The URL can be used to link to this page

2005-09-20 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 INDEX Subdivision No. 2-2005 Jeffrey Clark 1. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 240-1-49 Site Plan No. 50-2005 Robert McMillen Tax Map No. 239.7-1-27 1. Subdivision No. 3-2002 Craig Brown Tax Map No. 303.8-1-13.2, 13.3 3. Subdivision No. 4-2003[F] Thomas Schiavone Tax Map No. 308.7-1-2 11. Subdivision No. 4-2005 [P & F] George Amedore, Amedore Homes Tax Map No. 302.8-1-13, 14, 15 14. Site Plan No. 49-2005 Stark Group Tax Map No. 288.8-1.5.2 28. Site Plan No. 52-2005 Entertronics Tax Map No. 304.17-1-29, 32 42. 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 9/20/05 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHARIMAN ROBERT VOLLARO GEORGE GOETZ ANTHONY METIVIER RICHARD SANFORD THOMAS FORD MEMBERS ABSENT THOMAS SEGULJIC LAND USE PLANNER: SUSAN BARDEN TOWN COUNSEL: MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER: SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER: Good evening. I’ll call the meeting to order. Queensbury Planning Board, Tuesday, September 20, 2005. Before I ask for an approval of minutes from July, I do have one housekeeping issue, if it pleases the board and that is I’d like to move the George Amedore, Amedore Homes into old business so it would come before the start group. To keep the old business items together. Having said that we have first on the agenda approval of minutes from July 19th, 26th and 27th, is there a motion to approve? MOTION TO APPROVE PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF July 19, 26 and 27, 2005, Introduced by thth Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Goetz: Duly adopted this 20 day of September 2005 by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ford, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None ABSTAIN: Mr. Metiver MR. HUNSINGER-First item on the agenda is expedited review for Robert McMillen, on staff notes. MS. BARDEN-Mr. Chairman, one thing quickly, you might want to tell those in the audience that the Clark subdivision is not going to be heard tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we did, I’m sorry. We did get a letter from the agent, Jeffrey Clark asking that application be tabled. SUB 2-2005 [P] SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JEFFREY CLARK AGENT(S) JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS OWNER(S) JOHN LICCARDO ZONING RR-5; LC-10 LOCATION NYS RT. 9L, JUST SOUTH OF OLD NORTH CHURCH PROPOSED 4 LOT SUBDIVISION OF AN APPROXIMATE 55 ACRE PARCEL INTO LOTS OF 15.4, 14.3, 16.3 AND 9.7 ACRES RESPECTIVELY. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. CROSS REF. AV 48-05, SUB 18-04 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 55 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.1-49 SECTION A-183 1 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 MR. HUNSINGER-We will open the public hearing and table the public hearing later on in the agenda, but if there is anyone here for the Jeffrey Clark application, that will be tabled until October. Thanks. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED SITE PLAN 50-2005. SEQR TYPE II. APPLICANT AND OWNER: ROBERT McMILLEN. LOCATION: 147 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD. CROSS REFERENCE BP 2005-651. ZONING WR-1A. TAX ID NO. 239.7-1-27. SECTION: 179-4-020. LOT SIZE: 1.03 ACRES. APPLICANT PROPOSES SUNDECK MODIFICATION. BOATHOUSES/SUNDECKS REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. ROBERT MC MILLAN, PRESENT MS. BARDEN-Site Plan 50-2005, the applicant is Robert McMillan. The applicant seeks site plan approval for modifications to an existing boat house/sundeck structure. Portion of the proposed has been constructed. The subject property is located at 147 Assembly Point Road, and is zoned waterfront residential, 1 acre. The application is SEQRA Type 2. The applicant proposes modifications to an existing boat house/sundeck, specifically an approximate 25 sq. ft. shed/sundeck extension. Approximate 16 sq. ft. platform and stairs to upper deck. Staff comments this project is to rebuild 71% of the existing boat house structure, and expand the storage shed/sundeck. Total height of the boathouse needs to be identified measured from the mean high water mark to the highest point of the structure, and to not exceed 14 ft. MR. HUNSINGER: Since we did have this down for expedited review I’ll just open it up for any questions from members of the board. MR. VOLLARO: I have one, I guess. The dock area as I see it on the drawing measures out to 830 sq. ft., by using your drawing of 1 inch to a foot, 179-050-50 calls for no more than 700 sq. ft., including any walkway which is 28 sq. feet, so that brings it up to 858. Is this something you had? MR. MCMILLAN-Yes, it’s all pre-existing. MR. VOLLARO: It’s all pre-existing. Everything on this. Ok MR. MCMILLAN-What happened is the floods came along and the waters that washed out the Northway raised the lake level, starting my docks going like this… MR. VOLLARO-Okay MR. MCMILLAN-They were above the lake levels, so it was time we had to do something. MR. VOLLARO-Now the height is not shown on the drawings, I don’t see it MR. MCMILLAN-I measured that yesterday, from the watermark, it’s 12 ft. 8in. to the top of the railing. MR. VOLLARO-How did you do that? MR. MCMILLAN-I took the, I called up the Park commission, found out what the hydrograph level was and . . . 21 ½ inches to the top of the dock, less the 9 ½ inches about which would be the difference between the water level and the high water mark right now. And added 6 inches from the dock to the top of the deck allowed an extra 2 inches, for a little bit of a crown there and added 3 feet for the railing and came up to 12 ft. 8 in. MR. VOLLARO-I’m finished. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the board? MR. FORD-The deck and storage shed will be extended by 33 inches? MR. MCMILLIAN- That’s right. MR. METIVIER: Is that the only modification you did, on that? 2 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 MR. MCMILLAN-What we did, and the reason that came about, the stairs use to go straight from the deck into the road, and we have a granddaughter that is about a year and a half now, and her mother and Aunt said “you know, it’s better if those stairs went the other way.” So in turning the stairs we were able to get a little extension on the storage shed. MR. METIVIER-Because it really didn’t change overall. MR. MCMILLAN- No. MR. METIVIER-Just a few. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here that wanted to make comments or ask questions on this project. I will open and then close the public hearing. MS. BARDEN-There is one submitted public comment. Want me to get into the record, it’s dated September 17, 2005. “Dear Gretchen, I think it will be fine for Mr. Robert McMillan to propose a sundeck modification at Assembly Point Road. It will keep to make Assembly Point more desirable, sorry I can’t attend the meeting but I agree to his proposal. Thank you. Mary Trello.” MR. HUNSINGER-Ok, thank you. MR. VOLLARO-You were looking for a Type II No SEQR? MR. HUNSINGER-Type II No SEQR. I will entertain a motion from the board. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 50 FOR ROBERT MCMILLEN, Introduced by Anthony Metiver who moved its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: As proposed by Staff. Duly adopted this 20 day of September 2005 by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic MS. BARDEN- Ok, I’m sorry, I thought the public hearing was still open. MR. HUNSINGER- No, it’s closed. I closed the public hearing. We had a motion by Tony and seconded by Tom Ford. You are all set, thank you. Next is old business. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2002 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED. APPLICANT AND OWNER: CRAIG BROWN. LOCATION 210 & 214 QUEENSBURY AVE. LOT SIZE: .99 ACRE, 5.89 ACRE. ZONING: SR-1A. TAX ID NO. 303.8-1-13.2, 13.3, SECTION A-183. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 5-2001. SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION REQUESTING REMOVAL OF CONDITION; CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE- FAMILY DWELLING ONLY FOR ONE OF THE LOTS. CRAIG BROWN, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Next is Old Business, first item under Old Business is CRAIG BROWN – SUB DIVISION 3-2002. Any staff notes for Mr. Brown? MS. BARDEN- This is subdivision 3-2002 modification. Craig Brown is the applicant for this request. Applicant proposes a modification of a previously approved subdivision. Subject parcel located on Queensbury Avenue, and is zoned suburban residential 1 acre and is a SEQR unlisted action. Previous Planning Board activity includes the original subdivision 5-2001, approved for a 3 lot subdivision, but never filed with Warren County. And subdivision 3-2002, approved February 19, 2002 for a 3-lot subdivision. The applicant requests removal of a condition of a subdivision approval stating “construction of a single family dwelling only” to allow a duplex on lot 2. Staff comments: These parcels are located in the suburban residential 1 acre zone where duplexes are permitted with 3 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 site plan approval. Lot 2 has 5.92 acres, where 1 acre is the minimum lot size. Although both lots 1 and 3 currently have only 1 acre each, map number 2 labeled “proposed conditions” indicates a possibility of future lot land adjustments. Because the entire previously approved subdivision could change with lot land adjustments, and because it was a condition of approval for the entire subdivision, consideration should be given to lifting the condition from the final subdivision plot and not for lot 2 only. MR. HUNSINGER-OK. The floor is yours. MR. BROWN- Good evening Mr. Chairman and members of the board. For the record my name is Craig Brown and I live at 214 Queensbury Avenue. I also own the vacant 5.7 acre partial that MS. BARDEN referenced. My request is a relatively simple one, a condition that was put on the original Roulier subdivision limited development of all of the lots in the subdivision to single family homes. Two of the lots in the subdivision, my house parcel and the other road furnished parcel are currently developed as single family homes. My goal is to hopefully in the near future, the further future is to construct a single family home with a small apartment on it. Which would be a duplex, which would be in violation of the condition that’s on the subdivision. I am just seeking to have that condition removed. My recommendation, my request is only for the parcel that I own, I don’t have control over the 3rd lot in the subdivision, lot 1 I think it is. I can’t speak for their wishes if they want to have the condition removed. I can just speak for the two lots that I own. That’s all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, thank you. Questions, comments from the board? MR. SANFORD-There are 3 lots. You only own 2 of those lots and the other home is owned by another individual? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. SANFORD-And they have been notified, of this hearing tonight? MR. BROWN-Yes MR. SANFORD: And there has been no correspondence, maybe they are here for public hearing. MEMBERS OF PUBLIC-We are here. MR. SANFORD-I am interested to see if they have public comment on that. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. SANFORD: I just wanted to clarify I didn’t know if you owned all 3 of the parcels or only 2? MR. BROWN-Just 2. MR. SANFORD-Okay, thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the board? MR. METIVIER-I mean we can actually do this? Remove a stipulation on a previously approved subdivision? MR. HUNSINGER-Well. MR. METIVIER-You can remove a stipulation of a previously approved subdivision? MS. BARDEN-Yes, with a modification of the prior approval. MR. SANFORD-Well, when we were doing site visits we did have a question. We understand that there is a deed restriction here. Now is this board empowered to modify and or remove deed restrictions? MS. RADNER-I am not aware whether there are or not deed restrictions, that is something different than a condition subdivision approval. If there are deed restrictions, that’s a civil matter between the parties and they would either have to be removed with the agreement of all the parties or legal action taken. This board doesn’t have the power to do that. 4 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 MR. SANFORD-Okay, that was a question we had, Mr. Brown, is there a deed restriction? To your knowledge. MR. BROWN-Not to my knowledge. There are cross easements. All three parcels share a single common driveway. There are cross easements between each of the individual lots, but as far as restrictions for single family homes, not to my knowledge. MR. SANFORD-Okay, well, we didn’t know that. We were speculating. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. METIVIER-We just didn’t know how that would be handled if there was a deed on there, how we could reverse that. Because we really can’t get into reversing deed restrictions, so that was really my biggest question. If you look down the road we have approved that duplex a few years ago, that family built, they did such a nice job with that. I mean, certainly not out of character of the neighborhood to have duplex type homes on that road. Actually I believe there are a few more down a little bit as well, so you are not talking about a little bit of land here. MR. SANDFORD-Yes, I just didn’t know, Tony, whether there was actually a deed restriction or if it was just a condition of sub approval. MR. METIVIER-Well, we had talked about that when we went over there, and I couldn’t see how he could of, do anything about it. MR. SANFORD-I didn’t know. MR. METIVIER-It’s more of a legal matter. MR. FORD-But there is – you have no deed restrictions. MR. BROWN- Not to my knowledge. Just other than the cross easements. MR. FORD-On your two. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. METIVIER-Well, if we reverse this and you find out you have a found out you have a deed restriction, that it’s not in our empowerment to do anything with that anyway. That would be up to you and your attorneys. MR. BROWN-To alter the deeds? MR. METIVIER-Yes. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. METIVIER-Yes and this would be the first step in that process. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from the board? We do have a public hearing scheduled, if you would like to give up the table. MR. BROWN-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-If there is anyone in the audience that would like to make comments regarding this project, you can please come forward and speak into the microphone. Please identify your name for the record. We do tape the meetings and that’s the purpose for the microphones. Yes, go ahead, come on up. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GARY BRUNNELL 5 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 MR. BRUNELLE-Gary Brunnell, 234 Queensbury Avenue. We own just a little under 5 acres which probably is bordering Mr. Brown’s. I guess my question would be – if this is approved, now, one, could it be, could they build four of those down there? Houses, duplexes, town houses, then the second one is – if the gentleman ever got rid of this land. If he didn’t build that, could someone else come in there and build. I don’t know. I’m not that acquainted with what you can build on one acre. Could they build one house on every acre? MR. HUNSINGER-The only thing that has been requested at this point and time is to remove that special condition so that they can build one duplex unit on the vacant lot. There is nothing else before this board right now, and if there were, it would have to come back to the planning board for further review. MR. BRUNNELL-But what I’m saying is, if he has it approved, then he has to go back for – it’s wide open for more duplexes in that area. MR. HUNSINGER- Only one per lot. Right now there’s three lots. MR. BRUNNELL-So in other words, well actually there’s four point - almost as much as we have – I’ll say five acres. And I don’t know what the stipulation is, one house per for Queensbury, one house per acre or under type thing. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s one house per lot, in this case. MR. BRUNNELL-In other words he could subdivide this into five lots through this if this was passed. MR. METIVIER- Not tonight, he could not MR. BRUNNELL-Well what would. MR. METIVIER-He potentially could if that was the application in front of you, that would be different. But tonight, that’s not what he is requesting. He’s requesting just one additional building lot, which is five acres. MR. BRUNNELL-Okay, but. MR. METIVIER-So he can only build one dwelling on that five acres. MR. BRUNNELL- Okay, in my mind he can only build one. MR. METIVIER-Correct. MR. SANFORD-I appreciate. Tony, the public comment. I think where there going with this, we will have to talk to the applicant when they come back to the table, is that, let’s say this is granted and they get approval for the duplex. Will they come back or can they come back in the future for further subdivision and do additional duplexes? And I think the question that I will get ahead of myself to Mr. Brown is, would he be willing to put a deed restriction in place, if he’s granted the permission to build this duplex? That he wouldn’t further subdivide or what have you, and I would be interested to hear his response to that, but, I think that’s where the questions coming from. There’s a concern that this will evolve into more than just one additional home or duplex and maybe be two or three additional ones. That’s how I’m reading this question, is that correct? And I think we can’t answer that, but the applicant can. We will make note of your concern and ask the applicant that question. MR. BRUNNELL- I am just concerned with the traffic. As you know we had it re-paved last year and it’s on a hill and you can ask any of the neighbors how we get out of there, with 3 or 4 people extra in there, it’s just an accident waiting to happen. Because they can’t see coming down that hill. They can’t see coming from the north down, and it’s 55 miles an hour. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. BRUNNELL-So that’s my main concern also. So this would be just for one right now. This gentleman said there will be a clause in there for that particular, that he signs and he can only do one? 6 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 MR. METIVIER- Well, he can only do one if we approve this tonight anyway at this time. MR. BRUNNELL- Then he’d have to come back to do more, but it is zoned for – pardon me? MR. METIVIER-You would be renotified if he said no he didn’t want to put a deed restriction in place. If he ever wanted to do more, you would be renotified that he wanted more homes. MS. RADNER-Gentlemen, this really isn’t a situation where a deed restriction is appropriate, because you don’t have a change of ownership going on here. So you would end up having Mr. Brown issuing a deed to Mr. Brown to go through this process. It’s more a situation where you might want to make a condition of no further subdivision. MR. SANFORD-But counsel. . . MS. RADNER-. . . is willing to accept that. MR. SANFORD-With all due respect counsel, that is what we have right now and we are entertaining a removal of that. MS. RADNER-No. You’re only removing the condition of no duplex. It’s not a condition of no further subdivision. MR. METIVIER-Well, that was in the original. MS. RADNER-Is it? Ok, good, so it’s still a condition there. MR. SANFORD-Okay, but . MS. RADNER-A deed is normally a document that trades hands when a piece of property trades hands and normally when you guys are enclosing deed restrictions, it’s when you have a developer in here who’s creating a subdivision, that then can be parceled out to a number of different people. And then you put in a deed restriction which is to the benefit of the other lot owners. Here what you are looking for is to someway prevent there to be further development of this lot, but a deed restriction probably isn’t the appropriate mechanism to get there. MR. SANFORD-I think what I am hearing from – excuse me for speaking on your behalf. But what I am hearing here is, ok, there was a condition for the original development and now there seems to be some compromising on that condition. I think the concern is, will there be further compromising down the road, and if Mr. Brown’s intention is merely to build an additional home, a duplex I believe for a family member. Then if in fact he would be agreeable to in very certain terms, limit and restrict that, then that probably would insure a better comfort level for the existing people. I want to hear what he has to say about that. That’s all I am saying. I think it’s not a matter of playing hardball here. It’s the matter of what the intentions are and what Mr. Browns’ willing to do to make his neighbors happy. And if he’s willing to do it, then that perhaps would be the best possible solution. If he’s not willing to do it, then we have to deal with that as well. MR. BRUNNELL-Thank you, I’ll go along with that. MR. HUNSINGER- Okay, thank you. Anyone else? KEN SHULE MR. SHULE-My name is Ken Shule. I live across the street from Craig, 206 Queensbury Avenue. And I just wanted to know where the entrance to the access to that was. I spoke to Craig, but I’d like to know a little more about it. And he told me it was going to be a private residence, with, I didn’t know about the apartment. And that’s what’s caused me to come today, because the way it was worded in the letter that I received. So I am just more curious about what it’s going to look like, and the access to it. And I have the same concern with traffic, pulling out, it is kind of hazardous on certain times of the day, that’s all. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the proposals is to have a new driveway, for the new lot, lot number 2, which is undeveloped. So that is something that is on the proposal. MR. VOLLARO-The proposal looks like Mr. Chairman, that the new driveway sort of ties into the existing drive. That’s how I see it on the map number 2. This is the proposed driveway it seems to 7 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 tie right into the existing driveway, the neighbors existing driveway. This is the neighbors’ existing driveway, so it looks like they tie in, and that’s how he gets the 40ft front. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, okay.. I was thinking this was the existing driveway. MR. VOLLARO-No, I think this is where he wants to put the drive. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay MR. SHULE-So what is the proposed driveway, is that something going to happen, or is that, I mean, proposed, does that mean it’s going to or not going to or not going to? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it would only happen if we approve it. If we were to approve it tonight. He does have the ability to extend the current driveway, back to that lot. They could do that right now because that was in the prior subdivision. MR. SHULE- Okay, and is all this going to happen tonight? The approval or recommendations, or MR. HUNSINGER- Well, it remains to be seen. We haven’t acted on anything yet. MS. BARDEN: Just a clarification on that, all Mr. Brown is asking for is that condition be lifted. So what you are looking at, the second map of proposed conditions. That is not something that is on the table tonight. MR. SHULE- So I guess my question to Chris is, is this a private residence or is this going to be a rental? MR. HUNSINGER- You can, but the intent of the applicant, the applicant has stated his intent is to sell his existing home and build a new house on the vacant lot, that he would then reside in and have an in-law apartment. But when we consider removing that condition, it would, it wouldn’t , the ownership of the property really is irrelevant. He could say what his intentions are and then we could approve it tonight and tomorrow he could do something differently. It goes with the property, it doesn’t go with the person. Any approval or consideration. So we can tell you what his intention is, but that’s all you can go with. MR. SHULE-That’s all we can go with. That’s all I am asking for. MR. HUNSINGER- Yes, okay. MR. SHULE-Alright, thank you. MR. METIVIER-Can I ask a question, clarification? He’s actually not asking for a subdivision? It was already subdivided… MR. HUNSINGER-No. MS. BARDEN-No. MR. METIVIER-So he can build on that. He’s just looking for the duplex type of apartment. MS. BARDEN-Exactly, exactly. That is the only thing that he is asking at this time. MR. METIVIER-So this stipulation, no further subdivision on the lot is not being lifted here. MR. HUNSINGER- It was on the resolution. It was previously approved. MR. METIVIER-It was previously approved, just 3 lots. MS. RADNER: But you are not creating any new lots tonight. If you were to go forward, you would not be creating any new lots. MR. METIVIER- We are just removing the stipulation of the duplex or the apartment. MS. RADNER: You are just removing the condition that says no duplexes. Correct. 