do tape the meeting, and the tape is used to transcribe the minutes. So please speak clearly into the microphone, and address your comments to the Board and we'll go from there. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN KARLA BUETTNER MS. BUETTNER-Good evening. Karla Buettner, Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes. I'm here representing the Queensbury Baybridge Homeowners Association. As you are well aware, that's the Association that's basically going to be the neighbor for Cottage Hill. I have sitting next to me Kirby VanVleet. He is a hydrogeologist with Hansen VanVleet. He has conducted some analysis for us and in the packet that you folks have that I submitted last month, he did submit a report which I'm sure you've all had a chance to read and then have to read again because I didn't understand it the first time, either, and he's here to kind of summarize it for you, now that you've read it, to answer questions, and to give his opinion as to some things we'd like the applicant to do. I want to thank the Board for the opportunity to have this special meeting. I know when we left before the holidays at 11:30 in the lovely snowy weather that we had, none of us were really wide awake or thinking clearly, and emotions were running high on both sides, and for everybody. So thank you for the opportunity to sit here and refocus an revisit. I am tasked, today, with trying to give you the opinions of 80 some odd people, so, and I'll do my best, but I want it on the record that I don't believe they're foreclosed from speaking, in the event I forget something, or they want to speak. Just because I'm here on their behalf, they're still permitted to speak. Okay. There's been comments made at the last meeting and there were comments made here tonight that Mr. Valente's project is Code compliant, Code compliant, it meets the Code. It meets the Code. The intimation, therefore being we approve it because it meets the Code. I would take exception to that. Yes, it meets the Zoning Code. You're absolutely right. It meets the Zoning Code, which is why we're not before the Zoning Board, but before you folks. You are the Planning Board. So you have to look at this in a different way, you all know this, as a planning, and we've always said we want this to be proper planning, and we appreciate Mr. Valente can do with his property, it's his property, and he's allowed to exercise his rights to do that with proper planning, and so while we agree it's Code compliant, you have to look at your Code, at the site plan requirements in 179, to see if it complies with that, and you also are tasked, as you know, as Lead Agency, with looking at SEAR and answering those lovely questions, is there or is there going to be an actual controversy. Is there a cultural impact, an aesthetic impact, an archeological impact. You have to answer those questions yes or no, and I would implore you that when you get to that stage, whether it be tonight or at some later date, and you thoughtfully think about the answer to those questions. I know as a Board member it's probably hard, because you sit there and you listen to the same questions for for every project, and it's easy to say, yes, no, no. I would ask you on this project to sit there and take your hard look. That being said, I'm here to focus a couple of things, and I want to start with what you've (Queensbury Planning Board 01/10/2013) already discussed is traffic, and I appreciate that Ken Wersted is here for Creighton Manning because I think there may be some questions raised to him in general, and I also appreciate that Tom and Dan were able to look at some proposals that we had put together for the applicant. As an aside, I do want to let the Board know that although this was very emotional last time, I want to thank Mike Borgos for working with us and with me in the past few weeks. We've been able to re-open the lines of communication, and present some options. The HOA's looking at this as we're here to help the Planning Board. You don't live there. We live there. I don't live there, they live there, and we want to help you see things from our perspective, and in doing so we've put together some what we believe to be reasonable thoughts for Mr. Valente and for the Planning Board to look at. That being said, traffic. Last time we were here, we obviously want, talked about safety, and the Board talked about safety quite a bit, and it was heated, even amongst the Board if I recall, it was heated, because safety, obviously, is an issue. Nobody wants to pass a project and then the first thing that happens is someone gets hurt or someone, God forbid, gets hurt because of something that happened, and then fingers start pointing and lawyers get involved and we never want that to happen. So I think what we've done is ask Mr. Valente to look at the project and say, look, we really would like you to go through Country Club. We really think it's a good option. We understand that he doesn't want to. We're not going to belabor that. We do think that it's an option that the Board should consider and, you know, perhaps ask them about it again, but another alternative was, as Mr. Jarrett said, and I don't have his fancy laser pointer. MR. JARRETT-It's right there on the table, Karla. MS. BUETTNER-Well look at this. I promise not to try to break it. To put, in between this building here, a road. I had brought that up to Mr. Borgos earlier this week, I think it was yesterday, actually. It's a safety issue. What the HOA is thinking is instead of having what ultimately is a straight through, is a thoroughfare from Bay Road off Baybridge into the Cottage Hill, it's a straight shot. Yes, there'll be a stop sign. How many people will stop there, how many people will roll, do the New York rolling stop through there. On both sides, not just Cottage Hill, we're talking both sides. So one of the things that we thought would be in between those buildings, and I apologize, I don't have the numbers for those buildings, just shift the road so it's offset from Baybridge. That would permit the traffic to come in Baybridge and to come in Walker, and have stop signs there. It would slow the traffic down, and we're not, and basically, and I'm not the engineer, and this would be Tom addressing this, it doesn't appear there's any stormwater issues right there, you know, infrastructure or any sewer infrastructure or anything in that location at the planning stage to shift a building. It's not as easy as that, I understand, but that's an option we would like them to look at. I know that Tom indicated he did look at it, and I think he said they didn't feel it was conducive, and it wouldn't, it created problems from several perspectives, and I would just ask the Board to ask them what the problems were that it created. If it's been looked at, it's been looked at, but I think that's something that, from the neighbor's perspective, I think it's a reasonable request to ask them to look at it. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, one of the things he did say was the headlights, and then in the future if the light goes down there on Bay Road, if you use Walker, most of the people are going to go out the other way because as you know, getting out on Bay on certain times there is no left. I mean, the lefts are just very difficult, and so, I mean, then you're going to have most people going around and coming out Gentry and going down to the light to go. MS. BUETTNER-Well, I don't know if that's necessarily true. What I was saying is you would have some come up Walker and some come up Baybridge. The ones that were going to go down Gentry are going to go down Gentry anyway. I mean, they're not going to come all the way over, but what we're proposing is to look at slowing it down, not having a direct. They'll still come to Bay at the light at Baybridge, but even if they come through Cottage Hill and come out, and I don't even know what the length of that would be, you know, a stop sign there, and then a stop sign at Baybridge, going out to Baybridge, or some sort of traffic device there, even a stop sign will encourage people to slow down, if not have them slow down. So that diminishes any, you know, perhaps concerns with speed. Am I making myself clear? Okay. It's just an option that we'd like him to look at, and if he has looked at it and he's said it can't work because of this, these particular problems, but we would just like it looked at. Traffic, obviously, is an issue. One of the things, and he mentioned it, it was mentioned in the new submission and it was mentioned again tonight, that there's only about 20 houses on Baybridge. So most of the traffic is not going to affect a lot of the area. I think what was missed in the emotion last time was that the mailboxes are right on Baybridge. So, yes, there's 20 houses, but every member of the Association goes on Baybridge, generally walks there, to go to those mailboxes. So, you know, the fact that there's only 20 houses there, everybody still is affected. So we would just like the Board to look at it, and look at it, I think it's 179-9-080F talks about traffic. I mean, that's something that really needs to be looked at. Will it create a public hazard? Will it have traffic congestion? Will it be detrimental to the health, safety and public welfare? Code compliant, yes, but you have your Code to go by, too. The second topic that I would like to talk about is a barrier, a buffer, that would be the more appropriate word. Yes, apartments are permitted in this zone. We've never said they're not permitted in this zone, but you're looking at apartments, probably very nice apartments, but apartments in the back. You're looking at nice single family twoplexes, fourplexes in the front. It's almost, to the naked eye, a residential/commercial development, you know, a residential/commercial split is what (Queensbury Planning Board 01/10/2013) it's going to look like, density wise. So one of the things we would propose is that the Board look at a barrier, a buffer between the two, a more substantial one than the one that's been presented. My understanding is that the one presented now talks about natural. Well, the nature there now is nothing. It's golden rod. It's ragweed which now is snow. There's really no buffer, and one of the units actually there's 70 feet between the back of one of ours and a two story building. So in the wintertime they're going to be watching each other drinking coffee, and whatever else. So I don't know if that's, you know, that's for both sides, both communities. We would propose, and we would ask you to look at, perhaps, a berm there, and a significant enough berm, not like a one foot berm, but a significant enough one that it will provide a distinction on the boundary lines and a buffer between the two developments. We also, and I have forwarded Mike a list of some plantings we thought would work there, not arborvitae. We don't want the deer around. I don't think this tenants want the deer around either, but some other plantings that, you know, once, mature plantings, once there, will provide a nice looking barrier and buffer, and privacy for both sides. So that's something that we would ask the Planning Board to look at, and again, that's something that you have the right and are empowered to look at and to request of the applicant in your duties. One of the other things that we do want to talk about is the water issue, and that's why I have Mr. VanVleet here because he is the hydrogeologist. In the submission packet that Mr. Valente submitted, I believe, yesterday or the day before, he discussed, in passing almost, the hydrogeologist report, and basically said I'm copying and pasting my response from before. He didn't have that report before, and really it's almost a dismissive, not in a bad way, but a dismissive, we don't need to have it done. We've spoken to an engineer. The engineer, at the beginning of this process, said you need to find a hydrogeologist to do this, not an engineer. We found a hydrogeologist. He's presented a report. I believe even you folks have done or required a groundwater mounding analysis before. So, you know, to say we just don't need it, that may be true. We just don't know that we don't need it until we do it. So, with that, I'd like to ask Kirby to speak a little bit, because he can explain it a whole lot better than I can. KIRBY VAN VLEET MR. VAN VLEET-I'll try not to repeat myself from the previous meeting. Excuse my voice. I couldn't talk three days ago. So I'm doing pretty well, now, but basically the Homeowners Association is concerned with the elevated groundwater table, wet basements, wet crawl spaces and such, and the applicant has stated, they have done an elaborate stormwater and they've stated, you know, that generally