Loading...
08-25-2015 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 25, 2015 INDEX Site Plan No. 75-2014 McDonald's USA, LLC 1. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-48, 49 Site Plan No. 35-2015 Mark Ryan 2. FRESHWATER WETLANDS 2-2015 Tax Map No. 227.13-2-58 Subdivision No. 13-1986 Ryan Wild 3. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 308.10-1-65 Site Plan No. 51-2015 Smart Wash of Queensbury, LLC 27. Tax Map No. 303.15-1-12 Subdivision No. 22-2005 Townhouses at Haviland HOA, Inc. 30. Subdivision No. 3-2014 Tax Map No. 290.17-2-39 MODIFICATION 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. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 25, 2015 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, ACTING CHAIRMAN PAUL SCHONEWOLF, SECRETARY BRAD MAGOWAN THOMAS FORD DAVID DEEB GEORGE FERONE JAMIE WHITE, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening. Welcome to the August 25th meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. We'll call the meeting to order. We have no administrative items tonight. Our first item, and there are agendas on the table in the back of the room. It appears that all of the items, the applications that we're discussing tonight, have public hearings. So if you don't have a copy of the agenda, the items that we'll be discussing this evening, they are there for you in the back of the room, and public hearings will be available on each application as we go through the agenda. The first item on our agenda is a tabled item for McDonald's, USA. TABLED ITEM: SITE PLAN NO. 75-2014 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED MCDONALD'S USA, LLC AGENT(S) BOHLER ENGINEERING OWNER(S) MCDONALD'S CORP. — RENE REARDON; MICHAEL FREEBURN; JEAN FREEBERN, WILLIAM FREEBERN, ROBERT FREEBURN ZONING Cl LOCATION 819 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING 4,800 SQ. FT. BUILDING WITH DRIVE THRU AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 4,365 SQ. FT. MCDONALD'S BUILDING ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK, PARKING, LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FAST FOOD ESTABLISHMENT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. PENDING ZBA DECISION CROSS REFERENCE AV 88-14, SP 16-93; BP 1101, BP 1535 WARREN CO. REFERRAL DECEMBER 2014 LOT SIZE 0.30 ACRES; 0.70 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-48, 49 SECTION 179-3-040 MR. TRAVER-Laura, could you give us the status of that? MRS. MOORE-Yes. The Zoning Board, at their previous meeting, has tabled the application, explaining to the applicant they were looking for additional permeability and maybe a different site arrangement to accommodate additional permeability. So they tabled it to their first meeting in November, and I would suggest the Board table their application to the second meeting in November. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So we have a tabling motion for McDonald's. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 75-2014 MC DONALD'S USA, LLC MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 75-2014 MC DONALD'S USA, LLC, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Tabled until Thursday, November 19, 2015. Duly adopted this 25th day of August, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. The next item is Old Business. OLD BUSINESS REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING: 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) SITE PLAN NO. 35-2015 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 2-2015 SEAR TYPE TYPE II MARK RYAN OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 28 ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSING TO RELOCATE A 90 SQ. FT. SHED IN A SIMILAR LOCATION. SHED IS WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE WETLAND. SITE PLAN: PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FRESHWATER WETLANDS: DISTURBANCE/DEVELOPMENT ON LAND WITHIN 100 FEET OF A WETLAND. CROSS REFERENCE AV 30-15, AV 47-01, SP 30-99 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JUNE 2015 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA, APA & NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.52 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.13-2-58 SECTION 179-6-050 MARK RYAN, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant is applying to maintain a 90 sq. ft. shed along a wetland boundary. The Zoning Board did grant the Area Variance to locate the shed so that it was zero feet setback of the wetland, and the Board is reviewing it for hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline and the Freshwater is disturbance within 100 feet of a wetland. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there a representative of the applicant for Mark Ryan here this evening? Welcome, sir. Could you state your name for the record? MR. RYAN-Yes. My name is Mark Ryan. I'm the owner of 28 Rockhurst Road. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and you were heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And they reviewed your application. I know we looked at this earlier. Do you have any additional information or comment you want to make on your application for us this evening? MR. RYAN-The application was changed from the original so I could meet the side setbacks. So that's going to be moved, and it's going to be moved away from the line of the wetlands. So it would not be in the wetland which was the original depiction. So now it's not. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and that's reflected in Staff comments. Members of the Planning Board, do you have questions for the applicant regarding this application? MR. FORD-What's the closest point to the wetland? MR. RYAN-The dotted line that's on there. So it's zero. MRS. MOORE-It's zero. Correct, and the Zoning Board granted that relief. MR. TRAVER-Any other comments, questions for the applicant before we act on this application? Well, could we have a resolution? MR. DEEB-We've got a public hearing. MRS. MOORE-You have a public hearing for this. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. I'm sorry, and I just announced that there was a public hearing on all of these. So hold on that thought. We will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-Are there folks here this evening that want to speak to the Ryan application? None? Are there any written comments? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Having no one here to speak on this application, and no written comments, we will close the public hearing. And next we will hear a motion on the application. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 35-2015 FWW 2-2015 MARK RYAN 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Site Plan: Applicant proposes to relocate a 90 foot shed in a similar location. Shed is within 50 feet of the wetland. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance Hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Freshwater Wetlands: Disturbance/development on land within 100 feet of a wetland. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; On 6-16-2015 the Planning Board provided a recommendation to the Zoning Board; on 8-19- 2015 the Zoning Board approved the variance requests; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 6-23-2015 and continued the public hearing to 8-25-2015 when it was closed; The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 8-25-2015; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 35-2015 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 2-2015 MARK RYAN, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Per the draft resolution provided by the Staff. Duly adopted this 25th day of August, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're all set. Thank you very much. Next we have before us Ryan Wild, Subdivision 13-1986. SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1986 MODIFICATION SEAR REAFFIRM PREVIOUS SEAR RYAN WILD OWNER(S) COUNTY OF WARREN ZONING MDR (SR-20) LOCATION HERALD SQUARE, PH. II SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING APPROVED SUBDIVISION TO DEVELOP LOT WITH A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER A-183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING SUBDIVISION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 48-15, SIB 13-86 APA, CEA, OTHER DEC & NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 22.88 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.10- 1-65 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RYAN WILD PRESENT MRS. MOORE-This is a modification proposed by the applicant. In the Staff Notes I identify this lot as being created through a subdivision process and the lot was never determined to be a building lot. This is what the applicant is asking for is that this be considered to be a building lot. The Zoning Board did grant the Area Variance for having less road frontage. So the road frontage is 25.6 feet, and so the applicant is proposing to construct a single family house on this lot. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. I'm Mike O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I represent the applicant, and with me is the applicant, Ryan Wild. This is an application to seek approval of a 22.8 acre parcel for a single family home. Mr. Ryan wants to construct his home there for himself. It's not something he's doing as speculation. It is a lot that has a buildable site. What we had before you when we were here before, there were questions that were raised as to proximity to the wetlands and proximity to the steep slopes, and if you look at the 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) maps that you have, I think they were last revised 7/24. 1 hope you have that version of the map that shows the wetland buffers and the slopes. If you don't have that map, I have copies of it. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I believe we do. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. If you look at the left hand side of that map, you will see where the 100 foot setback from the DEC wetlands limits are shown. It's the line that's partially broken, partially straight, unbroken. That's where your 100 foot setback is. The house is probably going to be approximately another 100 feet from that, and if you look just to the right of that, you will see the top of the steep slopes, and the house is probably 100 feet from that. I understand that Laura has had conversation with the Fire Marshal. The Fire Marshal has no problem with the driveway, as far as public safety or health and welfare. The Zoning Board did grant the driveway road frontage width variance that we requested. We have 24.6 feet. We will have a driveway, and it'll be 12 feet. It's a single family house. We have room on each side of the driveway. The apron on the road will perhaps be a little bit wider, the turning radius coming into it. We think that we've got a buildable lot. It's presently owned by the County of Warren. It's gone through, I understand, four tax sales with no buyer. Mr. Wild decided that he would attempt to buy it and put the necessary money in to do the engineering, the zoning and planning to see whether or not this was a buildable lot. This parcel, although it was part of the subdivision map for Herald Square, has no restrictions on it, as far as its use. It's not a park land. It's not a recreation area. It was not anything but vacant land. Today you wouldn't have that. Today I come in here with a subdivision map you make me show what the ownership of that is going to be, by Homeowners Association or some form of ownership, but this was, I think began in 1986 before that thought process was in place. So we think that we've got a buildable lot. We don't know of any issues or questions as far as it being a suitable building lot. I know that the neighbors don't like change. The land has been there for a long period of time. We, in fact, after our first meeting with the Zoning Board, offered to sell the land to the neighbors if they wanted to get together and we would forego that and go someplace else, and they indicated they didn't want to do that. So that's our story. If you have questions, we'd be glad to try and answer them. MR. TRAVER-One thing I was wondering about, the property currently is owned by the County. Is that right? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So, back in the 80's when this was subdivided, did the original owner of the development buy land from the County except this piece, is that how that? MR. O'CONNOR-No. The original owner of the land owned a very large rectangular piece, of which this was part. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-And eventually I believe it was him who let it go for taxes. MR. TRAVER-1 see. Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-And the County then became the owner of it. The County's been trying to sell it for a number of years. MR. TRAVER-So it's not a gore. It's a real piece of property that just is? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. We just did that subdivision over on Sweet Road, and there were four acres on the east side of the Niagara Mohawk power line that wasn't going to be a buildable lot, and we put it in to a homeowners association so that everybody within the subdivision has the right to use it, and that's the current modern way of doing these things, and this time that was not done. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions from members of the Planning Board for the applicant? MR. MAGOWAN-Really the only question I have is your driveway is going to be right in between, you have an above ground and then you have underground electric, what do they call it, a head hole, manhole? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) MR. MAGOWAN-And I'm worried about plowing in that, because that's, all those connections are down underneath the ground. The snow at the end, that picture you gave us. MR. O'CONNOR-That's probably the same on almost every subdivision lot that you have. They push them on to the, usually people put their driveways to the side of the lot. The power people put their transformers or their connectors on the corner of the lots. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, usually transformers and that, that's above ground. Those wires come up into that transformer, but I've seen cases where these, the connection boxes have been on the side of the driveway, and I've seen them where, you know, they fill up with water and the salt and that ends up oxidizing them. That's the only concern I have is, you know, maybe getting that up out of the ground or some way of keeping the water from sitting around that from, you know, the snow melts and that. There's going to be a form of heat around that all winter long where it's going to be soft around there. MR. O'CONNOR-We can curb two sides of it. We can't curb the roadside of it. We can curb our two sides of it, and I don't have an objection to that. The Zoning Board asked the other night about another condition, too, was would we stipulate that there would only be one house, one development on those 22 acres, and we said yes. There is another means of access that's further to the south, which we have no intention of using. MR. SCHONEWOLF-When did the power company put that there? Usually they do it on a pedestal. MR. O'CONNOR-1 don't know. MR. TRAVER-Well, it's been there for a while. MR. MAGOWAN-This actually it's a connection box. MR. O'CONNOR-We can also ask them if they have a concern that they need to place it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, it's really their problem, if that's the case, you know, the cable and the phone, they usually put it on a connection box and power usually puts it on a pedestal. It's their call. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I mean, that would be my only concern, but if NiMo could, you know, National Grid, sorry, I still call it NiMo. MR. O'CONNOR-We could curb it so that there's nothing flowing from our driveway to it. MR. TRAVER-That might be wise. MR. O'CONNOR-We can ask NiMo and change it, and ask them to come out. MR. MAGOWAN-Because that could be your curb connection to that lot. MR. O'CONNOR-They're going to have to run a line, or they're going to have to prove the line from there to either one of those two boxes, and I don't know which one, to go back to our house. Our intention is to put in underground power. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, that'll drive the answer. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Any other questions? MR. FORD-1 may have some after the public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, there is a public hearing on this application. We'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Are there members of the audience that would like to comment on this application? It looks like we have a couple anyway. Come on up. We do record these meetings. They're available on the Town website and the minutes of the meeting are also transcribed. So if you could start by announcing your name for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ANDREA SIMMONS 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) MRS. SIMMONS-Certainly. My name is Andrea Simmons. I'm a resident at 11 Mabel Terrace. So my backyard would be in the proposed house's front yard. That being said, I am reluctant to see the property behind me developed. I purchased the property under the expectation that it would not be developed. Mr. Wild has stated that the area owners have been given the chance to purchase the property for ourselves. Although that's true, the property has never been developed in the past so there's no reason to expect change, and we're looking to the Planning Board to help us preserve the character of the neighborhood. In the event that the property does get developed, they are proposing a 2800 square foot house in a neighborhood where the average house is 1600 sq. ft. Again, the character of the neighborhood is why I would want to limit the size of the house in my back yard. That being said, I took a look at the Town of Queensbury regulations over the course of the afternoon and did come across 179-4-010, Residential Design Requirements for Moderate Density Residential Design. It states, new residential construction and/or development in Moderate-Density Residential Zoning Districts shall comply with the following design requirements: 1 B. Subdivisions. Flag lots are not allowed. The definition of a flag lot, according to Queensbury 179-2-010 Definitions and Word Usage is a flag lot is a lot not meeting the minimum frontage requirements and where access to a public road is by a private driveway on a narrow strip of land. Based on these things, I had no expectation that that lot would be built upon. It would be my hope that that would be the case. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. JEFF ZIEGLER MR. ZIEGLER-Good evening. My name is Jeff Ziegler and I live at 5 Wayne Court, and I have a couple of items. As I was doing my research on this, again, never expected to have to do this research, I went through and found a copy, as I plowed through all of my files when I purchased my house in 2000 and was left with the impress that this was a wetlands and forever wild. We discussed this at the last meeting. I was provided a copy by my attorney, Bruce Lipinski, on June 19, 2000, and he says here in a letter that I am enclosing for your information a copy of the declaration of covenants and restrictions which apply to Herald Square. So as I was going through these, I never knew we had them and didn't know about them, I look at Number Nine and it says construction or approval. No building shall be constructed upon any lot unless the plans, specifications and location shall be approved in writing by Herald Square Village Incorporated or their successors and assigns or by an architect selected by them. So I would submit this for your record. Is that what we do? I have no idea, procedurally, what we're doing here. So there is a declaration of covenants and restrictions on Herald Square. This was a part, they're asking for this to be an additional part that the subdivision Phase 11, and I think that there are covenants and declarations and restrictions certain to very simply as to whether or not that is a buildable lot. I also did some research in relationship to the Queensbury Planning Concepts which was adopted, it's on the website, and it talks about multiple items that I think at least Recommendation A-6 talks about conservation subdivisions, open space conservations for the communities and preserving natural resource protections, and although this was never, this has, when this was developed, my understanding is that when this subdivision was first approved, there was a rule or a regulation that when subdivisions of that, of this size, there needed to be a certain amount of natural space that was to be provided, and that's why that space was left there, and the individual who owned it offered it to the Town. The Town didn't want it. They didn't want it because of the wetlands, because of the access, because of the steep hill. So the Town didn't want it for that reason. Now I want to build a house there, and we didn't want it for open land, because of the wetlands, because of the steep hill, and now we're saying it's okay to put a house there. I don't understand that. That, to me, is kind of illogical in the process that if the Town thought it was worthy of an open space for parks and recreation, those types of things, and they didn't want it for those reasons, why would it be a good reason to put a house there? I don't understand that. The other part about it is in the Queensbury Town wide building trends, which is also in this plan, it talks about that there are constrained lands, and the constrained lands are areas which building is discouraged or prohibited to environmental conditions or protective ownership. This includes public or conserved land, steep slopes, 100 year flood lines, State, APA or Federally regulated wetlands, and if you go to that site, it does indicate that this is a greater than 25 degree slope, and even in the plan it talks about not building on steep slopes, not allowing, the high cost associated with building on steep slopes make them undesirable from a development areas are prone to erosion and instability and those types of things. The other part that I want to bring up is that my understanding is, and maybe I need to be corrected, but my understanding, at least from the original survey map that we saw, was that the wetlands and the 100 foot lines were created from an overlay, off of the, I have it, off of the DEC maps, and even on their site it talks about New York State Freshwater Wetlands maps only show the approximate location of the actual wetlands. They are not precise regardless of how closely you zoom in on the map. The check zone is in an area around the mapped wetland which is actual wetland map occur. If you are 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) proposing a project that may encroach on this area, you should check with your regional DEC office to make sure where the actual wetland boundary is. If necessary, they may have a biologist come out and perform a field delineation for you to help you avoid impacts on the wetlands or the regulated 100 foot buffer zone. So if it's an overlay, how do we know really where the overlay is, and how do we know really where the 100 foot wetland if it hasn't always been there to actually determine that, and I think it would be fair, if we're going to renew a SEQR, that that should be taken into consideration. The other part, because I do believe there is a SEQR reaffirmation on this, I don't know when this was created, but I took this out of the DEC map, and it talks about the fact that the area where they want to develop is called a significant natural community, and that's stipulated that, I went on and I just pinpointed it. It does, talks about if your project or action is within or near the area where animal may be required if this species is listed as endangered or threatened. So this is the map, and as you can see, this is about where he wants to build a development. This purple area is the significant natural area. I'll provide you with this copy if you'd like to see it. So I think if we're going to reaffirm the SEQR, SEQR was probably done when this development was first done. So we're talking back in the 80's, and if we're going to say that we're just going to renew this, that's a long time ago, and I don't know when this natural, significant natural community, and natural communities nearby was put on this map, but it may have been done since then. So therefore it would be logical that we wouldn't renew that SEQR since it may be very old, and there other items in the planning here where it talks about smart growth, you know, in the Planning Boards it talks about rezoning, reclamation of G4, Queensbury planning concepts is rezoning should only be rare and only take place in conformance with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, to rezone should be a rarity, and, you know, extensive rezoning creates instabilities in communities, businesses and homeowners never know what will pop up next to them. This was not developable land when we all bought our houses. It wasn't to be developed, and so I think when you take a look at the Comprehensive Plan that the Town of Queensbury has approved, the number of issues that I have brought up here, I think at least this Board needs to very seriously consider whether or not it's appropriate to put a house there. MR. TRAVER-Question for you, sir. Were you aware that the County has, on multiple occasions, put this property up for sale? MR. ZIEGLER-I saw that auction signs were out there, yes, I did. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and have you seen the, have you had an opportunity to examine the applicant's materials on the Town website? MR. ZIEGLER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So you've seen the house location? MR. ZIEGLER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Proposed location. MR. ZIEGLER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And I raised that because you mentioned a concern, rightly so, about construction on steep slopes, and in wetlands and so on. So you can see, then, that they're not proposing on doing that. MR. ZIEGLER-I walk that land regularly, and I know where the steep slope enters my yard, and it's right on the edge of my property. When I look at the overlay, it's not where it is. I'm suggesting that that steep slope is not where it was 20 years ago or 25 years ago or whenever, that that steep slope, it's a moving target out there. I know that I had to literally put down hard fill back there to keep it from eroding any further onto my lawn. MR. TRAVER-So you suspect that the map may be inaccurate? MR. ZIEGLER-I'm suspecting that prior to approving anything that we make sure that all of that is accurate. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. ZIEGLER-And that if the wetlands, and that if it truly is according to the DEC site it is, you know, a significant natural community, and with the information with the natural planting and clusters that are within the plans is truly what's adopted by the Town, then I think we need to take that into consideration, and being as 1, only a few days ago, discovered, as I was plowing 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) through my documentation, saw the letter that Bruce Lipinski had sent me regard the declaration of covenants and restrictions for Herald Square Village, and I think that that needs to be considered also and whether or not it can even be part of the subdivision, and if it is part of the subdivision, then it has to follow the covenants in relation to that, which could restrict the actual construction of the structure. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? MR. ZIEGLER-No, I thank you for your time, and would you like any of this information? MR. TRAVER-If there's any of it you want to be considered part of the record, you can submit it to Laura and she'll add it to the file. MR. ZIEGLER-Thank you for your time. MR. TRAVER-Anyone else? Yes, sir. PATRICK MANNIX MR. MANNIX-Good evening. My name is Patrick Mannix and I live at 34 Herald Drive. I'm immediately adjacent to the proposed driveway. MR. TRAVER-So you're a neighbor, on one side or the other, of where this proposed driveway would be considered. MR. MANNIX-Correct. My issue, again, Mr. Ziegler covered the covenants and restrictions. I just, purchased less than two years ago, I was my understanding, when I purchased there that, because I did see the tax sale after we had a contract, auctioned, I quick checked the County, Town of Queensbury and said is this piece of property's taxes paid, and they said, yes, it's all good. So what's your concern, I said two days before closing, they explained to me at that time it was up for auction. It had been up, several times, for auction. I believe there were three or four buyers, but they all walked away as well. They realized that it was really useless with the restrictions that took place with it. What I would like to go over is the photos I submitted to you here, a couple of things. I did speak with Mike Palmer also, the Fire Marshal, asked him, and he said unfortunately, Pat, there is no code for emergency services and driveways and things like that. Should there be? I think so, but he said that there isn't. What I have a picture here first, showing the different distances of those two power boxes you brought up earlier, Mr. Magowan. The property line has a little asterisk right next to it and I believe that's the property line by their survey because there is a stake there with a ribbon. Between those two utilities boxes there's 20 feet measured, and then the additional counting that right over adjacent to my driveway. You see the other line that's running east/west. That is where the line would be, the 24.6 feet line would go, all the way down through there. The emergency services, well, they'd have to make a left hand turn at best to get in there. Yes, I do have a camper parked on that property that's back there, and there's no way I would be able get that back in there, and that's only 26 feet. I go around the other side to get it back into there, but in any event, snow removal, as it is right now for me, being there the first two winters, has been, not a challenge, but I have a large snow blower. I'm able to blow both sides, obviously, to clear that, but if I have to blow it all to the other side, it's going to be a very, very arduous process. I'm not saying it can't be done, to blow it all to the other side to the south, onto my property, but the snow removal between those two boxes, where a snow plow pushes through, is going to be virtually impossible, literally impossible. There's only nine feet, and it's cut off. I'm sorry about that, in the corner right there, but you can see the other photo where those shrubs and fence line is, for the neighbor. There's nine feet from the road in. When the snow plow comes through in the wintertime and pushes it back, it gets right up and even does some damage to his shrubs and fence. Each year he's out there repairing them because of the snow right there. There's absolutely no room at all to push the snow to the north right there, side of that building, and obviously to the south it would be into my driveway. So when you have those large, five, six foot snowbanks out there that are five, six feet deep, other than bucket loaders and dump trucks, there's going to be virtually no way to move that snow from that driveway, even if it's 180 feet deep all the way down through, with a 12 foot driveway starting at best at the edge of that electrical box, that would leave you somewhere in the neighborhood of five, six feet, five or six feet to push 180 feet of snow is, it just can't happen. If we have to erect a privacy fence on our side, it's going to limit it even more down through there. Again, the wildlife, we have a lot of that in the backyard. It would have a very, very major impact on us. The devaluation of our property would be very significant. We were just reassessed at a much higher rate. We accepted it. It's a beautiful home. It's a beautiful neighborhood. It won't be anymore. If this happens, there's going to be significant loss of value to my property. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) MR. MAGOWAN-1 have a question. That property line there where you have that power box, the one I was talking about, that's a connection. Is that your box that goes to the side of your house? Because I see the meter on the side of your house for your A/C unit. The other one's the phone and cable. MR. MANNIX-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-And I'm not sure what that big one is, if that's a transformer or not. MR. MANNIX-1 don't know the answer to that. I'm not an electrical person, but I know it's been there, and I clean around it. So I'm assuming that is my electrical entrance, yes. MR. MAGOWAN-1 would like to make sure that that, it's determined on that, because that means that that would be going underneath his driveway. MR. TRAVER-It doesn't seem likely that your electrical connection would be off your property. MR. MAGOWAN-It's just an odd place to have one on something that wasn't going to be developed. I mean, I've been doing this too many years. MR. MANNIX-And that's a good point, because I spoke to an attorney yesterday who has been helping me with this a little bit, and he said they've always seen where these utility boxes are put on easement property, and not on ownership property. So technically neither of those are on my property. I can't speak for the County property and what that map would show. The other issue, I submitted the other photo with my vehicle parked there, simulating where you would drive out of their driveway, right next to that storm drain right there, which is another issue. If that would be moved, then I'd have a flooding issue because every spring when we get the runoff from the west and the north, there's quite a bit of water runs into there. So provided they paved over that with their driveway, the safety issue right here is pulling out. To the north it's completely blind, as you can see, coming out of that driveway. If we erect a privacy fence on the south side as well, it's going to be blind on both sides. So it's a safety issue for kids riding bikes, obviously vehicles coming up and down the road from there as well. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? MR. MANNIX-1 would just ask that you consider tabling this until we get the deed covenants and restrictions resolved, because if there were a vote and it were to be okayed, the next step obviously would be a civil action with that same program, the restrictions and covenants. So we'd like to eliminate that by getting that resolved prior to the decision being made. MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much. MR. MANNIX-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Anyone else that would like to speak? Yes. RISE DEUSO MRS. DEUSO-Hello. My name is Rise Deuso. I own the house on 3 Wayne Court, which would be right behind Pat. So it's right in my backyard. MR. TRAVER-That one there. MRS. DEUSO-That's me. MR. TRAVER-So you're behind Mr. Mannix, then. MRS. DEUSO-That is correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. MRS. DEUSO-So, see their driveway would cut right past the corner of where my property starts there. I have a few concerns. Some of my concerns have already been addressed by Mr. Mannix and Mr. Ziegler, and I support what they have brought in front of you. I don't need to be redundant and explain it all over again, but I do support what both of them have brought in front of you, about the wetlands, the concerns with the impact on the wetlands that's going to be. I also was under the understanding when we purchased the home that was never going to be developed upon. The previous owners who, one, did turn his property back over to the 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) Town, didn't pay for it, because he couldn't do anything with it. Now I don't know why now would be any different. Nobody was ever allowed to do anything with that property before. 