8 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 MR. METIVIER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I think that comes up under map number 2, if you ever get to move, that one point. MR. HUNSINGER-I misread the map. The public hearing was still open, I didn’t know if there was anyone else. Is there anyone else that wanted to comment on this application? Ok, I will leave the public hearing open for the time being. MR. BROWN- First of all I’d like to apologize to my neighbors for not kind of giving them a little a preview of what we are going to do here. The only reason I didn’t, because if the planning board doesn’t see fit to allow the condition to be removed, there’s not going to be a duplex, there’s not going to be a subsequent site plan review, and Ms. Barden can check. And I will have to again appear before this board with the site plan review application, before I can get an approval to do a duplex. So, tonight’s lifting of the condition is not a granting of an approval for the duplex. I’d be back here, all the neighbors get notified again, there’s another public hearing where they all get to come and make comment. Actually see a plan, once I develop one, I don’t really know what that’s going to be yet. My first step in the process is to remove that condition, if that doesn’t happen, there’s no sense going the next 2 or 3 steps. Accessibility issues, if you can see on the map there, the property just to the north of mine and I’m not sure if it’s labeled, but it’s owned by Mr. Lemery. His driveway actually cuts across the corner of my existing house parcel. And ideally what the situation would be is I would rearrange the property lines between the 2 lots that I own and take out that 40ft strip that’s in between mine and Mr. Shule’s property where the 2 houses that share that driveway, would be the only 2 properties that shared that driveway, and the access to my new home would share a driveway with Mr. Lemery. So there would be no net increase in driveway curb cuts, it would be the same as what’s there today. MR. FORD-Is that existing driveway by easement? MR. BROWN- It’s there by, it’s always been there. Yeah, there’s no easement, it’s just there. It was there when I purchased the property, and as far as I know it’s always been in that location, and you know step 3, 4 or 5 wherever in the process would be to grant Mr. Lemery and easement to cross my property to get to his so it would be formal, he wouldn’t have to worry if I sold in the future, his driveway gets removed. I discussed that with him, he asked me that right when I first purchased the property. He knew that the driveway was on my property, so, that’s once of the steps in the process. MR. HUNSINGER-I was confused on which driveway, you were planning to use. MR. BROWN-It’s an existing driveway, just to the north of where my house is if you guys were out there. MR. HUNSINGER-We pulled into both actually. We pulled into your current driveway first which has the cul-de-sac, and when we pulled out we drove north and pulled into the other driveway. MR. BROWN- That would be the access point for the new house out in the back. MR. VOLLARO-For the new house, that’s what you have on your map number 2 shows that, I believe. And this is what you are planning to do in the future. If you get this far this would become a subdivision of the property. On map number 2, because you are essentially changing, what you are doing is changing the lot line. MR. BROWN-Yes, again, it would be, and this is my understanding, it would be a further modification of the subdivision to move the property lines and then a site plan review to do the duplex. There already exists a condition from the original subdivision approval that lot 3, I think is the number? The large lot, the one we are talking about, 2 not be further subdivided. That condition already exists, and I’m not asking that to be changed. Completely happy with that and I don’t intend to subdivide it up into 3 or 4 more lots, and build duplexes on each one of those. The conditions there, I have no intentions of doing that, I want to keep it as one large lot. So, that conditions fine, it’s already there. MR. VOLLARO- When you make that lot line adjustment, then lot number 2 would go down to 4.12 acres, because you would be pulling out 1.8 of it. MR. BROWN-Well, potentially that’s all just speculative. My guess is and if you guys pulled in the driveway or when you pulled in the driveway, you can see the area that having the benefit of owning 2 lots, I cleared a lot more behind where the house is now so where all the kids stuff and trampoline, 9 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 that’s actually on the larger lot. So I would have to reconfigure that lot and my guess would be if someone purchases the property their going to want that land that looks like it’s the back yard to that house. So, the lot size wouldn’t change unless they wished to have more land, then I have the opportunity to offer that, and we could change the property lines. So those are just, there’s nothing definitive about any of those sketches. Just the potential. MR. VOLLARO-The sketch makes sense to me because it essentially squares off the property a little bit better. That’s what I see there. MR. SANFORD-So every intention on lot number 2 which is on this drawing, 5.92 acres, if you get the approval tonight and you can do a duplex, you’ll build a duplex on that lot and you may actually shave some of that lot down and give it to lot number 3, to give them more of a back yard. But there is no intention to further subdivide lot number 2 and add yet another duplex or yet another home? MR. BROWN-Not whatsoever. MR. SANFORD-And you give us that assurance by way of what? I again mentioned deed restrictions, but perhaps that’s too severe. But I certainly want your neighbors to have the right sense of assurances that if we move forward with this that they won’t see more of a development than what you are proposing. MR. BROWN-Sure, as I stated before there is already an existing condition from the original subdivision approval that says that lot 2 can’t be further subdivided. If in fact somebody purchases my home, wants some more acreage, perhaps Mr. Shule may want some additional acreage to provide a buffer in the back. That only makes lot 2 smaller, and even more decreases the potential to subdivide it into more lots. MR. SANFORD- I understand that. MR. BROWN- Any condition you want to put on this subdivision approval or it’s subsequent site plan approval for the duplex, I have no objection to that whatsoever. MR. VOLLARO- Mr. Sanford, just to put your mind at ease on the motion to approve the preliminary stage when it was done for Mr. Roulier, I believe. There was a resolve that this application for preliminary stages were approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by staff, that there be no further subdivision of lot 2. And that was part of the conditions that went on the approval of the preliminary. MR. SANFORD- I understand that, Mr. Vollaro, the only reason I referenced it is because of the concern of the person spoke at the public hearing, there was also condition that there wouldn’t be a duplex. But we are here contemplating removing that condition. MR. VOLLARO- That’s correct. MR. SANFORD-So we may very well be here contemplating removal of that other condition. And I just wanted to make sure that we had a clear understanding with the applicant that they will not move in that direction and I refer to the applicant judgment. I think he is well versed in these issues, as well as perhaps counsel and this board to best assure that be what’s done. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER- Any further questions, comments from the board? MR. FORD-What other options were considered before making this application? MR. BROWN-Not very many. The goal was obviously to have that parcel in the back as protection so nobody was going to build right behind me when I built on the road. It was offered to me by Mr. Rouiler at a reasonable price when I purchased my home parcel and picked it up just because it was, it wasn’t even considered being an investment property, it was more protection. It was nobody was going to build behind me. As time goes on, your parents want to retire, you want to set them up in a little apartment. We started to think this is going to be a perfect set up back here, if we can get some things changed. And we just went right to this option, there were no other options that we considered. But, if you have one you want to offer I’d be happy to listen to it. 10 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 MR. HUNSINGER- Any other questions, comments from the board? I think I will go ahead and close the public hearing, we do need to consider SEQR unlisted. MR. METIVIER- Why would this be a SEQR? Why would we have to do a new SEQR on this if it was already pre-approved? MR. VOLLARO-I thought it was, I didn’t realize why we did it either, but I noticed there is one. MR. METIVIER- Usually on a modification there is no. MR. SANFORD-I wouldn’t think there would be a SEQR on this. It’s already an approved subdivision. MS. RADNER-If you think that the change is going to make any difference to the environment you can do a SEQR because you don’t need to for this modification. Your language about that or you considered whether its impacts would be sufficient if nobody believes there is going to be any impact. MR. METIVIER-I just don’t believe there will be an impact. MR. SANFORD- I don’t think it’s necessary, Mr. Chairman. MR. HUNSINGER- Okay. Alright, any. Since thee are no further questions or comments would anyone like to offer a resolution? MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2002M CRAIG BROWN, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Applicant(s): Craig Brown Subdivision SUB 3-2002 Owner(s): Same SEQR Type Unlisted Agent(s): N/A Lot size 0.99 ac., 5.89 ac. Location 210 & 214 Queensbury Ave. Zoning SR-1A Tax Id No. 303.8-1-13.2, 13.3 Section A-183 Cross Ref. SUB 5-2001 Public Hearing 9/20/05 Project Description: Subdivision modification requesting removal of condition: construction of a single family dwelling only – for one of the lots. WHEREAS, the application was received 8/15/05, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record. WHEREAS, pursuant to A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on September 20, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that 11 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 We find the following: The application SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION is hereby Approved and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plat submitted for Planning Board Chairman’s signature and filing: 1. And to remove, from all three (3) lots, the restriction that was previously placed on that, that the applicant shall construct single family dwellings only, and 2. That, as a condition of this removal there will be no further subdivision of Lot Number Two, and 3. Recreation fees in the amount of $ 500.00 per lot are applicable to this subdivision modification. 4. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. 5. Final, approved plans in compliance with this subdivision must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt Duly adopted this 20th day of September 2005 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. BROWN-Could I just ask a question of counsel over here at the table still? MR. HUNSINGER- Sure. He waited till it was already approved, right? MR. BROWN-It has to do with the approval, to finalize this, we’re going to file a new subdivision map that the Chairman’s going to have to stamp? I just want to make sure it’s decided here so that there is no confusion. MS. RADNER- Correct. Right. You are going to have to file a new map with that condition removed from the map. MR. BROWN-That’s fine. Just want to make sure, alright. MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION SUB 4-2003(F). APPLICANT THOMAS SCHIAVONE. OWNER ANNE BETTERS. SEQR TYPE UNLISTED. LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF SHERMAN AVENUE. AGENTS: TOM NACE, NACE ENGINEERING; JONATHAN LAPPERS, BPSR. LOT SIZE 49.87 + ACRES. ZONING SR-1A. TAX ID NO. 808.7-1-2. SECTION A-183. CROSS REFERENCE FW 6-2003. PROPOSED 32- LOT CLUSTER SUBDIVISION WITH LOTS RANGING FROM .46 ACRES TO 0.79 ACRES WITH +/- ACRE COMMON LOT. JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Okay, next item on the agenda is applicant Thomas Schiavone. Subdivision4-2003 final stage. Staff notes? MS. RADNER- The applicant proposed us to subdivide 49.87 acre property into 32 residential lots. Property is located on Sherman Avenue, west of the recently approved Pine Ridge Estates subdivision. Property is zoned suburban residential 1 acre. This action is a SEQR unlisted action. Planning Board issued a SEQR negative declaration for this proposal on October 19, 2004, the th SEQR determination applies to fresh water wetlands permit 6-2003, which is related to this 12 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 subdivision. The Planning Board previously approved the freshwater wetlands permit, 6-2003, as well as a preliminary stage subdivision for this property on October 19, 2004. The applicant th proposes to subdivide this approximately 50-acre parcel into 32 lots. Thirty-one of the lots are to be residential building lots with one lot to remain as undeveloped. The lots would be accessed of an internal subdivision road to be built as part of the subdivision, excuse me. The road would connect to Sherman Avenue and the recently approved Pine Ridge subdivision to the East. Do you want me to go through the staff comments? Or does anybody have any questions on that? MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe if you could just summarize some of the significant points. MR. LAPPER-We are pretty much in agreement with all the conditions that are proposed by staff. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, Alright. Question, Bob? MR. VOLLARO- Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify a question with the board, on 183-13 which it talks through the final subdivision approvals. It says notice if the Planning Board requires a public hearing to the subdivider shall comply with requirements of 183-10D of these regulations. 183-10D says that the subdivider shall display prominently on the property for 10 days preceding the day of the public hearing, at least one sign 2 ft by 3 ft in size, in carrying the legal description of the planning board, prescribed by the planning board. I think that this board has to determine whether or not we want to in some way waive the requirements of 183, because the subdivision sign is not up on the Schiavoni property. So I think the Chairman may want to poll the board and see what we may want to do with that. Do we want to decide not to comply with 183 in that area. MR. LAPPER-I’d like to address that if I could Mr. Chairman? MR. HUNSINGER-Ok, sure, go ahead. MR. LAPPER-What happened is that this application as Susan mentioned it got the fresh water wetlands permit and the SEQR neg. dec. and preliminary approval. It has been pending for awhile just because everyone’s busy in terms of getting this done, but the public hearing was closed at preliminary. So we viewed this as it didn’t need a sign because the public hearing was closed. I now know because Susan called that it was put on the agenda as having a public hearing. But that should be incorrect because the board voted to close the public hearing on this. MR. VOLLARO- OK, so the public hearing is closed. That makes a big difference in. . . MR. LAPPER-Yeah, and I didn’t know that until we went and back and I have the minutes from that October meeting. MR. HUNSINGER- We couldn’t have proceeded with SEQR and preliminary approval without closing the public hearing. But, I agree with both points that were made by the applicant and by Mr. Vollaro, and I guess for sake of making sure everyone’s comfortable I would like to poll the board and get their opinion on where they stand on this. MR. SANFORD-I’ll weigh in on this Chris, thanks. Just for the publics benefit as well, sometimes it appears that the posting of a sign alerting the public that there is a potential subdivision taking place, appears to be a technicality. I don’t view it that way. I view it as an opportunity for the public who has concerns about a development and to be able come in front of this board and to express their concerns. And more and more we experience situations where the signs aren’t posited and we attempt to table those applications so that the public can have notification before we make a decision. This is a significant development and while the public hearing was closed, I’m not sure that if the pleasure of this board we can’t re-open a public hearing, should we desire to do so. And legal can comment on that, but it’s my understanding we have that prerogative or right if we so chose to do it. And so I think in this particular case here while I have no prejudice against this application, I would of felt much more comfortable if it a sign was there and if it was noticed should there be public concern. I’m not saying there is public concern, but we certainly don’t know without there being proper notification. So that’s my comments on it. I would have preferred to see it posted. MS. RADNER- I think that you do need to open the public hearing and hear the public because it was advertised, re-advertised. And it was because it’s been 11 months since the preliminary stage approval and that’s why we decided to re-advertise it to notify the public. MR. SANFORD- So having heard what Susan just said, in terms of your polling. It’s been a long time. I don’t think it will be a major inconvenience to the applicant. I would prefer to see this 13 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 tabled, posted and have them come back at the earliest possible opportunity for their application hearing. MR. GOETZ-I agree Mr. Sanford. I feel the public really does deserve the opportunity to come in, and yes you said there was a public hearing before I became a member of this board. But I’d be interested in what the neighbors have to say as well, and I think if you set up standards, and keep and stick to those standards, pretty soon you might have them. So I agree, Mr. Sanford. MR. HUNSINGER- I already heard your position about, Tony. MR. METIVIER-I don’t know, I guess regardless of how much time has gone by the fact remains that we approved a preliminary on this with a public hearing that was closed, be it a year or otherwise. The actual subdivision itself hasn’t changed, just some follow up work, why it took 11 months I don’t know but I just don’t know why we had re-posted it with a public hearing if it wasn’t necessary. But that’s just my two cents. If it was closed back then and we approved preliminary and final 11 months ago, we wouldn’t be here today. MR. HUNSINGER-Preliminary. MR. METIVIER-I know but I am saying if 11 months ago we approved prelimary and then turned around approved final it would have been done. And nothing has changed as far as subdivision itself goes, so I guess I would be open to hearing from them and the public tonight since it was posted, not posted, you know posted without the time. MR. HUNSINGER-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-I’d be interested in from staff as to why it was handled the way it was handled. In other words. MS. RADNER- Again I think it was the amount of time that had lapsed between the preliminary approval, subdivision approval, and final. And we just wanted to be on the safe side of notifying the public. MR. SEGULJIC- So we notified the public that there would be a public hearing tonight? Did we notify the applicant? MS. RADNER- We notified the applicant that there was going to be a public hearing tonight, yes. MR. SANFORD-I believe Tom, I mean, at least a relevant point Susan brought out a few minutes back was, when an applicant re-advertises the application, that necessitates the posting of the sign. In other words that’s a trigger point where the sign then gets posted, and it was not in this case. MR. LAPPER- But how can staff advertise it as a public hearing if the board voted to close the public hearing? I don’t understand that procedurally. MR. SANFORD- Well, you should know the law. My understanding is that according to the process, the advertising necessitates the posting. Am I incorrect on that? MS. RADNER- Well, the posting requirement is under 183-10 as Mr. Vollaro pointed out. Which has to do with the preliminary approval. There if you go to the section above the notice provision, there’s a section in C that states that the planning board may provide that the hearing be further advertised in such manner as it seems most appropriate for full public consideration of 5 preliminary p. . . To th be perfectly honest, as I sit here tonight I don’t remember what you did at the time you closed the preliminary hearing. I know that there have been occasions when you’ve said that because of the length of time that has past, you want things re-advertised so that the public is aware and what is aware of what’s going on. And my understanding here is that preliminary approvals were given and you’re here for final, but that because of the length of time, it was re-advertised for a public hearing. The mechanisms as to what caused that to happen, I can’t comment on. MR. LAPPER-That wouldn’t necessitate a sign, if the sign was posted which it was at preliminary. MR. HUNSINGER- That’s really the issue, as to whether or not the public hearing triggers the requirement for the sign to be posted. MS. RADNER- I don’t believe so. 14 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 MR. HUNSINGER- Okay, good. MR. FORD-You do not believe so? MS. RADNER-No, because it’s under the preliminary review procedures that you’ve got for requirements for this posting. It’s not that’s it’s a bad idea, but… MR. VOLLARO-Kathy, excuse me for just a second. But it’s also under final. If you go to the final and you get to where it says notes. If the planning board requires a public hearing, we are talking the final now, the subdivision shall comply with. . . MS. RADNER- Where are you looking, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I’m on a, 183-13 Submission and Review Procedures. MS. RADNER-For second public hearing, OK. MR. VOLLARO- At D. It says that the planning board. MS. RADNER- You’re right, Bob, it’s there. MR. LAPPER-But the planning board didn’t require a public hearing. MR. VOLLARO- When staff acts in behalf of this board pretty regularly, we don’t set up public hearings. MR. LAPPER: But if the board voted that the public hearing was closed, I don’t think staff, Susan is very polite and we really appreciate working with her, but I don’t think that staff has the authority to do something different than what the board voted. MR. METIVIER- Actually though it does state in Article 5, that on the final, we do have the ability to receive additional public comment when the planning board deems necessary. However, it doesn’t state anywhere that you have to re-notice or post signs for final. MR. VOLLARO-It does, Tony. MS. RADNER-It does. Bob found it. It’s in 183-13, C & D. MR. SANFORD-Anyway to err on, to move in the direction I think in terms of public interest, I’m not sure what again, it’s been delayed, delayed, and delayed. I’m not sure what the real harm is to give the applicant the courtesy of moving it to the earliest possible day, providing that the sign be posted and I just think that is in the best public interest. Especially, Mr. Chairman, you have at best a split board. MR. HUNSINGER-I certainly personally don’t have a problem with the public hearing being rescheduled. I think it was a logistical question as to whether or not the scheduling of the public hearing necessitated the posting of the sign. Apparently it does. I think it’s an unfortunate oversight that wasn’t anticipated. We were trying to err on behalf of public interest in this case. And I certainly would always want to err on the side of caution, when it comes to the board. MR. FORD-I believe all protocol should be followed. MR. HUNSINGER- Absolutely. This situation has never come up before since I have been on the board in 7 years. And I don’t know if any other member can say it has either. Usually we approve final subdivision within, if not the same night, within the next month from preliminary approval. It is unfortunate in this case. It wasn’t for the two reasons that we are all well aware of. But I would concur with the balance of the board. I don’t see how we can move forward without the sign having been posted. MR. LAPPER-Now we see what your decision is, can we at least request that it be on the first meeting in October? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. 15 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 MR. SANFORD-I’m agreeable to that. MR. HUNSINGER-Having said that, I will open the public hearing and leave the public hearing open. I would ask for a resolution from the board to table this until the first meeting in October. MR. FORD-So moved. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION 4-2005 [P & F]. SEQR TYPE UNLISTED. APPLICANT: GEORGE AMEDORE, AMEDORE HOMES. OWNER: BROWER FAMILY TRUST. LOCATION: 314, 320 & 322 BAY ROAD. LOT SIZE: .12 ACRE, 2.87 ACRES, 3.83 ACRES. ZONING: M4-5. TAX ID NO. 302.8-1-13, 14, 15. SECTION: 179-4-020, A-183. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ 2-2005, SP 62-99. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 44-UNIT CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. CONDOMINIUM USES REQUIRE SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. JON LAPPER & CHRIS ROUND, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER- The next item on the agenda, still under old business is George Amedore, Amedore Homes. Staff notes? MS. BARDEN-As the board will recall at the July 26, 2005 meeting, the board began it’s review of this 44 unit condominium project. Which is proposed off of Bay Road, near the intersection of Quaker Road. The board tabled the application and requested several items, many of which have been addressed in the cover letter submitted with updated plans. Couple of outstanding items include: 1-CT Male sign off and 8- examples of other homes by Amedore Homes. The lighting plan has been revised as requested by the board, and 2- but does not show details of the proposed pole lights. In addition, the parking proposed on site needs to be discussed further by the board as identified by staff in previous notes. Parking provided by the project is excessive by the code requirements. The applicant is requesting 100 spaces where 66 are required by the code. Two parking spaces including an attached garage allotted for each unit seems to be sufficient. Thus consideration should be given to eliminating the 12 additional overflow parking spaces in replacing with the landscaped island. The board to request elevation drawings and floor plans be submitted for this development. It has not been discussed what this development will look like. Consideration should be given to diversification of architectural design and exterior colors used for the housing units. Had the applicant discussed crossing the NiMo right of way? Again a connection to the rear of the property to access the alleyway behind Quaker Rd. near Everts Avenue, would provide access to businesses on Quaker Rd., as well as to professional offices on Everts Avenue. Finally some of the trees and shrubs proposed along Bay Rd. are not salt tolerant species, specifically Hawthornes and Spirea are both sensitive. These should be replaced with other comparable species from the recommended tree list per Section 179-8-30. Thanks. MR. LAPPER- Since we were here last, most of the issues as Susan said have been settled with staff and with CT Male, and there is a handful to discuss with the board. But we did get CT Male’s signoff recently. I guess the most compelling issue is parking. This is kind of an unusual situation with the parking requirement with a residential project where you usually don’t have that on a residential project, but this is sort of a different kind of animal with a condominium project. We are counting the spaces inside the garages, the interior of the garage as a space. But that in our minds shouldn’t count in terms of the parking requirement, people can use their garages for parking or not, but it shouldn’t push us into a variance issue. The reason why we provided some extra spaces on the site was that the Town Board had suggested it at the rezoning level that they thought that it would important to have places for guests to park, and that’s why we provided it, and also Mr. Amedore thought based on other projects that’s he’s done that it would be a good idea to have that as well. So it’s not a case where there is excessive parking where there is a parking field where anyone is looking at, there’s just the driveway, the garage and a few spaces besides that. Chris can show you on the plan if you like, but we haven’t seen that and the staff hasn’t mentioned that as a zoning issue up to this point that we have excessive parking. We are just really trying to make sure that there is a place for people. MR. ROUND- Good evening. Chris Round for Chazen Companies. I don’t know what’s the most useful exercise, I know that 2 board members were not here at the previous meeting. Mr. Ford and Mr. Hunsinger were not here. Maybe it would be helpful as to walk through the tabling resolution that was issued at the last planning board meeting. And I know #1 on that list was CT Male, obtaining CT Male sign off. We have a letter dated September 13 from CT Male that basically has 3 th outstanding bullets on their lists. Those were 10, 11, and I am going to combine 21 & 22. Number 10 16 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 dealt with they requested that we add a note specifying that compaction occur consistent with our own geotechnical report. We have agreed to add that note, that’s a non- issue. Comment 11 was in regard to a easement for the purposed of storm water drainage. At their request we had rerouted some drainage and the easement line didn’t get transferred but that’s pretty much a drafting issue that we will correct at the final submittal. And then comments 21 and 22 again relate to NYS DEC’s requirements for notification. That NOI, Notice of Intent to comply with storm water management regulations, and we are not sure that Jim is interpreted in all of that correctly so we have contacted DEC. But the long and short of it is, we will do what’s required of by DEC. The difference is, is that one you have a 5-day notice of intent and you obtain permit coverage under 5 days. The other is you issue notice of intent and you have to wait 60 days, so we will do what ever is required under DEC. So we respected CT Male. We have their signoff. I think they agree with that. Another comment, rather a note, in the event that our grading plan has to change with respects to our wetlands mitigation plan. Let me just touch on that just a little bit. We have a wetlands mitigation plan which you are copied with or at least we provided you with several copies, your town engineer has a copy of that. The wetlands mitigation plan is a plan like it sounds. It’s a plan that identifies where we are going to construct wetlands on the site. The Army Corp of Engineers will comment on that plan and they may suggest that wetlands be reconfigured slightly. It will not affect the layout of our buildings, won’t affect the grading of the site with respect to the development activity, but it may change that, and so that was that note on Jim’s comments. We acknowledge that and we will be in communication with the town when we do receive comment from the Corp. MR. LAPPER-There is mentioning that the area where the wetlands are going to reconstructed includes the area to the east of the site which would be what Susan mentioned in her comments about a connector road to the commercial businesses which would be Minogues so that people can get beer quicker from this project. It’s not possible to make that connection because of the existence of the wetlands in that area, so we don’t have that ability. MR. ROUND- That’s right, we have provided, I think the second bullet was the water department’s comments. You’ll see correspondence between our office and water department and the issue there was there what we speced a 1 ¼ in line vs. a 1 ½ or 1 in which they prefer. In the confusion there is that none of this infrastructure is going to be turned over to the water department, so their standards don’t apply. They acknowledged that. It’s not a significant issue. We have provided you with a lighting plan and I know what was omitted was the detail what that light looks like and I have handouts for you. I did email those to Susan and I don’t know if she’s had a chance to transmit those to you, but it’s a colonial style yard lamp. There’s nothing unique of it and so we have a detail sheet. Like you drive down the street, it’s a 4 or 5 ft. tall lamp that you see in most people’s front yards, and that’s the extent of the lighting accessory to the building. MR. FORD-Candle power? MR. ROUND- I don’t have that right in front of me, Mr. Ford, but our lighting plan does show on the ground, shows the photometrics that shows that we provide you with average candle, foot candles that provides the – I’m going to flip to my sheet here. Bob, if you’d help me out with this, I’d appreciate it. MR. VOLLARO- I’ve already looked at it. MR. ROUND- It is SP7. It’s a 150 watt high pressure sodium bulbs, they’re. . . MR. HUNSINGER-It does say a 16 foot pole height though. MR. ROUND–Yes,I’ve got to believe that, that’s wrong. It might be a typo on our standard detail. MR. VOLLARO- It should be 20. That’s a comment I had made on it. MR. HUNSINGER- No. Chris just said it would be shorter than that. MR. ROUND-Yes, I’d have to check that. There’s a detail on the pole but there wasn’t a detail on the fixture. So I’d have to look at the detail sheet. Regardless, the lighting level that is shown on the lighting plan is representative of what is planned and you’re looking at one, it shows your 1ft candle and your 1/2 ft candle on the plan. MR. VOLLARO- The plan on the lighting scheduled symbols 1 & 2 torks to 16ft in both cases. In the upper right hand corner of your plan. 17 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 MR. ROUND- Right. MR. VOLLARO- So your poles are 16ft. MR. ROUND – Bob, they very may well be, I guess I don’t know. There is also a detail in our detail sheet. Regardless, the lighting on the site is consistent with the town standard. That’s the operative issue, in that case. MR. VOLLARO-There really isn’t anyway to – It’s a very benign and low level lights capability here. I don’t see any problem with it at all. MR. ROUND- It’s you know, it’s not inconsistent with other residential areas. Another bullet on your tabling resolution was a copy of the joint application the Army Corp. of Engineers. We did submit to the court the same time we submitted to this agency. They have since been on the site, a week before last and confirmed our wetlands delineation and are in the process of processing our wetlands mitigation permit. You also asked us to look at installing a crosswalk. I think Mr. Seguljic who was here on that evening asked for and we had several phone conversations with the DPW and as I indicated that evening, we had concerns about putting an additional crosswalk without signalized protection on what is relatively a busy street. We said that the preferred pathways for that would be at Quaker and Bay, where there is a signal, or at the bike path. Warren County DPW agreed and said that they preferred the crossing occur at the bike path which right now they are under construction for some additional improvements to create some traffic-calming measures at that location; they are going to shorten the crossing width there, I think, it is my understanding. MR. HUNSINGER-Have we submitted that documentation? MR. ROUND-You should have a copy of that. We have to also look at a bus stop and AGFTC -you should have a copy from them – they would like to install a sign at this location to note that it is a bus stop. They do stop on the street; they are not asking for a pull off. They prefer to not have pull offs in most instances because it just creates an entry and exiting to traffic and its creates a conflict and so they would rather stop and have vehicles transfer around them. MR. VOLLARO-They did mention whether they wanted to go north or south of your entrance and I didn’t know. MR. ROUND-I don’t recall. It’s in our files and you should have a copy of that, but we will comply with whatever that request is. I think there is ample room at either location. MR. VOLLARO-On both sides, yes. MR. ROUND-That’s right. I think the last one on our tabling resolution was this project contact information. I believe the conservation with Mr. Goetz asked us was there another location you can visit and we provided a location that is under construction and we also do have the renderings that we had shared on our large colored board that’s over here. I attempted to give Susan a website link to share with you, but it wasn’t – they do have a multi-family project on there but I couldn’t confirm that it is consistent with this floor plan so we were hesitant to share all that information with you. But I do have – we are more than happy to make these part of the record. We presented those architectural renderings and floor plans as well as, if you recall, last session, we had a – there was concern over what the rear of the structures would look like but I do have a large format of what the rear look like and there are some optional window treatments and optional decks that are permitted as each individual homeowner purchases a project. MR. VOLLARO - Just clarify one thing for a minute. We are doing subdivision. This is subdivision 4-2005. Some of the issues we are talking about seem to be very site plan related. MR. LAPPER– We should talk about that . The condominium is treated as a subdivision under the zoning code but it is not technically a subdivision because the condominiums are up-and-down units for some people, second floor units, so you don’t own any land, so it’s not technically a subdivision of land – it’s a condominium and everything is owned by the condominium corporation. MR. VOLLARO-So we are doing subdivision and theoretical site planning all in one loop. MR. LAPPER-Yes. The code says that we have to consider it that a condominium has to be considered a subdivision in Queensbury, but it is not a subdivision of land because you don’t own the foot print like a townhouse which in a townhouse everyone owns the land underneath their building 18 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 and that is not the case because it is a true condominium like in the city where you have second and third floor units. MR. VOLLARO-That’s interesting. MR. ROUND-Just add to that at the end of the day we are looking for an approval and what you call a subdivision or site plan I think, is not a critical issue other than you need to follow your process and I think most of the questions that you have talked about are valid issues with any project – pedestrian, lighting, landscaping, etc. – and so we are happy to address those. I just want to make sure that we did provide you with a revised landscaping plan. There was concern last time that the landscaping - and our color rendering does not show this, that the landscaping extend the entire length of the southern property line to screen those properties from the property to the south and so we made that revision. John mentioned the access to a joint property was basically prohibited from accessing those properties because of wetlands and then the last staffing issue, I think, there was whether the species are salt tolerant or not and I know Chazen Company has actually drafted your landscaping regulations and so shame on us if we haven’t provided you with salt tolerant species but I’ve got to believe our landscape architect who drafted the plan chose species that are appropriate for this location. I don’t know if you have any questions from there. I’ll turn it back over to you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, thank you. I guess my preference would be to go through our normal site plan review criteria and you can raise questions or comments as we normally would. Any questions or comments from the board on design standards? We really were just handed the elevation this evening. MR. VOLLARO-That rendition at the bottom is going to be the color scheme? Why don’t you get that up a little higher so at least I can take a look at it. I didn’t get that. MR. HUNSINGER-I do like the use of different materials on the facades. MR. ROUND-The mix of clapboard and cedar . . . and there some masonry in there as well and I am not sure as to the color schemes but I think they are going to be. . . MR. HUNSINGER-Some variety. MR. ROUND-Some variety. I’m not sure that they are all beige or all mauve or what they are but I think they are going to be . . . MR. HUNSINGER-But they are generally earth tones? MR. ROUND-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. No questions, comments with design standards? How about the site development design? We do have the parking issue to discuss. MR. VOLLARO-I would prefer to stay with the parking the way its been proposed because I don’t want anybody parking on Bay Road if that’s not necessary and these extra ten spaces may help that and I just don’t see taking those out of the loop. I don’t think you can count the garage as a space. I believe that ten spaces should stay as they are – been proposed. MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments from the board? MR. SANFORD-Just refresh my memory. Have we completed SEQR on this? MR. HUNSINGER-We have not. MR. ROUND-No. Yes you have. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I’m sorry. MR. ROUND-This project was part of a re-zoning. We have been here for a couple of times and have seen some familiar faces around the table. We completed a petition for zone change and at that time we completed the SEQR and did a environmental assessment form. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 19 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 MR. ROUND-Was this – I’m trying to remember. This board was the lead agency and actually did the SEQR review and gave it back to the town board. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have a question or concern regarding SEQR? MR. SANFORD-Well, again, I think it’s probably – we have already dealt with it, but again, traffic is one of the busiest intersections in certainly my ward is this intersection and I think we had a lot of discussion on it and I would obviously had to incorporate it into SEQR determination and yet I can’t help but feel less than satisfied that we are not contributing or aggravating an already existing problem with traffic on that intersection of Bay and Quaker. But again, I think it’s worth our stuff right now if we did the SEQR, so that’s why I brought it up. MR. VOLLARO-It’s no secret to this board or some of the members that I am not a big fan of doing it this way because I think it really convolutes my thinking, at least, maybe my thinking isn’t as clear as it should be these days – I don’t know – but I find it very difficult to do a SEQR and combining all the aspects of subdivision and site plan at the same time. MR. HUNSINGER-OK. MR. LAPPER-I think what was persuasive for the board when you did the SEQR was that this was previously zoned commercial which would have had a lot more traffic generation per zoning and that our project we showed with traffic numbers was a lot less, pretty benign, in terms of traffic compared to a commercial project which was permitted. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments in site development. Questions, comments from the board on storm water sewage design? MR. VOLLARO-I have one comment there, Mr. Chairman. The staff notes relate to Mr. Shaw’s comments on a July 11 memo to Craig Brown concerning the extension to this, connection to this application. I have never seen that letter. I don’t know what it says. Could the staff just enlighten me on Mr. Shaw’s comments on July 11 memo to Craig Brown? MS. BARDEN-On Amedore? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MS. BARDEN-Can you help me locate that? MR. VOLLARO-Yeah. I can if you just give me a second I’ll pull out the reference to it. MR. ROUND-I have it in front of me. MR. VOLLARO-Do you? MR. ROUND-Yeah. It’s to Craig Brown from Mike Shaw July 11 and he calls out sheets SP2, SP3, SP4, SP6, SP7, detail sheet 5 and we have complied with all these elements and we have a follow-up – probably have a couple of volleys of correspondence and plans and I have an e-mail from Mike Shaw and, its copied to Craig Brown, and it says: “Chris, I did a review of the revised plans for the above- mentioned project. All my comments have been addressed. We look forward to working with you on this project.” MR. VOLLARO-I saw that. MR. ROUND-Okay. That’s the. MR. VOLLARO-But I was kind of interested in what Mike had to say about the overall sewer project and its something somebody like myself who reviews these things likes to know. MR. ROUND-Well we are a municipal sewer and there is a connection to a sewer system. There’s an existing manhole directly adjacent to our site. Mike’s comments regarded to cutting and capping required; his inspection prior to doing so; comment regarding the sanitary sewer easement in the location of our wet pond, our pocket pond; storm sewer piping – initially it said storm sewer piping must stay outside the sanitary sewer easement. That is not correct. He has agreed that – We have moved most of it out of the easement but it is not an exclusive easement. What we did was we identified a cross section to Mike to show him that the separation was significant and wasn’t going to 20 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 cause him a conflict with his infrastructure. It asked for a back water valve, basically a u-valve, at each connection which we have done and then he talks about testing requirements and a piping profile which we have provided. And then detail sheets, it just said there – you need to comply with out details, our specs that we have and so we’ve done that. MR. VOLLARO-My comment was really to the fact that when we do these reviews – at least when I do them or when these board members do them. I feel we do them pretty much in a vacuum unless we have documentation in front of us to relate to and I when I see something like, you know, something like a comment that comes out of that I go look for it and when it’s not there, I wonder what he had to say. MS. BARDEN-Can you still direct me to where that’s noted just so I can correct that. MR. VOLLARO-Let’s see. It comes under from Mike Shaw to Marilyn Ryba, dated August 30, 2005 under Amedore Homes. His comments from the July 11 memo to Craig Brown are being addressed. You got it? MS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments on storm water sewer design? Lighting design? We already talked about that a little bit. Is there any other comments or questions from the board? MR. METIVIER-I have one. It’s not even relevant but are you sure this is Queensbury Schools? MR. HUNSINGER-It’s not. MR. VOLLARO-It’s Glens Falls Schools. MR. METIVIER-It’s listed on your plans as Queensbury School. MR. ROUND-We have made great efforts to tell you that it’s in the Glens Falls District. MR. METIVIER-I remember you talking about that and the conversation that we had how what a relief, right? But its listed in. . . MR. LAPPER-That’s an error that can be corrected. MR. METIVIER-Back in the zoning and site statistics - SP3? MR. LAPPER-Bob is impressed – I see him over here nodding his head. I picked up on it, that’s all. MR. HUNSINGER-OK, I should be corrected obviously. Questions, comments on the landscape design? MR. VOLLARO-No, I think that looks good to me. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments on environmental issues? MR. VOLLARO-So long as that they get that letter back - that’s the only environmental issue that I see that’s outstanding is that there will be a letter eventually that will respond to Chazen’s letter of March 16, 2005 to the Army Corp. The Army Corp. is required to give them a reply. MR. HUNSINGER-The Army Corp. is notorious for taking forever. MR. SANFORD -I just have one question to Mr. Round. He speaks in terms of wetland mitigation and replacement and replacement of wetlands and it won’t effect the project. How do you know that with certainty? I mean you built this site up with maximum density and I’m looking at the plots and there is no real room to speak of that you haven’t developed and how do you know that they won’t come back and have a potential wetland alternative plan that basically infringes upon your desire to figuration? MR. ROUND-I can’t answer that, you know, without a doubt. The way the process works so, Mr. Stanford, is that you present a plan and our plan that you have a copy of, is we identify your 21 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 preferred design – the one that you have in front of you – and if a reasonable number of alternatives – we have done that – to the Corp. and then as part of our plan we have identified – its not required but its generally asked for – is two-to-one mitigation. So for every – we are consuming just a little over four-tenths of an acre of a wetland and replacing that with a eight-tenths of acre of a wetland and so we are constructing two-to-one replacement. They’re going to comment on the environmental aspects, the hydrology, hydraulics and the species and issues that relate to our constructed wetland and whether our constructed wetland is adequate replacement. Could they come back and ask us to say, hey, we don’t want you to do buildings 5, and 6 and we avoid that, they certainly could do that. We’ll have to come back to you folks if that is indeed the case. MR. SANFORD-I guess my question to the board is do we compromise the project if we make a judgment or a decision based on your reasonable certainty that it is not going to be an issue. Are we compromising the determination on Army Corp. or DEC? MR. METIVIER-I think you just answered that, though, with the statement that if they come back and tell us, or tell them, that they can’t do, for instance, Buildings 4, 5, and 6, they have to come back to us. MR. SANFORD-Well, I know. MR. METIVIER-So there is some sort of guarantee there that. MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-My experience with the Army Corp? If they could supersede the local decision – they would love to, seriously. MR. ROUND-That speaks to – are you pre-approving this project for the Corp. – you’re not – the Corp. has their own – they’re very strong minded. They go by their own rules. MR. SANFORD-Well that’s a concern that I have that based upon a representation which you just stated you can’t really give us positive assurance on. Are we basically? MR. ROUND-Well, I am just saying you know if – I can’t tell you a hundred percent that they are going to approve the project that we submitted. Anybody that can get up here and say that they are going to do that is lying to you and so I am trying to be as forthright as I can with that. Do we expect that we are going to get a permit for the project that we propose? Yes, we do and that’s our intention. MR. SANFORD-Well, the reason I asked the question wasn’t to be argumentative. It was basically to talk in terms of proper sequencing. In other words, would it not be perhaps more prudent to hear what they have to say before we proceed rather than, I guess your suggestion which is for us to make a determination and address it if there are complications. In other words, what’s the downside for waiting for Army Corp. determination? MR. LAPPER-I guess one response to that is when you give a subdivision approval, for example, there is a 180 days file the Mylar because you have to get outside agency approvals, often DEC, DOH, the Corp. of Engineers and that process takes a lot longer with all of those agencies so this is a typical project where we have these outside agency approvals. Chris mentioned that the Corp. came in and they agreed with the delineation which is the first significance step that they agreed with. What our project team said was were the wetlands are in terms in what we are proposing to disturb and now the technicalities of exactly what the replacement is going to be could take weeks or could take months to work out with the Corp. MR. ROUND-Your question’s fair, Rich, with regards to process. This is the way the process works with the Corp. It’s called a preconstruction notification. So if your trying to obtain – it’s like the SPDES permit process. It’s very similar. There’s a body of law and then there is permit conditions that are written for various types of wetlands impacts and this one is nationwide 39 and if you can demonstrate that you’re complying with all of those conditions, you are going to get coverage under that permit. They’re not going to give you – here’s a new permit or here’s an individual permit in this case. We’re seeking coverage under our nationwide permit and so the way the process works is that the Corp. will not respond to a permit application until you have – they don’t mandate that you have local approval but they do mandate that you have SEQR addressed and they want a SEQR determination and they want signoffs from other state agencies that your complying with other aspects of the project. They want to be the last one in on the process and this is the way it is done 22 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 and its called preconstruction notification. So the process is built around you have an approval and you need to demonstrate the compliance with the project before you construct. That’s a standard process throughout New York state – throughout the U.S. MR. VOLLARO-I think what we are talking about here too is CT Male grappled with this problem themselves as you can see in their response to comment 23 on CT Male where they say regarding the preconstruction notice in the joint application permit and I will just read from it: ‘This document contains proposed wetland mitigation measures that are subject to review and approval or modification by the Army Corp. of Engineers. It should be noted that any changes to the mitigation plan as a result of the Army Corp. review will require changes to the site plan drawings. In particular the grading and draining plan sheet #SP4 will have to be revised along with other sheets to show that the proposed grading and mitigation areas.’ CT Male has also recognized this in their last paragraph of their letter that this may have to be changed in the event that the Army Corp. does not approve. So I think what were saying here is that we are going on best faith, I guess you could call it, from Amedore Homes on this particular one but if it doesn’t get approved and its got to come back, the site plan has to change. MR. SANFORD-If there’s a comfort level with the board, there’s a comfort level with the board on it. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, just to kind of reiterate Mr. Round’s comments, I mean typically when it comes to permitting you go from the local to the regional to the state to the national and that’s the way that they require to be sequenced. I mean this is really no different than, you know, that has already been mentioned, you know, an EPA permit or DEC permit or any other of the state or regional permits that may be required. MR. SANFORD-I just raised it as a topic. I wasn’t knowledgeable on it, that’s all. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments on environmental issues? MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t think so. MR. HUNSINGER-Neighborhood character? MR. VOLLARO-No, I think it fits pretty well down there. MR. HUNSINGER-Involved agencies? We kind of talked about the Army Corp. Any other comments, questions about any other involved agencies? Any other criteria not reviewed or discussed? MR. VOLLARO-I have one. It leads back to the CT Male Associates letter here. I understand the applicant’s position that in effect Mr. Round has said to us that we have an approval, a signoff from CT Male while on a project of this size I would like to see that we do indeed get a final signoff from CT Male. There are some comments in here that, I think, should be addressed and we can certainly if we approve this, we should approve it based on CT Male’s final approval of this project but I suspect that’s what the board would want to do. However, I would like to see that we would review a final CT Male signoff on this before we signed off on it to be perfectly honest with you, but I’ll go with what the board wants to do on this. MR. SANFORD-So you’re suggesting that we don’t condition it upon a CT Male signoff. We get a CT Male signoff and then make an approval. MR. VOLLARO-That’s from this seat, Mr. Sanford, it’s not necessarily the will of the board but on a project of this size I would like to see a stamp of approval by CT Male. MR. SANFORD-I don’t disagree with that, Bob. MR. LAPPER-According to Chris, the reissues are really minor. I think we should just mention them again. We would certainly have no problem with an approval condition done. CT Male, we understand that they have really involved engineering issues. It’s not appropriate for a conditional approval but why don’t we just go through those really quick. MR. ROUND-I’m just reading from Jim Huston’s letter dated September 13. . . . the July 25 th response letter addresses many of the comments contained in our 212005 letter. Comment 10 – a st note should be added to the drawing referencing the minimum compaction requirements prescribed in our – I’m paraphrasing – in our geo. . . restoration report and we have agreed to add that note. 23 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 Eleven – the utility easement boundary. Basically we need to draw two lines on the map to show that the storm sewer that we are proposing has an easement associated with that – we’ve agreed to do that. Comments 21 and 23 and this is what we talked to – Comment 21 says consideration be given to reconfiguring the outlet by installing a reverse pitch pipe - and maybe this is the issue Bob has concern about – with a smaller outer outlet diameter to provide greater detention closer to the 24- hour minimum as specified in basically the DEC design manual. If the design is not in conformance with the design manual, then the response to question 20 on page 5 of 9 in the notice of intent should be revised to note such that the proposed modified storm water treatment design is subject to review by the regional office of DEC. Basically the long and short of that is that we have checked the 5-day notification. Kim thinks we should check a 60-day notification. What I’ve said to you is that we’ll check the appropriate box. We don’t agree with Jim in this issue. We have talked Dave Casper, PE, who is the engineer at central office at DEC and he has indicated that that is not a material variance from the design standards and that basically the 60-day check says that you’re not complying with our standards we want to review your design. We are saying we do comply. Jim is suggesting an alternative to that and we’ve talked to him about that since this letter was issued so we don’t think that’s a material issue, per se. MR. SANFORD-But, Chris let me interrupt you. MR. FORD-What was Jim’s response? MR. ROUND-He goes, basically, that’s news to me and we’ll get him a copy of Dave Casper’s correspondence, but. . . MR. SANFORD-But if there’s not a meeting of the minds between you and. MR. ROUND-But this is a DEC issue, Rich, not a Jim Huston issue. Jim has his opinion on whether we should check the box. DEC is the controlling body whose decision is going to make that issue and what I’ve said is we’ll resolve this issue to the DEC’s satisfaction. The DEC – it’s the DEC’s law and the DEC should be the one rendering the interpretation of the law, not Jim Huston. MR. VOLLARO-The simple thing then, excuse me, the simple thing then would be to have Mr. Huston remove number 21 from his September 13 letter, just delete it and that’s it. th MR. SANFORD-Well wait a second, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m not sure he’ll do that, but. MR. SANFORD-If there is a disagreement on an issue between an applicant and our engineers, I’m not sure DEC is the referee. I kind of think that defaults to this board. MR. ROUND-The storm water pollution prevention plan is a document that is reviewed by your engineer, as well as the DEC and a copy goes to the DEC along with our notice of intent, the NOI used to be a one-page form now it’s a nine-page form and on that when we send it to DEC we either say – our engineer says that it certifies that it is in compliance with this category of design criteria or that category; this category is a five-day notification; that category is a 60-day notification. What we have said we would do is we’ll do whatever the DEC tells us to do and, no disrespect to Jim, if Jim was here tonight he’d say it’s DEC whose going to make the call – make it all go away – we’ll check the 60-day box, as Jim says, but we don’t think that’s right but it’s not a big issue – it’s about checking a box; it’s not a design issue; it’s not whether the storm water system is going to, you know, it’s not material. It’s an administrative issue and – you know, but I’d hate to get held up on this project after being here for nine or ten months over on which box we are going to check on a form. I don’t know how else to say it. Comment 22 is similar. MR. LAPPER-He’s not suggesting that we change the design. He’s just talking about what the review process is going to be at DEC. MR. ROUND-Right and then comment 23 is we propose a fence around the pond rather than a bench and a bench is this flat slope in the pond so that in the event – they’re for safety purposes in case something enters the pond you wouldn’t enter deep water. We propose a fence. Jim’s saying that that’s no compliant with the design standard. We believe it is; we have done it on other projects. We are going to confer with DEC and we’ll check the five-day box or the sixty-day box – whatever the DEC tells us to do and the last issue is not an issue its just merely information for you folks to acknowledge is that, hey, if the mitigation plan changes and dictates that we change our plans, make sure we are in communication with one another. I think I’m. . . 24 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 MR. VOLLARO-I understand the last one. MR. ROUND-My concern is yours is that Jim’s opening to this are ongoing comments are listed below. MR. LAPPER-But they’re minor. MR. ROUND-but these are minor issues that – if you would entertain an conditional approval saying Jim’s final signoff – I have no issue with that but I don’t want to call Jim tomorrow and say everything’s OK and then have to wait another 60 days to get back in front of you folks to deal with what is basically an administrative issue. MR. SANFORD-Where do you come up with the nine months? According to our agenda item, we opened public hearing on 7/26/05. What was the first date we as a board received this? MR. LAPPER-It was a rezoning, remember. MR. ROUND-We started, Rich, in fairness to you it’s not all you but we started in December of last year and we came to you folks in January with a concept plan and the project has progressed to the design process. MR. LAPPER-We had to go to the town board and then the planning board and the town board. MR. ROUND-But we were back here in July and it’s now September so now every time – these are pretty minor things MR. SANFORD-It’s more like 90 days rather than nine months MR. ROUND-No, we’ve been here in the process nine months and that’s accurate and every time we got go dot an “i” it costs you 90 days and I think dotting of i’s and crossing of t’s are not design issues and I’d hate to be held up for that reason. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the board? MR. GOETZ-I just have a – moving away from this subject for a minute. I might have been sleeping before but we got this notice from the fire marshal about the project and the concrete curb being in the center of the exit. Would that be something that you would remove? MR. LAPPER-Yeah, we received that, I think, it was yesterday or today actually and that’s something we would do. What he is talking about is that if you look at the – no it’s not up there – is the curbed island that’s at the center of this that basically incases the overflow parking and some landscaping he’s asked that we eliminate that curb so that fire trucks wouldn’t be obstructed by that and that’s not an issue for us to do to remove that curb. MR. GOETZ-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled for tonight. If you want to give up the table. Is there anyone here in the office that would like to speak to the board regarding this project? No one? Don’t go far. I guess since there is no public comments, I will go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-We’ve already done the SEQR on here. MR. HUNSINGER-We’ve already done the SEQR. What’s the will of the board? MR. METIVIER-I think we should move forward on this. I honestly don’t think that that one issue is going to be an issue. We have done this before in the past with CT Male signing off after the fact. We know they’re going to get it so I think we should move forward. 25 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 MR. HUNSINGER-Would you like to offer resolution? MR. METIVIER-I certainly would. I got to get to my papers, though. Do we need to discuss anything with exteriors colors or anything like that? MR. HUNSINGER-That was my only thought. I think that we would want to include in the resolution. It does say, you know, as all the draft resolutions say that it includes all submissions up to and including this date but we just may want to specify the design handouts. MR. METIVIER-OK and also comment was made by staff regarding landscaping and that some of the trees did not like salt . MR. HUNSINGER-salt tolerant species. MR. METIVIER-So what do we do there? Do we talk about replacements? MR. VOLLARO-I think that Mr. Round has already stated that Chazen wrote this spec on these things and looked into whether or not these were salt tolerant or not when the spec was written. I would tend to go along with that, frankly. MR. SANFORD-As a board we haven’t – not that we’re obligated to – but we haven’t addressed a staff recommendation regarding considering eliminating 12 additional overflow parking spaces. The applicant has stated that they don’t believe that that’s appropriate but we haven’t weighed in on that. MR. VOLLARO-I think I talked about that, just as one board member – I don’t think the board ever discussed it. I said I was in favor of retaining those 12 spaces. MR. HUNSINGER-And I didn’t poll every member of the board to see what their feeling was but there were comments made. MR. SANFORD-Is the whole board – I mean is everybody comfortable with keeping those 12 additional spaces in there? MR. METIVIER-I think so. It’s better than parking on Bay Road. MR. HUNSINGER-No one said they weren’t is what I’m saying. MR. SANFORD-And we’re all comfortable with that having a connection to the adjoining businesses because of the wetland problems? MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not necessarily comfortable with it but I certainly agreed with the applicant’s comments. MR. SANFORD-And I know there was discussion regarding the greens, the shrubs and what have you and whether they were the right species. Under the presumption that they’re not, what are we doing just accepting that the applicant will do what was right? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what Tony and Bob were just talking about. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I was discussing with Tony. I think Mr. Round had explained that Chazen had written the specification pertaining to shrubs and trees, etcetera, and he felt at least and we’ve accepted that as part of our governing documents that when Chazen did that they looked into the salt toleration of those species ‘cause that’s what we’re going under now and that’s a spec that was designed by Chazen to begin with. So I don’t know where that other thing came from on the salt species. . . MR. ROUND-I guess, if I might, is that we will double check to see if those that are specified are salt tolerant. MR. VOLLARO-I might ask the staff where they got that because it’s a staff comment. MR. ROUND-I think Susan’s referencing the design guidelines in the regulation. 26 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 MS. BARDEN-Yeah, I mean we have information on sensitive and moderate and salt tolerant species and that’s reflected in that section that I referred you to in the staff notes where it’s suggested that applicants use trees and shrubs from that list of species which those two that I’ve pointed out are not on there. MR. VOLLARO-Is that a 179? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, 179830. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-What it does is list suggested species. MS. BARDEN-What you could do is just condition that Mr. Round submit something from whoever did the landscape architect stating that these are salt tolerant and they will be able to withstand salts – salting of Bay Road. MR. SANFORD-And if he doesn’t submit that or if that’s not the case, then what happens at that particular point in time? MS. BARDEN-Then they can choose comparable species from our recommended list. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you get that, Tom? MR. FORD-Not really. MR. METIVIER-They have to receive confirmation, right?, of landscaped. . . MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know if those…? MR. ROUND-I don’t off the top of my head. I guess my assumption is that our landscape architect specified one is that salt tolerant. I guess what we will do is we will confirm that in the event that they are not. We will specify something off of your approved list and I think that’s what Susan said in maybe a little different language. MS. BARDEN-And those are just the ones that are along Bay Road. I didn’t bother on the other. MR. METIVIER-Are we comfortable with that or is that something. . .? MR. HUNSINGER-My thought is the applicant has submitted a landscaping plan that shows the location of specific plants. I don’t have a strong feeling if they were to provide a different species there as long as the overall plan looks the same as presented. MR. METIVIER-And I agree with that and in other cases we have had some members of the community intervene with some other projects and worked to find a solution that was comparable. MR. HUNSINGER-So I am not sure how you say that in the resolution is what I am. . . MR. METIVIER-Well, I think accept it for what it is and it’s not even that they have to come back for modification, it’s just that I guess in the landscape plan that they adhere to their plan or find suitable replacements. If that’s. . . MR. ROUND-That’s fine with us. MR. HUNSINGER-Is the rest of the board comfortable with that? MR. VOLLARO-Yeah, I’m comfortable with that. MR. FORD-Who is going to determine that – suitable replacements? MR. HUNSINGER-It’s on the list. MR. VOLLARO-They can choose from that list on 179. 27 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2005 GEORGE AMEDORE AMEDORE HOMES, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: As per resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 20 day of September, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Go ahead, Tony, now you can do the rest. MR. HUNSINGER-Now you can do the conditions. MR. METIVIER-I’ll make a motion they approve subdivision 4-2005. Final for George Amedore and Amedore Homes and the resolution prepared by staff with the following: that they obtain CT Male signoff. They’re able to retain the parking spaces that were outlined on the plan; that they adhere to the design standards presented at this meeting tonight and that if the landscape plan and design does not work on the Bay Road corridor that they will find suitable replacements that would be salt tolerant. MR. HUNSINGER-Question? MS. BARDEN-Just you might want to add that comment from the fire marshal about removing the curbing. MR. VOLLARO-I was just going to put that in. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Compliance with the fire marshal’s letter of 19, September. MR. METIVIER-And that they complied with the fire marshal’s letter of . . . MR. VOLLARO-19, September. MR. METIVIER-September 19th MR. SANFORD-I don’t know if it’s in resolution prepared by staff, Tony, but if it’s not you have to reference the planned wetland disturbance will be - mitigation plan will meet US Army Corp. of Engineers’ criteria. MR. METIVIER-I guess I assumed there and I was contemplating that that would be taking care of by them and that they would have to come back to us otherwise. Is there a way to put that in there, or is it my assumption. . .? MR. SANFORD-Should it be in there is the question or is it redundant or unnecessary? MR. VOLLARO-It’s kind of interesting. We’ve asked for the CT Male signoff approval as a condition of approval of this. By the applicant’s admission, it may take some time for the Army Corp. of Engineer to take a look at this so that CT Male’s comment 23B, I’ll call it, regarding the preconstruction notice and joint application permit. MR. LAPPER-No. That’s DEC not Army Corp. MR. VOLLARO-No, I’m sorry, it’s not. It says regarding the preconstruction notice and joint application permit of AOC. That’s what it says What we’re doing here is we’re basing this approval on an approval from CT Male. CT Male may not be able to give us a final approval until these mitigation measures have been settled. 28 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 MR. LAPPER-CT Male’s not saying that they have to review that, they’re just telling us what Richard said, that it’s subject to the Corp. and there is nothing wrong with putting a condition in that says which is just redundant, but it’s no problem, saying that the mitigation is subject to the Corp. MR. VOLLARO-See, I think I have a problem with the way, maybe I have a way the way CT Male wrote this but he is my engineer at this meeting. He represents us, this town, and I am trying to grapple with what he said. MR. LAPPER-Well, but he should be looking at the town review conditions not the Corp. The fact that we have to go through a Corp. process is separate. MR. VOLLARO- I realize that, Mr. Lapper, but I have a letter here from the engineer that I am trying to wrestle with somewhat and I understand where you guys are coming from, I really do but I . . . MR. LAPPER-No, I just - to maybe help is that we cannot start construction until we have an Army Corp. permit and I think. . . MR. SANFORD-Condition it that way, Tony. MR. LAPPER-Yeah, and we are happy with that condition. I guess we are just trying to make sure you don’t cloud the issue. MR. METIVIER-The final condition is that they are subject to. . . MR. VOLLARO-That would be good. MR. METIVIER--Approval from the Army Corp. of Engineers before they start construction. MR. VOLLARO-Right. I’m happy with that. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion. Is there a second? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll second that. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Ford, second? MR. FORD-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2005 GEORGE AMEDORE AMEDORE HOMES, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Applicant(s) George Amedore Subdivision SUB 4-2005 [P & F] Amedore Homes Owner(s) Brower Family Trust SEQR Type Unlisted 0.12 ac., 2.87 ac. , 3.83 ac Agent(s) Jonathan Lapper, B P S R Lot size Chris Round, Chazen Co. Location 314, 320 & 322 Bay Rd. Zoning MR-5 Tax Id No. 302.8-1-13, 14, 15 Section 179-4-020, A-183 Cross Ref. PZ 2-2005, SP 62-99 Public Hearing 7/26/05 [Tabled]; 9/20/05 Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 44 unit condominium complex and associated site improvements. Condominium uses require Subdivision approval. WHEREAS, the application was received June 15, 2005; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and 29 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on July 26, 2005 and September 20, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Final Stage is hereby APPROVED as per resolution prepared by Staff with the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plat submitted for Planning Board Chairman’s signature and filing: 1. That they obtain C.T. Male Associates sign-off. 2. That they’re able to retain the parking spaces that were outlined on the plan. 3. That they adhere to the design standard presented at this meeting tonight, and that if the landscape plan and design does not work on the Bay Road corridor, that they’ll find suitable replacements that will be salt tolerant. 4. That they comply with the Fire Marshal’s letter of September 19. th 5. And subject to approval of the Army Corps of Engineers before they start construction. 6. No-Cut Buffer areas shall be field located by surveyor and flagged in a color that is different from boundary markers. 7. Applicant shall submit a copy of the required NOI prior to final signature by the Planning Board Chairman. 8. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 9. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. 10. Final, approved plans in compliance with this subdivision must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt 11. All site related improvements, such as but not limited to landscaping and lighting, shown on plans shall be complete within one year of obtaining a building permit, and no later than 6 months after receiving a building and codes certificate of occupancy. Duly adopted September 20, 2005 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ford, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set? Onto the next step. 30 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN SP 49-2005. MODIFICATION. SEQR TYPE UNLISTED. APPLICANT: STARK GROUP. OWNERS: STARK GROUP. AGENT: JOHN RICHARDS, ESQ. ZONE: HC-INTENSIVE. LOCATION: 1533 ST. RT. 