mounding is more associated with subsurface septic infiltration type systems, but groundwater mounding is, also can occur with temporary stormwater discharges, especially in clay type soils, and in this situation we've got some test pits that show clay type soils at 32, 35 inches. We've got bedrock at 40 and 47 inches, and that's not a great depth for water to percolate in and dissipate. So I'm not saying there is going to be a groundwater mounding issue. I just feel it might be beneficial for the Planning Board to look at having the applicant do a groundwater mounding analysis, which would entail putting in a few piezometers in, measuring some hydraulic parameters at the groundwater table and then doing some calculations to determine, will this, the subsurface conditions take the water that's going to be introduced, and something else they might want to consider is what happens if this development is completed and then the Queensbury Baybridge community has worse problems than they have currently? I think you might want to consider some possible remediation methods. Did you have any questions? MR. KREBS-That's one of my questions is that the original purpose of the property behind it was to have a similar community as Baybridge, and would it make any difference if you make the apartments versus the homes up there? MR. VAN VLEET-Well, it would depend on where the stormwater is going to be dissipated. MR. KREBS-Because I could see with individual homes and individual driveways, less impervious area. MR. VAN VLEET-It could be the same problem. MR. KREBS-It could be the same problem. MR. HUNSINGER-1 guess my question is somewhat similar. The applicant has provided us a stormwater plan that demonstrates that all of the stormwater that will be captured on their project site will remain on their project site. So I guess I'm a little to hear you suggest (lost words). MR. VAN VLEET-Well, once the stormwater enters the ground, and encounters the water table, then you have potential for the groundwater to mound up, at some level, where it is restricted from infiltrating further, and then it can go laterally, and whether it goes laterally 10 feet or it goes laterally 100 feet, we don't really know, or whether it mounds at all, and we've done investigations at quite a few different subdivisions. Usually I'm sitting at this table for the developer, doing a groundwater mounding analysis and presenting it as to, you know, what the results are and if there's going to be or not going to be a potential impact. So that's fairly commonplace. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/10/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anyone else? Any other comments? MS. BUETTNER-Well, I wanted to actually, and Kirby made me remember it. At the last meeting there was some presentations made to you with respect to the water in the basements at Baybridge and how, you know, the reason for it and whose fault it was, and that was towards the end of the meeting, so that, obviously we know why those things were said on both sides, but I wanted the Board to be aware that the Homeowners Association mapped its perimeter drains. They've been working, they've been working with the Town on the water issue. They know where all the water on their property comes from. They've been working on those issues since at least, I think, 2003 at one point, and I think they mapped them in maybe 2007, not all the perimeter drains were mapped. They've been working on that. So, you know, I just wanted any intimations that were made, that, you know, they're not taking care of their property or they're not, I just wanted to clear that up for the record, and one other thing I would like to bring up. MR. KREBS-Karla, we all know, I mean, I have an individual home. If I don't clean my gutters properly, if I don't keep the downspouts cleaned out, I can have water problems around my home, just because I personally did not maintain my system. MS. BUETTNER-Sure, that's true, but the HOA maintains the systems. So I agree with you, but, yes. The other thing that we talked about, which has not been addressed before the Board and something that I did bring up with Mr. Borgos, there was a lot of discussion about, these were supposed to be single family homes, you know, these apartments. Apartments are a bad thing. Well, what about downsizers? Why can't we make this for downsizers? One of the things that we had requested of Mr. Borgos was, you know, maybe the interiors of some of these could be more suitable for downsizers, first floor master baths, walk- in showers. The ones with garages suited for those. That would, he would be able to get, likely, increased rent on those. Those tenants would likely stay, pay on time. It would be good for him and it would be good for the Queensbury/Baybridge area, which, although not a senior development, really has morphed into one. Right before the meeting, Mike came up to me and said, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, that there's about 48, 1 think, 48 of the units are already designed that way. Obviously we would ask for some more, if that's at all possible, because at worst it's going to give Mr. Valente more income because the rent is going to be higher, and maybe less problems with, you know, transiency. So that's one thing. The other thing, as you can tell, we're all here, we're here tonight, and they appreciate it. We do think that this project, while it's Code compliant, there are some things that we definitely can look at, you know, take your time and look at this. Obviously the Post Star is here. I think I saw Jaime was back there. This is something that, yes it seems to affect just our community, but obviously it's newsworthy and it goes to what is Queensbury looking to do in its planning, and get the most bang for its buck and do proper planning. So with that I'm going to be quiet now, because I'm sure you're done listening to me. I wasn't near the three minutes per person, right? MR. KREBS-No. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I just have one question. When you were talking about mounding so that if you're living in the houses you're not looking in the apartments, vice versa, were you talking Units 18, 19, 21, 23 and 25, is that what you're talking about? MS. BUETTNER-You mean the berm? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MS. BUETTNER-Yes, the ones, and I apologize if I don't have the actual numbers. Right along these areas, and right about here you have only, I think, 70 feet or so between them, and 70 feet is not. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, 21 is worse, 18 and 21. MR. KREBS-Well, 20 feet is more than, the average home is separated from the next home. MS. BUETTNER-I agree with that, but that doesn't mean that people want to look inside each other's windows, and you have the opportunity to say, you know, let's make it look nicer. MR. KREBS-I'm just saying that if you go to the City of Glens Falls, the space between most homes is like 30 feet, okay. If you get out here in Queensbury it gets a little bigger, but 70 feet is probably larger than the space between homes in the majority of subdivisions. MS. BUETTNER-And I would agree with you, but we're looking at a home and a two story apartment complex. So it's not really apples to apples, is what I'm saying. I'm just giving you options. We're here. It may not seem so, but we really are here to make this a good project. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/10/2013) MR. KREBS-And I think, too, we have to realize that, you know, in '05, had Mr. Valente come in to propose this, these probably would have been individual homes, but individual homes are not selling in today's marketplace. So if he's going to get occupancy in these locations, he has to have what people seem to want to buy today which is apartments, and lets take an example, again, in Downtown Glens Falls. You had the Mill. The Mill was completed. No one was buying the units. They put them up for rent. Within three months they had almost 100% occupancy. MS. BUETTNER-I would take a little, I would disagree a little bit with you, because I believe at the prior public hearing we had a realtor get up here and give you the data, and I believe it's in your packet, that single family homes, people are buying them now, but you said it. you said the word, people are buying apartments. It sounds good to me. You're not selling the apartments. MR. KREBS-Renting apartments. They're renting apartments. The Mill was rented. It was not sold. MS. BUETTNER-And I think they're different communities, but in any event, at this point we're not sitting here saying put single family homes in, although that would be wonderful and you would get 84 people here cheering Mr. Valente. MR. KREBS-Just to give you an example, though. I live in Hiland Park, okay. There are like six houses that have been for sale. They're all beautiful houses. Well maintained houses, in a beautiful neighborhood. Not one of them has sold in the last year and a half. MS. BUETTNER-And I guess, again, I don't know where that would be going, apples to apples, and I appreciate. MR. KREBS-I'm just saying that there is, definitely has been a shift to the rental market from the buying market which is, in my estimation, I don't understand because you can go get a three and a half percent mortgage today, which would seem to me to be a bargain to go buy a house and invest in it, but that's not where the market is. MS. BUETTNER-And we're not here saying, Mr. Valente, tear all these down and build single families. While we would like that, we're here saying we understand you're building apartments and you're allowed to build apartments and this is how we'd like to help be better neighbors because, at the end of the day, whether Mr. Valente continues to own these or sells them, you know, they're all going to have to live together. We've all been up on the lake when there's people fighting. Let's not do this. MR. KREBS-The only way he's going to be able to sell them is he's going to have to come back before the Board. MS. BUETTNER-No, I mean sell the project. I don't mean sell individual. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Was there anyone else that wanted to comment? Yes, sir. PAT NEELY MR. NEELY-My name is Pat Neely. I'm a resident over on Baybridge Drive. I didn't plan to speak here tonight, but just listening to things. I would just like to reiterate the concern for the traffic pattern, in terms of ingress and egress, and I don't need the pointer because you already have the arrow basically going right through my house, down in the corner. It has to do with the safety issues that I see with the present configuration of our mailboxes for the entire development, and my driveway fronts or backs directly across from the mailboxes, which serves the entire community, and I have to be extremely cognizant of backing out of my driveway. Not so much in the morning, but particularly when the mailman's there, because there's a number of residents who wait for the mailman. That's the highlight of the day. They drive in there and park to sometimes two, three cars on Baybridge Drive. So I have to be concerned there, five o'clock, six o'clock, the same thing, people coming home. There's usually two, three cars, sometimes at the same time, congregated and parked on Baybridge in front of the gazebo where our mailboxes are, and I would just say, I'm not speaking selfishly for myself, but I'm saying that if you opt for a drag strip from Bay Road to Cottage Hill, where you're proposing, or they're proposing it connects, I think you've set yourself up for accidents waiting to happen. Because particularly at this time of the year, it's dark there. There's always several cars at certain times of the day, particularly now in the dark five o'clock, and I'm not suggesting, well, maybe I am, but I'm not looking to dump all that traffic onto Baybridge neighbors on, what's the other road there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Walker Lane. MR. NEELY-Walker, yes, where they were before, but all I'm telling you is to take a look at the safety issues with the present configuration of our situation right now, and I don't think, or I don't know, if the Board's addressed the fact that we should have to move our mail delivery position to satisfy 100 and some (Queensbury Planning Board 01/10/2013) apartment buildings, but I just want you to be, I want to reiterate, which I think you've heard enough, the concern for accidents waiting to happen there. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. OLIVIA AMORISON MS. AMORISON-Hello. Olivia Amorison. I live on Gentry Lane in Queensbury. I just want to state my opinion. I wasn't planning on talking, but certain things are irritating me here. I walk a little dog on Gentry Lane every day. So, Number One, the quality of life and the trucks coming back and forth are going to frighten me and the dog, because it's already happened with workers and Town workers. Number Two, there's a home on Gentry Lane, on our side, that houses, I don't know what the correct terminology is, but they have some home, people residing there, and they have very young aides that come day and night. I can tell you right now, just like you can't get out on Bay Road from the Community College, because when that school lets out, you can't get through, these kids speed. The young people visiting this home, they speed. I've actually, out with the dog, gone and knocked on the door and asked them to please slow down. My opinion, and this is my life experience opinion, because I'm a retired law enforcement officer, and before I moved on in my career, I patrolled suburbs, suburbs and cities and things like that, and historically, historically there were always more problems with the rental units. Now I rented for years. My first home I purchased was here, but you're going to get a certain type of clientele, unless they are senior citizens, well concerned, but the young people it's a different thing. There are going to be noise complaints, traffic complaints, all kinds of issues, and if they find out that we the residents are objecting to their speeding, I can guarantee you as they're going by, there'll be garbage and cigarettes thrown out. I've seen it. I've worked it. It's nothing to do with apartment rentals except if it was senior citizens, I think we all, are quality of life would be better, and I just foresee, I think everybody here is looking through rosy glasses. I foresee many issues, many quality of life. I mean, there's going to be more ambulance calls, perhaps police calls, domestic disputes. Who knows what. It's a different type of living, and that's all I want to say. This is my own personal life experience statement. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MS. AMORISON-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Okay. If there's no one else, if the applicant wants to come back. I know we have a couple of written comments for the record. MR. BROWN-Do you want me to read them in? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, please. MR. BROWN-Okay. We have two letters, both received today. The first one from Cindy Edgerly and Bryan Durant. "As an interested party in the proposal for "Cottage Hill" townhouses by Legacy Land Holdings, LLC, I have attended both the Zoning and Planning Board meetings. This project has come up against a lot of opposition - at the Planning Board meeting on Dec. 20, 2012 a statement by one of the Board members brought up about the Board being there to make a decision on the project and not if they agree or disagree with the proposal, that you were there to decide by the plans of the Seeker and what the Seeker proposed to do-Well if that were the case than there would be no need for the Planning Board -All anyone would have to do is take proposals to the Town, Comply with the Codes and whatever is asked of you and it would be stamped and you would be on your way - But that is not the case, there is an open forum for the Public to speak their Concerns, whether those concerns be safety issues, issues about increased traffic patterns, environmental issues or moral issues in which this project touches on. In many ways this project is wrong for the Community, the people on Brown's Path, Country Club Road and Most of all those who reside in Baybridge, not only is safety an issue and the environmental wetlands an issue, there is the fact that the people in Baybridge put their trust and faith in the Valente's and now are being very mislead - it seems that if and when the people that bought their homes in Baybridge had been told that in the future there were plans to put in an apartment complex of 148 units that most of them would not have purchased the property or would have thought differently about the property- but when they bought it they were assured and even have in writing that the next phase would continue with the same style homes as they own. The residents of Baybridge are not opposed to the development of the land, they are opposed to what is proposed for the land, if Mr. Valente would reconsider his plans and continue the way the residents of Baybridge were led to believe there would be no problems. So I am saying to you as the Planning Board, maybe could use better judgment and morals in your decision because it appears that Legacy Land Holdings, LLC has not used good judgment or ethics, and you have to wonder if someone's word and integrity gets lost when it comes down to just making money - so as the Planning Board I hope you will consider this proposal long and hard and look at all the reasons the project is wrong, for the environment, the wetlands, and all the surrounding properties. Thank you for your time." The second one's from, again, received today from Attorney Brian Reichenbach, and this was actually, we were (Queensbury Planning Board 01/10/2013) copied, the Board was copied on this. This is a letter to Attorney Borgos. "Dear Mr. Borgos: I write to confirm our discussion regarding Cottage Hill project ("project") and specifically the measures that Mr. Valente has agreed to in an effort to protect my clients Andy and Cheryl Heinz's property at 38 Brown's Path. My understanding is that Mr. Valente has agreed to the following measures. The existing tree line between the project and my clients' property on 38 Brown's Path will not be disturbed. Mr. Heinz will post "No Trespassing" signs on his property facing the project. You have assured me that the lighting plan for the project is residential in nature and will not cause my clients' backyard to resemble a shopping mall parking lot. We assume the project lighting will conform to the requirements of Chapter 179, Article 6 of the Queensbury Town Code. Please advise if our assumption is incorrect. You have advised that Mr. Valente is adamantly opposed to creating access to the project from Country Club Road. We share Mr. Valente's opposition to such a condition. Finally, you have advised that trash containers will not be stored in the area next to my clients' property and will be screened or enclosed. Based on your assures, we withdraw our previously stated objections to the project. Thank you for your courtesies. Very truly yours, Brian S. Reichenbach" Those are the two that I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any comments or rebuttals based on the public comment or based on the letter that was just read? MR. BORGOS-Yes, indeed. I guess my basic reaction is change is hard. We've heard a lot over the meetings we've participated in with the residents, starting back last year. We had some outside the Town meetings with them to interface and try to develop something that was going to make the best of the situation, because we recognize going in that apartments, rental units as opposed to single families, was going to be a difficult thing because it hasn't been there. These residents have enjoyed a status that I've liked to a gated community, because it is really a dead end neighborhood, and it has largely been populated with senior citizens. It's a wonderful area to live. It has a great reputation in the community, and I'm sure if I lived there I would be upset about any change, too. However, this is somebody else's property. It is something that is Mr. Valente's right to develop, and he's doing some conformity with the Town ordinances. More importantly, and more to the points raised by Ms. Buettner, the planning that's gone on has been with a lot of due diligence. We've tried to extend an olive branch wherever possible, specifically with regards to the berm. That was a notion I think that we brought to them last summer, or at least discussed with them. I don't remember who originated the idea, but we've got a 20 foot setback, no disturb area on our side, and we've posited that instead of maintaining a lawn right up to the edge of their boundary line, if they matched that, we would all benefit from enhanced area. We talked about a lot of different things to try to collaborate on it, and much to our frustration, the responses we got were that the Association didn't want expend any funds or lose any their land towards this effort. Now we're not asking, and never were asking for any accommodations from the Association. We were merely trying to be good neighbors and continue towards that notion of good planning. Due diligence, good planning, giving a hard look, absorbing good suggestions and implementing them within the plan are all essential aspects of this process. The public comment period is meant to raise before the Board any of those suggestions that have not been previously addressed, and as we've done so tonight and will continue to do so with some additional comments from Mr. Jarrett, we think we've addressed all of those, given it that required hard look, and presented the information to the Board, allowed for the imposition of questions to address and fully develop the record. So there's no rush to judgment, no haste in making these decisions that will be, you know, impactful upon the community. I heard from the gentleman, and I'm sorry, I didn't get his name, who commented that he lives across from the mailboxes, and I thought it very telling that his comments indicated that they have existing problems. He has to be very cautious backing out as it is now, prior to any development of Cottage Hill, and I think that's highly significant because we're not creating that problem. It may very well be that this neighborhood that's existed for 20 years and has gotten along just fine needs to take a hard look at its infrastructure and maybe some re-development or re-working is in order. Perhaps there needs to be some parking created next to those mailboxes if they don't want to re- locate them to another area. Maybe some parking to allow for residents to stop on their way to and from their homes would be a safer place, rather than walking along that road, if that's a concern. There are things that are outside of this development that Mr. Valente can't control. There may be a Town issue. There may be a Homeowners Association issue. It may be a collaborative issue. The stop sign, the four way stop that we've addressed, is one of those. We're fully supportive of trying to slow traffic comment. We're prepared to institute a 15 mile per hour speed limit within our boundaries to try to keep traffic flowing, act as a reminder to the residents that this is neighborhood, and we don't want a lot of high speed traffic. The number of units that are designed to attract folks who are interested in single level living is significant, over a third, 48 of the 148 units are designed that way. We're very desirous of having senior residents, but, you know, that's a large percentage of the total. I mean, if you are looking at it from a business perspective, it doesn't make good business sense to make 100% that way. You've got to have something reflective of your community, and certainly in this community we have something more than 100% seniors. You've got to look at the balance, and that's really something that's outside the purview of this Board or the neighbors in looking at a project, but Mr. Valente's taken the thoughtful suggestions and tried to be as accommodating as possible, and he certainly is looking for seniors and would welcome downsizers as has been referred to into the community, but there's no guarantee that if he builds more that they'll be filled. Nobody's going to stand there and guarantee that that will be done. So that's your (Queensbury Planning Board 01/10/2013) judgment call to make. Much as, you know, we got a little bit sidetracked, I think, through some of comments. We've discussed it at prior meetings, and I'm not going to dwell on it now, but whether or not these are rentals versus individually sold was a decision Mr. Valente had to make at the beginning of this planning. He made the decision. It was his right to make, and that's the end of it. It's properly zoned for it. That's what the Town Board has indicated already. He hasn't had to seek any variances for it. That's what's allowed and that's what can be built. There are already rentals within the Baybridge Association. A lot of the original sales went to people who never lived there and were renting. There continues to be rentals within the community. Across Walker Lane there's rentals. Up and down Bay Road there's rentals, across the street. It's not a change in the neighborhood per se, but within this isolated little small community we recognize there's significant change and we want to be cognizant of