1, too, did see the auction signs through the neighborhood. Honestly didn't give it much thought, figured it was something that the Town has got to do on a regular, I don't know how many every years you guys have got to purge it, put it out there for everybody, hey, we have the tax, you know, we would like somebody to take this off our hands, but nobody ever did before because nobody could do anything with the land. That was my understanding when we bought the home, too. I do not have the deed covenant that Mr. Ziegler has, but I am also an adjacent property so I'm sure it applies for all of us. So the no subdivision. They had talked about if this did go through, now I'm a little confused because he's talking about possibly this being his dwelling, but I was under the understanding he was selling it for profit. With that being said, purchasing the 22 acres, putting a house right in the middle of all of ours, and then saying that this would be the only house on those 22 acres, I don't know what's going to happen in the future, if he's going to sell off the other 22 acres and then somebody else is going to come in and try this all over again a few years down the road. I'm concerned about that because like we said there was another access more south he did say this morning, or this evening. He also, Mr. O'Connor, not he, made a comment about change, and I have no problem with change. I love change. I have no problem with it. We're evolving. I don't like negative change, change that's going to impact the value of my home, which I purchased in this area for a reason, because nobody can build back there. Some of the positive changes I've made recently. I did take down some trees in my backyard. It does not look like that picture there. I recently did take down some trees, exposing me more to this empty lot that they're discussing, but when I took them down, I was still under the impression that nothing could ever be built back there. So I have no problem with change. I just don't like negative change. Putting a house back there, it's just, it's not a win/win for anyone in the surrounding areas. He's obviously going to have to take down more trees on his property on the other side, which is now going to expose all the backs of the houses of Mabel, because now those trees have grown up and for him to put his driveway in there, you're going to have to clear some trees out. There's not 12 feet there now. So it's going to expose all of the houses, creating a negative change for all of us, not just myself. The boundary discrepancies, there's still, like we said, the initial, the zoning granted a 24.4. I've used two tape measures on Mr. Mannix's property. There's 20 feet at best, and that is only one measurement. I'm very skeptical on the rest of the measurements that have been given, and the overlays and all of the Google maps and all of the photos that have gone out there. They just don't add up. One hundred feet from there to one hundred feet from there, nothing, the measurements aren't adding up to where the drop of the hill, the wetland starts or ends, however you want to speak it to where the house is going to go. The measurements do not add up. So, you know, I just, as a homeowner in the area, it will affect me, my neighbors. I'm just, I'm asking that, you know, all of this information is taken into consideration and I just don't see this being a win/win. So thank you very much. MR. MAGOWAN-Were you also approached by Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Ryan to purchase it as a group? MRS. DEUSO-Was I approached by Mr. O'Connor? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MRS. DEUSO-No, I have never met him until last Tuesday night when I was here. I did not know that that existed. I've only owned for just about three years. I have never been approached by Mr. Wild, I believe his name, or Mr. O'Connor. I found out about it last Tuesday night. Had I found out about that earlier, we could maybe have avoided all this, but it's just, I'm not afraid of the change. I just don't want the bad change, you know, it's going to impact so many. It's not just me. It's all of us. We're a neighborhood, and as per many of you, I'm sure you chose your houses for the specific reason you like it, you like the neighborhood. That's why we chose ours. So thank you very much for your time, and do you have any questions for me? MR. MANNIX-1 can answer that, about the purchase. Pat Mannix, again. Just to answer the question about the purchase of land. There was a hearing, I can't say when. I don't think it was a formal hearing, but it was a discussion is what it was here from the Planning Board some time ago. At that time we left with the same negative feelings we have here today. So when I had left this meeting, Mr. O'Connor had approached me and said, Pat, we're willing to sell, but we need a decision right away, and the sum was $17,000 1 believe. I might be wrong on that, but when we discussed it I said I don't understand where the $17,000 comes from because the second bid was not that value. So I think they might have some fees and services and things like that they might want to include so they would be covered. Does that help? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. So now was it discussed among the whole group, everybody involved? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) MR. MANNIX-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Yes, sir. MICHAEL SWAN MR. SWAN-Good evening. My name's Michael Swan. I'm the Warren County Treasurer. I'm here representing the County's perspective in this, and I just want to give you folks on the Board kind of a short history of this property. It's kind of a misnomer when people say the taxes weren't paid and the County forecloses on it. In essence, the County pays the taxes on it once we get it, and to this point the Warren County residents have paid $48,000 in taxes on this piece of property, and will continue to do so as long as we have it. We've advertised it. We've sold it. There's been six or seven different bidders that I've tried to work with. Every one of them have put in a bid on the property, come to the Town and asked for, if it was possible to use the property. They were told that it would have to go through some sort of an approval process because it wasn't a subdivision lot, and that the approval process takes months. We require 30 days payment after the auction, in full. These people were not willing to gamble, after they bought the property in that 30 days, that they would get approval down the road. Mr. Ryan came to us, he was the second highest bidder, with $11,000 at the last auction, and he said to us, would you do an option to purchase if I can get approval, based on if I can get approval. I said absolutely, because I've been trying for four years to sell this piece of property and get it off of the taxpayer's back and back to where it's actually paying taxes to the pot instead of taking away from it, and I guess the last thing I want to say is that if you don't grant approval, can you give me any ideas what I'm supposed to do with this property? MR. TRAVER-Well, that's not, we have some significant responsibilities with regards to this piece of property, but that, thank goodness, is not one of them. MR. SWAN-Unfortunately that's my challenge. I've got to figure out what to do with this because every year, like I say, all Warren County residents, you, me, everybody in this room, I'm assuming, who's a Warren County resident, we're coughing up money to pay taxes on that piece of property for a few people to use. MR. TRAVER-If I might ask, sir, as the various times that this has been offered for sale, was it ever described as a non-buildable lot? MR. SWAN-It was described like all land that we sell that has no structures on it, vacant. Period. MR. TRAVER-Simple vacant land. MR. SWAN-Simply vacant land. We don't make any determinations. As a matter of fact, at the time of the sale, I make an announcement that says point blank, we do not even guarantee that these properties exist. We are foreclosed on a tax warrant and we are selling what interest we may have. We do not even acknowledge that these properties exist. So it's a pig in a poke. You take it as is, where it is. So we make no, absolutely nothing as far as what they are, whether you can do anything with it or not, whether you can log it, build on it, whether it's a house, you can occupy it or anything else. It's strictly you're on your own. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Thank you very much. MR. DEEB-What are the annual taxes? MR. SWAN-1 didn't bring my sheet with me. MR. DEEB-Four years, it's been four years? MR. SWAN-It's been actually six years, because it goes two years without taxes before we can do anything, plus there's penalties and interest. I'm going to say it's probably about two to three thousand dollars a year, because there was, it used to have an assessment of $240,000. So I'm not sure what the assessment is now. I know that I've contacted the Town Assessor and asked her to look at it. During this last reval I know it was dropped, but I don't know how much. MR. DEEB-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions for the Warren County Treasurer? All right. Thank you, sir, very much. Yes, ma'am. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) BARBARA BEAULAC MRS. BEAULAC-Barbara Beaulac. I'm at 7 Wayne Court and I will be brief because I know your patience is being tried. I'm going to point out a couple of things. One is that a house like this going in is not in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. All of the homes in our neighborhood face the street. They all conform to the setbacks that were established when we built our homes. There are no hidden homes. There are no homes that border four to six properties. I'm not exactly sure what the actual layout would be. I feel very strongly that it's going to decrease the value of the homes whose borders are around it. There will be significant lack of privacy, or loss of privacy. Even if the natural borders are maintained, if you put a house back there, there's activity. There's people driving in and out. There are lights. There's noise. There's pets. All of that will impact our privacy. It will all impact the wildlife that's already out there that people have talked about. We were the first house on Wayne Court. So please don't talk to me about change. We saw every house come and we welcomed everybody into the neighborhood. This is different from change. This is not in keeping with anything that has been in our neighborhood. When we purchased our lot, we were told that it was undeveloped, forever wild wetland. I realize that's worth a bucket of mud because it's not documented anywhere. However, that was our expectation, and it was the expectation of everybody that has come forward. MR. FORD-May I ask who told you that? MRS. BEAULAC-The realtor, the builder. It isn't written anywhere, but that's what we were told. Believe me I went looking for something that would document that, and I came up empty. So I realize it's a moot point, but that is the expectation that we had. Part of our decision to purchase the lot that we purchased was because of the peace and quiet that would be in our backyard, and the animal activity that would be back there. Building this home will significantly alter our experience and the experiences of everybody around, and the value of our home, and the impact extends beyond that one and a quarter acres or whatever that the house is located. Putting that 22 acres under private property opens it up to whatever they want to do back there. They cannot build on it, but it's open to recreational purposes. I don't know, we don't know who the owner will be. We don't know what their intentions are, but I'm not looking forward to having ATV's running back there. I'm not looking forward to somebody hunting back there. It will significantly alter our experience. Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-1 have a question before you go. Since you were the first one in there, and you've seen the development grow, have you see the, you know, the slope, and that, toward, you know, let's say the gorge widen due to, you know, the heavy storms and that come through? Okay. Thank you. MRS. BEAULAC-1 can tell you that every time I've gone down in there, the water line is in a different place. You never know where you're going to hit it. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MRS. BEAULAC-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Anyone else? Are there any written comments? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Mr. O'Connor. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-As you saw, there are a number of questions that were raised. If you could address them. MR. O'CONNOR-I'll try to. This is a picture, just recent clearing up there. I think it was the third speaker, Mrs. Deuso. That is her backyard, and it adjoins the property. Here is one 2013 aerial photo of the same property who shows the same particular lot with pretty good separation along the border between the lot we're going to build on and the lot that she occupies. Somebody, not the County, not Mr. Wild, or anybody on his behalf, went in and cleared the common property line, border line. I think that's an important. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Did they have a permit to do that? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) MR. O'CONNOR-Not that I'm aware of. I don't know who did it. It wasn't somebody on behalf of Mr. Wild. It wasn't, Mike Swan who's here said the County certainly didn't go and clear land. They took away the buffer that somebody may now be complaining about being gone. Take a look at that photo, it's kind of clear. I'll try to answer each of the comments. There was a question about character of the neighborhood. Character of the neighborhood is residential. We're proposing a single family residence, not anything different. It's established as a residential neighborhood, and it's the complaint that because Mr. Wild's house is going to be a 2800 square foot house, it's out of character and it's going to devalue the neighborhood. I don't know how that would happen. It's a two story house. The first floor would be someplace around 1200 and 1300, something of that nature. There's a 400 square foot garage that's part attached to it. It's not that large a house. The question was raised whether or not you're creating a flag lot. You're not creating that lot. That lot already exists. It exists by, I'm not sure how, but it's there, and it's not really a flag lot because with the variance, it has the qualified frontage. So it doesn't fall within even the definition of a flag lot. The next speaker spoke about restrictive covenants, and I think the Boards in the Town have always said restrictive covenants are private agreements, not enforced by Boards. It's not within the province of the municipality to enforce them. I looked at those some time ago. We've been doing this for, looking at this application for some time. There's nothing in that set of restrictive covenants that says that this cannot be a buildable lot. I'm not sure where the inference is that it can't be, and that's a burden that Mr. Wild will have to answer or look at even closer after, if he closes on the lot. So it's not something that's within the jurisdiction of this Board. MR. TRAVER-There was, I think, reference to approval being needed for an architect or engineer, something along those lines. MR. O'CONNOR-Those are building plans. Of the homes on the lots that numbered within the subdivision, of the numbered lots, there's 147 lots within that subdivision, not on this parcel, and we run into this, I run into this all the time in Bedford Close. Northern Homes is no longer around. There's nobody that can approve the building plans in those subdivisions. MR. FERONE-So was this a numbered lot or? MR. O'CONNOR-No, it was not. MR. FERONE-But it's part of the subdivision? MR. O'CONNOR-It's on the subdivision map. Because I raised that issue with Mr. Brown, as to his interpretation that it needed modification of the subdivision map when it wasn't part of a numbered lot on a subdivision map, and he said, yes, it does need to be a modification because it was on the map even though it wasn't numbered. Now typically we come in and try to split a numbered lot. That's not the case here. MR. FORD-Mr. O'Connor, could you address the DEC natural community issue? MR. O'CONNOR-1 don't know of any, in that neighborhood, I mean, you've got these overlay maps that you're looking at. That was one other point, I don't know of any endangered or protected species, either animal or plant life, in that area. So I don't know, this is open land. It was partially forested. It was partially open. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think it was a broader term. It wasn't referring to endangered species. It was just talking about basically that it's habitat. MR. O'CONNOR-Any vacant land is habitat in the Town of Queensbury. I saw three deer as I came out of Fitzgerald Road tonight. MR. TRAVER-One of the questions that was raised, too, had to do with the accuracy of the measurements on the map, the delineation of the wetland and so on. MR. O'CONNOR-We have submitted to you, well, okay, we have submitted to you a survey done by a licensed engineer, stamped by a licensed engineer, and we rely upon those measurements as he's shown them there. If you look at the notations it also says that the wetland limits as delineated by New York State DEC Staff on July 23, 2015. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So they were examined just this summer. MR. O'CONNOR-This is not an overlay. MR. TRAVER-Right. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) MR. FORD-Last month. MR. O'CONNOR-This is an actual delineation where they flagged the wetlands, the surveyor comes out and does a GPS on each of the flags and puts them on a map. The top of the slope was also located by the same surveyor. If you take a look at that larger photo that I gave you, you're going to see that there is no slope in the area where the house is proposed. It's a very flat area. MR. FORD-Could we have that passed out. MR. DEEB-Mr. O'Connor, was that property part of the subdivision at one time? MR. O'CONNOR-It was on the subdivision map. MR. DEEB-But it was never considered part of the subdivision. MR. O'CONNOR-Not as a lot. It was like surplus land, with no designation of ownership or future use. In 1992, 1 tried to submit that to the Town on behalf of that developer for recreation land, and the Recreation Commission didn't want it. At that point the Recreation Commission wasn't accepting anyone. They've gotten a little bit different. Clendon Brook is the Brook that runs through the bottom of that wetland. I did some dedication of Clendon Brook on the other side. I tried to make it a corridor going down the whole road. That wasn't in favor at that point and they said no. The land that we're going to build on is not constrained land. If you take a look at the survey, you take a look at the photos that are before you, you're going to see it's a nice flat area to build a house. Wetlands weren't created from the overlay. They were actually flagged. This is not a re-zoning. This is a use within that zone. It's single family residential. There's no part of this building that's going to be on any slope, or steep slopes. Mr. Mannix, I'm not sure where he gets his measurements or whatever, but we have a surveyor that says that there is a cast iron rod at the corner of the property of and that there is 24.6 feet from that point to the northeast corner of Rummel and Mr. Mannix's property. Some of that electric box that he is referring to is actually on his property, according to our survey. It goes across the boundary line. I don't know if your map is large enough to show that it actually is partially on his lot as well as our lot. Those electric boxes are situated within a 10 foot wide easement that runs along each subdivision road on each side of the subdivision road. When you dedicate a road or when you make a road in a subdivision, and you bring Niagara Mohawk in for electric, gas and they bring in telephone and cable, you give them a 10 foot wide easement on each side of the road. So the road there is a 50 foot wide road and they have 10 feet on the side of that road to place that, to put the service in. I would presume that that service goes directly from the boxes on the southerly side of that road to Mr. Mannix's house. It may very well go under his driveway. We can contact National Grid. MR. TRAVER-One of the questions that was raised had to do, I guess, with snow removal, snow storage, that kind of thing, and concern about the limited area on each side of the driveway. Do you want to address that? MR. O'CONNOR-You've got a 12 foot wide driveway. You've got a 24 foot wide piece. You've got six feet on each side of the driveway to put your snow, and that's not the end of the world. I would presume that if you never plowed it until after it snowed six, seven times, you'd have a big chunk of snow that you've got to push some place, but if you plow it after each snowstorm, you manage it, the same as you do in your own driveway. There's a lot of driveways a lot tighter than that. On Old Apple on West Mountain we did a driveway that was 450 feet long. MR. MAGOWAN-It's usually the entrance of the driveway that creates the most snow because you've got, you know, 20 feet of the road that's going in front. So you've got your snowbanks. So you've got to get your snowbanks back, plowing your driveway. MR. O'CONNOR-Make one pass with your plow you'll probably push that hallway back there, or not halfway back. Usually you plow it anyway you run it off the side. I come off the end of Fitzgerald Road and go to the back of my house. You're going to be up there, no you aren't going to be up there. The Zoning Board is going to be up there. I go probably 160, 170 feet before I get to the back of my house. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Most of the complaints about where you put snow are between neighbors that can't get along. MR. O'CONNOR-Right. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Everybody's going to have a snow problem. You listen to it all winter. It doesn't last long because it melts, but, you know, it's not a terrible problem. It's like the 20 foot driveway. There's no law that you have to have a 20 foot driveway in Queensbury. If the road is out in front and carries emergency vehicles, then it's got to be 20 foot. If you had a fire at this house, you wouldn't be going in that guy's driveway. You'd be parking out in front, but it's up to the homeowner. If you want to have a 10 foot driveway, if you're foolish enough to do that, you might get away with it, but there's no Code that says you have to have 20. MR. O'CONNOR-The Code actually says you have 50 feet of frontage on a road. It doesn't say anything about the width of your driveway. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's correct. MR. TRAVER-There was a concern raised about additional development, maybe additional subdivision of the property. Can you address that? MR. O'CONNOR-It's a condition of the approval of the variance that there will be no further subdivision of the property, and I don't have an objection if you want to add that as a condition to your approval of the modification. MR. TRAVER-Of no further subdivision. MR. O'CONNOR-No further subdivision. We can put it on the map. We understand that we're here for one building lot, one residence. The comment that Mr. Mannix had, and he had the discussion with the Fire Marshal, I think I would ask Laura to say what his concerns, he said he had no concerns from a public safety point of view. MRS. MOORE-Right. So I had a verbal discussion with the Fire Marshal, and we discussed the length of this driveway, and it only comes into play when something's longer than 500 feet, and this is not. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and how long is this driveway, approximately? MR. O'CONNOR-One hundred and seventy or one hundred and eighty feet. One hundred and seventy-eight feet on the south boundary before it opens up. There was a question about a blind driveway. There are restrictions on fencing along the highway. I don't think in that front yard either property can have fences over four feet in height. It's not something where you're going to see people put up those higher six foot fences or whatever along the sides, stockade fences. So I don't think that that's a pertinent question. MS. WHITE-One other concern was the storm drain. MR. O'CONNOR-We're not going to do anything with the storm drain. It's on the Town property. We can do anything with it. MR. TRAVER-So that will remain and continue to function? MR. O'CONNOR-As well as it functions now. I don't know if it functions. I'm not trying to be facetious. MR. TRAVER-No, I understand. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's the Town's problem. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. So I think I've touched on most of the comments. Maybe I haven't answered somebody else's question that you had. If you do, I'll try to answer. MR. FERONE-Did that drain end up in the middle of the driveway? The drain that was just spoken of, does that end up in the driveway? MR. O'CONNOR-No, it's out in the Town right of way. MR. FERONE-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-It's on the map. It's shown on the map. MR. FERONE-So it's to the side of wherever your drive is? 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) MR. O'CONNOR-Our driveway will pass over it. MR. FERONE-Over it. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-The proposed driveway will pass over the edge of it, yes. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions, comments, concerns by members of the Board? MR. FORD-Has any consideration been given to a smaller structure? MR. MAGOWAN-So it complies with the rest of the houses in the development. MR. FORD-How many square feet is it? MR. WILD-With the garage it's 2800 square feet, but that's just an idea. I'm open to anything. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There's nothing that says it has to be the same size, either. In fact, you don't want that if you're trying to have a nice neighborhood. MR. O'CONNOR-It's well within the setbacks. MR. TRAVER-Right. It sounds to me as though the footprint it similar. It's just that it's two stories. It gives it more square footage. Right? MR. DEEB-Would there be any consideration given to, I don't know if it's my place to say this, but putting that offer to sell it back on the table? MR. O'CONNOR-He's got more money invested. MR. DEEB-I mean, negotiations could be made. MR. O'CONNOR-1 didn't recall the price that Mr. Mannix recited. There was actually, I thought, a lower price, and we indicated we needed to know an answer before he spent more money on a survey, engineering, attorney's fees. MR. TRAVER-Well, and I think I would just comment that that could happen, regardless of what this Board does. MR. DEEB-Okay, and I understand that, but neighborly relations are going to be, how do I say, difficult at best. MR. O'CONNOR-If he does a nice job with his house, landscapes it, like his parents have landscaped their house and what not, hopefully everything will go away. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It usually does. MR. FERONE-Mr. Chairman, the problem I'm having with this is this issue of deed covenants with the restrictions. Am I understanding that even if this is in effect, we can't take that into consideration? MR. O'CONNOR-I'd defer to your Staff, but they are private agreements between landowners and they are not part of your jurisdiction. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-And this piece of property, it does not sound as if this piece of property was included in that agreement. Is that correct? It's not part of the numbered. MRS. MOORE-At this point whatever happens to this property, if those property owners within that subdivision wish to utilize information out of that deed and covenant restrictions, they would be affording that to the person that's purchasing that property. It's between those two parties. It has nothing to do with our review process here. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. FORD-Thank you. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) MR. TRAVER-So it's out of our jurisdiction, basically. MRS. MOORE-If you want to say it that way, yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any other questions? MR. ZIEGLER-Can I just, there were a couple of questions that I. MR. MAGOWAN-You'd have to come back up to the table. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me, sir, do you have new information that you did not provide us before? MR. ZIEGLER-There were questions that were asked of this party by your Planning Board that I would like to respond to because I'm not sure it was accurately portrayed, and you can smock at it, but I think I have a right to do that. MR. TRAVER-All right. I'll let this gentleman speak for a couple of more minutes. Go ahead, sir. MR. ZIEGLER-I think we've been more than respectful. We'd certainly appreciate that in return. MR. TRAVER-It's not a question of respect, sir. It's a matter of new information, but go ahead. MR. ZIEGLER-It was asked whether or not that this was originally part. If you look at the original subdivision of Herald Square, this was part of that subdivision. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me. It's been determined that that's not part of this Board's purview. I understand what you're saying, but that's a civil matter that does not involve this Board. That was clarified earlier. MR. ZIEGLER-Okay. So, but the idea that it wasn't part of it, I think questions were asked, was this a part of the original subdivision. This part was part of Phase 11, and it was on the map that way. MR. DEEB-But it wasn't a numbered lot. MR. ZIEGLER-It was called undeveloped land. MR. FERONE-There was never any intention to develop it by the original owner. MR. DEEB-So we do understand that it was on the Phase 11 map, but it wasn't a numbered lot. MR. ZIEGLER-That is correct. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Anything else? MR. ZIEGLER-No, thank you very much for your time. MR. TRAVER-All right. We will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. O'CONNOR-1 may actually have that map if there's a question about it. MR. TRAVER-1 would think that you would have, I would hope that you have the map. MR. O'CONNOR-I've got many maps. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Do you have anything else? MR. O'CONNOR-No, not unless you have any other questions of the applicant. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from members of the Board? Any new information that people are seeking, anything that has not been answered regarding this application? Let's see, as far as our process. MR. MAGOWAN-You're also saying that there was a survey done lately on this? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. The original survey was June 1, 2015. On June 16th the top of the slope offset from slope repositioned house was added. We changed the position of the house to get it further away from the slope and the wetland, and on June 22nd added current setbacks and revised house location. On July 14th added proposed driveway. On July 24th, added New York State DEC wetlands and buffer. So the surveyor has been out there five, six times or more. I have a map. It's not very clear. Do you want to see it? MR. FORD-Let's see it, please. MR. O'CONNOR-This is a map of the total subdivision, the three different sections. MR. TRAVER-So that's the original subdivision. MR. O'CONNOR-That's the original subdivision. Okay. You have the same. You have a better one that I do. Was that part of your package? Okay. Then Mr. Wild gave it to you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. In terms of process, Laura, it appears that we have already dealt with SEQR, prior to this Board, right, or, no, I'm sorry, we have not. So that is a process. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Traver, what I'm going to ask you to do, and I confirmed with Maria, that when you close the public hearing, you should take a vote to close the public hearing, if that's what your intention was to close the public hearing, before you proceed with your SEQR. MR. TRAVER-Vote to close the public hearing? MRS. MOORE-You can do that, just to confirm that you've closed it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, I thought I already closed it. Are there any objections to closing the public hearing? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. MR. TRAVER-So we're unanimous. I'm sorry, did you have an objection? MR. MAGOWAN-For me, I'm not real comfortable with closing this. I'm just, I'm a little uneasy. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-1 might want to, I don't really know. It's not settling with me. MR. TRAVER-So is there additional information that you're seeking from the applicant, the neighbors, from Staff or one of the speakers? MR. MAGOWAN-All of them, but right now I'd like to be able to walk it again and get a better visual of what's going on. MR. DEEB-So you want to table this? MR. FORD-You're moving toward a tabling. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm moving toward a table, yes. MR. TRAVER-That's what it sounds like. Okay. Any comments on that suggestion? MR. FERONE-I'd like to do the same thing. MR. FORD-1 would recommend that you table. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You say that the SEQR, it says 8/25/15, to reaffirm the previous SEQR, right? MRS. MOORE-You would be reaffirming the previous SEQR. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) MR. TRAVER-Although it sounds as though someone is going to be making a tabling motion. Would someone like to make that? In which case we wouldn't address SEQR, right? MRS. MOORE-Correct, and so just to, the public hearing is remaining open at this time? MR. TRAVER-1 don't know. MRS. MOORE-Okay, because that's the Board's decision. MR. O'CONNOR-We are under a time constraint with our contract with the County. Unless you have serious questions, a delay is the equivalent of denial. MR. DEEB-Well, unless Mr. Swan would be agreeable to working out something. MR. SWAN-We currently have a six month, it was granted for six months. I would have to go back to the Board of Supervisors and request them to extend that if that was the case. MR. FORD-But when is that six month period up? MR. SWAN-The end of this month, I believe. I'd have to check on that. It might be the 15th of September. I think that's when it was. I think it's the 15th of September. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Did everyone hear that response? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, that's not changing my mind. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, make your motion. MRS. MOORE-So would it be possible that you'd like to poll the Board to see if they're closing the public hearing? MR. TRAVER-Yes. Let's go ahead and do that. I thought I had already closed the public hearing, but let's go ahead and vote on it. MRS. MOORE-Or you can poll the Board, different than voting, to confirm that you're leaving it open. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Who is in favor of, or, Maria, maybe you can poll the Board, yes or no on closing the public hearing, please. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Deeb? MR. DEEB-No. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Ferone? MR. FERONE-No. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Ford? MR. FORD-No. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Schonewolf? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Magowan? MR. MAGOWAN-No. MS. GAGLIARDI-Ms. White? MS. WHITE-Abstained. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Traver? MR. TRAVER-I'll say no. So the public hearing, then, is still open. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) MRS. MOORE-It remains open. MR. TRAVER-So next we have, is someone wants to make a motion for tabling. MRS. MOORE-If you're going to table your motion, please make sure you include information that gives some guidance about why you're tabling the application, and then whether you're moving this to an upcoming meeting, or whether you're holding a special meeting. MR. TRAVER-Right. Typically when we table an application it's to obtain additional information. So if someone wants to make a tabling motion, if you could share with us the, what you are seeking, the basis for the tabling motion. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. I'm going to make a motion to table Subdivision 13-1986 to give anyone on the Board time to re-walk this property and to review the information that has been dealt us from both parties involved, or all the parties involved. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Mr. Magowan has made a motion. Do we have a second? MR. FORD-Could we get something definitive as to how long it's being tabled for? To a specific date perhaps? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I would say, how does our next meeting look? MRS. MOORE-It's sufficient to put on the meeting for September 15th. That was your next meeting in September. MR. FORD-And there's open space to? MRS. MOORE-There's still open space. MR. O'CONNOR-Can you table something to go back out and look at the property, as opposed to getting new information? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think you have to have a definitive reason for it. MR. O'CONNOR-You're supposed to make your decisions upon what's presented. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. MR. O'CONNOR-What's in the record. That's what I would base my action on if I was going to do something further. MR. TRAVER-Well, I do believe a member of the Planning Board is entitled to make a motion. MR. O'CONNOR-1 understand that, but it should be a legal motion. MR. MAGOWAN-How can I re-word it? MR. O'CONNOR-You're asking me? MR. MAGOWAN-1 tried to word it in simple terms. MR. O'CONNOR-How about the word withdraw? MR. TRAVER-Laura, I understand this is your opinion, but do you feel that a tabling motion for the purpose of re-visiting the site is an adequate reason for tabling, or making a motion to table? MRS. MOORE-You can make the motion to table, but I guess I would give it additional, you're asking to revisit the site. Are you evaluating it to know where the house location is? Are you evaluating it to know where the flags are for the wetlands? That information's on the plan. So I guess going out to the site to visualize that, the information's on the plan. MR. MAGOWAN-To visually see where the flags are and the pins and the poles. MRS. MOORE-You could ask the applicant to pin the house. MR. MAGOWAN-For the erosion from the creek, the Brook. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) MRS. MOORE-And I guess that's what, in working with the applicant and the Board, we worked with applicants noting that there's certain functions in the Code that give us a direction to give to the applicant about, you know, you have to give us information where the steep slopes are within 50 feet. If it's less than 50 feet and it's a 15% slope, there's additional review, and that would be a site plan review by this Board. You have done those in the past. In this case the applicant, I diligently worked with the applicant to see, look, this information's going to be asked for. Get this done so that you can address the questions about steep slopes, about the wetlands in the area and the location of the house. MR. TRAVER-So you feel the application materials correctly reflect the information that Mr. Magowan is talking about? MRS. MOORE-What the requirements of the Code are. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. I'd like to change my motion, then. MR. TRAVER-Are you withdrawing the motion? When you say you're changing it, or are you withdrawing it? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I can't do that. So I would withdraw that and then go for a denial. I can make a motion, can't it? MRS. MOORE-Currently, the current motion that you have made has not obtained a second yet. So it's still on the floor, basically. It has not been seconded. MR. TRAVER-So, I think, are you withdrawing your original motion? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I can't do it, so I'll withdraw that. Maybe some of the other Board members can help me with my wording. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We have a, if Mr. Magowan has withdrawn his tabling motion, does anyone else have another motion to make before we vote on the draft resolution prepared by Staff? MRS. MOORE-So you would have to further discuss your public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Right. Yes, the public hearing is still open. So is there information that members of the Board seek from the members of the public that are here to address this application now, to get that information? Are there questions members have for the audience? Is there additional information that members of the Board want to gain from the public hearing? MR. MAGOWAN-1 guess, you know, I would say that for the members of the people in the crowd, you know, that came up and spoke, that live in the subdivision, I mean, do you have a plan to, you know, approach Mr. Wild? MR. MANNIX-The County still owns it, correct? So I think our approach would be with the County. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, but he has the offer in. He's got a certain amount of money invested. MR. TRAVER-1 think, with request, though, that's not the discussion that's before us this evening. They simply can do that, but that's not really in our purview to broker business between the County and potential buyers. I understand what you're saying. MR. MAGOWAN-1 had a question for the people that came up. So I'll just keep quiet. MR. TRAVER-Anyone else? Then I will ask again, if we poll the Board, Maria, can you poll the Board for closing the public hearing, then? MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Deeb? MR. DEEB-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Ferone? MR. FERONE-Yes. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Ford? MR. FORD-No. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Schonewolf? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Magowan? MR. MAGOWAN-No. MS. GAGLIARDI-Ms. White? MS. WHITE-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Traver? MR. TRAVER-Yes. So with that, then, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-We have a resolution, I think the first step is to have a motion to reaffirm the prior SEQR resolution. Mr. Secretary, do you want to make that? RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING PREVIOUS SEQR NEG DEC SUB# 13-1986 RYAN WILD The applicant proposes: Subdivision: Modification to an existing approved subdivision to develop lot with a single family dwelling. Pursuant to Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance modification to an existing subdivision shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested from road frontage requirements of the MDR zone. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO REAFFIRM THE PREVIOUS SEAR NEGATIVE DECLARATION MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1986 RYAN WILD, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White: Duly adopted this August, 2015, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-I'll just confirm it's a Negative Declaration. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Didn't I say that? I'm sorry. MR. TRAVER-Well, you did say the previous one, but support was pointing out that it was a Negative Declaration. Is there any discussion regarding the reaffirmation of SEQR? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I think we're changing the original Negative Declaration. MR. TRAVER-No, the motion is to reaffirm the Negative Declaration. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) MR. MAGOWAN-But now that we're changing subdivision and making it a buildable lot from a. MR. SCHONEWOLF-This is SEQR. MR. MAGOWAN-1 know, but I don't want to reaffirm it. So how do I say that? MR. TRAVER-You vote no on the SEQR. Okay. Any other comments, concerns? Are there people that have SEQR related questions on this application, other than the fact that it's gone from a lot with no building to potentially one that has a residence on it? MR. FORD-1 had concerns before until I realized the amount of time spent there by surveyors and the involvement of DEC and so forth. MR. TRAVER-The recent mapping date and so on. Yes. Well, we have a motion that's been seconded. May we have the vote, please? AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-So we have reaffirmed SEQR and we have a draft resolution next to vote on. Mr. Secretary? MRS. MOORE-1 guess prior to you making your motion, the Board had discussed, and the applicant and I believe the neighbors also identified some items that you may consider as conditions. One was one house, curbing away from the underground utility, no further subdivision and also discuss, I would suggest the Board discuss no further clearing, other than what's proposed. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I have four of them that are on your resolution. MS. WHITE-Is it important that we note the storm drains or not? MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry, what's that? MS. WHITE-Because that's in the public. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You listed. I went from one to the other. Modifications to the subdivision, and there's conditions on those modifications, but it's not exactly the wording that you just gave me, but it's close. MRS. MOORE-All right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That should be included. Right? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Anything else? I mean, the clearing is just a different wording. MR. O'CONNOR-Is that part of the draft resolution? MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's limits of clearing will constitute a no cut buffer zone. Orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by the Community Development staff. MR. TRAVER-And those clearing limits are on your map. MRS. MOORE-That's actually, there's no, on the survey map you're only looking at the tree buffer line, and it looks like, and if I'm correct, and I apologize for bringing it up again, is that you indicated that there was already clearing in that particular area. MR. O'CONNOR-There is to the east side of the lot, and most of the house to the back northerly corner of the house will be an area to be cleared, and probably a short area around it. MR. TRAVER-Wherever you show proposed building on your. MR. O'CONNOR-Proposed building, and maybe, there is on hemlock in the driveway area that will be taken down. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) MR. TRAVER-1 think that's in one of the photographs. MR. O'CONNOR-It is shown right in the footprint of the driveway. MR. TRAVER-And in the, on the plot plan, how far from the building, as estimated on the plan, do you anticipate the no cut line being? There's a setback already there on one line. MR. O'CONNOR-My subject would be subject to Mr. Ryan's comment, 10 feet on the northerly end of the house, and 15 feet on the westerly side of the house. MR. TRAVER-Ten feet on the northerly side. MR. O'CONNOR-And 15 feet on the westerly side, and also the area of the septic. So there's some area that will be disturbed where the septic is going. MR. TRAVER-Other than that, you're okay with the lines as marked? MR. O'CONNOR-There's no one, truthfully, there's no one behind the house, and this is behind the house to the west of the house that would be affected. If you look at the aerial photos, they have not cleared the natural buffer that is along the property line of Brown, which is to the north of us, and our northerly line, and that buffer, you can see it, it's right in this lot, between these two, but there's an open lot here. MR. TRAVER-Right. That's where most of the wetland is located, right? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Well, wetlands are way over here. Okay. So I would say probably keep this at 25 feet and that the 15 feet. Give them a little privacy in their backyard, and this over here, 10 feet from the house is fine, but then you've got a little bit of clearing here. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So 10 feet to the north, which is what you already stated. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And then to the west you're saying? MR. O'CONNOR-Twenty-five feet. MR. TRAVER-Twenty-five feet. Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And the septic area. MR. TRAVER-And the septic area. MR. O'CONNOR-The septic area. MR. MAGOWAN-You can't tilt that septic area out and go parallel with the buffer? MR. O'CONNOR-That buffer that's shown on here, there, has since been removed. That was that big photograph. MR. DEEB-Can that be replaced, some of it? MR. O'CONNOR-Not to the north. Where's the big photo? MR. FORD-When was that taken, that photograph? MR. O'CONNOR-Within a month. I didn't have it last time. The septic goes, the septic probably goes in this area here. MR. TRAVER-The draft resolution indicates no additional clearing. So it's already been cleared right? MR. MAGOWAN-See, I'm looking at the house situated here, and the septic is going to go out that way. Bring it out that way where it's flat and open. Because that house is right here. MR. O'CONNOR-This is the house that you're looking at right here. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) MR. MAGOWAN-That's Simmons' house? MR. O'CONNOR-That's not Simmons'. MR. MAGOWAN-That's Deuso's, right here. So she's right here. MR. O'CONNOR-She's cleared her whole back line. MR. MAGOWAN-Right, and this is the buffer zone right here. This is it right here. That's all gone right here? MR. O'CONNOR-Ninety percent of this. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Can we look at that to see what he's affirming to be 90 feet? MR. TRAVER-Sir, the public hearing has been closed. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Yes, but he's making assumptions. He hasn't been there. MRS. DEUSO-May we at least ask respectfully that you use the map on the Board so that we know what you're talking about? MRS. MOORE-They will in a second. MR. MAGOWAN-So this has been cleared right here, really, right to this point over here. Here's the fence line over here. I mean, do you see a problem just bringing your lines this way so we're not cutting into that? MR. O'CONNOR-Verbally, we will swing the absorption bed to the west, as long as it doesn't encroach upon the 50 foot setback from the top of the slope. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So move the septic to the west, but not encroaching upon the. MR. O'CONNOR-Fifty foot steep slope. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-The laterals. MR. FORD-We're really talking for the leach field. MRS. MOORE-Mr. O'Connor, is it possible to sort of give the audience that clearing limits, just draw it on the plan, or someone can point it out on the plan. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, Laura has asked me to point this out on the map. MR. TRAVER-Please. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. My understanding of the conditions include that we will not clear more than 10 feet to the north of this end of the building, as shown, and that we would not clear more than 25 feet in this direction from what I call the back of the building, and that we would swing the laterals of the septic system as far to the west as we could to avoid clearing of trees that remain on the property, as long as they don't encroach upon the 50 foot setback from the top of the slope of the steep bank. MR. TRAVER-Correct. That keeps the maximum buffer remaining as possible. Thank you. I think those are all the conditions that we have enumerated so far. Anyone have any other questions, comments before we hear a motion? Do you think you have all the conditions? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I think the conditions are as outlined by Staff. RESOLUTION APPROVING MODIFICATION TO SUB# 13-1986 RYAN WILD A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: to modify an existing approved subdivision to develop a lot with a single family dwelling. Pursuant to Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance modification to an existing approved subdivision shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 4-28-2015 & 8-25-2015; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1986 RYAN WILD, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White: Per the draft resolution prepared by staff with the following conditions: 1. The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, as prescribed and as just described at the east side of the lot, 10 feet to the north side, 25 feet on the west side and septic re-located to the west outside the steep buffer. 2. Curbing to protect the existing electric box. 3. No further subdivision. 4. The requirements of the SEQR were considered and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQR is necessary; 5. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; 6. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. Duly adopted this 25th day of August, 2015, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-One additional, another item that I didn't hear was no further subdivision, and whether you're going to also include the information about curbing. MR. TRAVER-Right, thank you. Yes, curbing to protect the electrical box. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, we talked about that. MR. TRAVER-But it's not part of the motion. Do you want it to be in the motion? MRS. MOORE-It's up to the Board. MR. TRAVER-Yes, please. Add that as a condition, and also no further subdivision. Thank you, Laura. MR. O'CONNOR-Could we consult with National Grid as to whether they can do something different than curbing? MR. TRAVER-Sure. We're talking about the existing electrical box. If the box goes away, then that's a different situation. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I can just tell you by looking at it that they're going to move the box. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We have an amended motion. Do we have a second for the motion as amended? MS. WHITE-I'll second the motion as amended. MR. TRAVER-We have a motion and a second. Are there any questions, comments from members of the Board before we vote? Maria, may we have the vote, please. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: Mr. Magowan 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-You're all set. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 51-2015 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED SMART WASH OF QUEENSBURY, LLC AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) S.E. REALTY CO. ZONING Cl LOCATION 708 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CHANGES TO THE EXISTING FACILITY— CONVERTING TO AN AUTOMATED FACILITY FOR CAR WASH, RELOCATING VACUUMS TO FRONT AREA AND RELOCATING SIGN TO COMPLIANT LOCATION. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-020 SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR CHANGE OF USE IN A COMMERCIAL BUILDING THAT HAS NOT HAD SITE PLAN REVIEW WITHIN THE PAST SEVEN YEARS. CROSS REFERENCE BP 15-260 WARREN CO. REFERRAL AUGUST 2015 LOT SIZE 3.83 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-2 SECTION 179-9-020 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes to modify the existing car wash facility. This includes the automated, the existing non-automated system will be automated. Currently when you drive in you actually talk to an attendant. This new system will move those, or make the existing drive thru's automated, and then they will also be moving the vacuums to the Quaker Road side of the project. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves with VanDusen and Steves, representing Smart Wash of Queensbury, LLC. As Staff has stated and I believe everybody on this Board knows where this property is down on the Quaker Road, and all the way back to Dix Avenue. As was stated in the Staff comments, there's a self-serve bay on the Dix Avenue side which basically remains exactly the way it is. There was a comment from Staff that the vacuums are being re- located. The self-serve bays, the vacuums stay right where they are. You come in, you vacuum your own car, you drive it in the bay, you wash it. What happens in the automatic car wash now is you come in, you have an attendant, you walk out of the car, they vacuum it for you, they drive the car through and then they come out the other side with your car, and what they're doing with this is just updating the entire facility with the new owner, and instead of coming out and doing that, you drive in and you have islands that are timed, with a gate and a little kiosk and you pay. It opens up, you go through, you stay in your car, just like you would at Hoffman's or any of the other ones. You have an attendant there to watch the machines and make sure that there's no problems inside the bay. You drive through, you come out, just like you do at Hoffman's now. You come out and there's a bank of vacuums in the front, against the Quaker Road side, the northerly side. If you wanted to vacuum it yourself, they're not going to do the attendant there, just cost effective and the way the industry is going. To do it yourself if you want to do it, and there's people around if you want help, if you need some help there will be attendants there. The only other minor change, as far as the re-locating of the vacuums from the rear of the automated car wash to the front is also the sign that's currently there to a compliant location and will be re-signed. Other than that, there's no changes to this site whatsoever. The asphalt all remains the same. The grass and permeability remains the same. All the stormwater on the site seems to be functioning properly. We'll just keep the maintenance of that stormwater up, all the interconnects to the neighboring properties, and I'll leave it up to the Board. MR. FERONE-So there's no change to the physical building at all? Because I know there's quite an overhang now, you know, for their workers. MR. TRAVER-So it's all just incurring changing of the equipment. MR. STEVES-Correct. When you come in to the back of the building now, if you look at it with the automatic, which would be the south, right now you stop there, you get out, you pay. It's just three little islands. The width of the drive in there is more than suitable to apply the six additional feet on top of the kiosk islands, the drive in. So again, there's no new non- permeable. No building changes whatsoever. It's just making it a little bit more automated and more user friendly for the type of industry that's where the industry's going. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) MR. TRAVER-One of the things I wondered about, going to the automated design, what's the impact on the volume of water that's generated and the amount of silt that's generated? MR. STEVES-They're basically the same amount. The automatic car wash can't take any more cars, if you lined them up one at a time, when they vacuum them and bring them in one at a time now or if you did the three. It's three vacuum stations and there's three proposed teller islands. The amount of cars that go through per hour is what the internal car wash is, you can't go any higher than that. MR. MAGOWAN-Isn't there a certain amount of water that's recycled, too? MR. STEVES-A considerable amount. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And not everybody uses soap, right? MR. STEVES-No. And the rest of the property, if you look at this one, is actually tied to the City sewer, that goes off of Dix Avenue. MR. DEEB-I'm confused. How many vacuum islands are going to be on the Quaker Road side? I see seven on one and then I see four on the other one, on the other site plan. MR. STEVES-I'm looking at the proposed plan, and there should be six, three on either side. MR. DEEB-Okay, because the other one showed only three. MR. STEVES-1 apologize. I submitted anew one after we had discussed. MR. DEEB-Okay. So there's going to be six? MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. DEEB-All right, and there's going to be plenty of room for cars to drive through without any problems. MR. STEVES-More than enough room. There's a 24 foot drive lane, and if you look, with the parking and the 18 foot, I believe that still leaves you 34 feet of driveway lane. There's a lot more than what is in the front of the Hoffman. MR. DEEB-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Matt, did you say that the existing vacuums, they're not going to exist, then? MR. STEVES-The existing vacuums on the self-serve? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. STEVES-They're going to stay. MRS. MOORE-They're going to stay. So these are new vacuums? MR. DEEB-Yes, there's none up front now. MR. STEVES-What you have up front now is, the vacuums in the back where the islands are, you pull in and the people vacuum them out for you. We're just moving those to the front of the building and they're coin operated self-serve. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, and then they rinse your mats and then you get your car washed and then they wipe it down and you tip them and you head out and you've got a beautiful looking car. I wouldn't know that, though. I've never been there. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any other questions before we take a look at, let's see, we also have a public hearing and we also have a SEQR to consider. Any other questions for the applicant before we address those issues? Yes, it's an Unlisted action with a Short Form. Okay. Before we do SEQR, we'll open the public hearing. Are there members of the audience that want to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) MR. TRAVER-Seeing none, are there any written comments? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then I will, unless the Board objects, I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And we have heard from the applicant some discussions about the volume of water and detergent and so on. That's not changing. I would have thought, myself, it would have, if anything, maybe slightly reduced, because the automated system would be more efficient than a human being, but in any case. Are there any concerns among members of the Board regarding SEQR? MR. FORD-1 have none. MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We have a motion for SEQR. RESOLUTION GRANTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION SP # 51-2015 SMART WASH OF QSBY The applicant proposes Applicant proposes changes to the existing facility —converting to an automated facility for car wash, relocating vacuums to front area and relocating sign to compliance location. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-020 Site plan review is required for change of use in a commercial building that has not had site plan review within the past seven years. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 51-2015 SMART WASH OF QUEENSBURY, LLC, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 25th day of August, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Okay, and then we have a resolution on approval. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 51-2015 SMART WASH OF QUEENSBURY, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes changes to the existing facility —converting to an automated facility for car wash, relocating vacuums to front area and relocating sign to compliance location. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-020 Site plan review is required for change of use in a commercial building that has not had site plan review within the past seven years. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 8-25-2015 and continued the public hearing to 8-25-2015 when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 8-25-2015; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 51-2015 SMART WASH OF QUEENSBURY, LLC, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: In accordance with the draft resolution provided by Staff. 1) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution Duly adopted this 25th day of August, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-You're all set. SUBDIVISION NO. 22-2005 & SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2014 MODIFICATION TOWNHOUSES AT HAVILAND HOA, INC. AGENT(S) SANFORD SEARLEMAN OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING PUD LOCATION BEEKMAN PLACE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION TO ELIMINATE THE WALKING TRAIL AND GAZEBO/EXISTING SITTING AREA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER A-183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE ANY MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE HILAND PARK PUD LOT SIZE 2.97 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.17-2-39 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 SANFORD SEARLEMAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes an amendment to the subdivision for the Townhouses at Haviland Road subdivision. There's a walking trail that was originally proposed, and at this time the Homeowners Association that has taken over the property has contacted 38 homes and they were in agreement to remove this trail that was proposed in the original HOA. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening. MR. SEARLEMAN-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-Can you tell us about your amendment? MR. SEARLEMAN-Sure. MR. FORD-Identify yourself first, please, for the record. Just state your name. MR. MAGOWAN-You've got to tell us who you are. MR. SEARLEMAN-My name is Sanford Searleman. I'm President of the Homeowners Association. I noticed up here you have a map, and it says Schermerhorn, and originally, it was my understanding that they put the development in, the original plan for the development. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) Subsequent to that, they then sold it to Amedore, and Amedore Homes then went ahead and actually developed the property that we now have, okay. So we're really talking about the Townhomes at Amedore is what we're really talking about. As I stated in my cover letter to the committee, requesting the removal of the walking trail and the gazebo, which was in the original plans. The reason we're asking for this to be eliminated at this point is that after the houses were actually built, around the circle there, it turned out that the houses on Beekman Place and the houses on Pollazzo, the walking trail in back of those houses was literally in our bedrooms. They looked nice on the plan. They looked nice when they were developed on the sheet of paper, but there really isn't, it's not feasible to have them there. We were asked to go ahead and develop a new plot plan, I think that's what they call it eventually, whatever and I submitted it and I presume you have copies of the amended plan where we're asking for the walking trail to be eliminated and also for the gazebo. Now as to the gazebo, it was put in the northeast section of the property, pretty close to Haviland, the road Haviland. We're concerned with security. As you well know, many people walk and drive and bicycle through there, and we're concerned that that particular gazebo will be used as a way station for a lot of people who don't belong to our Association. We don't see any real value that's been added, or that would have been added, if we have the walking trail or the gazebo. As you well know, if you go down Meadowbrook a couple of hundred yards, the Town of Queensbury put in a wonderful walking trail back in through there, and so we're suggesting that, we're asking that the original plan be modified to take the walking trail out and to take the gazebo out. For another thing, it's going to be costly to maintain. We've talked to the builder and we've discussed it with them somewhat. They have not yet committed to doing anything. What they really said was, and this is the Amedore company, what they really said was, go to the Town, and if you can get it eliminated, then we'll talk about some sort of concessions that can then be made for it. If it turns out that we can't get it eliminated, either item, we'll have to put it in, and quite frankly, we did a survey. The total population of the subdivision is 38 units. As of tonight, four units have not yet been sold, although I understand that several of them are under contract. So that brings it down to 34 units. We went ahead and did a survey. Of the 34, two of the homeowners chose not to participate in the survey. The rest of us have decided, by a survey, that we did not want the walking trail. Several did say it would be nice, maybe if we had the gazebo if we could find a place for it. We went ahead and surveyed several different places back there, and everybody said, excuse the old expression, not in my backyard, and that's exactly what it was. Nobody wanted it in their backyard, and so the majority, again, quite frankly, did not want the gazebo and did not want the walking trail. So all we're asking for is for the Town to allow us to eliminate from that, those two items, from the original plan, and then as I mentioned, we will then negotiate with Amedore for some compensation, seeing as they won't have to put those two items in. MR. TRAVER-What would you use the land for, then? MR. SEARLEMAN-I'm sorry, sir? MR. TRAVER-What would you intend to use that property for? MR. SEARLEMAN-Pretty much leave it the way it is. Again, the gentleman over here was talking about walking. After the property was developed, particularly on Pollazzo and Beekman, our backyard abuts up the Glen, and between those two, there's a marshland and there's a retention pond, and actually the slope goes deep at that particular point, and so we're just having it cut down. The people that take care of our lawns and stuff have gone in and have cleared it so that every, at least twice a year but we're thinking it may have to be done more often, they'll come in. They can't even mow it. They've tried mowing it with their riding mowers, and there's such a slope it tilts. So they've come in with commercial weed whackers to actually take care of the weeds of the property back there, to clear it so we have a little bit more room to do something with, but it's really nothing to play with, quite frankly. MR. TRAVER-So you have no plans to develop an alternative to the trail or the gazebo? MR. SEARLEMAN-No. No, we do not. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Anything else? MR. SEARLEMAN-1 do not. I have members of my committee here and my board, if they have anything to add to that, but I think we've pretty much covered what we're looking at. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Isn't there a walking trail now that kind of comes off Beekman or Meadowbrook through the commercial area that's mowed that walks down toward the Glen? 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) MR. SEARLEMAN-The Glen takes care of that. That's on the Glen property, but I think the original plan was if we were to have a walking trail, Schermerhorn agreed to build a bridge to connect the two, but if we don't have that, then of course there's no need for the bridge to be built. MR. SCHONEWOLF-From a safety standpoint, you might be better off without it. MR. SEARLEMAN-We believe so, for security purposes. Again, not to keep reiterating, but if you walk back there, that walking trail would actually be almost in our bedrooms because all the houses have their bedrooms on that side of the, on Beekman and Pollazzo, have it on that side of the road. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any other questions, concerns by members of the Planning Board? MS. WHITE-So not one person said keep this? MR. SEARLEMAN-As far as the walking trail, nobody said keep it. We had two that did not respond. The gazebo, several of them said, if we can find a place for it, but then when we suggested several places, those that are sitting there in that backyard said, whoa, whoa, whoa, no, no, no, and the other, one of the other plans, we live on a cut de sac. There's two cut de sacs. As you know, the cut de sacs are actually owned by the Town. They're not part of our property. So when I saw, when several of us saw, Mr. Craig Brown, is it, and we mentioned, well, maybe that's a spot, and he said, uh, uh, that's our property. You can't put a gazebo on there. So we got educated real quick on what's not our property. So there really is no place for it. MR. MAGOWAN-Were all these plantings put in in the backyards there that were supposed to follow the walking trail? MR. SEARLEMAN-As far as the trees go? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. SEARLEMAN-As far as I know, most of them were. I can't vouch for the fact that every single one was, but they did put trees back there, evergreens and things of that nature. MR. FORD-Well, originally, as the plan came before us, it was a legitimate plan, it was a good plan. It made sense at the time. However, if the reality of the situation is different than the plan as you live with it, then maybe, not maybe, we are being appropriate in addressing it before many more thousands of dollars are spent on it. MR. SEARLEMAN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions, comments? MR. FORD-1 just wanted to reinforce one other point. That the need for it really sprung out of a desire on the part of many of our citizens for walking areas in the Town of Queensbury. MR. SEARLEMAN-Right down Meadowbrook Road we've got that beautiful walking trail down there. MR. TRAVER-Well, we also have a public hearing on this application tonight. Are there members of the audience that want to comment on, or have questions on this application? Sir, did you? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NICK NORTON NORTON-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. NORTON-Hello. I'm Nick Norton. I'm Plant Director for The Glen at Hiland Meadows. I've been there since we opened, 14 years ago, and I'd like to just express that we would like the trails and gazebo to be in place. They were part of the plan. I think for our population and everybody in our community, I mean, they're ideal. Meadowbrook Road is not a road people 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) should be walking on. Haviland, I mean, they're just not designed for that. You mentioned safety. I think the safest spot is on our properties, and I just can't advocate enough for the 150 residents that were promised, when the land was sold, that one of the things that was going to happen is, you know, yes, we are giving up a view because of these houses being built in front of the mountain, but there's going to be walking trails. They're going to tie into ours, and it's going to be a community like the original, you know, PUD had, you know, designed where our property would tie into Waverly, Amedore and it would work as a community. We have our trails. Every day I come in to work there's somebody using our trails, there's somebody walking on our roads. I get calls every August from somebody from the Queensbury Senior Center telling me not to mow the field because I'm going to disturb the bird habitat. So I respect that. I don't mow until after August 20th. So, I mean, there's so many people using the trails in one of the corners down by the commercial properties that are there for sale. Somebody from, I don't know where, Waverly, Amedore, The Michaels Group, they've come down with weed whackers to make it accessible from Meadowbrook Road down to our trails. So it's not like we have too many trails that, you know, we don't need anymore. It's just an asset and I just wanted to express that to you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. NORTON-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Anyone else? CLAUDIA BRAYMER MS. BRAYMER-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MS. BRAYMER-It's been a long night listening to all the prior applications. Good evening. My name is Claudia Braymer. I'm an attorney with Caffry & Flower, and I'm representing the Conkling Center, which is a part owner of The Glen that is to the south, and they were also the predecessor in title who sold the land to Schermerhorn, and as part of that transfer, the deed and the agreement with Schermerhorn does say that this trail along with the gazebo would be established for the benefit of not only the residents there in the development, but also for the people living at The Glen. So that was part of the express agreement with the developer. Now not only that, the deed itself includes a provision that any plans for the development of the lot, including layout, design and landscaping, such as this trail and the gazebo, would be subject to the approval of The Glen, I'm sorry, Glens Falls Home is the predecessor to the Conkling Center. Okay, and that the Glens Falls Home would be given an opportunity to review any application prior to it being brought before the Planning Board. I can tell you this evening that The Glens Falls Home, who is now the Conkling Center, had not received any notice from the President of the Homeowners Association seeking the approval of the Conkling Center prior to bringing this application. So it's our position that this should not even be here this evening. Furthermore, we only received a notice from the Town yesterday in the mail. So we've had very limited time to discuss this application at all, let alone come to any kind of decision about allowing this approval to go forward, as far as the Conkling Center is concerned, and I would also like to note that the applicant did not have a sign on the property pursuant to the Subdivision Code 183-14D, which requires them to post the sign about a public hearing related to subdivision applications. I drove around today. There is nothing posted on the property. In any event, I understand from the prior applications, and I agree with Attorney O'Connor's comments that, you know, a private agreement is not your jurisdiction. However, the walking trail was also an integral part of the Planning Board's decision back at the time that the subdivision was approved. Importantly, the walking trail was also considered by the Town Board when it gave its blessing for the subdivision application to go forward as consistent with the Hiland Park PUD Planned Unit Development. I just want to pull out that I was able to get a copy of the PUD resolution today. I just want to point out to you that, as you stated Planning Board member Ford, this was a good idea. It was a great plan at the time, and it still is. Okay. The PUD called for mixed uses with the golf course, a commercial residential, the retirement community, as well as convenience stores. It was all supposed to be very walkable and pedestrian friendly and bikeable. Now the PUD is not finished. It's still being built out. As you can see on the map, there's still commercial lots that have not yet been developed. We should not diverge from the plan at this point. A lot of time and energy and thought went into making a good plan for the citizens of this Town, of the Town of Queensbury, and we should not be diverging just because the people in this particular small community no longer want that walking trail or the gazebo. It was also discussed in the Town Board minutes, Richard Schermerhorn told the Town Board that he would be putting in the walking trail, and in addition it was discussed at length in the Planning Board minutes of October 25, 2005, in three separate spots 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) in the Planning Board minutes, talks about mixed use and walkable to shops like donut shops and coffee shops and things of that nature. I do take issue with the HOA President saying that it's no longer feasible. I have a copy of the original plan of the subdivision, and the trail on that plan, the plan looks exactly the same as what he's put out now except the trail's not on the plan anymore. There isn't anything that's not feasible about the walking trail. Maybe there needs to be some grading around the one stormwater basin, but all that construction should have been done at the time the subdivision was approved, and the resolution from December of 2005 requires them to put it in, I think it was within one year of getting a building permit. So all of this should have been done years ago. That it wasn't is not a reason for us to take it out of the plan now, and I'd also like to point out that when I was driving around today I saw that there was a ton of landscaping between where the gazebo should be and where the road is. So I take issue with him saying that there was a security issue with people, the public traveling that road coming down into the gazebo. No one's even going to see the gazebo. It's going to be private. It's going to be protected. I just want to make two more points. That all of the HOA members are considered to have notice of this trail being in their subdivision because it is in the final subdivision map, and I am not sure if it's in the HOA documents or not. I didn't have time to research all that, but I think that the Planning Board should have that in front of you. It certainly is within your rights. It's in the Zoning Code, I'm sorry, in the subdivision law, saying that you would have HOA documents provided to you, and I don't know if that's in the file yet or not. I'm just going to hold this up for you, showing you that it has the County Clerk's recording information. So all of the HOA members have this, either they had actual knowledge of it or constructive knowledge, according to property rights. When you buy a property, you take it subject to the filed maps, okay, and as you can see, the trail does go right here between the stormwater basin and the edge of the property, and that's exactly what his new map is showing, except for they've taken out the trail lines. There isn't anything different in my mind. There's no reason for you to take this off the filed map. MR. MAGOWAN-You said it was in the deed when it was sold to Schermerhorn? MS. BRAYMER-In our deed, in The Glens Falls Home deed to Schermerhorn, it talks about ensuring that we have an opportunity, we being The Glens Falls Home, now the Conkling Center, have the opportunity to look at any Planning Board applications before it comes to the Planning Board. I do not believe that the specifics of the trail are in the deed, but if you look in the minutes from 2005, Richard Schermerhorn is affirming to the Planning Board that he has agreed to do that for The Glens Falls Home, and the Planning Board conditioned it subject to the walking trail. It's an important part of the Hiland Park PUD, and it's already done at The Michaels Group development across the street and at Waverly. I know there's some issues there with connectivity, but the walking trails were required by the Planning Board and they were put in by the developers, just as they should have been done here and they still should be. MR. FERONE-Did the development get sold from Schermerhorn to another developer? MS. BRAYMER-To Amedore. I don't have that deed. MR. FERONE-Did they assume all of the same conditions? MS. BRAYMER-1 do not have that information, but it's in the deed. So you take it, anybody, it says party of the first part, and its successors and assigns. So it would apply to them. MR. FERONE-So they assumed everything that went with the property. MS. BRAYMER-But the Planning Board made it be part of the property. By putting this on the map, the walking trail is part of the Planning Board's approval. So Amedore took it subject to this, as did all the HOA members. This is not a surprise. MR. TRAVER-And this plan was developed in 2005? MS. BRAYMER-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and have you taken any action or had any meetings or done anything about the 10 years during which this trail and gazebo were not developed? MS. BRAYMER-There have been discussions about enforcing the Planning Board's plans. We have not taken action yet. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MS. BRAYMER-Nor has the Planning Department, that I know of. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Are you saying that once there's a plan down, you can never change it? MS. BRAYMER-I'm not saying that, but I am saying there were important reasons, and at this point, there's not a compelling reason to change the plan. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's a matter of opinion. MS. BRAYMER-It is a matter of opinion, but a Planning Board member has already stated that there was good purpose, and this PUD, part of my argument tonight is that you should have, that they should have gone to the Town Board first. This is not a simple amendment of a regular subdivision. This is a part of a PUD, and as with the normal development in a PUD, you have to go to the Town Board first for consent. They didn't do that here. MR. MAGOWAN-And it was supposed to have been done within a year of the building permit. MS. BRAYMER-Let me just grab the resolution. All site related improvements, such as but not limited to landscaping and lighting shown on plans, and I will note that the trail is on the landscaping plan, shall be complete within one year of obtaining a building permit and no later than six months after receiving a building permit Certificate of Occupancy. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You still haven't answered my question whether you can change it. MS. BRAYMER-I've answered your question. It is possible to change a subdivision plan. In this case, I think they should have either gone to the Town Board first or you should condition approval, if you're going to do that, on consent of the Town Board, but this evening I think you should leave the public hearing open. You should obtain Town Counsel and also require them to provide their HOA documents, which you are entitled to see, to see what it says about the walking trails. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else? MS. BRAYMER-1 just want to state again, a walking trail provides an important open space recreation and linkages between the various aspects of the PUD as it is to be developed out over time, and that no single portion of the PUD should be allowed to undo a carefully established and approved plan because this would be a detriment to the Town, and defeat an important purpose of the subdivision plat. MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much. MS. BRAYMER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Laura, a question for Staff. There was a question raised about the sign notice for a subdivision application. This is a modification. It's not an application to create a subdivision, but I wondered if you had. MRS. MOORE-I'd have to look back at the Code and discuss it with the Staff. Typically there is a sign put up. I'm not saying it happens all the time. MR. TRAVER-Because I know if there was not notice, then we may have an issue. Right? MRS. MOORE-Right. There was mailed notice. We're required to do five days. It was done seven days in advance. I don't know, I apologize, I don't know how the applicant or this client did not receive it until yesterday. MR. TRAVER-No, I'm not speaking to that. I'm speaking to the sign. I mean, I know in the past there've been applications where a required sign notifying, not mailing, but an actual sign putting up, was not placed within the notification period as required. My question is whether or not this requires that. I know in the past there've been, I can think of a couple of instances where that was required, it was not done, and we had to delay. MRS. MOORE-I'd have to take a minute to look at the Code. MR. TRAVER-Okay. If you don't mind, if you would do that, I'd appreciate it. Can we have the applicant come back to the table? MR. DEEB-We've got another one. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry. Another speaker. Yes, ma'am. LINDA CAMPINELL MRS. CAMPINELL-Yes. I am Linda Campinell, and I am a member of the HOA Board and I'm also a resident of the Haviland Townhomes. I have to say that I was shocked to hear what we heard today, because we were not aware of any of this, because we were in discussions when we took over the Board in January. We had no idea this was even coming out of the blue. In addition, they talk about combining the communities, and I have to say, my husband tried to walk on the trails over at Waverly, and had residents come out and tell him it was private property, that he was not allowed. So if there is talk of combing the communities already, there is an unwillingness of other communities to do that kind of community event. MR. TRAVER-Or at least on the part of one resident. MRS. CAMPINELL-Exactly, or several residents in that community. So there's a lack of understanding, amongst all the communities that are being developed that this was even out there and was being planned. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else? We've got one more speaker. STEVE JACKOSKI MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MR. JACKOSKI-My name is Steve Jackoski. I'm a resident in the Town of Queensbury. I'm also the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals of Queensbury. I want the public to know that, as well as the immediate past President of The Glens Falls Home, now the Conkling Center, and the Director at The Glen at Hiland Meadows. I'm very aware of trying to be a good neighbor. We, at the Conkling Center, have had discussions about enforcing the development with the walking trails. We've chosen not yet to respond because we were told that Amedore Homes was going to eventually build it out, when they finally turned it over to the Homeowners Association. So now we are just learning that they want to eliminate that. We believe very strongly, and so do our residents at The Glen, that this was an integral part of their lifestyle here in the Town of Queensbury, and if we're going to continue to attract residents to that area, while we may not be able to interconnect across Meadowbrook Road, we certainly don't have any signs on our property suggesting that our trails are private. We certainly have been expecting that these trails will connect to the Townhomes. We've just been patiently waiting, as good neighbors. Mr. Schonewolf thinks that changes can be made. Absolutely, but you have investors who've counted on the Master Plan, and until you give us a good reason as to why you can't do it, it takes away from the value that we saw and the land that we sold to Schermerhorn who promised to develop it. Secondly, we just purchased two of the three commercial lots to buy back into. We've owned that land originally. We bought back into that community, that area to do what we expect to do for the citizens, for the residents on those commercial lots, knowing that those walking trails were going to eventually get developed and interconnect all of that area. It's a shock to us they're not being enforced. I hope you don't make us take the legal step. I hope that you don't make a not for profit spend a lot of legal money, such as having an attorney here tonight, to work this out. Give us some time, at least, to work it out. Thank you. MR. DEEB-Excuse me. Do you have any idea how many residents use the walking trail? MR. JACKOSKI-I don't. We could certainly, again, we just got notice yesterday. We have scrambled as a Board, as an executive board, trying to get as much done as we can, hiring an attorney to dig through the files. We just haven't had time. Five days' notice, I understand, believe me, on my Board I say the same thing, well, you got notice, but we scrambled as fast as we could tonight. I wish I had all that data, but they certainly do use the trails. I know a lot of people do use the trails. MS. WHITE-Personal observation, those trails do get used. MR. JACKOSKI-And I understand we can't connect to Waverly, and I think I was an alternate on the Planning Board when The Michaels Group ended up creating that walking path to nowhere as I referred to it. It's frustrating, but it's there, but at least those two developments do have 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) their walking trails, but it is a walking trail to nowhere on that Michaels Group development property. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Would someone else like to speak? LINDA DEMAS MRS. DEMAS-I'm Linda Demas and I live in the Townhomes also, and it occurs to me, we're talking about change, and we can change a plan. That walking trail with a terminus on Haviland Road, if it in fact was put in, it would end on Haviland and then from where do they go? They go right, they go to the golf course. They go left they go on Haviland. Not safe. Just a thought. But I think on paper this walking trail looked like a good idea. In reality, when all the houses are constructed and they're all there, it's not a good plan. It's too close to the houses, and there's no place to put it in back, it puts you into the golf course. That's my thought. On Waverly, there's quite a space between that walking trail and the homes. It's not the case on Haviland, on our particular spots, and also the gazebo would be right out there in the open. It's not hidden. The construction plan has it right on the corner where the practice green is and where the beginning of the property is, and there's no privacy, right there. That's my thoughts. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Anyone else from the public? Are there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Then we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Did you have any luck finding that? MRS. MOORE-The only information I can find is having the subdivision, if it were a subdivision, you would have to have a notice. Whether a modification needs to have, rather, a subdivision you have to have a sign. If it's a modification of the subdivision, I'm not finding that language in there about having a sign. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-And then I'm further looking for PUD's, seeing if there's information about signage, when something happens with a PUD. MR. TRAVER-So notice is clearly required, but the sign does not appear. MRS. MOORE-1 can't find reference. MR. TRAVER-For modification. MRS. MOORE-1 can't find reference to it. MR. TRAVER-1 think the instance that I was thinking of was the creation of a subdivision on a piece of property, and there was a situation where the sign had not been put up or had not been up the required length of time, and we had to delay action on that item. That was a few years ago. Some of the members might remember. Mr. Ford, I think you might. Okay. MR. DEEB-Mr. Chairman, before you close the public hearing, you might want to poll the Board first, but the question I have, and this is for Staff, is this was a PUD, and we don't have purview over PUD's, I don't think. MRS. MOORE-You have information about the subdivision within the PUD, that you do. You made a decision previously on that in 2005. So you do have that as part of your subdivision. MR. DEEB-So it doesn't go back to the Town Board? MRS. MOORE-I'm not aware of it going back to the Town Board. I did discuss at the beginning of this application process, and my understanding was it was to come before the Planning Board. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I'm, my feeling was it wouldn't be before us if we didn't have jurisdiction. MR. FORD-1 would tend to disagree, but I've got to rely on Laura, but my rationale is the Planning Board did not approve a PUD. That was in the purview of the Town Board, and I believe that this would best be handled there. If there's going to be a modification of this 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) Planned Unit Development, it should be done by the appropriate body, and that would be the Town Board. I have no problem doing whatever needs to be done to implement an appropriate plan, but I don't think it's in our purview to modify that PUD. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think you're right. You've got a PUD coming upright now that's going to the Town Board. MR. FORD-Right. MR. DEEB-I agree. I think it should go back to the Town. MR. TRAVER-Well, we have also heard communication from The Glens Falls Home and. MR. MAGOWAN-Conkling Center. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that they would like to have discussions with the Homeowners Association about alternatives to this. So one of the things we certainly could consider, since there is no trail at the current time, there is no gazebo at the current time, it doesn't appear, at the very least, that the Homeowners Association has any immediate plans to construct either of those. So we could table this item and allow discussion to take place between The Glens Falls Home and the Homeowners Association, and also afford Staff an opportunity to fully flesh out any potential issues with our jurisdiction over this matter, whether it be a subdivision or a PUD, and whether or not the Town Board wishes to weigh in. MR. FORD-That's where I was going. MR. DEEB-I think you need to get legal. I would ask for a legal opinion. MRS. MOORE-Well, I can share with you only because I'm looking at it in the Code, that if there is modifications, it does actually come back before the Planning Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. FORD-A modification in a PUD? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But the approval for the PUD comes from the Town. MR. TRAVER-The approval, yes, but it's already been approved. MRS. MOORE-You're modifying, the application. MR. TRAVER-I'm also concerned because we have heard, again, from the neighborhood, and if we do have a number of people, and I'm just making an assumption. If we do have a number of people that are using the walking trails that do exist in the neighborhood, and they were not afforded an opportunity to perhaps come and speak in favor of the walking trails, then the only ones that we're hearing from are the folks that don't want to develop the walking trail. So I wouldn't be opposed to the idea of delaying this a little bit and letting some additional communication take place. MR. FORD-Communication is the key here. MR. TRAVER-Yes. There may be an opportunity there either to have some further negotiation or possibly to discuss an alternative. I mean, right now we have on the plan a walking trail and a gazebo. Who knows, I mean, there could be a different walking trail. There was talk about looking for an alternate location for the gazebo. There are a lot of alternatives to either completely constructing it exactly according to plan, or not constructing it at all that my impression is those discussions have not fully been fleshed out. So I wouldn't be averse to tabling this item. MR. MAGOWAN-1 agree with you. MR. DEEB-I agree. I think we should table it. MR. SEARLEMAN-Can I make a couple of comments? MR. TRAVER-Certainly, yes. Sure. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) MR. SEARLEMAN-To begin with, we had no idea of what this young lady was talking about. We don't have that deed. We got our deeds from Amedore. MR. TRAVER-Understood. MR. SEARLEMAN-Okay? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SEARLEMAN-It had nothing to do with Schermerhorn at that particular point. So as far as communication goes, who should we communicate with? The other point was, with all due respect, we did go to Mr. Craig Brown and he was the one that said, these are the steps you must take, and so these are the steps we're now taking. So it seems to me that Mr. Brown should have also then said, gee whiz, guys, you've got to go somewhere and do something else. You've got to look up a whole bunch of deeds or you've got to do this. I understand he's not an attorney, whatever, but we're just following what he told us to do. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and his information was correct, and you are doing what you need to do. What we're simply considering, in trying to find a solution to the issue that you brought before us, is that rather than act on that issue tonight, it sounds like though there could be benefit, perhaps, to parties without disadvantaging your position, to have further discussion. MR. SEARLEMAN-The gentleman talked about expenses, and again, you know, we're a Homeowners Association so we're not really a for profit organization. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. SEARLEMAN-We spent money with VanDusen to re-do 15 of the maps, and then he asked for an S-1 and an S-2 map also, and so we spent another $150. So, again, money is money, and not big money, but we went ahead and expended monies based on what we thought we were doing correctly. MR. TRAVER-You may perhaps find if you have discussions with owners of neighboring trails that there may be some financial support to clarify this effort and come up with alternatives. That's up to you, I don't know. MR. SEARLEMAN-1 hear you. MR. TRAVER-But since it has been 10 years, the trail and gazebo have not been developed, you certainly don't have any immediate plans. It's not like you're asking us to go and start building it tomorrow. MR. SEARLEMAN-No. MR. FORD-Or you're not having to take it out. MR. TRAVER-Or you're not having, good point, you're not having to remove it. So time is, so far, is a little bit on our side, I think. So if we delay this a little bit, now that everyone is aware of the issue, there may be an opportunity for some communication here that might be advantageous to all sides. MR. SEARLEMAN-Okay. The last comment I will make is, and when we approach Amedore about, when are you going to start putting the trail in, you know, after the houses were built, quite frankly they kept say, oh, it's coming, don't worry about it, it's coming. So when you say we have time, the last, I think, two units are now currently, as I speak, being built. They're trying to pull out as fast as they can, Mr. Amedore, because he's already informed me, gee, when those last two houses are built, I'm off the Board. Because technically he's on the Board until then. So we do have some time, but as soon as he sells those houses and vacates, I don't know where, you know, then we've got a big legal problem on our hands. MR. TRAVER-That's right. It's not an unlimited period of time. We certainly appreciate that, and everyone wants a resolution to this, regardless of which side of the issue you're on. Perhaps even if we were to delay this until next month. That would afford an opportunity for perhaps some dialogue. Is there elbow room on our September agenda, maybe, for this? MRS. MOORE-There is, but does that give both the applicant and those individuals time to discuss that? That's less than 30 days, basically. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) MR. TRAVER-So, right, you need materials and so on, if there's going to be any change. So how about if we bump it to October? MRS. MOORE-1 would suggest that because I think that gives everyone an opportunity to discuss it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-And then the applicant can meet with Staff as well. MR. TRAVER-Okay. In general do members of the Board have an issue with tabling this application until October to give an opportunity for interested parties to further communicate? MR. DEEB-No. Don't forget, you said new information came to light tonight, which I think has to be explored, that some people weren't even aware of. MR. TRAVER-Right. Yes, well, all parties are clearly now on notice. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I just want a date. MR. TRAVER-For October? We're looking at either the 20th or the 27th. MRS. MOORE-Correct. I would say the October 20tH MR. TRAVER-October 20tH MR. SEARLEMAN-The 27th, I think, might be better for some of us, if it's possible. MRS. MOORE-The 27th? MR. TRAVER-Can we accommodate it on our agenda on the 27 th? MRS. MOORE-You can do that, yes. MR. TRAVER-All right, then that will be our motion. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Motion to table 22-2005 and 3-2014 to October 27tH MR. FORD-Second. MRS. MOORE-You might want to include the information about why. Also explain that you're tabling it, you're requiring additional information in regards to the trail and its. MR. TRAVER-Discussion with owners of nearby trails as far as any, yes. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So we're amending the resolution to include that the applicant is asked to communicate with the owner of neighborhood trails as to accommodations or cooperation, communication. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That sounds good. MR. FORD-I'll second that modification, the amendment. RESOLUTION TABLING MODIFICATION TO SUB # 22-2005 & SUB # 3-2014 TOWNHOUSES MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 22-2005 & SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2014 MODIFICATION TOWNHOUSES AT HAVILAND HOA, INC., Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Tabled to October 27, 2015. The applicant is asked to communicate with the owner of neighborhood trails as to accommodations or cooperation, communication. Duly adopted this 25th day of August, 2015, by the following vote: 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) MS. GAGLIARDI-And the public hearing is remaining open? PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think we would normally leave the public hearing open. Thank you. MR. SEARLEMAN-Are we talking basically about Waverly? Is that what we're talking about? MR. TRAVER-Yes, certainly Waverly. MR. SEARLEMAN-And The Michaels Group. MR. FORD-And The Glen. MR. TRAVER-1 know there are representatives here that spoke to those concerns. I think you can safely assume that you will be contacted by those interested parties shortly. Okay. So the public hearing is open. We also are not going to address the reaffirmation of the previous SEQR because we don't know for sure what the plan is going to be. So that remains open as well, and I think that covers it. MRS. MOORE-You still need to take your vote. MR. TRAVER-We should go ahead and vote, right? AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. MRS. MOORE-1 do have information for the Board, at your September 22nd meeting, we'll be having. MS. WHITE-I apologize, but can we have quiet in the audience, because our meeting is still being conducted. MR. TRAVER-Yes, members of the audience, we're still in session. If you could move your discussions to outside of the hearing room, please. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Okay. So on September 22nd, your meeting will start at 6, run to 7, for an informational meeting about MS-4 and Stormwater, and that's Jim Liebrum with Soil and Water. MR. TRAVER-September 22nd MRS. MOORE-Yes, it's already on your agenda as a regular Planning Board meeting that starts at 7, but I'm asking you to be here at 6 for that training. MR. FERONE-And what is that for? MRS. MOORE-Stormwater training. MR. TRAVER-All right. Any other business to come before the Board this evening? MR. FORD-1 move we adjourn. MR. DEEB-What date was that? MRS. MOORE-September 22nd MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF AUGUST 25, 2015, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: Duly adopted this 25th day of August, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2015) On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Acting Chairman 43