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES 4-STORY COMFORT SUITES HOTEL AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. PLANNING BOARD MAY ACCEPT LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND PREPARE SEQRA FINDINGS ONLY. MOTELS REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS-REFERENCE AV 75-03, AV 62-05 PENDING. TAX MAP 288-8-1.5.2. LOT SIZE: 4.96 ACRES. SECTION 179-4-020. JOHN RICHARDS & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Next item on the agenda is New Business. The first item under New Business is the Stark Group. Staff Notes? MS. BARDEN-Site Plan number 52-2005. I’m sorry. I’m sorry. Are we doing Entertronics or Stark Group? MR. HUNSINGER-Stark Group. MS. BARDEN-I’m sorry. Wrong one. Okay. SP49-2005. Stark Group. This proposal is for a 99- room, 4-story hotel to be located between I-87 and 9N. This is a SEQR Unlisted Action. At the August 17, 2005 Zoning Board meeting, the Board granted lead agency status to the Planning Board for SEQR review purposes. The coordinated review conducted by the Planning Board will suffice all involved agencies including the ZBA, the Town Board, and the DEC. The Planning Board will need to do one of the following upon reviewing the submitted Long Form EAF: Declare a SEQR Negative Declaration, (2) Table for additional, specified information, or (3) Declare a Type I Action which would require the applicant to draft an EIS. The applicant has or should address the following: Under water and wastewater, question A17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? applicant’s response – No. and relative to that C10. Will proposed action require any authorization for the formation of sewer or water districts? Yes – applicant’s response. sewer and water district extensions. The applicants must provide a map plan and report and make application to the town board requesting an extension of municipal services (see Mike Shaw, Deputy Wastewater Director, memo). Under traffic. Question B1g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour: applicant’s response - 70. Consideration should be given to ingress and egress to the site from 9N, as well as sight distances from 9N. Archeological/Historical/Cultural Impacts. A6. Is the project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district listed on the State or National Registers of Historic Places? Applicant’s response – No. I have some notes here relative to that on New York state DEC letter dated, 8/25/05. A memo from the applicant in your file titled “Protection of archeological resources” A letter from our town historian Marilyn VanDyke, dated 8/24/05 and Warren County Planning Board resolution of approval with the comment, “VanDusen home not to be demolished but evaluated for use with the site as a museum for visitors to learn about local history”. Finally, visual impacts. A14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? Applicant’s response – No. This should be investigated due to the pending height variance application. See the Visual Assessment for Comfort Suites Hotel Height Variance prepared by Nace Engineering, dated July 2005. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Gentlemen? MR. RICHARDS-Chairman, my name is John Richards. I am the attorney for the Stark Group, the applicant and with me, of course, is Tom Nace of Nace Engineering and a couple things if I could just say preliminarily. We’ll be brief here. This is a drawing of the anticipated completed project. I don’t know the easiest way to display this. . . MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Whichever you prefer. MR. RICHARDS-This is a project the Stark family is planning to construct just south of the parcel they now own and utilize as the Mohican Motel and it’s a very exciting project. It’s a four- story hotel, Adirondack theme as you can see, Comfort Suites franchise, and 99 rooms and we think for a highway commercial and intensive zone it’s a perfect use and one that will dramatically enhance the area. We’re here tonight to obviously go over the SEQR aspect of this and we would ask the board to declare – to make a negative declaration tonight and let me just give you an idea of the time frame on this and put things in their proper perspective. We’ve applied for both a variance and a site plan approval and our goal is to get the requisite approvals from this board and the other boards in time to 31 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 at least begin some excavating work and capping of foundations before the very cold weather sets in and then resume full construction later on. The actual construction is going to be substantially back from the road and I mentioned to Sue in getting ready for this in a previous meeting with the county we noticed that there was an error in the setback set forth on the site development data page and rather than distribute a bunch of things to you tonight, if I could just call your attention to that the front setback on a proposed page, which would be the first page of the exhibits. The front setback is 221.9, it was dramatically understated inadvertently there. And so we will be going back and the time frame, as I said, would be to commence initial construction now and then pursue it in earnest next spring and finish it up during the year next year. We’ve anticipated and tried to address many of the issues that staff has raised and pointed out and I thought unless the board would like me to approach this otherwise, that we would just hit the four main points that staff mentioned and obviously always remain open for any other questions. The first one was the water – waste water issue – and I’m going to have Tom address that. MR. NACE-In fact I’ll address the first two. The staff correctly pointed out both water and waste water need extensions from the existing service points within the town districts to provide service to the site. The sewer will be a sewer extension right up and including the site itself. The water, the town water department has indicated to us that they would rather serve us as an outside user, outside district user, primarily because we’re probably going to require a booster pump on site for fire service purposes so that will be brought up to the site as a private individual service provided by the district. We’ll do the construction. The district simply serves us as an outside user and that’s the way they prefer it. Both of those look to be feasible. We’ve gone over them over the past period we’ve gone over those with both Ralph VanDusen and Mike Shaw. The details are being worked out but both services are feasible to do. The service point of connection for the sewer would be down at the south end of the old Dunham’s property and the water would be across the street from that. We would have to bore under Route 9 and bring it across the street to the Dunham’s property and then up from the Dunham’s property to our site. MR. VOLLARO-Are you going to require an easement for that, Tom, to go across the Dunham’s property? MR. NACE-Yes and we’ve been in touch with Dunham’s people the route of procuring that easement. The second issue the staff brought up was traffic. We indicated in the EAF that the peak trip generation from this site, from the hotel, will be 70. Vehicle trips per hour – I’m sure your familiar with ITE trip generation book and all the different charts and that there are several different charts for hotels and motels. None of them fit a particular project perfectly. They are all sort of in betwixt and between. What I did was take the worst case scenario. Took what they list as just a general hotel which would normally include restaurant and a bunch of other services available. I took that as the generation rate for this project. So this is kind of a worst case. A more realistic scenario maybe in the range of 50 to 60, depending on which chart you want to look at. It’s all yours John. MR. RICHARDS-Okay. With respect to history and talk about history the history of this project, there was initially, as you may know, a variance application about eighteen months ago that was submitted and subsequently the plans changed a little bit. But in the course of that, I know there were issues raised and then repeated with Mrs. VanDyke’s letter to the board, as well as the DEC suggestion and so we’ve anticipated that and we want to do the right thing anyway and the historical resources being a boon to everyone in this tourist area and we had proposed, and continue to propose, that we evaluate it properly and if there are areas that they be buffered and flagged and not disturbed, reminding everyone again that the construction here, the vast bulk of this construction is going to be anywhere from 250 to 300 feet back from Route 9. Now we have had Phase 1A and 1B work done at the site. It’s not been reduced to a report form but the objects that were found are being analyzed and so far, my understanding is nothing has come that qualifies a cultural resource, something that we would have to get SHPO to sign off on. Now we have also had the house – when I say the house – there are two houses on the property but the one that seems to be the concern of Mrs. VanDyke and the county planning board is what we call the VanDusen house or sometimes called the Howe house on the southeast section. We have had that building reviewed. With an onsite review by an architectural historian. I do have a letter from him if the board would like to see it. His basic conclusion was that architecturally it did not qualify for inclusion in either the state or federal registered restored places. I just want to confirm once again this house has been moved at least once. Apparently, it was down in what’s now the road bed of Route 9. We have also confirmed that with the prior owner of the property and it has been substantially altered according to our architectural historian’s opinion. It’s perhaps a Civil War era house, mid-nineteenth century, at least a part of it – the core of it – but substantially altered after that at least twice and very substantially altered and parts removed and other parts added on in the 1930s when it was moved to its current location. So it 32 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 doesn’t have – the integrity of it has been compromised to use the term they use. It’s not a significant structure, nor qualifies as I say architecturally for inclusion in the register. All of which would be triggers to go have it reviewed by SHPO, so we have not done that and I know that DEC has suggested it and I know that we’ll have to explain the same thing to them when we apply for our SPDES permit on the storm water. We don’t think it’s necessary. We don’t think we are going to be interfering with any potential areas in any event and all the shovel pit tests we’ve had do not indicate problems in that area as well. So far we don’t see anything that would require SHPO review or require us to hold up this project for that reason but we are continuing and will continue to have our archeologist review things and should they notice anything that they think needs further inquiry, we will certainly flag it and will stay away from it. MR. FORD-Who provided the letter upon which you are drawing this? MR. RICHARDS-I’ve got copies here, again, I’m hesitant to hand you out things in the middle of a meeting. Our work has been conducted by Hartkin Associates and. . . next person to read the whole thing at the moment. But this is the letter that was prepared and the last paragraph would probably be the key one and then I’ve got a resume of qualifications for Walter Wheeler who prepared it. DEC, my understanding at least, is when DEC suggests a SHPO review that’s based on their kind of generic overlay on their GIS system of potential spots with buffers on top of that and which includes about close to half of the town of Queensbury from what I can see. So they leave it to this board to make a decision as to how they want to approach it and I think we are approaching it in a very cautious and respectful manner and to date are not finding anything that would impact anything we are doing on this project. MR. SANFORD-Mr. Chairman, what’s your opinion about receiving this letter on the day of the hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean our policy is that we don’t accept new information the night of the meeting in the case of consideration but I don’t particularly have a problem with it. I don’t particularly have a problem with it in this case. I mean he already summarized what was in the letter. It’s not like we’re using this to approve or table a subdivision or site plan review. MR. SANFORD-The whole issue of the historical significance of the home when I reviewed this. I have an 8/24 letter I believe the counsel referenced by Marilyn VanDyke and she talks in terms of a number of correspondences of which I didn’t have the pleasure of reviewing. Did I have them before and I discarded them or did I never receive them in my packet? MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have them either, so. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t get them. MR. SANFORD-OK. What I’m trying to state for the purposes of your reference and the rest of this board, I’m severely handicapped on this because I haven’t followed the paper trail in terms of the correspondence. OK. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think there was a paper trail for us to follow. That’s part of the problem. MR. SANFORD-Well Marilyn states that the office previously submitted letters in this matter regarding the archeological and historical significance of the site and its existing structures. I have never seen them. MR. VOLLARO-Neither have I. MR. SANFORD-OK, so I think there is something that’s missing here. MR. RICHARDS-If I could address the board on that issue. I was not the attorney that presented the initial variance application in 2003, but I think – judging upon the dates that I’ve got I went back and checked into the zoning file – the zoning board files, I’m sorry, which why this board doesn’t have it probably. MR. HUNSINGER-Ah, that would explain it. MR. RICHARDS-And there is a letter and some comments from Mrs. VanDyke in there which I don’t want to keep handing you things but this is what I found in the file. None of which are based on any expert testimony or expert recitals. Nothing close to what we’ve already done. 33 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 MR. HUNSINGER-It’s based on the town historian’s opinions and comments. MR. RICHARDS-Based on her suggestion. She suggested that an architectural historian review it. That was one of her recommendations which we’ve had – had that done. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Let me just understand this. The DEC letter dated August 25, 2005 your going to comply with their requirement in there. MR. RICHARDS-We have to. We can’t get a permit without their OK. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, so once you say that then I don’t have any further questions on this area. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else want to comment on that? MR. METIVIER-I’m still confused. We don’t have letters though their stated and you stated that you’ve had some – something done here. What is going on with this? Are we OK with this part of it? We are not going to be able to get through SEQRA based on the archeology of it. MR. SANFORD-That’s my point. We can’t get through SEQRA unless we know with certainty whether or not we are dealing with a historical site. MR. METIVIER-I guess I’m confused as to whether or not we are dealing with a historical site. MR. SANFORD-Yeah, me too. There’s the applicant representation and I appreciate you’ve done a nice job with it and you probably have more to say but then there is the other side which is not completed. There has been no determination. There has been representations but the applicant has obviously has reasons for their representations. They want the project obviously approved. I just want to know with certainty whether or not we are dealing with something that is of historical significance or not. No guesswork on it before I feel comfortable moving forward and I have no prejudice one way or another. I just want to know. MR. METIVIER-I’m actually with you on that. MR. VOLLARO-I think if DEC answers their August 25 letter – if we get an answer on that then th we will know. So that’s what your saying. You want to get this DEC letter answered. The August 25 DEC letter answered. th MR. RICHARDS-Prior to. MR. VOLLARO-Prior to SEQRA. Yes I understand that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean if the issue is a concern about SEQRA I think its worth taking a look at the questions in SEQRA related to impact on historical and archeological resources. MR. METIVIER-But we are not to be able to answer any of those because we don’t have anything at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Well let me just kind of walk you through that. It has sort of the yes and no question. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or pantheological importance. Let’s just say for argument’s sake we say, well, yes it may. Because we don’t know. We say yes because we don’t really know for sure. Then it asks examples – proposed action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to a facility or site listed on the state or national register. Well, we know it’s not. So that would be no. Then it says: any impact to an archeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. The applicant has just stated to us that they did a – and I forget the proper terminology – Phase 1A and B, historic review which is being reviewed by DEC. So. MR. RICHARDS-If I could just clarify one thing. We have not submitted anything to DEC. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’m sorry. 34 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 MR. RICHARDS-And we have not produced. We have done all of the field and there is some analysis going on now but we have not produced a written Phase 1A or B report. I do want to clarify that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So you’ve done the field work, the research but you haven’t issued the report yet? MR. RICHARDS-That’s correct. They are analyzing from the artifact. But I just want to address. . . MR. METIVIER-So you are admitting they are artifacts. MR. RICHARDS-Artifacts is any – it could be cigarette butt from 1970. That constitutes an artifact. We are not talking about a cultural resource which is a significant artifact. MR. SANFORD-No, I understand. I guess my question, Chris, to what your saying, again I feel I want to apologize. What’s your name, sir? MR. RICHARDS-John. Richards. MR. SANFORD-John, for interrupting him because I think he hadn’t completed his presentation but unless there is something material that changes it. I what would like to see is that I would like to see Marilyn come in front of this board and I would like to have ahead time her prior correspondence and have her talk to this board about it. I think she – she’s the town historian. She’s paid to do this type of thing and I don’t believe she is present here tonight and I feel that’s a bit of neglect on something along of this magnitude. But anyway, that’s for the record. MR. RICHARDS-Well, if I can just suggest one thing – or two things actually. I do have the correspondence referenced and I don’t want to keep handing things to this board and trying to make a snap decision on it. MR. HUNSINGER-We appreciate that. MR. RICHARDS-But at the same time you can see that they are not particularly comprehensive. They are not based on any expert opinions whatsoever. Mr. Vollaro is entirely correct. We are not going to be able to put a shovel in the dirt to start this project until DEC has given us an OK on the storm water. Right now, at the comments you’ve seen they’re suggesting a SHPO signoff before they’ll do that. If they stay with that, that’s what we’ll have to do but we think they’re reasonable and we can sit down with them as we are doing tonight with you and demonstrate that the cause and the nature of this project, where its located, where the construction is going to take place, if that isn’t necessary or appropriate and that we’ve done significant background work to give them that comfort level then that may not be necessary. But in any event, if you condition your neg. dec. or your ultimate approval on the SPDES permit, I think your covered in this area and we’ve addressed the issues that have to be addressed for SEQRA purposes. Would you like me to approach and at least display these to you so you can see what we’re talking about? MR. HUNSINGER-No, because in my mind I feel comfortable in moving forward with SEQR knowing that there may be mitigation down the road and that’s why I wanted to go through that little exercise of bringing up the questions that are within SEQR. MR. SANFORD-Wait a second, I don’t know if we ever have but certainly I don’t know if it’s appropriate to condition SEQRA. I believe SEQRA is pretty well a determination not an “and if” situation. I think we need to know with certainty when we make our decisions on SEQRA exactly where we sit. No if, well you know, we’ll approve a neg. dec. MR. HUNSINGER-I agree. The kinds of questions that are in the SEQRA law relate to is it on a New York state designated site inventory. We know that it’s not. Is it wholly or partially located on a state or national register. We know it’s not. Do we know that it’s a fossil bed? The questions that have asked we can answer. MR. SANFORD-I don’t know if we know all of these things. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know how you draw that conclusion. 35 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 MR. SANFORD-I don’t know how you draw that conclusion, Chris. The representations from the applicant is that it’s their belief that that’s not the case. I don’t even think that their saying with certainty on that because they haven’t moved to the next step. They’ve done some internal work. Your being premature on this, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think so. MR. RICHARDS-How are these questions different from any other applicant that approaches this board? MR. SANFORD-We know with certainty where things reside. We’re not playing with some degree of vagueness that we’re dealing with here. MR. RICHARDS-I don’t think any of us sitting here that we don’t live on top of a fossil bed. MR. SANFORD-That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the historical significance of this house. The VanDusen house. I need to know – of a better comfort level about the historical significance of this home before I can move to draw the conclusion that it’s not material, anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-State and national registries. We know for certain that it’s not on there, Richard, that’s all I’m saying. MR. FORD-Question - we know that it is not on there. Do we know whether or not an application to place it on there has ever been made? MR. RICHARDS-I believe that requires the approval of the landowner. We certainly haven’t done it and I doubt any prior owner has done it. MS. RADNER-Mr. Hunsinger – just so that one point is clear on the record. There is under law a process that allows you to make a conditioned neg. dec. for a Type 2 action. You cannot for a Type 1 action, but you can for a Type 2 – I’m sorry I’m saying that wrong – you can for a – let me make sure I’m getting it right. For an unlisted action – not for a Type 2 – yeah. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say this is an unlisted action. MS. RADNER-Yes, for an unlisted action you can have a conditioned neg. dec. and this is an unlisted action. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MS. RADNER-I got myself confused. MR. RICHARDS-I just don’t think we are even to that stage of even having to do a conditional neg. dec. because all we’ve got to say that there is historic cultural resources there is a letter from town historian not based on any qualified individual and a general reference to and a DEC suggestion based upon their general overlay map which is I say is covers about half the town of Queensbury. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. RICHARDS-And we have to deal with them anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any other further questions or comments from the board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. If you would like give up the table? MS. RADNER-Can I just suggest something? Is it possible that you could read if you are not going to submit that letter – read that letter in the record so the board has all of the information? MR. RICHARDS-Which letter is that? MS. RADNER-Previous correspondence from Marilyn VanDyke? How would that sound? MR. RICHARDS-If it would pleasure the board. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. What’s the length of the letter? 