that and not demean it in any way. Obviously they've asked for, the developer, to follow the path of least resistance. That would be to bend to the will of the neighbors and to modify accordingly, but that's a slippery slope, because as you go down and allow the neighbors to design a project, then you're heading towards that mob rule, and we're getting away from the rule of law, the rule of law set forth in the Town Code, and that's what we're asking this Board to follow and to take a look at. There've also been a lot of what I would refer to as amateur opinions, not licensed professional engineers who have a little bit of what I would refer to as paranoia about what might happen. We don't really know what's going to happen. We have projections, but again, going back to the rule of law, we look at those with the proper education, experience and credentials to offer their expert opinions on things. So the applicant as retained the services of a licensed professional engineer and others, including our traffic engineer here with us tonight, to offer those most credible opinions for the Board to consider and evaluate, and I would offer that the Board consider and weight those opinions more so than the others that have been offered. It's important to hear those issues and have those issues raised, but if a determination is to be made, I think it has to be made based upon the strength of a credentialed opinion. The other analogous comment from the woman who walks her dog on Gentry Lane currently, I think points out that she already has existing issues walking on the road. She mentioned that she's already been frightened by the Town workers and other drivers coming and going on the roadway. The very nature of walking along a roadway that has motor vehicles creates those type of hazards. Certainly additional traffic's going to increase the number of potential interactions, although I think we've indicated that if it is a population that is working, those will be confined to commuting hours more so than throughout the day. There can be strategies developed to work around that with routines of (lost word) the walks. We'll work, again, it's something that the Town and the Homeowners Association could work on together towards implementing some other type of recreational opportunities for that activity. I think Mr. Jarrett has some comments with regard to some of the engineering issues that were raised. MR. JARRETT-Thank you, Mike. Not to be flip, but Karla brought up the need for good planning and frankly I'm a little bit biased, but I think we did put an exceptional effort into this project and I think we have provided good planning. Certainly the neighbors disagree with us on some avenues, but we feel we've done a yeoman's job in trying to plan this project and design it to the least impact of not only the neighbors but also the residents of this project. Traffic issues were certainly issued again, and including the road configuration. I strongly feel that the configuration we show is the best configuration. I can let Ken address that further with you if you wish, but I support what we have on paper. We've looked at it numerous times, and I don't feel that any other configurations are going to superior to this. As far as impacts on walkers and people walking to the mailboxes, Mike mentioned that there is diversity of traffic here. There's a peak flow of traffic during the commuting hour that may occur during, from our project, the proposed project, especially if it's renters, and there's a peak hour for traffic or peak hours for traffic hours for traffic from the existing residents in Baybridge, which I think are not concurrent. I think they're offset. So I think they will be synergistically complimentary, if I can use that phrase. The buffer that Mike brought up, we are leaving a buffer along our property line. In fact you'll notice the entire perimeter of our project is significantly green. We left a buffer around the entire project. We've left a tremendous amount of green, almost 80% of green, I believe, and we're leaving as much as we can as it borders Baybridge. We actually did reach out to them as Mike alluded to. We reached out to them to try to double that buffer. If they would set aside a vegetative buffer on their property it would be a much more effective buffer for both sets of residents. They were reluctant to go that step. Regarding groundwater, Mr. VanVleet reported to you that there's a possibility of mounding here, and I will apologize if I did not see his latest report, but I think the report that was presented we did see and we did comment on it before at a letter in December. He's really reporting on the potential for mounding and he's not concluding that there absolutely will be mounding, and I'll go back to the comments that I made to this Board in writing and orally that two of the major concerns with mounding are when you introduce new water to a project site or if you concentrate runoff, stormwater runoff, in one or more areas on a large site. We've done exactly the opposite. Our stormwater system is designed to spread water out over the entire project area, mimicking nature. The way to avoid mounding is to spread the water over the entire project site, the way nature precipitates it. We've done as close to that as we can. We have numerous ponds, and they're shallow. They're six inches to twelve inches deep typically, throughout the project site. The old school way of designing stormwater would have been to put a big pond down at the bottom here or ponds here at the boundary, at the low sides of the project. We didn't do that. We have ponds and shallow infiltration areas and shallow vegetated swales throughout the entire project site. So I think the potential for mounding is minimal. I feel it's not a concern. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/10/2013) MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I learned something today. The two to one ratio, when you start moving wetlands around, not that we're actually moving the wetlands, but, you know, creating something, you're creating more areas for water to disperse than what is existing now on the lot. MR. JARRETT-Well, yes, that starts to get into a lot of complicated issues, but we're actually mimicking that by building these shallow pools throughout the property, and some of them, they won't become wetlands, in our opinion, they will disperse water throughout the property. MR. MAGOWAN-Maybe I shouldn't have said wetlands, but what mounding that might occur now, you know, that we don't see because it's mainly fields and that, are you creating more areas for, you know, for you stormwater system? MR. JARRETT-No, actually, in fact really these wetlands here around the perimeter, especially on the low end of the site, are the result of groundwater mounding. That's what a wetland often is is a groundwater mound, and we are avoiding those, except for this one little crossing, which is about 500 square feet, does not require mitigation because it's under a tenth of an acre. The rest of the site does not experience that same mounding. It is not a wetland. So, and we're mimicking those natural conditions by keeping the water spread out over the entire site. We're really mimicking nature which is what the State and the Federal government, the EPA and the DEC are trying to push stormwater design towards. MR. HUNSINGER-And where you're crossing the wetland, you're providing opportunity for flow across the road. MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Because we've heard from a number of developers that a lot of the water issues along Quaker Road are from the construction of Quaker Road, where it basically dammed up. MR. JARRETT-Right, exactly, it created a (lost word) behind the culverts. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. JARRETT-In fact the current standard for building those crossings is a bottomless culvert. So that it mimics nature, natural conditions as best you can, and that's what we're providing. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did that answer your question, Brad? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I'm sorry. You were in the middle of comments. MR. JARRETT-Yes, I was talking about groundwater and mounding, and I appreciated Mr. VanVleet's comments. I appreciated his input because he's a well-respected member of the technical community, and I don't really disagree with him, but I don't think that the potential is really significant in this project. Beyond that, I think Mike can address the issues that I had. MR. BORGOS-I would like to have Ken Wersted come up and just put on the record his opinion with regard to those two traffic issues we've already indicated we had an opinion on. KEN WERSTED MR. WERSTED-Hi. Ken Wersted with Creighton Manning Engineering. I heard a lot of good points tonight come up on both sides of the issue, and I think the biggest thing is looking at the traffic in the context of, you know, what's going to change and what the development is. There's certainly going to be change. You've got a certain amount of units here that are existing and building in the Cottage Hill development, you're going to have more traffic and I don't think there's any doubt in that, but if you were to look at the site in a larger picture, and if you were going to develop the Baybridge Drive neighborhood and you were also going to build the Cottage Hill neighborhood as kind of one project, you wouldn't really change much in terms of how you would treat Baybridge Drive and Gentry Lane. You would still have the same type of intersections. They would be unsignalized , you know, stop signs on the minor approaches. You would still have your mailbox out at the edge of the road, and it would be much like any other development, you know, either in the Town of Queensbury, Half Moon, Clifton Park, and from my personal experience, I spent my teens in Clifton Knolls in one of the VanPatten neighborhoods, and coming from California this was a huge neighborhood. I'd never gone to a school where you had six schools all in one campus, you know, and elementary and stuff. So it was a unique experience for me, and in that you have hundreds and hundreds of homes, and they all come out to, you know, they're not even any stop signs, but (Queensbury Planning Board 01/10/2013) you come out to tee intersections, and as you get closer to your major roads that connect to your collector roads like Bay Road, you start to have more traffic from the neighborhood concentrating at those locations, and you still have stop signs at those entrances, and from my experience, I had a paper route, I road my bike to the pool. We rode all throughout the neighborhood, and we never had any issues with people from the neighborhood. So I think that you're going to have a similar case here where there's certainly going to be a change from what residents are used to right now, you know, walking on Gentry Lane and Baybridge Drive, and when the new neighborhood comes in, there's going to be more traffic, but it's not going to be of a level where you require special treatments within, you know, that community. So I'm sure there's a number of examples, you know, in the Town that you can go to and sit there for a while and watch how much traffic comes and goes. When you look at the amount of volume, this meeting here is probably going to generate a higher concentration of traffic as we exit the parking lot in five to fifteen minutes than this project will, namely because of the way that people will travel to work. It's much more spread out. At this meeting, we're all going to leave about the same time, but in a neighborhood, everyone doesn't go to work right at the same time. It's spread out, you know, o over the course of typically hours, and for the residents who are in the Baybridge neighborhood, they're going to find that if it's a working class resident and Cottage Hill, that they're going to see a higher concentration of traffic between seven o'clock and nine o'clock in the morning when people are commuting to work, and then it's going to be quite quiet, you know, throughout the middle of the day, and then in the afternoon you're going to have those commuters coming back home between four and six o'clock and see another peak, obviously, in the traffic, just as the gentleman spoke about people coming home and going to the mailbox, you know, in the evening. The mailbox was an interesting comment because I have looked at a number of other residential developments, particularly down in Orange County, and in a similar situation they have created basically small storage areas. They will have the mailboxes facing into a small little, I don't even know what to call it,just kind of a little loop road and that's something that the existing development might want to consider is if, you know, if you took an area like right here, and just created a little driveway from one end to the other, you could queue up a few cars and have the mailboxes in there facing in, and that would provide a refuge area for people to wait. MR. KREBS-Or at the other end of the loop. MR. WERSTED-Certainly you could do it, you know, down here, or you could do it in here. MR. MAGOWAN-It's a grassed area anyway. So even if you created where you could actually drive off and they could park and congregate, because I know a lot of people like to look forward to their mail, just like I like the paper in the morning, and it was late the other day. My neighbor thought I must have been crazy because I kept going out there thinking it was there, and it wasn't, but that's an option, because I was going to ask you is, what's your plan for mail in your development? MR. VALENTE-Well, that's a discussion you usually have to have with the mail carrier, the postal service. They will kind of dictate to us what they want, whether they want individuals or whether they want a one collector area. So, I mean, we have an area down, just through that wetlands where we would have room to create a, you know, a collector. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So now that brings up another point, then, that's why I'm trying to stop you, because we're on the mail, but that's going to drive traffic one direction, now, and I can pretty much guarantee what the post office is, you know, not that I'm going to speak for them, but what I've seen in the past with the other projects, with Richie and the other apartments, is that they like the cluster, and I've done it in businesses now. They like to cluster, you know, the post office is cutting back the carriers. So they want one stop. So this would be something that I think we need to address because that is going to be a concern, especially if they're coming home, they're going to want to hit that mailbox on the way. MR. VALENTE-Well there might be multiple areas of smaller collectors. MR. MAGOWAN-Like you said, you've got to wait for the post master, and that could take months. I've been through it and I know what you're saying, but that is something that we have to definitely be aware of. MR. VALENTE-Well, I think it's important that Ken tried to give you an idea, I mean, of what these roads are capable of carrying, in relation to the amount of units that we're proposing, you know. I think you put in your letter a general scale of what those roads will really carry. MR. WERSTED-One of the things I've spoken about in the letter was the order of magnitude that these intersections are capable of in terms of traffic. The scale of the project itself really doesn't require any special treatments at the intersections. It's going to be a stop sign, you know, etc. So one of the things that I did was I started loading up the intersection with traffic, and I just kept on putting more and more traffic in there, and I got to a point where you started to see some increase in delays. It was still not going to be much. It was going to be 15 seconds if you were on a stop sign approach, and if you weren't, you know, you're free to go, and I took that number of vehicles and I translated it into how many residential (Queensbury Planning Board 01/10/2013) units that would be, and a simple two stop sign intersection could handle anywhere from 700 single family homes up to 1600 condominiums and apartments. So it's quite a substantial size in development before you start to see any change at an intersection in terms of a traffic basis. The best example I think around here is the Global Foundries site. That site has roundabouts on the interior. So that site was designed to have some type of traffic control at those interior intersections in anticipation that that was going to be built out, but on the scale of, you know, most residential developments, it's just not to that magnitude. MR. BORGOS-And could you address the hump we spoke about on the one end, and the four way stop at the other? MR. WERSTED-Yes. MR. KREBS-Before he goes into that, could we just take a look at what's happened locally? I mean, I travel on Meadowbrook Road frequently, and I never have a traffic problem and there's a major apartment complex on the right hand side. There's a large complex, which is part condo/part apartments, on the left hand side. Farther down the road there's a small apartment complex on the left side of the road, and I don't ever remember being held up any significant amount of time driving, and there's another apartment complex right over here, you know, across Bay Road behind the bank, etc., and I don't see any traffic problems with the egress from them. I mean, do you people see it? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, Don, obviously you don't go when the bus is down there picking up the kids. MR. KREBS-When you're retired, you don't have to do that. MR. MAGOWAN-That's right. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think what you're describing is what the engineer has just stipulated. MR. WERSTED-And that's where you have a lot of small developments or, you know, medium sized or spread out, and interior to themselves they don't necessarily have traffic issues, but when they all start to accumulate and you start to get onto Bay Road and head south, that's where your volume becomes more concentrated, your infrastructure, you know, the roads, the number of lanes, the signals, etc., start to become more important and more critical to a successful transportation system. In relation to the all-way stop, right now you've got a single stop sign on the Dorlon Drive approach, and Baybridge and this side of Baybridge doesn't have anything, and a stop sign on the southbound approach here is proposed. So you kind of have an odd two stops perpendicular to each other without any control on the other approaches. So, as we were discussing, that's something that is odd, and I think it should be proposed that it be addressed essentially. The other item of the speed hump, there is, we had discussed speed bumps and those are often most applicable in a shopping center or some really low speed area. The issue with them is that when you start to put them in residential neighborhoods, whether you live right next to it or you live a mile down the street, what you find is you tend to slow down to five miles an hour, you hit the two bumps to go over them, and then you hit the accelerator to get back up to speed. So there is a very significant speed reduction, but it's localized to right where that little bump is and it tends to have little effect, you know, in between those locations. So the Town of, or the Village of Colonie has installed a number of these speed humps because they have some residential roads that connect between two major collector roads, and most people tend to slow down from, you know 30, 20 miles an hour to 15, they go over it. It's a much smoother transition, and it tends to have more effect in between the speed humps than, you know, a speed bump, you know, would. So I think that would go along the lines of potentially affecting the traffic over here on Gentry Lane as they come around this turn here, and then also come down this lane, and another effect of the actual geometry is just the alignment of the road. You would find at the extension of Baybridge Drive through the office area, if that was a straight shot through there, you'd have people coming through there much quicker than the nice serpent like curve section through there. So all those things kind of come into play in terms of how, what psychological effect that has on traffic. I think that covered the points you'd talked about. MR. FERONE-I have a question. There's an item in here in your letter. It says 148 units of Cottage Hill development is only expected to generate 70 to 85 trips in the morning and afternoon peak hours. Now with 148 units, you've got to figure at least a car per unit, maybe two. That number seems to be really low, and, again, you might be making that statement based on some other analysis I'm not getting out of that. MR. WERSTED-Yes. With the lack of other studies, that would be the logical approach. You would look at how many units you have, what the population might be, and kind of look at how many cars and where they would go and how they would leave, but the Institute of Traffic Engineers have collected a lot of data on these types of land uses and they've gone out to apartment complexes and condominiums and single family homes. They've counted up the number of units and they've counted how many cars come and go, you know, during different time periods, and what they found is for the, you know, 70 to 100 studies that they've collected that units of these type don't generate one or two cars in a single hour per unit, as you (Queensbury Planning Board 01/10/2013) might logically think so, but it's actually much less than that, and there's a couple of reasons. When you start to look at the population, you can't say that all of them are all going to have a job that they need to drive to from seven to eight o'clock. Some of those people might be retired. They might be, they might just stay at home, a spouse might stay at home. They may have part-time jobs or work different hours. A driver who might work farther away might leave earlier in the morning and come home later. Somebody who lives really close might leave much later in the morning. So there's a number of different things, different variables that come into play that it's hard to define specifically so when they look at how many units are in a complex and how much traffic actually generated, those things become taken into account. So that's why the 148 units are expected to only generate between, you know, 75 and 85 trips. MR. FERONE-Well, that helps me because I kind of perceive that there's a concern, not so much on traffic in terms of stop sign or the need for a light, but actual volume that's going through there, and you get a sense from the number 148 that you think there's going to be 148 cars out there all at the same time. MR. WERSTED-Right, so in those peak hours, and just for the public's information, traffic will vary throughout the day. Just as you can go out onto Bay Road right now and, you know, there's little traffic, whereas you go out there at seven, eight o'clock in the morning and four or five o'clock in the afternoon, there's a lot of traffic. If you look at those trends of traffic throughout the day we concentrate on to those queue times, and that happens to be when commuters are going back and forth. So when we do our analysis, we don't really care what's happening there at nine o'clock at night or four o'clock in the morning because it's really not a concern. So we look at those peak times, you know, generally between seven and nine in the morning and four to six in the afternoon, and we do our analysis based on those. So the numbers of vehicles coming and going, you know, which I noted, you start to look at that 70 to 85 trips, and as Tom had pointed out, some of that is going to come down Baybridge Drive near Dorlon Drive, some of it's going to come out Gentry Lane. Some of that traffic is actually entering, most of it in the morning is going to be exiting. So when you start to take those things into account, you're probably going to have only one car drive by a particular person's house, maybe once every two minutes in that peak hour. So there's, you'll certainly see an increase in traffic, but it won't be to a level where, you know if you're comfortable you, you know, will be able to walk along the road. You can go to the mailbox, etc., but if you find that becomes uncomfortable, then you may, you know, shift your schedule around and do those activities when there happens to be less traffic. MR. FERONE-Now have you talked to like the Queensbury Schools in terms of if there are families with young children, do they have to go all the way down to Bay to be picked up, or do you think the school buses will be coming inside the development? MR. VALENTE-Again, that's, just like the postal service, this is something we're going to have to address with the School. I noticed actually today, as I was heading home to get ready for the meeting, I noticed the bus coming down Baybridge Drive and turning onto Bay Road taking a right. So they were looping through up Walker Lane, across Baybridge Drive and then back down, which I would expect that they would probably eventually start to do, which I think will help this situation out on the end of Walker Lane where everybody's parking. They would probably make a stop at the, you know, halfway up Walker Lane, pick up kids there, then probably come in to that four, hopefully that