36 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 MR. FORD-Good idea. MR. RICHARDS-I’m sorry? MR. HUNSINGER-How long is the letter? MR. RICHARDS-Not very long. It’s actually a letter and some comments which – if you could just bear with me a minute I just put aside. The first letter – well you’ve seen the letter that was submitted in August that references prior correspondence and the prior correspondence I believe she is referencing is a letter of August 29, 2003 and it’s addressed to the zoning board of appeals and it says: Dear Members. I am writing in response to the variance request of George Stark who is proposing to build a hotel on his site on Route 9. Please be advised the property in question contains a 150-year-old house dating to circa 1852 and presently referred to as the VanDusen home and was formerly occupied by John B. and Gertrude VanDusen, being sold by Mrs. VanDusen, a widow, to George and Marilyn Stark. The house was built in the 1850s for Clark Howe who was the blacksmith at the French Mountain hamlet. He resided in the dwelling with his family of eight children. See enclosed 1876 map. In 1924 the house was located on the west side of the old road and was subsequently moved it is believed twice to accommodate the widening of Route 9 during the 1930s. The marriage of Mabel Howe to Beecher VanDusen, a supervisor of the town of Queensbury, resulted in the name change for the home. Additional historical research is needed to address the many transfer of lands in this area made by the family over the years and to trace the house’s history in a proper fashion. Mr. Stark has showed no interest in the old building and has spoken of having it burned down by the fire department. He has also stated that he would move the dwelling. Such action would not be in the interest of historic preservation of one of the older dwellings in the town. Some interest has been shown concerning the building’s preservation but the cost of acquiring the property at the time of the proposed sale was prohibited for any historical groups to consider saving the structure. Attention should also be called to the historic marker in front of the house which identifies the old military road. Current research on the colonial road by the Warren County Historical Society to a National Park Service grant to the American Battle Protection Program is attempting to determine if the path of the road did indeed intersect here. Some consideration of this historic area, along with the preservation of sold residence, is needed as a part of the consideration for any new hotel on the property. And that is the letter of August 28. There is in summary form one additional page a month later in 2003. Comments prepared by Marilyn VanDyke, town historian, land unknown usage over time issues of Native American – these are just kind of thoughts – colonial military road; results of grant study underway will be available 12/03 or people buried where they died in quotation marks in proximity to Colonial William’s grave; Plank Road 1847; French Mountain hamlet, see 1876 map; recommendation archeological survey Phase 1 and 2. VanDusen home; 1852 home of Clark Howe, blacksmith, at French Mountain, move ? times to accommodate Route 9 construction on property need to preserve. Recommendations – architectural survey by architectural historian. Application to place house on National Historic Register; planning to preserve structure tied to site planning; restoration to 1853 period; historic marker on house; consider appropriate use in keeping with preservation; public viewing as historic home in Queensbury; conversion to gift shop or other suitable use with house history incorporated; alternate options; move to nearby location in hamlet area; deed to town of Queensbury with land for visitor interpretation area; deed to Warren County Historic Society for home with lot large enough for parking and historic interpretation; need photo of house exterior, front, back, side and setting and historic marker at edge of Route 9; Westley, Hayes, Gilchrist Roads – these are just some addresses – West Hebron for military research; Tom Nesbit, Sara Frank . . . – has their telephone numbers. So these are her thoughts and we did respect them and we did have these things checked and they didn’t seem worthy of any further work and we haven’t heard anything from her as far as whether these people have said anything different. It seems to be a non-issue. We certainly think it is and we would like to go forward. There is no reason not to. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. We do have a public hearing scheduled. MR. RICHARDS-Mr. Chairman – there was fourth. MR. HUNSINGER-Oh, I’m sorry. MR. RICHARDS-We’ve done waste water and water supply. We’ve done traffic, history and now the last thing staff mentioned was visual impact and the plans show that we are keeping a significant amount of trees in place along the west side – a buffer between the Northway and this property so visibility would be very low there and also along the south boundary. Tom’s going to address that in more specificity and, of course, the zoning board has to give us the height variance in any event. So, we feel we have addressed that as well and we do have the luxury of a large site to stay away from the 37 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 road to stay away from the Northway and to give a buffer to everyone and we are really please to the project. But I’ll turn this over to Tom Nace. MR. NACE-Well I don’t know that I really need to get in much detail. I presume that you all received a copy of the visual analysis report. MR. VOLLARO-I put a comment on my visual impact visual assessment for hotel prepared by Tom Nace dated July 2005. I looked for it. I don’t have that. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not in my packet. MR. NACE-I guess since its primarily a zoning board issue with the height variance. MR. VOLLARO-Well one of the things we have to do is SEQR. We’re lead agency on the SEQRA. That’s one thing we haven’t done is declare themselves as lead agency. MR. HUNSINGER-I know – I know that. MR. VOLLARO-Are you okay with that? MR. HUSINGER-Yes. MR. NACE-Okay. Just very briefly. We flew balloons at the ridge peak of the building elevation at the end of the building, the south end of the building and the middle of the building and went around and took pictures of them. From the Northway – I don’t know how well you can see, I’ll pass them around. MR. VOLLARO-These are balloons that are set at 50 foot height? MR. NACE-These are balloons set at the actual elevation of the peak of the ridge MR. VOLLARO-Peak of the ridge – okay. MR. NACE-One thing to keep in mind is that from the front side, from Route 9, the building is four stories, from the back side it is three stories. MR. VOLLARO-It’s five. I mean three. MR. NACE-By the time you set it into the . . . it’s actually a little less than three stories. But there is from the most visible point on the Northway what the motel would like through the trees. If you look real closely – we’re right at the end there – that’s the south end. From the Route 9 side there’s only one view port where the blooms were visible and that is right at the north edge of our site on Route 9. As you can see from a visual perspective from an eye level down on Route 9 that existing one-story house actually looks taller than the motel will be because the motel sets so far back from the road. . . perspective view. . . MR. SANFORD-When did you do these, Tom? MR. NACE-This summer, early summer. I think it was in June. MR. SANFORD-Why didn’t we get them in our packet. Why are we getting them tonight on the night of the hearing? MR. VOLLARO-Because they went to the ZBA rather than to us. MR. SANFORD-Well let him answer. I mean I don’t why. I mean this is material stuff. We have to consider the visual aspects of this project and we’re getting on the night of the hearing and we have a rule that we are not to get material on the night of the hearing. I guess it doesn’t apply. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that, sir. MR. NACE-Okay, but at any rate, as John said I think the fact that we have a large site, the building is set in the middle of the site well back away from Route 9 and back away from the 38 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 Northway gives us the luxury of being able to have it sheltered by the existing tree cover so that the visibility of it is not a particularly a tough issue to deal with. MR. VOLLARO-I have to agree with Mr. Sanford. I would have like to have seen that before this evening but . . . MR. SANFORD-Typically when they do balloon studies in the past we have been notified so we can actually attend and see them visually. I have been to a number of them. This I never even knew took place. MR. VOLLARO-One of the things that I noticed on this and I have it on my notes so I might as well as say it. The pre-application form that was submitted with this. I usually look at that first and take a look at what happened when the staff met with the applicant and the pre-application form talks to those points. In the review that I got it was blank. There’s nothing on it and I rely on that to see what the zoning administrator for example, or one of the members of the staff have to say to applicant during the time they go through this pre-application. To me it sets the stage for me to review the application and this one was blank – totally blank. Don’t understand that. MR. SANFORD-We had several meetings with them. MR. NACE-And laid out the material we were submitting. MR. RICHARDS-As a matter of fact that is one reason why we provided for – indicated our willingness to put in a pedestrian path at the rear. That was at their suggestion, staff’s suggestion. MR. VOLLARO-Here’s the pre-application conference form that I got in my applications. Big question mark obviously – it’s blank. Nothing on it. When I looked at this I said this is one of bases that I use to start the review the rest of the things. What happened between staff and the applicant at this very important conference and I don’t know. I had no idea. That left me behind the power curve just a hair to start off with. There is a number of things I don’t have. On waste water they referred to my comments sent to Craig Brown. This is apparently from Michael Shaw on August 8th and it concerned the map plan and report status. I don’t have that. A lot of stuff that I wanted to see before I got into the SEQR because when we get into SEQR it gets to be pretty testy when you are doing a SEQR like this that covers both site plan. We’re doing the SEQR that covers almost everything. Once the SEQR is done, the mantel is set for the rest of the review and I don’t like to get into SEQR unless I’m comfortable with a lot of it and I have to agree with Mr. Sanford on this point. MR. SANFORD-My point is not to prejudge this at all. I just want to have the information. I want to have more information regarding the historical significance of the VanDusen home and any other conditions associated with it. I would have wanted to have the town historian to give a report here and speak to it. I would have wanted to see copies of our correspondence. I would have wanted to have an advance notification of the balloon flying as well as seeing those drawings before the application and we’re getting it all right now at the hearing. I think it’s bad form. I don’t hear an explanation as to why the sequence. It might not have anything to do with you. You might have done everything appropriately, but as a planning board member I get my packet – have to review my packet to come in hear and I’m ill-prepared to move forward with SEQRA tonight. That’s my statement. MR. RICHARDS-We weren’t trying to not file anything in advance. Obviously we are trying to coordinate this among three or four different boards and town agencies and not trying to shortchange anyone. Certainly with respect to the sewer, we have to go to the town board on that and get Mike’s approval of that. We have to get the zoning variance. The balloon test – long before this board was chosen to be the lead agent – long before the applications were made we figured we had to do that in order to submit a complete application and was in the packet for the zoning board. I certainly apologize if you’ve been shortchanged of anything, but. . . MR. SANFORD-I’m not sure the apology needs to be made by you. MR. RICHARDS-We’re trying to be complete as we can and if there areas you need more information or more time, please let us know. But I do think the things we’ve talked about – I won’t say there fringe things, but they are going to be dealt with in more depth by other agents – other boards. MR. VOLLARO-A couple things I would like to talk about before we even got into SEQRA discussions and that’s on the lighting. I don’t want to get into SEQRA and say lighting is OK when I 39 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 have questions on lighting. I see there’s light spill off the property onto Route 9. There’s a 19-to-1 uniformity ratio at the entry road. Our spec is 4-to-1. I know Mr. Nace’s feeling and I tend to agree with him. Some sites are very difficult to come up with uniformity ratios by section but when I see a 19-to-1 uniformity ratio at the entry road, that’s very high compared to our 4 to 1. It doesn’t give a person’s eyes a chance to adjust to the low lights on the road and the other thing on the lighting I would like to see cuts sheets on the various things and I’ve listed what they are – K8F2-250-R3HS. I need cut sheets to look at the kind of specs that those illuminators cast. I think Tom would agree with that. I think we usually get those kinds of things so we know what they are. And all of those are germane, really, to proceeding with the SEQRA review so that I feel comfortable when we get to the lighting section that I’m comfortable with SEQRA. SEQRA is a document that I have to be very warm and fuzzy before I go into it. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the board? I’m hearing at least a couple of members that don’t feel comfortable moving forward with SEQR and I bring that up now because I wonder if this is going to be tabled anyway, how far to go with the public hearing. MR. SANFORD-I think you should have public hearing open it up and see what the people have to say and we can make a judgment after that but, again, just like the application we had earlier, I’m not sure that these outstanding issues are necessarily the fault of the applicant. I suspect they are not, in large part, but nevertheless I don’t have the same comfort level that others might have but I would like to hear what the public has to say. MS. BARDEN-I will say one thing in my defense. The visual assessment was part of the zoning board packet. This was not submitted by the applicant for SEQR. On my part, they did have a pre- application meeting with staff. There was no form that was filled. They have met the requirement. They met with staff but there is nothing to submit for you on that conference. MR. VOLLARO-But it’s a requirement for us. MS. BARDEN-And they met the requirement. There’s just no form that has any – it was just a discussion. There was nothing written on the form. There was no form written out. We do have on the calendar that they met with staff and I can get you the date of that matter. MR. VOLLARO-I think Marilyn has issued and I can get the letter where she talks to the fact that a pre-application requirement - is the requirement and that the form reflect what took place at that and that’s something that – I don’t know how other board members feel. To me the pre-application of conferences is very, very important. MS. BARDEN-I know that you like that and it’s very important to us as well. I’m not sure if the submittal of the form is the requirement as much as it’s a requirement that the applicant meet with staff. MR. VOLLARO- I don’t think we want to parse words on that. I just don’t want to get into an argument with staff on this. I believe I need that piece of documentation to do an adequate review of an application that’s before me. That’s my position. MR. RICHARDS-If I could just – staff has been great to work with and if there is anything missing its through either inadvertent miscommunication between us so it’s not like we are trying to point fingers at anyone. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think anybody is. All the staff is trying to do – all I’m trying to do and I think some other members of the board is get comfortable with this application so when we do SEQR we have got that comfortable feeling of saying yes or no or whatever. MR. FORD-I share the lack of comfort with proceeding from our vantage point however, I would like to hear from the public and I also am not casting stones at anyone. The folks at the table or staff but I would like to hear from the public. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to speak regarding this application before the board. OK, we do have at least one. If I could ask you to give up the table. Obviously, you know the routine, Mr. Strough. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN STROUGH 40 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 MR. STROUGH-I’m John Strough. The hat I’m wearing tonight is the one of being a member of the town of Queensbury Historians Advisory Committee. The fact that the state says that this structure has no archeological significance to the state is not the issue. SHPO and Harkin, they’re to make determinations of subsurface archeological importance. That’s not the issue. DEC and their determination of significance as far as the structure goes is not the issue. The issue here is that Marilyn VanDyke, who is the expert, Dr. VanDyke is the town historian has commented that this structure may have historical significance to us at the town level. That it’s the only remaining structure of a former village, the French Mountain. It’s the only remaining structure. I know that this board has historically made every effort to protect our heritage even to the extent of protecting stone walls and I would argue that the structure is more important than stone walls to the people of town of Queensbury and that’s the issue. While the other is, I think, a distraction and I think what Mr. Sanford said is if you want testimony from Dr. VanDyke, I think that’s good. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? I will leave the public hearing open for now. If you would like to come back to the table. What’s the will of the board? I know there is at least three members that are uncomfortable moving forward with any SEQR determination. How about you, Tony? MR. METIVIER-I honestly would like to hear from Marilyn on this site more than anything. I know that we did another site plan review probably two or three years ago in the area and the gentleman who the applicant at the time was required to obtain someone of his historical background to watch over the site when they did their work and I would – after hearing Marilyn’s comments would actually maybe want to go that route. MR. HUNSINGER-I have a question for staff. We do have this on the agenda for next week. I am presuming that they are on the zoning board agenda for this month. MS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Tomorrow night. MR. HUNSINGER-Tomorrow night. So if we don’t approve SEQR tonight, then they cannot go before the zoning board for their variance request. MS. BARDEN-That’s correct MR. METIVIER-This is one of those cases. Well, we can’t rush this one. I mean we honestly can’t rush it. MR. HUNSINGER-No. There’s at least four members of the board that said they are not comfortable. The only other – I’m sorry, go ahead. MS. BARDEN-Would it be possible to continue the SEQR next week? If they are already on the agenda for site plan – and see if Marilyn can come in next week? MR. HUNSINGER-Yeah. That was going to be a question that I was going to ask staff if would could get Marilyn here for that meeting. MS. BARDEN-I will try. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a resolution to acknowledge lead agency status. That was an action that we were scheduled to take this evening. I see that as an administrative action. I don’t want to presume to comment for the rest of the board. MR. VOLLARO-We probably ought to take that on when we’re comfortable. Just before we go into SEQR, I would think. MR. SANFORD-I think we could take lead agency now. I mean, is that what your saying, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-This is just acknowledging that we are lead agent. 41 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 MR. SANFORD-That we are going to assume lead agency. I mean, we get these requests all the time. We could do that now with just a vote. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward that resolution. We did have a draft in our package. MR. SANFORD-We did? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we did. I’m having the same problem as counsel as having looking for a report but I have it now. MR. HUNSINGER-Resolution acknowledging lead agency status in connection with area variance 62-2005 in site plan 49-2005, Stark Group. MR. SANFORD-You just did it, didn’t you? Throw it out there, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m just reading the heading. MOTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2005 AND SITE PLAN NO. 49-2005 FOR THE STARK GROUP, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Site Plan and Area Variance application for a proposed four (4) story Comfort Suites Hotel, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the projects to be a Unlisted action for the purposes of SEQRA review pursuant to 6 NYCRR, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the actions because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property, and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be Lead Agency for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the Department of Community Development to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such intent. Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2005 by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic MR. HUNSINGER-With respect to SEQR, I think the issues are pretty apparent but I just wondered if it might be worth taking a couple of minutes to make that we explain to the applicant exactly what they are. The historic significance of the property. MR. VOLLARO-That’s one. MR. FORD-And the visual. MR. HUNSINGER-And the visual impact. MR. SANFORD-I think Bob Vollaro referenced what may be additional information on lighting? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do. The lights spill off the property line onto Route 9 and the 19-to-1 uniformity ratio at the entry road. I don’t have any problems with the rest of the lighting plan. I just do have problems with that. 42 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 MR. FORD-Let me . . . something with those. MR. VOLLARO-And the cut sheets so that we get some idea what the illuminators look. I probably could use a copy of that visual impact. MR. NACE–I was going to say, as far as visual impact, you want copies for the board. Anything additional other than what was given to the zoning board? MR. VOLLARO-I’m just looking now at the. MR. HUNSINGER-Just a logistical question. . . MR. FORD-Whatever else you want to present, present it prior to the meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Well that’s what I was about to ask is the logistical question of staff. MR. NACE-Visual impact stuff I can get to you tomorrow. The lighting stuff will be later on this week. MR. METIVIER-We don’t have staff notes for next week do we? MRS BARDEN-That’s right. MR. METIVIER-So . . . with staff notes, right? MS. BARDEN-I mean we can hand deliver these things, it depends on how late they’re willing to get them – Monday, Friday? MR. SANFORD-One other issue here before we do SEQR we going to have to feel comfortable with traffic impacts and again we’ve discussed this on almost all larger projects that we come across. What, if any, additional information regarding traffic impacts. Do we want to have as a board to get through SEQR? MR. HUNSINGER-I know what I would like. Traffic count, the DOT traffic count for that section of Route 9. How many trips per day. MR. NACE-You mean the existing traffic? Background traffic? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. NACE-Sure. We can get that. In fact we have met last summer we met with Mark Kennedy on site and went through the entire package. He wanted some additional information that showed site lines for exiting site distance which we have generated and transmitted to them and he indicated at that time that he did not want to see or would not require a traffic study because of the high volume of the road and the commercial use. MR. SANFORD-There have been some developments that currently will not be factored in, Chris, and that would be the impact of completion of the Great Escape project. The hotel on Route 9 at the corner of Round Pond Road that is being under construction and . . . MR. VOLLARO-On the other motel that’s on Route 9 that we just approved as well with the Outback Restaurant. MR. SANFORD-Outback Restaurant. And so again. MR. NACE-There is a significance distance away from this site, though. MR. METIVIER-While I respect you there, I just think that you – you’re too far down. I don’t think you would have any impact there. I mean traffic, I don’t think up in this area, is going to be an issue. I mean we need some information but at the same time I don’t foresee that being a tremendous thing that will stop this. 43 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 MR. SANFORD-I want to be fair to the applicant in that we just have problems with traffic studies here and until it gets resolved, it’s hard to pick out one particular project for this. But we don’t comprehensive, cumulative traffic impact studies. We do discreet ones and it’s a problem. MR. METIVIER–In this particular case we haven’t really had any applications up that far. MR. SANFORD-Yeah I hear you. It’s right at the northern part of town. MR. HUNSINGER-The reason why I ask for the background information is the applicant has said that based on the standard empirical data they’re going to generate 70 trips per hour – maximum 70 trips per hour. And my suspicion is that the average daily traffic in that section is probably 15,000 trips. Off the top of my head I’m saying maybe it’s 12 – MR. NACE-My guess would certainly be above 10. MR. HUNSINGER- but it’s probably 10,000. So 70 trips in the peak hour out of a background of 10,000, is that significant? That’s why I want the number. MR. VOLLARO-Not on an individual basis. But if my proposal goes through with this recommendation from this board will be that – to the town board – that we do a comprehensive study. MR. HUNSINGER-You know I’m in favor of that comprehensive study. That’s has nothing to do with it. I’m just talking about this one application. MR. VOLLARO-Your talking 70 into 10,000 is kind of like a pea in the water. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say a drop in the bucket, but. . . MR. VOLLARO-I meant a pea. MR. NACE-I will see what information I can get available. MR. HUNSINGER-Another other issues? MR. VOLLARO-Tom, you mentioned site distance. What was the outcome of site distance measurements there? Not significant? MR. NACE-Site distance to the north was, I believe, 630 or 620. Site distance to the south – we’re going to the south were cutting the bank back a little bit to improve site distance and that was what Mark wanted to see was a grading for that bank and a site line profile that showed him what we had on there. And if I remember right we have 500, 550 to the south. Minimum is 400 or 445. He wanted us to go 5 miles over. So 50 mile speed limit - or design speed. MR. METIVIER-I guess since we are still talking about this and I’m just thinking anything you can provide us as far as visual impacts go and archeological impacts or – those are really going to be the two things that I’ll look at more than anything. You know, it’s funny we were making a comment the other day. There was no real visual impact with the new water park going up when we were reviewing that application and the visual impacts are huge. So, maybe even some type of comparison between the two could help because you weren’t supposed to see that from the Northway. You weren’t supposed to see that from Route 9 and yet it’s everywhere. So you look at your pictures, you look at your balloons. You say that we’re not going to see it from here, we’re only going to see it from there – I don’t buy it. So anything you can provide that will differently or prove differently that after this project is done, you. . . MR. NACE-If you would like a comparison, Tony, go back and look what I produced for you for the sports dome from the Northway and I think if you look at the site now from the Northway, it’s a pretty accurate representation. MR. METIVIER-The sports dome? MR. NACE-The Doug Miller sports dome. MR. VOLLARO-Upper Sherman. 44 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 MR. NACE-You go right by it and you don’t even notice it. MR. METIVIER-I was thinking of the sports done at Yamaha dealership. I’m thinking what does that have to do with anything, but the fact remains is that we have these visual impacts and, yet, they are not always so accurate so anything you could do to help. MR. RICHARDS-Don’t paint us with the Great Escape. MR. METIVIER-No absolutely not. No. MR. RICHARDS-But the Starks live right next door. They’re going to do this right. MR. METIVIER-And I’m not doing that – nothing against the Great Escape either. That’s not the point and that wasn’t my point to my comment but the point is that we are trying best with stuff on paper and sometimes, I think, we are almost fooled, so. MR. RICHARDS-We’ll certainly try to avoid that and if I have my list correct, Mr. Chairman, we want to make sure we give whatever supplementary information we have as to the historic resources that may or may not be on the property. The visual impact we just discussed. The lighting information that Mr. Vollaro specified and a little more backup on that traffic impact certainly what you mentioned as far as the counts and site lines – things like that and we need to get those to staff right away – yesterday. MR. HUNSINGER-That was going to be my comment. MR. RICHARDS-If I may just finish. So if we get that material and I’m assuming that it is satisfactory in its content and we can move ahead and move and try and get a SEQR determination next week even if Mrs. VanDyke does or doesn’t come. I would assume that . . . MR. METIVIER-Well, we hope that she would at least respond. MR. RICHARDS-We can at least count on pushing forward and trying to bring to a head and get it resolved next week, assuming we’ve done our backup work for you and for that I do appreciate the consideration of the board. MR. HUNSINGER-Your welcome. MR. VOLLARO-Just one other topic – CT Male’s letter of August 13th is fairly old now. Tom, you haven’t put a response into that have you? MR. NACE-I haven’t put a response yet. I’ve gone through all of it. I’ve started to make the drawing changes. Most of it is technical drawing changes. MR. VOLLARO-That would be helpful to have that. At least your response, maybe not their signoff on that, but at least your response to their questions. That would also put a lot . . . MR. NACE-In most cases we’re doing what they’ve asked. MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if they were to get the new information to you by noon, Friday, does that give you enough time for distribution? Friday afternoon? MS. BARDEN-I think so. Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that reasonable for staff? MS. BARDEN-I think that’s reasonable. MR. VOLLARO-That would be Friday for the Tuesday meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. METIVIER-I mean even if we had it by Monday, it’s not going to be a significant amount of information that would couldn’t review Monday night. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. 45 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 MR. METIVIER-I’m not saying either to postpone, I’m just saying that I would be . . . MR. VOLLARO-I think Friday is a good target, Tony, though. MR. HUNSINGER-Is Friday reasonable? MR. METIVIER-I didn’t mean Monday for you. I meant Monday for us. Should we not receive it on Friday. As long as we have it before the meeting. MS. BARDEN-We’ll get it to you on Friday before the end of the day. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you very much. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN 52-2005. SEQR TYPE UNLISTED. PROPERTY OWNER TREE CARE BY STAN HUNT. APPLICANT ENTERTRONICS. LOCATION: 53 & 57 BOULEVARD. TAX MAP NO. 304.17-1-29, 32. LOT SIZE: 2.97 AC., 1.48 AC. SECTION 179-5-130. ZONE: LI-1A. APPLICANT PROPOSED TO ERECT A NINETY-FIVE (95) FOOT TALL RADIO MONOPOLE ANTENNA WIT A NINETY-SIX (96) SQUARE FOOT BUILDING. TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS REQIURE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. DAVE COVEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Next item on the agenda is, again, under new business. Applicant Entertronics. Site Plan 52-2005. Owner Tree Care by Stan Hunt. Staff Notes? MS. BARDEN-Said plan number 52-2005. Applicant, Entertronics/Tree Care by Stan Hunt. Location is 53 and 67 Boulevard. Zoning is light industrial, one acre. Unlisted SEQR status. The parcels are two parcels. One is 2.97 acres. The other is .66 acres. Project description: Applicant proposes to construct a 95-foot high radio monopole antenna with 96-square-foot building. Under staff comments: waivers from the following requirements storm water management plan, grading plan, lighting plan, landscaping plan, water and sewer, parking, signage, lighting and utilities. MR. SANFORD-Do we have an applicant here? MR. COVEY-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Oh, I’m sorry. They normally come to the table first before this . . . MS. BARDEN-Let me just preface this by saying these are George Hilton’s staff notes. So when I say I have reviewed I have not reviewed the application. No additional clearing of the lots is proposed by the applicant. In Section 179-5-1305(1)(C)(e) of the Code requires that where the site abuts residential or public property, including streets, at least one row of native Evergreen shrubs or trees capable of forming a continuous hedge at least 10 feet in height within two years of planting shall be provided to effectively screen the tower base and accessory facilities. No such planting plans have been provided but the applicant addressed this issue and a memo to Marilyn Ryba on 8/17/05. Standards for placement outlined in Section 179-5-130(G) of Town Code appear to have been addressed. See the applicant’s cover letter. The radial design specifications provided in that same memo. In lieu of plantings, the board may wish to insure the requirements are met. Accessory structure shall maximize the use of building materials, colors and textures designed to blend with the natural surroundings. The board should require a copy of the FCC license for this site as a condition of any resolution of approval. The monopole antenna height essentially dictates that a clear fall zone of at least 95 feet be provided in case of collapse. Fall zone of such a radius would effectively would eliminate the use of a large portion of the rear of lot 304.17-1-32. And I am not sure if that’s 53 or 67 Boulevard. The applicant should be required to provide a document right of exclusive use precluding additional development for all lands within the fall zone. I have reviewed part 1 of the short EAF and the visual EAF addendum and offer the following additional comments: Item 9 of the EAF should note the residential use of one of the properties, as well as the proximity of the Feeder Canal. The Feeder Canal is noted as an open space resource in the town’s open space vision plan. Item 2 in the visual EAF should be checked as no. Photographs submitted with the applicant show that the monopole will be visible above the existing the tree line on a year-round basis. Item 6 on the visual EAF applicant should provide the basis for this estimate of the number of viewers. That’s it. 46 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 MR. HUNSINGER-OK. Thank you. If you could identify yourself for the record and then tell us about the project. MR. COVEY-I am Dave Covey, the owner of Entertronics Broadcasting. The goal of the project, I guess, is very clear. What has precipitated this project is the site, the current site of the transmitting tower for WWSC was purchased a while back. I have been leasing both the building and the tower. I don’t own that tower. It’s been passed along from one property owner to another. That property is now going to be developed. I had to get off and was given my notice by the developer. So, a number of issues that came to light. Firstly, the Federal Communications Commission is the lead agency here for the bottom line. They also provide a form and a rather extensive review of historically significant sites, archeological problems so I’ve addressed those separately. I’m still waiting for finalization from the New York State Department of Archeology. I believe I’ve been cleared. It’s only verbal at this point by the New York State Office of Historic Preservation and certainly I can provide the board with that documentation as soon as I get it. I was amazed that I was able to get New York state to move on this within 60 days, so I was quite pleased about that. Now the Federal Communications Commission requires that this new tower be placed within a mile and a half of the existing tower and the reason for that is to ensure that we comply with their tight restrictions on minimum signal strength to the city of license which is Glens Falls, given that this radio station only has a thousand watts of power compared to, for example, WGY with fifty thousand watts of power. It’s essential that we keep these minimums in check. So, that’s why I’ve chosen this piece of property. I’ve considered other pieces. There’s an existing tower in the town of Queensbury on the southern side of Big Boom Road that was used several years ago by another radio station – an AM radio station. It, however, is too far from Glens Falls. Again, the separation problem, minimum signal. I proposed to the FCC that I re-licensed the station to the village of South Glens Falls. Geographical and technically that would work but the FCC won’t open a window nationally for a major change which is how they define that for another five years and they won’t entertain any exceptions. So, I’m going to keep this thing on the air and it’s a matter of also preserving not only the public interest being served but also it’s an emergency alert station so that if anything comes down whether it’s local, state or national, that radio station drops everything it’s doing and proceeds to send along the message regardless of where it originated. So, would you like me to move to some of the issues that staff has brought to light here? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. COVEY-OK. I received a note from the fire marshal, Mike Palmer, and he states the road must be minimum of 20 feet in width the access road to the site. I should also make it clear the road exists and has and has been used by Tree Care by Stan Hunt for years. In fact these parcels have as a buffer zone to clear debris that generated by the cutting and maintaining of trees, their business. So, that applies here and that heavy dump trucks have been in and out of that road for a long time. It should packed significantly to support the weight of any fire apparatus. Now the width – the gates which allow access to these properties are 15 feet, 3 inches below the requirement according to the fire marshal and a code number here of 20 feet. I have no idea how stringent this rule is. Certainly a fire engine can’t be much wider than 8 feet. The gate is 15 feet, 3 inches so I need some direction on that. Do we need to rebuild the gate or is it possible to get clearance based on the gate that’s there? Regarding the historical significance, you’ve probably noted that I included a letter from Marilyn VanDyke who states basically that her words it would appear that the erection of a radio tower would not impact on these historic or archeological sites in any way and her reference is to the Johnson’s Military Road, a trolley line that ran the length of the boulevard between Fort Edward and Glens Falls, bus garage and the Feeder Canal. Now the Feeder Canal is on the National Historic Register and that was a concern of the state historic preservation office. However, since it is not a primary site – it’s a secondary site in their definition, apparently – they were not concerned about it. If it had been a structure. If it had been a significant – had significant presence in the viewscape, then they would have been concerned about it but, again, I will provide you with documentation of that. Now, from CT Male this project was not developed by nor was it reviewed by a professional engineer. I did the work here. I was the engineer for WWSC from 1972 to 1978 at which time I got into management there so it was I who did this along with the consulting firm of Jack Mulaney and Associates. They are doing the technical work that has to be presented to the FCC to move this radio station. So there is also a letter from them explaining that I cannot provide a license from the FCC – I realized I’m jumping around here a little bit – without your approval. The FCC wants reasonable assurance before they will issue us the permit to even entertain an application from us to move this station. They don’t want to waste their staff time if, indeed, we have to approach them again for an application on another site. So those are the details as I have them for that issue. I have told you about the engineering. MR. VOLLARO-Wasn’t there a letter in here that showed that the license was being transferred? 47 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 MR. COVEY-I have the existing license. I was never issued a license since I purchased the radio station. Apparently the FCC . . . MR. VOLLARO-There was some notes on there that talked about the transfer of that license. I saw a note scribbled on it. MR. COVEY-Yes. That’s the statement from, I believe, the Mulaney engineering firm and I was repeating what they had stated. MR. VOLLARO-It looked to me like that might have satisfied the requirement for the license when I read their comments. MR COVEY-Sorry it’s not there. It’s in my packet here. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got it. I’ve got it someplace. MR. COVEY-Here it is. This is from Timothy Sawyer, Mulaney Engineering, Inc., Gaithersburg, Maryland. Our review of the matter based on the site location proposed has concluded that under the current FCC rules and regulations, the application should be granted by the FCC without any difficulties or delays. No additional interference of existing or proposed radio facilities is likely and it complies with FCC laws. Next sentence, next paragraph: once you have obtained local permission to proceed, we will prepare the application and submit it to the FCC. We strongly recommend to all clients that local permission be obtained prior to filing a formal application with the commission. The commission requires all applicants to have ‘reasonable assurance’ that a proposed site be available for applicant’s used prior to filing applications. So I might also submit to the board that the last I would want to do is steam the FCC. Continuing down the list from CT Male. I differ with them. They say in Item 4 it is not clear if any photo simulating the new tower height were taken from the boulevard near the site’s entrance. I did submit those and hopefully they were included in your packet. (PROBLEMS WITH TAPE) MR. VOLLARO-Are these the photos that you’re talking about. MR. COVEY-Yes, that photograph in particular is from the Feeder Canal. MR. VOLLARO-They’re labeled at the top. MR. COVEY-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Boulevard perspective? MR. COVEY-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Right side front of boulevard perspective? Right side front? MR. COVEY-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-So you do have a lot of shots from the boulevard? MR. FORD-It’s here. MR. COVEY-Are we good with number four? Or any alternative tower locations considered a summary of any alternative sites should be included. There are none. MR. VOLLARO-This is site specific. I can understand where your coming . . . MR. COVEY-This is a site specific area right. I considered the Big Boom Road site. I consulted with engineers on using the existing radio tower on Everetts Avenue that used by some of the other radio stations, our competitors and the problem there was that their frequency of one of their stations – 1410 is so close to the frequency of WWSC 1450 that there is not a network available of tuning materials that could separate those two stations on one tower. MR. VOLLARO-You’re right in there. 48 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 MR. COVEY-Yes. So that was shot down. I looked at the previous site back in the 40s of WGLN down on Pryn’s Island. That site and a few others I looked at were out of any zone that we could afford for that radio station in terms of purchasing the land. Three or four hundred thousand dollars is not in WWSC’s budget these days. So that became pretty clear. There was just no sense in going on. It would have made more sense to sell the station to someone if someone was that interested. The issue of planting, I commented on that in one of my paragraphs that the FCC does not like to see a lot of vegetation or blockage of any kind and that it could absorb some of the signal. Should you ask why don’t we just put more signal into the tower to compensate for that or anything else. They’re very specific about that too, the commission. We can only put a thousand watts into the tower. Even if we go out and measure field strengths and find that it’s below the minimums. They will not allow us to put more power into the antenna. The definition of that class of radio station is very rigid so. MR. VOLLARO-I suspect that’s all due to the spec on the antenna as well. It’s got a lot to do with how much power the antenna will take. MR. COVEY-Yes. That was an important issue. I have sixteen copies of a lease which I consummated yesterday which showed that both Lot 29 and 32 are being leased by Entertronics which provide a clear fall zone for a 95-foot tower well within the boundaries of what we’re leasing. I believe that’s my presentation. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Questions of the board? Why don’t we go through the site plan review criteria. Design standards? Site development design? I’m not sure how we deal with the emergency access issue. MR. VOLLARO-As far as that gate is concerned. The gate width I don’t know how to deal with that as well. I’m not sure that current apparatus can get through that. I don’t know enough about that. I think we would have to have a signoff probably by the fire marshal to tell us that their fire apparatus as far as he knows in town could get through that gate. MR. SANFORD-That would be what? South Queensbury? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I guess so. You would have to talk to the fire marshal. He knows what the districts are and he would get to the right fire chief on that. MR. SANFORD-It shouldn’t be a problem I don’t think. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think it’s a problem personally. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, concerns related to storm water sewage design? They really don’t apply. MR. VOLLARO-No. I looked at that list and I found it hard to translate. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well why don’t I just open it up with general questions, comments from the board. It’s kind of hard to go through the design criteria. MR. SANFORD-I just have a question. This is that 67 Boulevard, I remember? MR. COVEY-In the rear. MR. SANFORD-In the rear. Quite a bit in the rear? MR. COVEY-Yes. MR. SANFORD-There’s a big tower, I think the Niagara Mohawk tower? MR. COVEY-Yes. Just to the west. MR. SANFORD-Yes. Now how high . . . what that tower is now? MR. COVEY-My guess is there is a large Niagara Mohawk tower. The right-of-way goes right by, in fact, that’s the western boundary of Lot 32, I think. My guess is about 75 feet maybe 100 feet for the larger of the towers and probably sixty feet or so just off the top of my head for the others. 49 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 MR. VOLLARO-They are pretty obtrusive towers when you look at this tower. It’s a broomstick essentially an unguided broomstick. SPEAKER-And it’s white. It looks like a flagpole. A tall one. SPEAKER-An insignificant impact. MR. SANFORD-This requires public hearing right? MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. SPEAKER-This cannot be a one-piece antenna, right? SPEAK-Actually it comes in a couple of pieces. It’s delivered as a kit. It’s put together and goes on a hinge plate on the base so we can tip down and work on it if we have to. So it essentially becomes one piece. SPEAKER-Right. It doesn’t get trucked in one piece. Right? SPEAKER-No. SPEAKER-But nobody has to go up it either? SPEAKER-No one can. SPEAKER-No one can go up it. MR. VOLLARO-It’s all a pivot. It comes down for maintenance and gets back up again. They’re pretty typical of radio towers. SPEAKER-I guess I was for the longest time picturing the . . . MR. VOLLARO-Go shimmying up that pole. SPEAKER-No. Those towers off the thruway there the WOR, W towers or whatever they are. SPEAKER-Right. Right. SPEAKER-But it’s nothing like that. SPEAKER-No. And my concern was actually twofold. Site pollution there and secondly prohibitive costs. The existing tower on Dix Avenue is 203 feet. The beacon on the front top of the tower is three feet high. It doesn’t look that way from the ground. So I was sensitive to site pollution. I was also sensitive to the costs of the project and this a relatively new technology with site pollution with all of the items that we are trying to prevent these days. I did some research and found this company and its towers. They have a good history and the towers are very strong. They’re covered with fiber. It looks like a white flagpole. A tall one. That we could hang a flag on it. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the board. MR. VOLLARO-They wouldn’t be the second person in Queensbury to hang a flag on a telecommunications tower. MR. HUNSINGER-No they wouldn’t. Let’s not go there. Because then you would have to light it and then you get into the problems of light pollution and then . . . We do have a public hearing scheduled. If you could give up the table. SPEAKER-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-The purpose of a public hearing is to solicit public comment and questions regarding the project. Before you ask your question or comment if you could for the record state your name. We do tape the meeting so we would ask that you speak into the microphone. I don’t know who wants to be first. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 50 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 RONALD DIXON MR. DIXON-The radio station is located where now? MS. RADNER-Sir. Please state your name. MR. HUNSINGER-Yeah, if you could say your name for the record. MR. DIXON-Ronald Dixon. MR. HUNSINGER-The existing tower is on Dix Avenue. MR. DIXON-I realize that. Is that where the station is located? My question was where is the station located? MR. VOLLARO-Where will it be located? Or where is it located? MR. DIXON-His radio station. SPEAKER-Downtown Glens Falls, right? SPEAKER-128 Glen Street. MR. DIXON-Why can’t he put the tower up there? MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll ask him that when he comes back to the table. MR. DIXON-We have enough unsightly things to look at in our neighborhood as it is now. It’s residential. Now we’ve got something else to look forward to. I just don’t think it’s – in my book it should fly but I’m just one person. Thank you. TRUDY DIXON MRS. DIXON-I’m Trudy Dixon. I’m concerned about it because I have a pacemaker and is this going to interfere at all with the pacemaker and what about noise. Is there going to be noise from this tower? Because, god knows, we got enough stuff around there with the garbage plant and whatever else is coming in there. MR. HUNSINGER-We will ask the applicant when he comes back to the table. Thank you. MR. DIXON-That was a nice presentation but I didn’t hear him mention anything about health problems. We all got health problems and some of them are serious so what is this tower going to do for us? I heard that it can cause leukemia. As far as I’m concerned they’re not giving the neighborhood and the people a very good story about this thing and I think we should know about it before its approved. JOE SHELOSKI MR. SHELOSKI-Joe Sheloski. You made a statement you heard that it could cause leukemia. Could you state your source please. MR. DIXON-On the internet. MR. SHELOSKI-On the internet. Any particular site? MR. SHELOSKI-I’m Marion Sheloski and my concern is if that goes through we’re not far from the pole. We won’t be far from it but another thing, kids, even though you put in a gate where he wants to put a gate the kids from the boulevard come down, because it’s a little hill and they play down in the summer and they travel all around the Hunt property and he got signs, no trespassing but they still, they’re from the boulevard. . . SPEAKER-Where does he have signs? 51 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 MR. SHELOSKI-He had a couple. That’s kind of powerful and how is it going to keep the kids from going down. Are you going to fence all the way from there to lower Warren Street? That’s where the kids are all live on the boulevard. RICHARD NORTH MR. NORTH-Good evening. I’m Richard North, 77 Boulevard. My property line runs – my backyard runs right next to where this is proposed thing is and I guess my question would be the impact that this is going to have on the neighborhood. Has something of this ever taken place in Queensbury, in the town residential area so they know what the impact of something like this would be in the neighborhood? This is pretty close to the residential – I mean it’s commercial/residential and we’re probably within two hundred feet of this pole and being that closed, being residential I was concerned about the impact. Not only the visual impact which is going to be significant. The health impact which I haven’t done a lot of – I’ve did a little bit of research because I’ve just got this Saturday as far as radio waves and I haven’t read anything good about it but being that we are going to be that close to this radio tower that the radio waves would effect the health of people living around it and the environmental impact that it will have on the area. Plus the property impact on what it’s going to do the property values. If this project goes through that this, I’m going to guess that it’s something major and this is going to be around for generations this tower. They’re not going to put this up and take it back down. And, I guess, if there’s even a slight chance of this posing a health risk to people in the neighborhood . . . go through and it’s been stated we have a lot of visual impacts that are already in the neighborhood and one more is really not going to help. But I would really like to know if something of this nature has ever been done the neighborhood of Queensbury, town of Queensbury. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think there has but I’m only speaking for myself. I’ve been on the board about seven years. MR. NORTH-If it has never been done no one going to know what the impact is – in this area they’re not going to know. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean there are certainly are other radio towers in the community. MR. NORTH-I was wondering if they did any research on the impact of this on any other area that is close to a residential area. SPEAKER-Is this going to affect our property value? SPEAKER-Yes. You did ask that question. SPEAKER-That’s very close to me. I mean like I said I’m going to guess that tower’s going to be – if there is a 90-foot drop then it’s going to be probably maybe a 150 feet from my property line. So, I don’t know I’m just one of the many that are concerned about this. I guess I think that’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-OK. Thank you. SPEAKER-If I have any other questions. . . SPEAKER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? JOSEPH BARLOW MR. BARLOW-My name is Joseph Barlow and I live directly across where they are going to put and I was just wondering I’m going to be sitting there and looking at that every day I get up and I have that there plus we’re getting all kinds of business on that street so I was just wondering if we can have an idea what it’s going to look like and what it’s going to do. Like what the others said if it’s going to cause any kind of noise because we get a lot of trucks going down through now so I was just wondering before they pass this through we have more idea about this. MR. HUNSINGER-OK. We’ll ask those questions . . . SPEAKER-Want to take a picture? . . . take a picture with you. 52 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 SPEAKER-This is the photograph that we would . . . take a look at that SPEAKER-Because it has to come down. . . he’s losing the building and the tower has to come down. SPEAKER-Yes because the building . . . he has been leasing the property and he’s not renewing the lease or can’t renew the lease. Here’s another picture of that if you want. SPEAKER-I was just wondering how long the lease is for? SPEAKER-I was going to ask him that question. SPEAKER-And what impact is this going to have on interference as far as TV reception, radio reception or any other . . . things like my phones. . . MR. HUNSINGER-If you want to come back to the table. There were a number of concerns that you heard. . .summarize some of them. There were concerns about will there be any noise. . . background noise from the tower. Interference with pacemakers, TVs, radios, phones, etcetera. Health risk issues and . . . comments related to that . . . SPEAKER-The noise. There is no noise period. SPEAKER-OK. . . noise. When SPEAKER-. . . the tower is designed to withstand a wind of 150 miles an hour. SPEAKER-But if wind whips through there’s nothing worse than . . . a tree. SPEAKER-No. It’s essential a fiberglass pole. It’s like a 95-foot flagpole. SPEAKER-Right. There some concerns about interference with pacemakers, TVs, radio receptions, cordless phones. SPEAKER-In my forty years experience I’ve seen a lot of . . . The point is every single problem has been solved and usually very quickly because it’s a standard problem with AM radio stations. If you’re in the near field then radio station can induct . . . whatever you’re transmitting into any of these devices so it’s the responsibility of the radio station to entertain all calls of all problems to solve and if they’re not solved to the satisfaction of those issuing the complaint then certainly there’s the FCC to go to in every case. SPEAKER-Help me understand this. Say I want to use my cordless telephone and walk out into my backyard or even within my house and it certainly is . . . because of something with your antenna is it a one-time fix and then things are OK or is it something on occasion will occur. I’m just trying to understand. SPEAKER-If you bought a new phone and the problem came back after we helped you solve the first time then it’s our responsibility to help you solve it again. Usually with those types of devices there is no problem but I would be the last one in the world to say that there won’t be . . . don’t’ know but they’re all solvable. We have to do that with our own telephones and our own pacemakers and our own everything those of us who work in radio around these transmitters day and night. SPEAKER-Are you saying . . . it could . . . pacemaker? SPEAKER-I can’t say that it won’t . . . is that the federal government regulates and totally controls these radio stations in this country. They’re rules and regulations are very stringent and they have no sense of humor about . . . about any of these issues whether they involve health, or interference to people’s lives. Any negative impact, any adversity of any kind they have no sense of humor. They notify us if they receive complaints. They send people to solve the problems. The radiation from an AM radio station has never been shown to create a health risk of any kind but, again, its all in the federal register and it’s all in the code of the FCC and Part 73 of the FCC’s rules. They’re very stringent about those things. SPEAKER-Is there a distance after which concerns would go away for radio interference? SPEAKER-. . . field. . . there are many variables. If you under the right pole line in the right neighborhood . . . give you interference from a radio station a mile away or more not from a radio 53 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 station twenty miles away, no. So it’s incumbent upon us to solve these problems if they get into to people’s lives in any way. SPEAKER-Do you have any recommendations as to proximity with residential homes versus commercial locations? SPEAKER-No. SPEAKER-They don’t address it at all. Desirability or recommendations. In other words, guidelines suggesting it’s preferable for you to be in more of a commercial zone where you won’t be interfering with people’s quality of life, i.e., telephone or television or from reception, that kind of stuff. Some of these appliances today that they use, I hate to see these people all of a sudden losing their favorite stations or worse. They were suggesting being subjected to health hazards. . . . the health hazards issue . . . very important. Maybe the most important. It has never been shown that waves, that the energy . . . of AM radio station cause health concerns or health problems of any kind. The federal government has studied this and the studies continue. SPEAKER-You just said earlier though that there’s possibility of interference or concerns with pacemakers which is to me is a health risk. SPEAKER-Yes. SPEAKER-So, you just said there’s no evidence and then you said there’s possibly evidence. A possible . . . In other words maybe some of these people have pacemakers. Are they going to have problems with their pacemakers? SPEAKER-. . . the federal government regulates these radio stations and the federal government puts no restrictions of that kind on them on their location. The only restriction that we have in terms of physical placement of the radio station is put an eight-foot fence around the bottom of the tower so that there’s no access to that tower. So there’s no chance of physical harm unless someone breaks in. Also signs have to be posted on the fence – Keep Out – High Voltage – whatever. SPEAKER-. . . what is your effective radiated power in AM in terms of frequency . . . you talk about the near field. I understand the near field. What it is the approximate level at the perimeter of the near field and the effective radiated power. Do you know what that is in watts? SPEAKER-. . . in AM broadcasting it’s now referred to as effective radiated power. It’s strictly your . . . power into the tower and that’s it period. And then . . . field strengths . . . with distance. SPEAKER-You have to be able to define the near field. SPEAKER-Near field . . . license is about – the near field is . . . more than one and a half to two miles so with a one thousand watt radio station which is what we’re discussing that’s pretty much the perimeter. . . city of license which is Glens Falls and we have to be within a mile or mile and a half of the boundary. SPEAKER-That’s what you define as the near field? SPEAKER-That’s right. We’re not talking fifty thousand watts. SPEAKER-I understand the questions and concerns clearly. Again, these stations are federally regulated. Studies have been ongoing for years and years and years about whether the radiation from these stations pose as a health risk or any other risk of any kind and there’s never been proof of any kind, nor has there been significant challenge by anyone that I’m aware of. SPEAKER-. . . there is a question as to why you don’t you put the tower with the location of the offices, where the studio is, can you address that? SPEAKER-With an AM radio station the . . . system is one of the most important elements of the transmission system. In the ground we have to put one-hundred twenty copper wires as long as the tower is high. In this case longer because it’s the ground that really does the work of transmitting the signal so putting your radio tower on top of the building just won’t get the signal . . . and if we don’t meet the FCC’s required minimums for signal strength, then we don’t get a license. SPEAKER-Another question that was asked was the length of your lease for the . . . location. 54 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 SPEAKER-Five-year increments . . . SPEAKER-So it’s a five-year lease with . . . SPEAKER-And if you terminate the lease and specify that you terminated . . . within a specified period of time of the termination of the lease. SPEAKER-Yes. In fact . . . documentation for the town of Queensbury but within I think it was 90 days if we cease operation the tower comes down. . . . we could take it down, take the . . . out, the tower’s down. SPEAKER-I’d just like to go back to Mr. Sanford’s questions to you about . . . that there could be problems with a pacemaker and if so what could be . . . I think this is what their concern is. SPEAKER-. . . I completely understand. I’m not aware of any documentation on this topic. I’m not aware of any significant problems . . . The last thing I would want to be responsible for is a problem with anyone’s health. SPEAKER-You have been very straightforward with us on this . . . I would recommend though – I didn’t realize, I’m glad the public was here to voice their concerns because . . . they weren’t my concerns but now that they raised them there could be some submissions here. Rather than proceed with this tonight, I would recommend a tabling and that we send out these questions to an engineering firm to either respond to them or to research and respond to them so we have independent statements regarding . . . to know what they are, their health, interference . . . I think the public has the right to know whether or not they are going to be . . . to make a decision we want to make sure that there are going to complications and inconveniences and things of that nature . . . I would feel far better if this was a more of a industrial or commercial site . . . it may be unproductive in terms of the quality of life. If . . . can dismiss many of these concerns is not . . . comfort zone right now . . . SPEAKER-. . . DOH is very familiar with this. SPEAKER-. . . microwave towers for cell phones . . . new technology and there are lot of things that are . . . this should be a more . . . study because . . . have been around forever. SPEAKER-. . . don’t get me wrong but I would want to have more completion . . . SPEAKER-. . . the federal communications commission is . . . and I would include. . . to do whatever what needs to be done to give . . . peace of mind. . . but I can also add that I believe all these studies have been done . . . radio station. . . to transmitters into the tower. . . I don’t believe . . . no more than . . . feet from the tower. . . MR. COVEY-. . . of anything the more likely the health risks are. You put your hand microwave oven and turn it on. It’s the same thing. It’s radioactive energy – not radioactive – radio energy. So I’m fairly confident based on my forty years in broadcasting, twenty of which have been as an engineer that we are not talking about health risks. I would encourage all of you, however, to answer any questions you have. I do have one question, if there is a delay in the proceeding here of moving this radio station’s transmitter what can we do to keep it on the air in the meantime. It is an emergency activation station and there are a number of issues involved here that have to do with public safety. MR. METIVIER-I’m curious if we could expedite some kind of research being done by whomever for next week. MR. FORD-That’s exactly what I was going to recommend. MR. METIVIER-I mean I could even do some research. Not that that’s what you want. You’d rather have it from our. MR. FORD-Well, we had those questions that could be addressed. MR. METIVIER-But give us a week to do some research. The people that are most affected are here. 55 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 MR. SANFORD-I think we could charge staff with inquiring CT Male and if they can’t answer him directly would their body of knowledge and expertise. They could obviously to go to resources that can. MR. METIVIER-Right. MR. FORD-DOH, for example. MR. SANFORD-I think it’s important enough – Again, I don’t know if the complexity of the questions is the issue, it’s that we just don’t have the answers here. MR. METIVIER-Right. MR. SANFORD-I think there are people that probably know these things. I for one would feel a lot better knowing that your representations are, in fact, right on the mark. I think the public would as well. I think they’re very good questions they had but I can’t say with certainty that we know the answers and when we know the answers maybe they’ll feel better about the project but at least we will even if they don’t. MR. GOETZ-Dave, based on my knowing of your reputation and everything in the past, it’s as good as anybody could have and I’m sure what you tell us is very, very true but it would make, I think, all of a little more comfortable if somehow we can just double check that. I have never read or heard of health problems with that myself but I think I’d still feel better if we could find that out. MR. COVEY-As would I. As would I. MR. SANFORD-Can we do that, Susan? MS. BARDEN-Can you tell me specifically what you would like addressed out of those concerns? MR. SANFORD-Why don’t we do it by way of a tabling motion? MR. VOLLARO-Your frequency is 1450 kilohertz, is that where you are? MR. METIVIER-So we are looking at any adverse health risks. MR. HUNSINGER-And who are we asking to do the research. Are we asking CT Male? MR. METIVIER-Or staff. MR. FORD-Staff. Staff can tap CT Male or department of health or whatever. MR. SANFORD-Staff’s decision on how to utilize it. My guess we engage CT Male for these type of technical questions, if they don’t have in-house expertise, they ought to be able to give either a referral or go to them themselves and as a conduit get back to us with that. We did that when we had noise studies and things of that nature. CT Male may not have the expertise but they then farm it out and they get the answers. Again, I don’t think with AM radio there’s going to have to be cutting edge or a lot of unknowns. I just think we need to know what the answers are. This cellular is much more debatable because it’s a new technology. MR. HUNSINGER-In fact, I was thinking a lot along those lines when the first cellular tower that we reviewed we went through the same deliberation and we ended up getting information and it’s a learning curve. MR. SANFORD-Right and now there’s a lot of new things that they say you shouldn’t live next to electrical wires that are high-intensity electrical wires potentially can cause cancer and stuff. It’s an evolving body of knowledge but MR. HUNSINGER-Well those concerns have been around for a while. That’s not new. MR. SANFORD-I think we need to take the extra step because the public has a lot of concerns and I don’t feel confident in saying, don’t worry about it for one and not without some better resources. MR. HUNSINGER-Is it realistic to expect a response from CT Male in basically two and a half days. 56 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 MS. BARDEN-I guess I’m still not clear on what you want, what aspects you would like CT Male to review. I understand the department of health would look at any health impacts. MR. SANFORD-Health impacts, health-related impacts on medical devices, i.e., pacemakers. Or any other devices that may be effected through frequencies and things of this nature. We are also interested in a reasonable understanding of what impacts this kind of a tower would present to people’s quality of life regarding the commonly used appliances within residential areas. Television reception, radio reception, telephone reception. Did I miss anything? Cell phone reception. MR. FORD-And it should be pertaining to a thousand watt antenna. MR. VOLLARO-That’s a thousand watt at 1450 kHz. I think that’s the critical area. The frequency your dealing with here. MR. SANFORD-I think those are the things that we are concerned about. That’ll effect their quality of life and also their potentially their health. MR. FORD-I have a question, Mr. Chairman. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. MR. FORD-Is there anyone in the audience by a show of hands would be willing to indicate that you, in fact, currently are using a pacemaker? Thank you. For the record there’s one. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to offer a tabling resolution? MR. SANFORD-Yes. I’ll make it. I just kind of did. I’ll make a resolution or motion that we table site plan 52-2005, pending receipt of engineering and/or technical feedback on the impacts of a thousand watt tower on a frequency of 1450 kHz on people living in close residential proximity. Concerns we would like addressed were the ones we just mentioned. I don’t think I need to repeat those and we would like to have this feedback as soon as possible so that we can reschedule this hearing, Chris, that’s your call, next week? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 52-2005 ENTERTRONICS, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: Pending receipt of engineering and/or technical feedback on the impacts of a 1,000 watt tower on a frequency of 1450 KHC on people living in close residential proximity. The concerns that we would like addressed are health related impacts on medical devices, i.e. pacemakers or any other devices that may be effected through frequencies and things of this nature; a reasonable understanding of what impacts this kind of a tower would present to people’s quality of life regarding commonly used appliances within residential areas, television reception, radio reception, telephone reception, pertaining to a 1,000 watt tower at 1450 KHC, impacts that will effect people’s quality of life and also potentially their health, and we would like to have this feedback as soon as possible so that we can re- schedule the meeting for next week. MR. HUNSINGER-If that’s the will of the board. MR. METIVIER-I think so. MR. SANFORD-Next week if possible. MR. FORD-For next meeting. MR. SANFORD-Before the next meeting if possible because of the applicant’s time constraints. MS. BARDEN-The 28th next Tuesday. MR. VOLLARO-The 27th I think it is. MR. HUNSINGER-Yeah that would be the 27th. MR. SANFORD-The concerned public has heard this so if everything goes according to plan, we may be talking about this again next Tuesday. 57 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 MEMBER OF PUBLIC-So there will be another meeting? MR. SANFORD-Yeah. I don’t know how you’d know for sure. Would you put that on the website. MS. BARDEN-It’s next Tuesday, September 27th, 7 o’clock. FEMALE MEMBER OF PUBLIC-What time? MS. BARDEN-Seven o’clock. MR. HUNSINGER-Seven. Right. Right here. MS. RADNER-We have a motion hanging right now. We need to finish that up. . . for the record MR. METIVIER-I’ll second that motion. MS. RADNER-Who second that? MR. METIVIER-I did. MEMBER OF PUBLIC-Now next Tuesday we’re going to be first? MR. SANFORD-I’ll try to put you first, I think. MR. HUNSINGER-Old business goes first. There are two other old business items but you would not be last. No. MS. RADNER-Excuse me. I need to vote on your first and second motion. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion and a second. Was there a concern on the motion? MS. BARDEN-No. We need to vote. Duly adopted this 20 day of September, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Ford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford. NOES: None. ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Motion carried. I’m sorry. There was a question? FEMALE MEMBER OF PUBLIC-The property where they want to put the tower. The property we sold, or my husband did to Hunts, and it was like a hole and its been all filled in with tree roots, they knocked down trees and sawdust from the trees now how is that going to hold up. MEMBER OF PUBLIC-Foundation. FEMALE MEMBER OF PUBLIC-The foundation. MR. HUNSINGER-We can have the applicant address that next Tuesday night unless you want to answer the question right this minute. MR. COVEY-I’d be more than happy to. The plans for the tower call for a five to six foot concrete base that we’ve tamped down the land inside the hole before we pour the concrete. We don’t want the tower tipping over. MEMBER OF PUBLIC-Do you do core samples first? MR. COVEY-We can. MEMBER OF PUBLIC-I think you should. MEMBER OF PUBLIC-It seems to me that . . . ground that’s what I would want to do. 58 Queensbury Planning Board 9/20/05 FEMALE MEMBER OF PUBLIC-. . . where the trees all fell. There’s a lot of . . . in there. MR. COVEY-Yes. We’ll look very carefully at that. FEMALE MEMBER OF PUBLIC-And in the summertime or even in the winter you can see that sawdust smoke. MR. HUNSINGER-Just for the record we did leave public hearing open. If there’s no other business, I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. SANFORD-You got it. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 59