four way stop intersection and make a pick up there and then progress down, but it is something we're going to have to talk about. I don't have the, you know. MR. FERONE-You don't have the answers. MR. VALENTE-At this point. MR. SC HON EWOLF-It'll change every year based on where the kids live. I mean, they change it every year. Right now we haven't got hardly any. MR. VALENTE-But I think it would help the situation that's there now. I really do. I think we're solving some of the problem (lost words) creating more, but, you know, this is part of that, you know, we've heard good planning, good planning. This has been in the works for five or six years, since the inception of Fairfield Professional Park. The design of that road to keep traffic slow, the connection of that road, it was intentionally done with the vision to eventually develop the back at this point. So there's so many things that have gone into this, and a lot of time and effort has gone into this. This is nothing we've been just throwing out there. We've been at it here for the better part of a year or more, and I think we've (lost words). MR. MAGOWAN-And we thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the questions that I have is the last, I think it was the last commenter, talked about, for lack of a better term, quality of life issues, and I think they really kind of relate back to the use of the units that are being proposed. So I just kind of wanted to ask the question, you know, how can you (Queensbury Planning Board 01/10/2013) begin to address some of those concerns in terms of the management of the units, the tent selection and some of those kinds of things, if there are some, you know, maybe some specific things that you do that are different than, you know, another landlord or, you know, different than another developer or something like that, that would help alleviate some of those concerns. MR. BORGOS-That's always a concern whenever you propose a new apartment complex, but the developer, the landlord, the management has to be very careful as to not be unique, but to really be the industry standard when it comes to making internal rules about garbage disposal, curfews, noise, etc., and they also have to be very careful about not discriminating against anybody, in terms of who they rent to. So I know that management is going to be cognizant of all of that and seek legal counsel in terms of generating those more standardized roles. So I think the best way that we could respond to that question would be to say we're going to do everything in our power to comply with what the industry standard is, and certainly as we've addressed earlier with the request from the Association to try to have as many units as possible being geared to be attractive towards seniors or downsizers. We've try to do that, and the first floor suite, the attached garage is going to be attractive for those reasons. The other side of it, where the management has a role to play, is in the pricing. Generally speaking, more expensive rent is going to skew the tenants to an older age. So, you know, those are things that are part and parcel of this, and again, we've talked about this in past meetings, and I know that the Association acknowledged that Dan has done a very nice job with his buildings. He's got a great reputation for the quality of his buildings, and quality buildings cost more than cheaper construction, and if you're going to pay and amortize the expense, you're going to have a higher rent. So while we can't commit to a specific dollar amount, it's not a completed project, it's impossible to do that, they will generally be along those lines where we're seeking the higher rent where we have more of a tenant pool that is more able to pay it either through continued employment or through a continuation of wealth maybe acquired from the downsizing from a larger home. Those are all things that are more nebulous and difficult to pin down right now, but those are certainly part of our thinking. MR. DEEB-Well, along those lines, how do you feel about the 48 unit design for seniors downsizing? What's your reaction to, how do you feel about adding more of those units? MR. BORGOS-I'll let Dan answer, but what I had mentioned before was percentagewise, a third of them is a little bit more than what I think the local population is for seniors, percentagewise across our population. So we think that that is an abundance of availability. I've been involved in projects in other communities over the past decade where that's a high percentage, and I also know that there's a lot of other developments where they've tried to do all senior. It's harder to fill those, and again, with the building construction and the layout, it's also hard to construction 100%, and that's one of the impediments to doing more in this case. MR. DEEB-Well, not necessarily 100°/x, but would there be any room for increasing the percentage somewhat? MR. VALENTE-Well, prior to getting into the design of this, we look at the ratios of two bedroom versus three bedroom. The end units are three bedrooms. Renters generally, or the rent that, you know, more people are going for a two bedroom unit than a three bedroom, and again, that would again increase possible, you know, the amount of people within the community also. There's multiple things that I take into consideration. I think I have the right mix as far as two bedroom, three bedrooms, as far as how they rent out generally. From the feedback I get, I've worked with a lot of apartment builders throughout the entire Northeast. Ideally as a landlord you'd love to have one person in each unit, you know, that's it. So, you know, the reality it isn't going to happen, but not necessarily going to be all seniors in the three bedroom units, you know. It might be a middle aged woman with a couple of kids, you know, I don't know. MR. DEEB-Four, five kids, which you'd have to be careful of. MR. MAGOWAN-You don't have any available units right now. MR. VALENTE-It's a little scary out there. I mean, you drive up Bay Road and you see people looking for roommates in their homes. So that gives you the idea of what's going on in our, you know, society right now, and I've heard a lot of that, especially down in Florida, where they're renting out houses to three and four different people, each is renting a room because, you know, they can't afford to get into these buildings. It's just part of our society right now, but I think we have the right mix, you know, I'm comfortable with what I have. Obviously there's a significant investment to put this project together. Sure haven't taken this lightly in any way. I've done some homework on it. MR. DEEB-Thank you. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/10/2013) MR. FERONE-Mr. Valente, so if I look at your project and you have your building starting Number One, Two, Three, Four. Is that how the project's going to start, those will be the first ones going up and then you're going to work your way around? MR. VALENTE-We're generally going to start at the Gentry Lane end and work uphill from there, through this. MR. FERONE-Start to finish? MR. VALE NTE-Ideally, if they rent out like we'd like, probably a two year timetable, from time of start to finish it. MR. FERONE-And going back to the earlier conversation, based on what you're seeing as you're building these, if you saw more seniors coming forward, do you have the option of maybe modifying your model? MR. VALENTE-Absolutely. Absolutely, and even the floor plans that we propose here are preliminary floor plans. It doesn't mean I can't put a bedroom on the first floor that two bedroom inner unit. Again, it's baby steps as we're progressing through this thing. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Did you say you were going to be doing garbage, too? MR. VALENTE-We'll probably have a central garbage location. That way everybody can bring it to one spot. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that's the, it's labeled maintenance garbage. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's the way to do it. MR. KREBS-Brad, has Rich mentioned, when I go by I don't ever see police or activities at any of the apartment complexes, but has he mentioned the fact that there's difficulty with people? MR. MAGOWAN-No. I did work with Richie, being my brother-in-law, 18 years, and, you know, it was maintenance and, you know, really, like Dan said, you build a product and your price is up there high, you're going to attract a higher end people. You have, he has, you know, probably like a 10 page lease that basically says, a lawyer will say, do not sign that, he owns you, and he doesn't mess around, boom, boom, boom, this is the way it goes. It's really, you know, an occasional be a nuisance call maybe loud music, you know, something like that. MR. KREBS-But you have those occasionally in residential. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I think more in the residentials. MR. VALENTE-I was going to say, I lived on Country Club for years, and, you know, most of the homes there I would consider a higher end home, and we had people blaring music at, you know, all hours of the night during times of the year. So it doesn't matter, you know, you're going to get it anywhere. MR. MAGOWAN-But, yes, overall police reports and that, no, nothing. MR. KREBS-That was a personal observation. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean, I've been working in the units, and like I said, your report is absolutely right. I grew up on Casablanca Court in Clifton Knolls, right off of Barney Road, so back in, we moved there in '66 I think it was. So I've watched that blossom. Now I drive through there and, you know, what used to be fields is either a store and the like. So I know, I can see your study and where you're coming from. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any other questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, the only one I really would bring up is really the mailbox location with that many units, you know, knowing more, and I know the post master, you can't pin him down, but at least get a feel from him of what they'd like to see, you know, because the location of that, and I have fought in the past, I don't think that's a good idea right there, you know. They were thinking easy for the postman, but safety wise, I don't think it, and I told him, and we've gone back and forth, but if you can get a general idea of what you think they'd like, you know, two locations or one central location. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/10/2013) MR. JARRETT-We're certainly going to advocate more than one location, for the residents and the (lost words). MR. MAGOWAN-Well, that's the only thing is going for the two to split that traffic. MR. HUNSINGER-Are members comfortable moving forward with SEAR if there's no other questions? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to make a motion to close the public hearing? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'll make a motion. RESOLUTION CLOSING PUBLIC HEARING RE: SP 59-2012 FWW 4-2012 LEGACY LAND MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING SITE PLAN NO. 59-2012 FWW 4-2012 LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS, LLC, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 10th day of January, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sipp MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It's a Long Form. The applicant has submitted a revised SEAR from the prior meeting. Everybody ready? MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I checked yes. One of the items is construction will continue for more than one year, and I think you said you expected it to take 18 months. So small to moderate impact. MR. KREBS-Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site (i.e. cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? I would say yes, but mitigated by the design. MR. HUNSINGER-Which item would you say yes to? MR. JARRETT-May I jump in here? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you may. MR. KREBS-Sure. MR. JARRETT-You will note that we're going to be connecting to the Queensbury wastewater system. So we're not discharging wastewater to groundwater. We are discharging stormwater. So there is some impact there. We're not adding any quantity of water. MR. HUNSINGER-Which I was why I had checked I thought it was a no answer, but that's why I asked if there was a specific item you thought applied. MR. JARRETT-Well certainly you could acknowledge a slight change in groundwater quality because, let's face it, people do impact water quality, but I don't think it's undue, in my opinion. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/10/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-So we'll say yes, change in groundwater. MR. JARRETT-Residential development, any development, commercial development does change water quality. MR. HUNSINGER-Which is mitigated by the project design. MR. BROWN-And also you require a discharge permit, right? You're going to need a SPDES permit? MR. JARRETT-Correct. MR. KREBS-And that impact is small to moderate. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, then can you also say small to moderate on, or is that the same thing as the proposed action will adversely affect the groundwater? Is that the? MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-And that we have to get a discharge permit, too? MR. JARRETT-Yes, stormwater SPDES permit, yes. Not the original intent of the SEAR form when they wrote this, but that's. MR. HUNSINGER-See, I thought that applied more to Item Six which is the next question. MR. JARRETT-Item Six, well he's reading the first bullet, and when this form was first developed, we didn't have those SPDES discharge stormwater discharges. We had SPDES wastewater discharges. We do need a DEC SPDES permit. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MR. HUNSINGER-I thought yes. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-It's a small to moderate impact and, I mean, that's really the whole purpose of the stormwater design. MR. JARRETT-I'm going to disagree. We've gone to great lengths to make sure we didn't change the flow patterns and surface water runoff. That's the whole intent of stormwater design, much more effective than it was years ago. Now you could say, yes, there's a slight change, but the intent of the design is to mimic natural conditions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, the answer is that the intent of the design is to. MR. JARRETT-I'm qualifying it slightly. Maybe I'm being paranoid. MR. HUNSINGER-We have been advised by our counsel to err on the side of caution. So if we think it should say, we should say yes, and then explain our reason for why we said it's a yes. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/10/2013) MR. KREBS-No. Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to Subdivision 6NYCRR617.14? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Existing transportation systems? There are no transportation systems. No. MR. JARRETT-I think you have to say yes. The existing traffic, the existing road network. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you're changing the local road. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is that what you consider it? MR. JARRETT-You've considered it at great length over several meetings. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, but I didn't know that it came under that category. I thought it came under another one. That's okay. MR. KREBS-Okay. It'll be a small to moderate. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It only affects the existing neighborhood. MR. KREBS-Yes. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FERONE-No. MR. KREBS-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. HUNSINGER-I think we need to say yes here. MR. JARRETT-It sounds like you had help from the background. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, just for the benefit of the applicant, I like to try to do these at home before I come in so that I'm prepared, and I had checked no, but then I circled that the proposed action would cause a change in the density of land use because the land's currently undeveloped. So I think we have to say yes. It's a small to moderate impact, which can be mitigated by project change. I don't know if there's any other impacts to the, that we want to identify under this item as well. I mean, certainly the other bullets that are provided don't really apply. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They don't apply. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/10/2013) MR. KREBS-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think we need to say yes on that. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Before we make a motion for SEAR, we have a few yeses. Are there any that we didn't fully elaborate upon? Or are there any actions that we have identified as potentially large impact? MR. KREBS-I don't know, when we say is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts, I don't know that there are any adverse environmental impacts. There's controversy to change. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Noise. MR. KREBS-Yes, but there's levels of noise. You can have, you know, you may be making too much noise when you're talking to your friends out on your back porch, okay. That's noise also. I mean, we can't be ridiculous about it. All right. When I grew up Bay Road had seven farms on it from Quaker Road out, all right. So all of you people have added to the noise in that environment, okay. I mean, I'm not trying to be nasty about it, but you can't have some progress without having some change. I don't know how you do it. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think we need to answer yes to 20, and then I think. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You need to qualify it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'd just say it's small to moderate. That's what it is, when you compare it against (lost words). MR. MAGOWAN-You really have to. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess, again, the question is are there any impacts that we said yes to that we identified as potentially a large impact or were there any that we could not determine the magnitude of that impact? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, I don't remember any. MR. KREBS-I don't believe so. MR. BROWN-Just for clarification, because this has to be signed, are you keeping that one or am I keeping that one or is somebody filling it out as we go? MR. HUNSINGER-We thought it was on the tape, on the record. MR. BROWN-Okay. Well,just to clarify Number One. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I did mark mine. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-But I didn't mark them with the intention of having (lost words). MR. BROWN-No, that's fine, I'll use this one, but Number One you have a yes, and the two items you picked are construction on land where the depth to water table is less than three feet and construction will continue more than a year? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and then we answered yes to Number Five. MR. BROWN-Number Five, and that was proposed action will require discharge permit and there's another one? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the potential for change in groundwater quality. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/10/2013) MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Which was the question. We answered yes to Item Six, regarding drainage flow or patterns, and we said that was a small to moderate and that stormwater design, the stormwater is designed to mimic the natural flow. Then the next one was transportation, Item 15. We said that the alteration was a change in the local road network, and then Item 19, proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. MR. BROWN-I'm sorry, what was the one before that? MR. HUNSINGER-Fifteen, transportation. MR. BROWN-Altering the present patterns. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And then we said yes to Item 20, and so then the next question is if there's any action that's identified as potentially large or if there's any action that we cannot determine the magnitude, then we're to proceed to Part III, but what I'm hearing from the Board is that they don't feel that there's any impacts that are identified that are either potentially large or we could not determine the magnitude. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. MR. HUNSINGER-1 just wanted to make sure we went through all the yes answers before we did, considered a resolution. So if you want to make the resolution now for a Negative. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'll make a motion for a Negative Dec, if that's what you want, want it stated that way. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 59-2012 FWW 4-2012, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS, LLC, 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 10th day of, January, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE (Queensbury Planning Board 01/10/2013) ABSENT: Mr. Sipp MR. HUNSINGER-Normally the next step would be to consider a resolution. I guess what I'd like to have us think through quickly, though, is any special conditions, because we hadn't really talked about that. There were a number of things that the applicant said they intended to do or had offered for the record. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There's quite a few on there. MR. HUNSINGER-The question becomes whether or not we want to write those into a resolution. The first couple would be some of the traffic calming measures that were mentioned, the traffic calming hump on Gentry Lane and a 15 mile an hour speed limit sign. MR. BORGOS-And the stop sign at the other end. MR. HUNSINGER-And the stop sign on, yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Now is that 15 going to be down Baybridge and Gentry, too? MR. BORGOS-We can't control that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's up to the Town. MR. MAGOWAN-That's a Town issue. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The Town Board handles it. MR. MAGOWAN-We've got to go next door for that one? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, they take care of it. MR. MAGOWAN-Is that something the homeowners can, is that something they can go and do, since you're going to be 15, that they can make it the same? MR. BORGOS-(Lost words) I don't think that would be applicable here. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You can in the Town. MR. JARRETT-On a private project you can. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You can go to 15 in the Town. MR. BORGOS-It might depend on the designation of what Baybridge Drive and Gentry Lane were. MR. JARRETT-Again, the stop signs, the four way stops are recommended by us, but it's up to. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, you can't control that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They don't control speed anyhow. MR. JARRETT-We'd also advocate for multiple post office box. MR. KREBS-Of course neither you nor we can control those. MR. JARRETT-No, we'd certainly advocate for that, we'd push for that. MR. KREBS-Actually I was thinking about it from a school bus standpoint it would make a lot of sense if they just made the complete loop. MR. JARRETT-That's what Dan had planned on doing, discussing. MR. MAGOWAN-It all depends on the amount of kids, too, I mean, they've got it right down to, because I know Richie's units they all have to go right down there to the end. MR. HUNSINGER-Like Kindergarten kids they stop at the house. MR. FERONE-Some school buses aren't allowed to go less than a half a mile. They have to go to the main road. If it's more than a half a mile, they are allowed to go in, and then go around and pick up the kids, but they would have certain number of stops, so they wouldn't stop at every house. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/10/2013) AUDIENCE MEMBER-But not on a private road. Queensbury (lost words) private roads. MR. HUNSINGER-I think probably the other issue was the discussion of a berm and/or natural boundary. It didn't seem like there was a real resolution to that. MR. JARRETT-We're definitely leaving the maximum vegetation on our side as a buffer. We're certainly willing to enter into discussions with the neighbors on how to coordinate their buffer if they wish to put something on their side. MR. MAGOWAN-What is that vegetation (lost words)? MR. JARRETT-We're talking about natural growth at this point. When we were talking with the neighbors last year, we were actually talking about a proactive landscaped buffer, but those discussions dropped. MR. DEEB-Can they be picked up again? MR. JARRETT-Can they be picked up again? MR. VALENTE-Well, I'm certainly not opposed to putting plantings in on my property to protect. It'll benefit them, obviously, but I'm also looking to protect the residents within my community, but, so I don't have any issues with putting the property, and I have some beautiful native pines that when they're trimmed up they fill right out nicely along that property line. I think that's, I would like that because I don't want my neighbors or my residents having any issues or concerns looking at their backs, either. So, yes, I definitely don't have any issues with doing that. MR. DEEB-Is there a landscaping plan for the project? MR. VALENTE-Well, there is kind of per building. MR. JARRETT-There is an overall landscaping plan that is depicted there, and then there's one for each building that's a typical generic one that is in that package. If you go into the full drawing set for Revision B. MR. VALENTE-Within that natural buffer that we're leaving, there are some. MR. DEEB-Just space in between, no so much trees or bushes or anything like that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But the plan is to be in conformance with what the Code says. MR. VALENTE-Absolutely, and the natural buffer that's there, there are some trees growing in that buffer. Eventually that'll be a full grown forest, but I surely don't want to have an issue with my clients there, either. So, you know, as we're starting to construct the road, the trees that are within that field we can transplant over to that property line, which is what I'd like to do, and then I would be putting trees in prior to construction of those buildings down the road. So those trees would be in place prior to even construction of those buildings. So it's a win/win. MR. MAGOWAN-That sounds like recycling. MR. VALENTE-Well, we've done that in the past at Baybridge. That field is beautiful and we have a lot of nice trees there growing and a lot of them are, you know, they're not huge, but they're eight, ten feet tall, but they're easy enough to transplant, and when they're pruned up, they fill right in and create a great. They are nice. If they're managed, if people manage, I don't want to say white pine, they cringe, but if you manage a white pine correctly, it's a beautiful tree. MR. JARRETT-The (lost word) is a typical landscaping plan for each building, with street trees along the front and shrubs, and basically green spaces in between each driveway and planting, and the species are from the Queensbury list. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Our expert's not here tonight, so we'll have to take your word for it. MR. DEEB-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want us to try to specify numbers or anything, Craig? (Queensbury Planning Board 01/10/2013) MR. BROWN-No, I was just trying to write down what I think might be you conditions here, and the one that I had down for buffers is applicant to provide plantings along whatever those unit numbers are. Tom, do you have those unit numbers we can put in our resolution? MR. FERONE-Definitely Unit Number 21 seems to be the closest. MR. BROWN-Probably it's that little dog leg that goes north/south and then it goes kind of to the southeast. MR. JARRETT-Twelve, fourteen and sixteen are the units that border (lost words). MR. BROWN-That's running north/south and then it goes to the southwest a little bit? MR. Yes. MR. VALENTE-Yes. MR. BROWN-Okay. So those two lines. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Nineteen and twenty-one do, too. Not the front of it, the back of it. Unless you guys re-numbered them. MR. BROWN-I think they're thinking of 14, 16. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Sixteen, eighteen, nineteen and twenty-one is what I said. MR. JARRETT-Nineteen and twenty-one are actually on the west side of the project, now. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Are they? I'm looking at old numbers, then. MR. BROWN-This is here, 12, 14, and 16 in here, Tom, on the screen? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. BROWN-Okay, along these two lines right here. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, that's right. Okay. You've re-numbered them, then. MR. BROWN-So applicant to provide plantings along the property line between Units 12, 14 and 16, generally consistent with a Type B buffer, which is what's required between multi family and single family, and that's essentially a 20 foot buffer. They've offered to keep the 20 foot strip. It's just filling it in with trees. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-What other special conditions? We talked about colors before. You had only provided us with the one elevation, but you said that, you know, you'd want to try to mix it up a little bit, that it would be generally earth tone colors. MR. VALENTE-Right. There might be some softer grays, you know, to try to get a good compliment. We're not going to have anything too off the wall. Maybe a cream or something, too. MR. HUNSINGER-So if we just say earth tone. MR. VALENTE-Yes. We'll try to keep the roof color uniform. MR. HUNSINGER-So would it be brown or gray or pure brown? MR. VALE NTE-Generally more, yes, but I'll probably tend to go to a gray color. MR. HUNSINGER-A gray. MR. VALE NTE-Generally all earth tone colors. They'll be, yes, very compatible. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? Any else that we missed, Craig? MR. BROWN-Well, I think, I don't know what Don's got on his list. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, final engineering signoff is one of the standard conditions. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/10/2013) MR. KREBS-Right. MR. BROWN-Yes, I had, from what I heard from your conversations. MR. KREBS-I have a stop sign at Gentry Lane and Baybridge. Traffic calming humps on Gentry Drive. Developer will plant pine trees to provide a barrier between Baybridge community and Units 12, 14 and 16. MR. BROWN-Generally consistent with a Type B buffer. Yes. MR. KREBS-Okay. Type B buffer. MR. HUNSINGER-Consistent with a Type B buffer. MR. BROWN-And was that a condition about earth tones for siding and trims? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, building colors to be earth tone. MR. SCHONEWOLF-For siding and trim. MR. JARRETT-And we'll work with the Highway Department on the plow turnaround. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. BROWN-And then I thought I heard something about maybe trying to request multiple mailbox locations. I don't know if that's a condition or not. I mean, they can request it. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, if it's a condition, that might give you some more pull. I found them tough, but they can be reasonable, you know, if you can get them to call you back. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry, Craig, what was the last one that you mentioned? MR. BROWN-The mailbox. MR. HUNSINGER-The mailbox. No, before that. MR. BROWN-The trim colors. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry, the plow turnaround. MR. BROWN-The plow turnaround. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The plow supervisor is up to the Highway Superintendent. Even the Town Board can't do that. MR. KREBS-Trim colors are to be. MR. HUNSINGER-Earth tone. MR. KREBS-Earth tone. MR. HUNSINGER-And that is defined in the Code. MR. KREBS-And 18. MR. HUNSINGER-Applicant to provide a plow turnaround. MR. JARRETT-In accordance with the Highway Superintendent. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Are we ready to go again? MR. HUNSINGER-1 think we're ready, yes. There isn't anything else, is there? Let it roll. MR. KREBS-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #59-2012 FWW 4-2012 LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS, LLC (Queensbury Planning Board 01/10/2013) A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes construction of 148 apartment units in 29 buildings. Multi-family construction in an Office zone and hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline requires Planning Board review and approval. Freshwater Wetlands: Disturbance within 100' feet of a regulated wetland requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 12/20/2012 and 1/10/2013 This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 59-2012 FWW 4-2012 LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS, LLC, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: As per the resolution prepared by Staff. We are doing a Negative SEAR declaration. There are no waivers requested, so there will be none granted. 1. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; 3. The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; 4. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; 5. If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; 6. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 7. If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a)The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b)The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; (Queensbury Planning Board 01/10/2013) 8. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: a)The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; b)The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 9. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 10.The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 11.Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 12. As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; 13. The developer will work with the Town to provide stop signs at the intersection of Gentry, Dorlon and Baybridge so that there is a four way traffic stop; 14. Traffic calming hump on Gentry Lane; 15. Developer will plant code compliant plantings to provide a barrier between Baybridge and Units Number 12, 14 and 16, consistent with a Type B buffer; 16. Trim and siding colors to be earth tone and, 17. Applicant will provide plow turnaround per the Highway Superintendent's approval. Duly adopted this 10th day of January, 2013, by the following vote: MR. JARRETT-Would you re-visit the stop sign issue. Would you mention that again. What was that? MR. KREBS-I had stop sign at Gentry Lane and Baybridge. MR. BROWN-Yes, what I had is applicant to request or discuss with the Highway Department a four way stop intersection. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. JARRETT-At Baybridge and Dorlon. MR. BROWN-Baybridge, Dorlon, and whatever the new. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the problem is the roads intersect twice. MR. JARRETT-It's not Gentry, though. MR. KREBS-Yes, it's Dorlon and Baybridge. MR. BROWN-Right, and the new one's called, what, Cottage Hill? MR. VALENTE-Gentry carries all the way through the subdivision. So you've actually got Gentry, Dorlon and Baybridge intersecting. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. MR. JARRETT-All right then I stand corrected. MR. BROWN-Just change it. MR. HUNSINGER-If we had said if you were traveling east on Gentry Lane. MR. JARRETT-It was a little confusing. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/10/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-There will be a stop sign where it intersects. The other clarification is on the trim colors. It's trim and siding. Not just the trim. MR. KREBS-Okay. Trim and siding. MR. BROWN-And then just one more question, sorry, on the plantings. MR. HUNSINGER-Hold on a second. We have a motion, is there a second? MR. FERONE-Second. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Now we'll have discussion. MR. BROWN-Okay. You said just pine trees. I don't know if you want to just limit them to only pine trees, or if he's got other things he can plant there. MR. JARRETT-Mixed evergreens. MR. BROWN-Yes. I mean, I just said plantings. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Code compliant plantings. I think that's what we said. MR. KREBS-Code compliant plantings. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that's why we mentioned the Code specifically. MR. BROWN-Okay. Yes, I thought he just said pine trees. MR. KREBS-So we have modified the motion to mean Code compliant plantings. MR. HUNSINGER-Any further discussion? MS. GAGLIARDI-Could you just repeat that one part of the motion about the stop sign again. I want to make sure I get it clear. MR. KREBS-The developer will work with the Town to provide stop signs at the intersection of Gentry, Dorlon and Baybridge so that there is a four way traffic stop. MR. HUNSINGER-That's clear, yes. Do you still second the amended motion? MR. FERONE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Any further discussion? Any further clarification requested by a member? Hearing none, call the vote, please. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sipp MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good luck. MR. JARRETT-Thank you for sharing your evening with us. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Thank you, members of the audience, for coming. MR. KREBS-Yes, thank everybody for their input. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have a motion to adjourn? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 10, 2013, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/10/2013) Duly adopted this 10th day of January, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sipp On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman