Loading...
2005-10-18 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 18, 2005 INDEX RESOLUTIONS Cingular Wireless; Jeff Threw; Hennessey 1. RESOLUTION Northeast Dining & Lodging 2. SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS Tax Map No. 296.18-1-6 Subdivision No. 8-2005 Western Reserve 3. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 300-1-19 FINAL STAGE Subdivision No. 2-2005 Jeffrey Clark 18. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 240.-1-49 Subdivision No. 4-2003 Thomas Schiavone 29. FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 308.7-1-2 Site Plan No. 49-2005 Stark Group 38. Tax Map No. 288-8-1.5.2 Site Plan No. 58-2005 Hunter Brook LLC 54. Tax Map No. 289.15-1-4 Site Plan No. 55-2005 Carroll’s Corporation 58. Tax Map No. 302.06-1-30 Site Plan No. 54-2005 Jerry Brown’s Auto Parts 65. Tax Map No. 303.19-1-49 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 18, 2005 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY GEORGE GOETZ THOMAS SEGULJIC RICHARD SANFORD THOMAS FORD, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT ANTHONY METIVIER LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI RESOLUTION: STATUS UPDATE FOLLOW-UP RESOLUTION FROM 8/16/05 MR. HUNSINGER-The first one was for Cingular Wireless, and there’s a draft resolution prepared by Staff. I’ll entertain a motion, if someone wants to make one. WHEREAS, ON AUGUST 16, 2005 THE PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED TO THE APPLICANT A 60 DAY TIME FRAME TO DO THE FOLLOWING: PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, SUBMIT FURTHER EXTENSION REQUEST OR SUBMIT STATUS UPDATE FOR THEIR PROJECT, TO DATE NOTHING HAS BEEN RECEIVED FOR SITE PLAN 6-2005 CINGULAR WIRELESS. MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE SITE PLAN 6-2005 CINGULAR WIRELESS, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic, who moved its adoption, seconded by George Goetz: Duly adopted this 18 day of October, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. HUNSINGER-There’s a similar resolution for 20-2004, Jeffrey Threw. WHEREAS, ON AUGUST 16, 2005 THE PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED TO THE APPLICANT A 60 DAY TIME FRAME TO DO THE FOLLOWING: PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, SUBMIT FURTHER EXTENSION REQUEST OR SUBMIT STATUS UPDATE FOR THEIR PROJECT. TO DATE NOTHING HAS BEEN RECEIVED FOR SUBDIVISION 20-2004 JEFFREY THREW. MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE SUBDIVISION 20-2004 JEFFREY THREW, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 18 day of October 2005 by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-The next item on the agenda is an extension request for Site Plan No. 44- 2004 and Site Plan No. 45-2004, for Richard Hennessey. Is there anyone here for the applicant? JON LAPPER MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper. This is a Michaels Group project. The commercial piece of the Hudson Pointe PUD over by West Mountain Road and Corinth Road. We reached agreement with the Planning Board and the Town Board that the Michaels Group would construct a bike path to connect to the residential section of Hudson Pointe. This is for a gas station, convenience store on Corinth Road, and we’re still working out the easement agreement with the Town for constructing and maintaining the road, the driveway entrance and the bike path, but that’s all going fine. We’re just asking for an extension for a year to get it built. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions, discussion by the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-It seems straightforward. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to make a resolution? MOTION TO EXTEND SITE PLAN NO. 44-2004 & SITE PLAN NO. 45-2004, RICHARD HENNESSEY, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: Until one year from today, October 18, 2006. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. LAPPER-Thank you. 2. RESOLUTION SEEKING LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR AV & SP FOR NORTHEAST DINING & LODGING MR. HUNSINGER-Just by way of introduction, there was a letter that was received by the applicant’s Counsel, Mr. Lapper, asking if the Board could actually consider the SEQRA itself, and for a variety of reasons, we’re really not in a position to do that this evening. Mostly because we really weren’t prepared for it and it wasn’t warned as such. MR. LAPPER-We understand. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any discussion by the Board? All we’re doing is seeking Lead Agency Status in this resolution. MR. LAPPER-And the Zoning Board’s already consented that they think you should be Lead Agency. So we’re all set there. MR. FORD-Is it on for next week? That was the request. MR. LAPPER-No, I spoke with Planning Staff. It’s scheduled for November at this point. So that there would be a SEQRA determination, hopefully, and then go back to the ZBA for the minor variance and then back to you for the second meeting for the site plan. So that’s fine at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any further discussion? Anyone want to offer the resolution? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) RESOLUTION SEEKING LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING SEQRA REVIEW RESOLUTION NO.: SP 57-05, AV 68-05 INTRODUCED BY: Thomas Seguljic WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION: SECONDED BY: Thomas Ford WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Site Plan and Area Variance application for a proposed restaurant [Golden Corral], and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the projects to be a Unlisted action for the purposes of SEQRA review pursuant to 6 NYCRR, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the actions because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property, and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED In accordance with the resolution prepare by Staff, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be Lead Agency for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the Department of Community Development to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such intent. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. LAPPER-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2005 P/F SEQR TYPE UNLISTED WESTERN RESERVE AGENT(S) JONATHAN LAPPER, B P S R VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RR- 3A & SR-1A LOCATION WEST MT. ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A 26.15-ACRE SUBDIVISION INTO 14 LOTS, INCLUDING 13 TOWNHOUSE UNITS (WITH BUILDING FOOTPRINTS/BUILDING LOTS RANGING FROM 523 SQ. FT. TO 1230 SQ. FT.) AND ONE COMMON LOT (24.97-ACRES). SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL. CROSS REF. SP 46-03, SB 16-03, SB 17-02, AV 22-02, AV 52-01, AV 36-05 LOT SIZE: 26.15 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 300-1-19 SECTION A-183-31 M. HAYES, JONATHAN LAPPER, & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, could I ask a quick question? Susan, one of the things we requested is a C.T. Male signoff. MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Or a review of the project, and I noticed that in the, I didn’t have one of my packets. Possibly I lost it. Is there one? MRS. BARDEN-No. MR. SEGULJIC-There is not? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MRS. BARDEN-There is not one. I do have a letter dated 10/12 from C.T. Male, and it is not a signoff. MR. SEGULJIC-Was that letter in our packets? MRS. BARDEN-No. It’s dated 10/12. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. That explains that. Okay. MRS. BARDEN-So there are a couple of things that the applicants still need to address. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you want to summarize Staff notes, Susan? MRS. BARDEN-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. BARDEN-This is Subdivision 8-2005, Preliminary and Final review for Western Reserve. As you will recall, this project was tabled on June 28, 2005 by this Board for additional information as listed in the tabling resolution attached. Specifically, submittal of the HOA document, stormwater plan addendum, and facilities map identifying as built conditions and address handling of potential liabilities. The Homeowners Association agreement will be reviewed by Town legal counsel, and the updated stormwater plan will be reviewed by the Town’s engineers. The property as defined in the HOA is erroneously stated as 27.97 of which will be deeded to the HOA should read 24.97 acres to be deeded. Many directives to recording items at the “Oswego County Clerk’s Office”. The density calculation for the entire project , as identified on the site plan, shows the total density at 25.4 units (12 single-families and 13 townhouse units). Therefore, the maximum density has been accomplished, and any reference to subdivisions of land in the HOA should be removed. Furthermore, the density calculation and a condition of approval by the Board of no further subdivision should be affixed to the final plat. The HOA does include language, in Section 6.01 “Repairs and Maintenance by the Association”, regarding maintenance of the proposed landscaping, as well as, stormwater and wastewater infrastructures. The cover letter submitted with this most recent submittal, indicates that, “the project sponsors, Western Reserve, LLC will cover all costs of maintenance to the stormwater management system for a period of two years from the date of the first sale”. Consideration should be given to changing “from the date of the first sale” to the “Transfer of Control Date”, defined as, “The date on which, the Sponsor has transferred title to all of the Lots on the Property, or five years after the Sponsor has recorded this Declaration, whichever occurs first”. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you. The floor is yours. MR. LAPPER-Okay. For the record, Jon Lapper, Tom Nace, and Mickie Hayes. With respect to Susan’s comments, we are completely in agreement with everything that she said. The language in the boiler plate declaration of covenants about subdivision is intended to give the Homeowners Association the right to subdivide, in terms of what their powers are. Zoning can change, but there’s no intention of doing that. It was not there because anyone thought there would be another subdivision. That’s just the boiler plate language to give them the full right. So in this case there shouldn’t be any further subdivision. So there’s no reason not to concede to what she has requested, and in terms of the maintenance of the stormwater facilities, the applicant agrees with that as well. The transfer of control date either five years or when all the units are sold, if that’s earlier. So, all of that is fine, and Oswego is my fault. I prepared this simple one for a subdivision in Oswego County a while ago, and I didn’t catch that when I submitted a couple of references. So, fixed. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Ford has a question. MR. FORD-At a recent Planning Board meeting, I asked, based upon a report in the Post Star, if it is your intention to sue this Board. This was a question for the applicant. Your attorney, Mr. O’Connor, stated that it was still under consideration and an option. I ask again, is it your intention to sue this Board? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. HAYES-No, it is not our intention to sue this Board. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HAYES-You’re welcome. MR. LAPPER-If I might, just to give a minute of background on this project. This was approved, as you’ll recall, as a 13 unit rental apartment component of the entire subdivision, which included 12 single family homes, and after this was under construction, the applicants decided that it would be better to sell the units as townhouses, rather than to rent them as apartments, and coincidentally, the comments at the public hearings for the previous approval indicated that the neighbors preferred these to be single family ownership rather than rental, just on the theory that people take better care of their property if they’re single family, and in terms of the impact on their property values, not that we think that the apartments would have had a negative effect on their property values, but this is probably better. So when we came in with this application, we indicated that the units, the pond, everything would be constructed exactly as was approved, except for the ownership issue. We did have to get a variance for zero lot line setbacks and a few other minor area issues which we did get from the Zoning Board. However, there were some stormwater modifications which were required, and we submitted revised plans, which just improved the stormwater system, and that was submitted to C.T. Male. As Susan mentioned, we didn’t get the comment letter from C.T. Male until last week, and Tom Nace has now responded. We’re hopeful that, based upon the fact that this is the same project that you already approved, that we could have this approved contingent upon a C.T. Male signoff, but in terms of the issues mentioned by C.T. Male, one of them is simply, is this in the Adirondack Park, and the answer is no. The blue line is west of this project. So it doesn’t involve the Park at all. Another one was a suggestion that the best access route for a pathway to the upland stormwater management facilities might be through the single family homes, and instead we’ve shown that we can do it on the homeowner’s property, rather than impacting any of the single family homes, just to go around the side, and those were two of the bigger comments, and the rest of them were some fairly straightforward stormwater issues, which Tom will address, but we’re certainly hopeful that we could get this approved or at the least come back next week with a C.T. Male letter, but let me just ask Tom to go through the C.T. Male comments. MR. NACE-Okay. Very briefly, I’ll just go down through, you have the C.T. Male letter, I presume. MR. SANFORD-No, we do not. MR. NACE-You do not. Okay. Well, then let me just summarize their comments. Jon has already addressed the first one. They were concerned about access for maintaining the stormwater facilities up on the upper portion of the site, and suggested that we provide an easement through two of the lots to do that. I’ve talked to Mickie, and there’s a way that they can go around the west side of the cul de sac around the south side of Lot Number Nine, which is the last of the single family lots, and stay, keep an access road all on homeowners association property, so there would be no easement required to do that, and we will show that on the final map. Jon addressed the APA. C.T. Male questioned whether any of the stormwater facilities were within the APA boundaries, and the western property line here, all this property is east of the APA boundary line. So there is no property or stormwater facility in the APA. The third question and fourth question, both relate to the Notice Of Intent and DEC stormwater requirements. We had filed a Notice Of Intent with DEC on this project, back in late 2002, when it was obvious that modifications were required to the stormwater up on the upper portion of the site. We revisited the issue with DEC. DEC’s been down to inspect what has been done, and when everything is finalized here, we will be submitting a final plan to DEC for their final files and they’re happy with what they’ve seen so far. They inspected the site, I think it was early summer, in June. The fifth question from C.T. Male was in regard, actually Five, Six, and Seven were in regard to the stormwater management report. The first was the fact that I had used hydrologic soil group A B for describing the up gradient or upper portion of the watershed that comes down onto this site. The actual soils map shows that to be all A soils, which are better soils and produce less runoff. Based on my judgment from what I had seen out there, I downgraded that to an A B soil, but I will provide C.T. Male with documentation to show what the soils mapping is. The second comment deals with the fact that the stormwater report used the entire area of the pond for infiltrative surface, and they questioned whether that was correct, being that they felt that 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) the bottom portion of the pond was actually in ground water, which is really not the case. We did some test pits, late this spring, early summer, adjacent to the pond, just north of the pond, which showed that the groundwater in the vicinity, in that general vicinity down on the flat, was actually several feet below the pond level. So we don’t feel that the entire area of the pond should be removed from infiltrative surface. MR. FORD-The bottom of the pond level, correct? MR. NACE-Correct. They wanted us to remove everything that was under water, from our calculations, and that’s really not the case, because the groundwater is significantly below the pond level. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s really interesting, because I think you, during the first discussions, you felt that the pond went up and down with the seasonal groundwater flow. MR. NACE-And that’s when we saw what was happening this spring, we decided it was time to really explore and make sure what was going on. MR. HUNSINGER-So there must be some clay or something on the bottom of the pond to hold the water? MR. NACE-No, it just takes a while for that water to, yes, there’s silt in the bottom that’s washed down over the years, and that takes a while, obviously, to get through that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. NACE-And then there was a simple mislabeling on the map that’s in the stormwater report, that the labels for the drainage areas didn’t correspond with the actual report, which I will correct. They questioned the capacity of the rock line drainage channels that lead down into the pond and asked whether they are capable of conveying the runoff from the uphill drainage, and I will provide a cross section of those on the plan and include an analysis of that drainage channel and report, and then the last two comments from C.T. Male regard the HOA documentation and the maintenance issue for the length of the term of maintenance, which Jon has already addressed. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-How close were those test pits? MR. NACE-Within 100 feet. MR. FORD-Okay. Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, so I assume Town Counsel hasn’t looked at this HOA? MR. SCHACHNER-No, that’s not correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. You have not looked at it? MR. SCHACHNER-No, I thought you said that, and I said that’s not correct, meaning we have looked at it. MR. SEGULJIC-You have looked at it. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-And what are your thoughts on it? MR. SCHACHNER-From our standpoint, it was referred to us without any express direction of what specifically the Board was concerned about, but from our standpoint it generally does what similar documents tend to do, but we did focus in particular on Articles Five and Six, which seem to appropriately assure that the Homeowners Association will be responsible for maintenance of the things that this Board is typically concerned with. I’m not sure if that was the purpose of the referral, but it does seem to contain relatively standard language, 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) securing the obligation of the Homeowners Association to maintain stormwater management systems and the like. MR. HUNSINGER-Richard? MR. SANFORD-Well, the one concern I had, if you may recall, Jon, at the last time we talked about this, had to do with the issue of liability. First of all, we don’t know if there’s a problem with stormwater, and your representations are that there really shouldn’t be, and some of the people from the public feel that there’s some problems because of the history of the parcel of land and location, but my concern referenced the fact that a liability warranty or guarantee given by an LLC Corporation in the absence of insurance is perhaps an empty guarantee, in that an LLC, by definition, and there’s nothing wrong with this. This is what is a Limited Liability Corporation, and typically there’s not, after the project is completed, assets that remain in the Corporation because there would be no real reason to have assets in that organization. So when I was looking at the paragraph or so that you’ve put into your letter, you’re saying that you’re willing to do some form of guarantee. Staff wanted it a little bit changed, but it’s still in the name of the LLC, and so it really hasn’t done much to give me a comfort level, in terms of a guarantee from an organization that by definition is without assets is somewhat meaningless, and I’m not sure if I stand alone on this. I know at least one other member of the Planning Board didn’t share my views, but my position still remains the same, that if we feel it’s important to have a level of comfort here, then we have to do something a little bit different to get to that point. MR. LAPPER-Okay, and I guess my answer, Richard, is that this is the same as every other applicant that comes before the Planning Board, which are either corporations or Limited Liability companies, because that’s the way that people do business when they’re in the construction business, because it is a business that is fraught with liability, and the Hayes own a lot of businesses in Town. On this particular property, they also have the single family lots of which they built one house and sold one house. They fully expect that these 13 units that are close to being completed in this market will be sold out within a year or two, and the houses are going to take a lot longer. So it’s an entity that has assets because it owns valuable single family homes on a road which has been, or single family lots on a road which has already been dedicated to the Town and these 13 units. MR. SANFORD-Well, I recently was involved with an organization that was looking to create an LLC for an ancillary type of business, and what we were going to do in that organization is we were going to take out an insurance policy to cover any potential liability that may reside. Even though the entity was an LLC. Now admittedly there was costs associated with that kind of an insurance policy, but anyway, I just want to express my concern, in terms of the integrity of the guarantee, simply because it’s an LLC that’s making it, and that was my position a month or so ago, and it still is. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other members share that concern? MR. FORD-I do, and I couldn’t have said it better. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess I’d reserve it to see the letter from C.T. Male and what their concerns are. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was referring specifically to the liability concern that Richard raised. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, your concern is mainly like water in the basement, things of that nature, right? MR. SANFORD-Yes. My position is if we were sincere in having those concerns a month ago, and have every reason to believe we were because we put it in our resolution, we should now look for a guarantee that would ensure that those problems, should they arise, be corrected. Right now, I mean, again, the issue that was raised then, and I’m raising it again now, is the nature of the LLC, and inherent, part of its characteristics is to limit exposure to liability. So now you have an organization that, by definition, is created to limit liability, providing a guarantee. It just doesn’t make sense. MR. HUNSINGER-I just feel that this discussion is pretty unprecedented, and it’s never been raised before in any other subdivision. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. SANFORD-I understand that, but that doesn’t mean that it perhaps shouldn’t. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I’m not saying that. I’m just saying it’s pretty unprecedented and it hasn’t been raised before. MR. FORD-But there are some other issues associated with that, in as much as there was a change in direction, part way through the process, correct? MR. LAPPER-But that’s no different than any other subdivision where lots are being sold anywhere else in Town. Eventually they’re sold and conveyed to individual homeowners. New York State imposes a six year warranty on structural items, that’s the new home limited warranty, that has to be six years on structural components of a home. There’s no obligation under the Town Code that applicants that come before the Planning Board personally guarantee an obligation of an applicant entity. That’s really where you’d be going with this. I think that most, if not all, of the applicants that come before this Board are entities. So I just would ask that the Hayes be treated the same as everybody else. MR. GOETZ-I think that was the point I was going to make. I think Richard has a concern which would be a concern with anybody with any project. The short time I’ve been on this Planning Board, there’s been a lot of people come in front of us, people who have no track record around here at all, who we have approved projects. We haven’t asked what their finances are. We haven’t asked what their insurances are. You have the Hayes, local people who have been here for years and years and years. They have a proven reputation. So why would we be putting them, requiring them to do something which we haven’t required somebody from Albany or from Syracuse or wherever. If you’re going to start doing this, I think you have to be consistent and it has to be done with everybody. That’s my point. MR. FORD-I’d like to address that, because I’m not asking of the Hayes family specifically to offer those guarantees. However, there is a corporation that could provide that. It seems that there are sufficient concerns that have been raised and at this point, maybe they will be in the future fully addressed, but at this juncture I still have concerns. MR. LAPPER-Well, you might have missed, Tom, that when Susan and I were discussing this, that she had asked that instead of the two years that we had offered last time, that it would be the full, until the transfer of control, until all the units are sold, or five years, and we fully expect the units will be sold before five years. So we’d offered that the LLC would remain liable for any maintenance obligations on the stormwater system, for that full period, but it still is an obligation of the entity, as Richard is saying, rather than a personal obligation. MR. FORD-I’ve never called for a personal obligation, but I understand your point. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-I think in response to George’s question, and I’m on the fence for a couple of reasons. In response to George’s comment, I think the magnitude of this project is a little different than some of the other projects that we’ve been looking at, and so, where we’ve been talking about some of the stormwater issues. The folks who potentially would buy those townhouses may have some situations occur. We’ve talked about what may happen. They’re all what if scenarios. We don’t know for sure, but the magnitude of this project is a little bit different than other projects. So, in the year and a half I’ve been around, it’s just this project is a bit bigger. What we’re talking about, and the reason I’m on the fence, I’m thinking about the administrative burdens that go along with the Homeowners Association, and we’ve had several subdivisions that have come before us over the last year and a half that I’ve been here, where we’ve had these Homeowners Associations proposed, and, you know, as I’m looking at this project, and as I went through the Homeowners Association document and looked at some of the things that these 13 folks who will buy these units will be responsible for, in an age where folks don’t, this is a broad generalization, but folks don’t usually spend a great deal of time going out of their way to get together to get into contracts with other folks. Maybe I’m not saying this right, but we’re asking 13 folks to join an Association to come together, they have to form a Board, they’re going to vote. They have to put budgets together. They’re responsible for the maintenance on this particular, you know, this compound that we’re putting together here. They have to participate in it. They have to be concerned with repairs and improvements and replacement of infrastructure down the road. Assessments on, you know, when there is maintenance that is required, and those things cost 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) dollars, then folks will have to be assessed who are in this Homeowners Association. There’ll be forced membership. You have to be in it whether you like it or not. You don’t buy the property if you don’t want to be part of it, but then there’s the stormwater maintenance issues, which includes the infrastructure, enforcement of policies and then there’s also some issues in the Homeowners Association document about tenants and subletting. So as I look at what is in store for the folks who may be part of this potential Homeowners Association, as a Planning Board members, I just have some concerns because I think it’s a tremendous amount of responsibility, and I know that folks would have to go into this with open eyes, and they would have to have counsel to know whether they want to be part of it or not, but I just don’t know how comfortable I am or how happy I am with all that level of responsibility. MR. LAPPER-Let me respond to that, Gretchen. As a matter of policy, the Town Code has been pushing for more open space areas, so it encourages Homeowners Association because you have to have an entity which is a group of all the homeowners owning the big open space parcel, and most of the projects, most of the subdivisions these days in Queensbury certainly are going in that direction as a way of preserving open space and clustering, if you will, the density in a smaller area, and the Town Code requires that somebody has to own that, and it’s not going to be the Town that’s responsible. So in terms of municipal law, the Town Code is mostly making sure that it’s not the rest of the citizens in Town that have to spend general tax dollars to maintain that area. It has to be those homeowners. In terms of the issue of what the homeowners are or aren’t buying and being responsible for, that’s an area of the law that’s really covered by the Attorney General regulations, that when we prepare an Offering Plan, we are submitting this to you to show, in terms of these maintenance issues, as your Counsel was stating, but what goes to the Attorney General is a much bigger book that includes proposed budgets, that has quotes for what it’s going to cost to insure, to plow the snow, everything that goes into the Association, and that has to be reviewed the Attorney General’s office as a disclosure document, because the State treats that as a security, or regulates it like a security, so that you have to have full disclosure. So that when someone is buying these, they know what they’re getting into, and, generally speaking, people don’t buy this without attorneys, at least reading the Offering Plan and advising them. It doesn’t mean that they know how long it’s going to take until the roof tiles really wear out and have to be replaced, but it means that it’s all laid out that there’s going to be contingencies and funds set up for future maintenance, and that’s really the State regulation rather than Town regulation of that document, and you can’t sell this until the Attorney General’s office approves the Offering Plan. So, those are all very valid concerns, but they’re concerns that are really more dealt with by the State than by the Town. I don’t think that what we’re proposing here is anything different than, you know, the pond is something unique, but it’s there right now. Everybody can see it, and they’ve really done a nice job of how they’ve landscaped and sculpted the property. Certainly, there’ll be an expense, but it’s all in the Homeowners Association. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be reasonable expenses associated with it? I guess that’s, you know, that’s a big pond, and so, I just. MR. LAPPER-Well, that’s why you have C.T. Male reviewing the plan for their signoff, and remember, this was all approved last time, and these are just improvements to the plan that the Planning Board already approved. MRS. STEFFAN-But what we’re talking about now is a Homeowners Association where other folks will own it, instead of, you know, the ownership being maintained by the Hayes. MR. LAPPER-True, yes, and we wanted to give you some comfort, and that’s why we’re happy to do what the Staff has suggested, which is to have the applicant agree to the five years or when all the units are sold, which is plenty of time to deal with any kind of initial erosion or whatever you might have on a stormwater system. MR. FORD-Five years or what? I missed part of that, Jon. MR. LAPPER-Or, the transfer control date is when all of the units are sold, sometimes it’s when 50% or 75%. Here it’s 100% of the units or five years, whichever comes first. MR. SEGULJIC-What happens if, worst case, only three units are sold, and then five years comes? Western Reserve owns all the other units, and therefore they’re in the Association, correct? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. LAPPER-Once there’s a Certificate of Occupancy for a unit, then the sponsor has to pay the maintenance fees. So they would be paying, in your scenario, 10/13ths. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Pro rata, because the units will be done. MR. FORD-And if all are sold within a year, then that’s when this obligation is fulfilled? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-My perspective, that’s why we have C.T. Male to review this for us. We turn to them to tell us, yes, everything should work fine. If they say there’s some issues, then we turn to you, but I think all that can get designed into it. MR. SANFORD-We were actually cautioned, I believe, for lack of a better word, Chris, by Mr. Brown, in terms of taking action prematurely without the full benefit of C.T. Male’s comments. MR. HUNSINGER-No, that was because we passed a resolution without a final approval, and without final signoff from C.T. Male. That was the issue in that case, yes. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Well, in that particular case, actually, I don’t believe C.T. Male was ever intended to be brought into that case and was only referenced at the request of this Board to render an opinion about the tower, but that’s another issue. The point I’m trying to make is, I think that, independent of the particulars on that particular case, what I got out of it was, we really should get the full benefit of C.T. Male prior to drawing a conclusion. In this particular case, I think Tom’s points are very well taken. Basically what he’s saying is the issue of the liability and all the specifics associated with it is because there’s not a comfort level associated with stormwater management. If that comfort level is established, and we know with certainty that there’s not going to be a problem, then this, in large part, goes away. That’s a fair statement, and I think that what we’re saying is, at this particular point in time, with the absence of C.T. Male comments, with the public comments that we’ll probably hear more of tonight, but that we’ve heard in the past, that comfort level doesn’t exist right now, but I think that that’s probably what we should be trying to achieve is certainty on the issue, rather than guesswork. MR. HUNSINGER-I just want to clarify this one point, because it’s very important. The issue that you raise, that Craig Brown brought up, was on a site plan that we had C.T. Male comments, not a signoff. We had outstanding comments from C.T. Male. This Board approved the site plan without a condition that they achieve final signoff. That was the issue. MR. SANFORD-Right, and what I’m telling you is the only reason C.T. Male was involved was because, at this Board’s request, particularly my request, we asked them for comments not signoff, and so I think Mr. Brown, who didn’t attend the meeting, is incorrect on that. MR. HUNSINGER-No, Richard, that’s not true at all. That’s not true. MR. SANFORD-I believe it is correct, on the tower. MR. HUNSINGER-You might be referring to something totally different, but the item that Craig Brown raised, it was on a project that this Board approved without final signoff from C.T. Male. MR. SANFORD-All right, well, that may be a different case. I’m talking the radio tower. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. GOETZ-Excuse me. Has anybody ever asked you gentlemen why you are switching from renting to selling? I think there’s been some assumptions made by this Board, but nobody’s ever really asked you. MRS. STEFFAN-No, it’s in the minutes. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. FORD-It was asked at the previous meeting. MR. GOETZ-Okay. I missed it. MR. FORD-I’d be interested in hearing it again. MR. HAYES-The long and short is it’s more profitable to sell the units. Because there’s basically not much of an option for people in Queensbury today for affordable housing. For under $200,000, there’s almost nothing available. So in this case the demand is literally off the charts. JAIME HAYES MR. HAYES-Jaime Hayes, for the record. I just wanted to assure Mr. Ford, I am involved in the banking side of our organization, which is, those guys are kind of a little bit touchy at times, but we have been requested almost exclusively when we do these type of projects, to form what’s called a single purpose entity, which is an LLC in this particular case, and the reason that they ask us to do that is that they insist, or are concerned about just the opposite of what’s being discussed here tonight. They’re concerned about the fact that our other businesses, our other interests, could cascade into a project and effect the strength of that organization, or the guarantee that that organization could continue to provide. So we are requesting in this case, as we have with like Moose Hollow, that’s a single purpose LLC. Their concern, which the Board has expressed some concern about, is that businesses such as Cool Beans, these other businesses, they’re great. They’re also in LLC’s, but they’re concerned that the failure of businesses that could cascade into projects that are at hand could negatively impact the ability of our organizations to continue or to complete what’s being asked to be completed in these reports and based on your requirements. So, in terms of the LLC’s and the guarantees that they can provide, they insist that these things be single purpose entities, and in this particular case, as well. So it has more to do with their concerns of what the performance of other LLC’s are. We think Cool Beans is great. We hope it’s here forever, but a Starbucks next door or something could affect the ability of those organizations to, they would not want that to be part of the assets of this LLC. So, in this particular case, it’s kind of the opposite of what has been discussed here tonight. MR. FORD-I understand that, and I support that whole contention, that it’s self-contained, as I think it should be. MR. HAYES-Okay. Yes, sir, thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. GOETZ-I think, I was out at your place today, and I think some of the concerns, maybe some of the other Board members may have, it’s a real big pond, and I noticed some erosion out there today. Obviously we had a lot of rain. I don’t know how you would qualify or rate the rain we had, but there was a lot of it, and we know there’s been a lot of erosion in other places, too, but there’s just something about the pond, it doesn’t have much landscaping, and if you have more landscaping, quite often that helps eliminate some of the erosion, and it just, I think what they’re saying is if something could be done with that, that would make the rest of us feel a little better. MR. M. HAYES-That’s definitely a concern. Obviously the rain we just had recently was some of the record rainfall, which was actually, as crazy as it sounds, I was actually happy to see it to see how it really works, with two and a half inches of rain in one day, that’s a substantial rainfall, and it was amazing how well our stormwater controls work. I was astonished. As far as the aesthetics, the aesthetics have a long way to go. We’re not done with it. We have to plant more grass, some more stabilization with wood chips and such. Because the pond level has been going down because of our stormwater control, that we actually have to work that pond right down so aesthetically even submerged it will look nice because that fluctuation of the water as the seasonal (lost word) goes. So it has to be constantly nursed until the until the project is complete where the grasses are all finished and such, but it definitely still has to be finished, and it’s our greatest benefit to have the pond look good for the marketing of it. If the pond doesn’t look nice, that’s going to affect us more than anybody. Our concern’s more the pond being too small, now, not too large. So that we actually have to spend extra money on landscaping to make it look nice, because that’s one of the features that people want. They like the pond, the people that come look at the housing 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) development, the town house units. They like that feature. So it’s up to us to make it look good and make it be an asset for the property. It’s not finished. It’s probably not going to be finished for at least six to seven weeks. MRS. STEFFAN-I know in prior discussions you’ve taken a lot of fill out of there. Obviously we know what it was before you started construction, but in that pond there’s some chunks of concrete around the bottom. Is that staying or going? MR. M. HAYES-The concrete, that was always on site. It’s just been pushed around. As you know, there’s a lot of concrete on that site everywhere, but that will all be covered up aesthetically and covered with soil, clay, mixture of soil to actually have grass. Our intent is to have grass go right into the water. Then on the range that it goes up and down have like a rock like thing, a rip rock, so that it won’t be weedy and muddy, but you won’t see any of that when you’re all done. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. M. HAYES-But that’s because the pond level has shrunk and shrunk and shrunk. That was under water, we didn’t even know it was there. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s remarkably lower than it was last time. MR. M. HAYES-Yes. It’s 11 and a half feet below, today, below the basin of the floor after all that rain, which is only two and a half to four feet below West Mountain Road. So all the neighbors, if there is, in fact, the concerns with flooding, which are all valid, most of the neighborhoods in that area will all be under water. It’s 11 and a half feet below. So understandably it’s a concern, but I think the level (lost words) I don’t want to say anymore because I might upset myself, but that is, that’s the hard truth of it, but the pond definitely isn’t aesthetically where it should be right now. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here that would like to speak to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TIM OLESKY MR. OLESKY-My name is Tim Olesky. I reside at 13 Applehouse Lane, one street south of the Western Reserve site. My neighbors and I, for over two years, have warned both the Zoning Board and the Planning Board and the Town of Queensbury of potential issues with the water issues that we have experienced for the last 18 years that I have lived there, and I have to laugh, tonight, the project owners are now saying that they’re addressing the concern of selling the properties versus renting, to address our concerns. The reason they’re changing their minds is that they’re now realizing that there are water issues. Site Number Six and Seven, those potential owners of those sites will be sitting here next year facing you, all right. Foundation of Site Number Seven won’t last until next summer. They’re sitting right where, it’s almost like a glacier in the Spring, and the water level may be 11 feet less than what it was, typically. This is the end of the season. It’s very different in the Spring. My only question to the Board here is that if you allow this change to occur, someone will be liable for issues down the road. Are you willing to assume that liability? Five years. I plan on living in my neighborhood more than five years. Who should I direct my lawsuit against? The Town Board or Western Reserve? Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? KELLY CARTE MR. CARTE-Ladies and gentlemen, Kelly Carte. I’m the landowner to the immediate south of the project. I’m going to have to jump around here, because I’ve been taking notes as different people were speaking, and I didn’t get them in any really semblance of order, but, first of all, I can’t believe my ears now, when Mr. Nace is making the comment that the water in this pond is not a groundwater. It’s not a groundwater pond. I think you will find the 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) exact opposite was stated all the way through this application, for the last two or three years that this thing has been going on. This has been a groundwater pond. It’s not under control of DEC. It’s not this. It’s not that because it’s a groundwater pond. Now to come in and say the water in the pond is not groundwater, I don’t know what the heck you’d think the water is if it’s not groundwater. The rain that we’ve been having here, there’s no problem with the water level in the pond in the Fall like this. The pond has always gone down to this level in the Fall. No rain that ever occurred in the Fall has ever raised the level of the pond significantly because the groundwater level is down. I would venture to say, I can’t say this for proof because I didn’t go over there and look, but it could rain, this two and a half inches of rain we were talking about. I would be willing to bet that none of that rain ran down the stream, the rock bed that they put there and ran into that pond. It soaks into the ground before it ever gets there at this time of the year. It’s the Spring that’s the problem. In the Spring the groundwater level is 10 feet higher than what it is, and when you get a two and a half inch rain in the Spring, the water level of the pond will go up dramatically as I’ve shown in my pictures. I can’t for the life of me, I took pictures of the pond at one time here, a year or so ago before this year and a half ago, took pictures of it. We had a two day rain. I took pictures again of the pond. The water level was three feet higher with two days of rain, but it was in the Spring. It was in April. The water level changes dramatically when the groundwater is already high. That’s all I have to say about it. This is ridiculous to say that this isn’t groundwater that’s in this pond here now. There is no water that runs into that pond. There never has been any water that runs into the pond in August and September. The level of the pond is just groundwater level. The access that we’re talking about, well, Number One, the work that’s been done in the rear of this, doesn’t it bother anyone on this Board that none of this was proposed or, in fact, it was avoided to speak of anything on the rear of this property or of this project beyond the Glens Falls City water main, which is the back line of all those houses there, the straight portion of Lots Seven, Eight and Nine, or whatever, is the City of Glens Falls water main, and in the initial drawings, that was where the project left off. There was nothing in the project, there was no drawings, there was no engineering, there was no water runoff. There was nothing done with the acreage, the 10, 12 acres of the rear of this project, and it was studiously avoided by this applicants here because of the water situation. If someone had gone up there and seen, in the Spring, you can’t walk across that property. You’d be up to your knees in mud, and so it was not mentioned at all, in any of the things. Now, when they found out that they had to deal with it, because of the water runoff here when they started this project, they went up there and did all this work with the catch basins and the walkways and rocks and all this kind of stuff, to deal with what they didn’t tell you about in the beginning, and now they come back with this nice drawing here and would like you to rubberstamp the thing. I mean, it would bother me if I was a member of the Board that they did this. We’re talking about green space here, and the reason that they’re doing this is because the Town wants green space and wants the appearance of open space. Well, we’ve had this discussion before, in that what you have now is the appearance of a crowded subdivision to anybody that can see it, anybody that drives along West Mountain Road, it’s one more crowded subdivision. Houses on little half acre lots here, even though the zoning calls for one acre. So I don’t quite understand the green space situation. However, how do, if this green space is available for recreation area or whatever they’ve been talking about there, how do the people get to that? Does everybody traipse across the lawn of Lot Seven, I think it is there, that shows the thing ending up there, where they’ve got a foundation being built there now, right in front of that? I mean, how do the people that live in the first six or eight homes there and the people that live in the townhouses, how do they get to that? I mean, I would have thought that if it’s going to be public access or it’s going to be accessible to the other people there as a recreation area, that you would have a right of way, a 50 foot strip taken out of there like that that goes down to the road, so that people can walk up there without going across somebody else’s property, and of course it isn’t public access because it’s privately owned. Are the people in this Association going to like it that, you know, this green space, which is supposedly for the public good of the citizens of Queensbury, are the public citizens going to be able to go up there and walk around in these ponds and on these trails up here? No way. It was stated that the access for the stormwater management for the people that would be in the Association here, to maintain the ponds and the stream and whatever, is going to be around the south side of the last lot, the house that’s being built there now. Well, if you go over there and look, there is no access around the south side of that house. In fact, the area that is to the north of that house, or northwest, to the left of it there, was, in fact, an overflow area. The way that it was graded was an overflow area for the stream that was coming down that is now filled with rock, so that when the pond fills, when the pond fills up, the water can back up along that stream and still be in some sort of a catch basin. The last house, I was completely surprised to see that the lot line of that last house, when they started building it, the last house they had to start 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) filling that in, and the garage is on the left end of house, which means that it has to be filled in even more to have flat area for driveway to get into the garage. I mean, you’re going to have to go around the left end of the house like that. So what was somewhat of a catch basin or an overflow area is being filled in, and it is now in fact still very much of a bowl. There’s no road. There’s no access to get up to the top from there. You could go around behind the rental units and along my property line, and around the left side of the stream that goes down there, and get over there. However, there’s no road there now, and if they’re going to put a road there, there’s going to be a whole lot more water issues because that area back in there is low and wet, even now. It’s certainly, as I said, you can’t traverse it in the Spring because you’d be up to your knees. There’s no way that you can go around there. So it would entail making another road and drainage and culverts and stone and whatever to be able to get around to that upper area. That’s not shown. There’s nothing there. The only thing I can see is they drive whatever equipment necessary to mow the fields up there, to keep it down, to keep the undergrowth where they clear cut up there. They’d go across Lot Seven’s lawn there to get up there. I just wanted to address the individual Board members and a couple of comments that they were making. I think we’ve gone into some of this, but let me just, Mr. Ford wondered about the change in direction of it here. I think, and then Mr. Goetz commented about the fact that there have been other projects like this that are Homeowners Associations and haven’t been looked at for the liability aspect that this one has. How many other Homeowners Associations have this pond, this stormwater runoff, this other 12 or 14 acres up in the back here, the other catch basins, the road, the hiking trails, all this kind of stuff? How many other ones have this type of situation that is expected to be maintained by 13 people? I don’t profess to know, but I would venture a guess that there aren’t very many of them that are in that situation. So the difference is, if it’s rental, it’s the Hayes brothers and their organization that have to maintain this. However much it costs, whatever they have to do, it has to be maintained, just as long as they own it. If they can sell it, and especially if this situation here that I’m hearing tonight, it’s five years or, a worthless five year warranty from an LLC corporation that can be dissolved at any time, or the sooner of when the townhouses are sold, and they just stated at the very beginning of this thing that they expect that the townhouses will be sold very quickly, and the rest of the single family houses will be taking longer. It was stated also that they want to do this, at the last meeting, someone said, well, we want to sell these because there’s more interest from people inquiring about them for sale than for rent. I will again remind people that up until this last sign that was put on here, all the while this has gone on, the last year and a half, two years when this thing was started, there was never a sign that said For Rent out on the road in this project. So, you know, take it for what you will. I take it for the fact that they never intended, as soon as they found out about this water situation, they never intended on continuing to try to rent this thing. They looked for a way to get out of this, and if you let them out, they’re home free, if they sell all these things within a year, and then dissolve their LLC, the Town’s going to be paying for it. We’re going to have the problem, but the Town’s going to be paying for the remediation because 13 people aren’t going to be able to take care of it, nor should they have to. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could begin to summarize your comments, I’d appreciate it. MR. CARTE-Well, I think that’s pretty much it. Different people have said different things. Mrs. Steffan said about the, how long is the Association maintaining this thing, and as I said, there’s much more to be maintained in this project than what the normal ones would be. Normally Homeowners Associations would be to maintain their building, their lawns, you know, their driveways or something like this, not what this project is. Please look at it critically. It has not been looked at critically all along here. These guys continue to get a pass from the Planning Department and various Departments in this Town. I’ll give you a for instance. They started building the, just recently started building the first house here on this project. There wasn’t a road in there, it was just dirt. I stopped at the Town to see about when the next, if they were on the agenda for next month’s meeting, and I said to Craig Brown, how is it they can build a house, get a building permit to build a house when there is no frontage on a Town road. You can’t build a house and get a building permit unless you have frontage on a Town road. He said to me, well, we consider the frontage on West Mountain Road as being frontage on a Town road for the first one. We let them build the first house and we consider the frontage on West Mountain Road to be the frontage that they’re going to be using to satisfy that technicality. I let it go. I didn’t think anything more of it until I saw the road go in, and I saw the lots numbered, and this house is Lot Number Two. This house had no frontage on West Mountain Road. Lot One has frontage on West Mountain Road. Lot Two had no frontage. It didn’t have a Town road in there to be built on, and it had no frontage on West Mountain Road, but these guys received a building permit 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) to build a house. We’re a little tired of this special treatment. That’s all I’ve got to say. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? TREVOR SCHMETTERER MR. SCHMETTERER-I’ll make it short. My name is Trevor Schmetterer. I live at 241 Clendon Brook Road in Queensbury, about a mile from the subdivision, and since I’ve lived here, that whole area was an eyesore until the Hayes Group took it over. I think a great accomplishment what they’ve done so far, and historically I think Homeowners Associations will take care of their property much better than rentals. From what I can see, it’s certainly an improvement from what it looked like before. Something a little more positive. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? MRS. BARDEN-I had one more written comment from Mr. Olesky. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. We had one more person in the back. Hold your thought, Susan. TED ROSS MR. ROSS-I’ll make it short and sweet, too. My name’s Ted Ross and I live on the north side of the property. I’ve listened to a lot of this. I’ve listened to it last time. The water issue, I don’t know, if the water’s been there for 30 years and some people have lived at the south end or the west end or the north end. If the water’s been there for 30 years, they’ve been dealing with it for 30 years. Now these people come in, they do all different ways to try to design to bring the water down to catch basin to wherever, they’re trying to do their best with what they’ve got for the side of the Mountain. As far as access to the back, I do believe they already stated that they’re going to have a path around the south end that goes up to the back. It’s for the Association. As far as the Association going in there, you’ve got Lehland Estates. They were up there. They’re an Association. They tell you you can have a shed on one corner. You can’t have it on the other. There’s all sorts of Associations. That’s to be determined by those 13 individuals. Individuals, there’s going to be families in there. You’ve got condos. There’s going to be retirees or whatever. You’ve got people going in there that are renting. They want something kept up, I’m not going to worry about it, I’m going to be out of here at the end of the month, I’m not going to worry about it. So they don’t bother. You get somebody that owns it, that is theirs. That is something that they own. That’s their vested interest. They’re not going to let it look like crap, you know, make the pond grow up and these guys are going to make it look good to start out with. It’s up to individuals to stay that way, to maintain that way if they wanted to rent it. Now they want to sell it. So they’ve changed their mind. If you have a piece of property, you have a car, you have something, you have the right to change your mind. As long as they’re doing what this Board proposes that they have to do, I stated the same thing last time. I mean, we can drag this out for another 10 years because everybody’s not happy with everything. It’s not the same as the other parcel on the other side. You’ve got property up here sitting on a field. There’s groundwater up there. Did we make everybody run through hoops for this? I mean, there’s got to be a happy medium here. What do you want to see? The blue butterfly, we did that study. How did we do? Found out, well, I guess the property really doesn’t support it, but some people aren’t happy about it. I mean, I don’t get it. I mean, I live there, I don’t have a problem with anything. It’s his property. They’re property. His property. Your property. If the Board says you can do this, then you can do that. How am I going to sit up here and tell you, no, that’s not good enough for me. Well then you should have bought it. If you didn’t like it, you should have bought it. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else from the public? MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Olesky, you made a statement. Do you want me to read your letter into the record? MR. OLESKY-I basically said what was in the letter. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll leave the public hearing open for the time being. I don’t know if there’s anything new that you heard from the neighbors. MR. LAPPER-Just a couple of very brief comments. I want to just remind the Board of the obvious that one of the commentors just mentioned. This was an abandoned industrial site with incredible amount of concrete, fields of concrete, tires, steel, this was a mess, and they’ve spent a lot of money bringing it to what it is, even though the one neighbor who’s always been an opponent of this project, objects, most people, and I know you’ve all driven in there. This is a serious improvement, which is based upon what the Planning Board, what you have approved over a very lengthy process. So this is certainly not the case of an inexpensive project for the Hayes. It’s been an expensive project, an expensive piece of property to develop, and I, for one, think it looks very good. Obviously it’s not done yet. I just have to, my only last comment is about this allegation from the neighbor about special treatment, and the rule in Queensbury, which it sounds like Craig Brown indicated to him, which is the same for every developer, that when you get a subdivision approved, before the road is dedicated, you’re allowed to build one house, because you own all the property. So everyone’s allowed to build a model or their first home, and that’s how it’s always been in Queensbury, and it’s not any different if you’re The Michaels Group or Rich Schermerhorn or the Hayes or anybody else. That’s just the rule. So that’s certainly the opposite of special treatment, and if anything, I think that the Hayes have gone through some pretty high hoops on this one to prove to everyone that this is a good site. Just because there’s been these one or two neighbors that have been very vociferous. So I don’t think they’ve had an easy time. It certainly hasn’t been a quick time, and the record shows that, but they’re certainly not getting any special treatment from the Planning Department. Let me just ask Tom to address the stormwater comments. MR. NACE-Okay. First of all, as far as the groundwater issue, we weren’t aware until this Spring when we started scratching our head a little bit when things didn’t quite look the way we thought they would, that there was a difference in the stormwater level and the pond level. So that, you know, it’s to our benefit, but that’s what the fact is, okay. When we dug test pits, that’s what we physically found. There was an allegation that this last rain we had, that everything soaked into the ground. That’s not true. I was there a day after the rain stopped, and there was a pretty good stream coming down the Mountain, all the way into the pond. There were probably several CFS of water going into the pond. This was a day after the rain had stopped. So, that’s really not true. As far as the pond overflow area, let me just point that out. Okay. There was concern about this area up through here to the south of Lot 9, not being used or actually he was saying that it now was being used as an overflow area for the pond. That’s not true at all. This channel comes down through here where they’ve directed the runoff from the upper site down to the pond. This is high enough above the pond that this never really collects any ponded water. There is an area, the pond itself is here. There is an area that was constructed to the south of the pond as an overflow area, so that there’s a little bit of a dike in between the two. So that if the pond does get extremely full, there’s this area that will be used as an overflow. This was never intended, and has never, as far as I know, historically been used as an overflow area for the pond. To answer one of your other questions, the test pits that we dug were right here on Lot 10, somewhere right about here, and I think there was one right about here. There were two. Actually, there were three, because we dug another one over in here somewhere. MR. HUNSINGER-Actually, while you’re there, there were some comments made about Lot Six and Seven, not having suitable soil to handle foundations. MR. NACE-These two lots? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that was one of the public comments. MR. NACE-We did test pits all over those lots with the Health Department present. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. NACE-No, that’s simply not the case. MR. SANFORD-Chris, I think the comments might have been talking about if there’s a severe runoff in the Spring, from up above, it’s going to go right down where Number Six is. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. SANFORD-And that was, I think, the comment, the foundation won’t hold up in the Spring. I think that’s what the concern was. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SANFORD-I’m not sure. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, that sounds right. MR. NACE-That wouldn’t be the case. There’s capacity provided that any extreme overflows would come down through this system and into the pond. MR. SEGULJIC-So essentially this whole system has been constructed upland, for argument’s sake, to re-direct the runoff and bring them around? MR. NACE-That’s correct. A lot of the runoff before had come down this way, that would have probably gotten, probably more behind Lot Five than Six, but actually to the west of those lots there was a low area in here, but when they cut in to this road coming up to the flat recreation area up on top, it intercepted some of the side hill drainage that is now being picked up and re-directed directly into the pond. MR. SEGULJIC-Just one last question. These ponds up on top were dug, you excavated these? MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Tom, there was also the comment about the roadway that hasn’t been, the gravel road that hasn’t been constructed yet to maintain the top. MR. NACE-The gravel way, as I think I had indicated, would come just to the south of Lot Nine, and around the southwest corner of Lot Nine and up to the existing gravel drive that’s there now or dirt road that’s there now. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the applicant? MR. LAPPER-I guess the way we see this, it’s a stormwater issue, and you have C.T. Male to verify what the project engineer has said, and I think that’s where we need to go, and we’re hoping that that can happen rather quickly because Tom’s given a detailed reply letter to C.T. Male and we expect that they’re going to give a signoff, and they’d like to get the project finished before the weather changes. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, where I see this going, I don’t know how everybody else feels, but I think, because there seems to be issues about the water. As with most issues, we can engineer around that, but I think we want to have C.T. Male come here and be able to ask them questions to make ourselves satisfied. I don’t think just getting a signoff would be good enough at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-How do other members feel? MR. SANFORD-I think that’s a good idea. Maybe the whole concept of the liability guarantee just doesn’t make sense. Certainly the way it’s proposed isn’t really going to work, but I think before we give them the green light to move forward, we need to have a very, very good comfort level that this runoff methodology is sound, and right now I certainly don’t have that comfort level. I think if C.T. Male was here, and we could direct questions to them, regarding all the issues that were raised tonight, to have them answer them, maybe we could obtain that comfort level. Right now I don’t have it. MR. HUNSINGER-Can I ask the applicant a question? Do you recall if C.T. Male was in attendance when the original subdivision was approved? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. LAPPER-You mean present? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. NACE-You mean at the meeting? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. NACE-I have no idea. MR. HUNSINGER-I know it was over a year ago. MR. LAPPER-That makes sense to us. I would just ask maybe they could come and we could get this done next week, because I don’t think you have a very heavy agenda next week. MRS. STEFFAN-That would be my input. I went back and I read the minutes, and my resolution wasn’t as clear as it should have been, because in the dialogue that happened before the resolution, Tom specifically asked that we have a C. T. Male signoff before this item was put back on the agenda again, and so that was specific in the minutes, although my resolution didn’t detail that. So I think it would be a great idea to have C.T. Male here, you know, if we can get them on the agenda for next week, so we could get these issues resolved. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have a practical problem with that, and that is, I don’t know if I should raise it or Staff should raise this question, if that were to occur, I believe that C.T. Male, that you would be responsible for reimbursing their cost? MR. LAPPER-That’s acceptable. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is that the wish of the Board? Do you want to do this at our next Board meeting? MR. SANFORD-Well, I mean, again, I know the applicant wants to expedite it. I thought we finalized our agenda for the month of October. How about we look to add it in to November? November hasn’t been finalized yet, has it? MR. HUNSINGER-It has not. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, how many items do we have for next week? MR. FORD-What does our agenda look like for next week? MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t bring the agenda with me. MR. FORD-Nor did I. MR. NACE-I think there are only four items on, if I remember right. MR. LAPPER-Next week. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. GOETZ-I’d like to ask Mr. Sanford, what’s the difference in next week versus November? I mean, if we can get them to do the, check off all the questions they have and have them here, respond to it and make us feel better, then it could progress. I don’t see the reason for delaying it. MR. FORD-We’ve got seven items on next week’s agenda. MR. SANFORD-We’ve got seven items. We’ve been here an hour and a half on this one. I’m just concerned about agenda management. That’s all. Lately we’ve been accommodating, I think, to the Nth degree, with a whole host of applicants in terms of fast tracking, in terms of getting them on and somehow or another, I think the first meeting in November might be more appropriate than to overcrowd an agenda, because it’s likely to be a lengthy application 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) hearing, not a fifteen minute situation. It’s likely to be another hour anyway. That’s the reason. MR. HUNSINGER-For what it’s worth, most of the items next week are new business, rather than old business. Well, I’ll entertain a motion. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, should we go down the issues, then, I guess. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the only real significant issues that I’ve heard are liability, which is inherent in any project, and the stormwater management. MR. SEGULJIC-And then the change in the Homeowners Association agreement to have. MR. LAPPER-We’ve consented to all those. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. They opened the discussion with that. MR. SEGULJIC-The only real condition, then, is to have C.T. Male come. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, I’m just not sharing the same concerns with the Board, after, you know, the extensive review that we’ve had. I mean, I just don’t see this as being any different than any other project where, you know, there may be some engineering technicalities to be handled still, but, you know, I just don’t share the same concerns. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I can understand what you’re saying, but this is, they’re re-directing, I don’t know how big the watershed area is, but they’re re-directing stormwater flow from acres of a stormwater area around an area. We don’t want that thing to fail. So I just think it’s, you know, what is it, a penny wise and a pound foolish. Want to make sure we spend the extra money to make sure that we’re correct, at least have an expert agree with us. MR. NACE-Just for the record, we’re really not re-directing the ultimate destination of that stormwater. Whether it went straight down the hill or around into the pond, it’s all going into groundwater, okay, one way or another. There is no flow out of the site, other than the groundwater. MR. SEGULJIC-I’d just like to make sure it’s all going to work as designed. That’s all. MR. HUNSINGER-And I guess just to further elaborate on that, my further opinion is certainly an engineered solution is better than what exists there now, where you have absolutely no stormwater controls. I shouldn’t say now, because some have already been built, but prior to the development, you had no stormwater control, and I would suspect that that’s why the neighbors were having problems is because there was no control of the stormwater management. Now we have control of the stormwater management. It was designed by an engineer, approved by the Town engineer. They’ve further made changes to make it even better than what was approved a year ago. I’m not just sharing the same concerns as the rest of the Board, but I certainly will go along with the majority of the feeling. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE AND FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2005 WESTERN RESERVE, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic, who moved its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: Until the first meeting in November [November 15, 2005] to allow C.T. Male Associates to attend the first meeting in November to review the stormwater management system. That C.T. Male Associates also should visit the site. Duly adopted this 18 day of October 2005 by the following vote: th MR. LAPPER-Would you like C.T. Male to come to the site with Tom, to walk it? MR. HUNSINGER-And do you want C.T. Male to come to the Board meeting? MR. SEGULJIC-I think both would be great. MR. SANFORD-Yes. Both would be better. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. LAPPER-Why don’t you put that in your resolution and ask them to come to the site and Tom can arrange it. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. LAPPER-And obviously the applicant will pay for their times. MR. FORD-Then that would be reality versus planning. MR. SANFORD-Yes, that sounds like a good idea. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So I’ll just say so noted, that C.T. Male also visit the site. MR. LAPPER-And what meeting is that? MR. SANFORD-The first meeting in November. MR. HUNSINGER-The first meeting in November. MR. LAPPER-We would have appreciated next week, but it’s your call. MR. SANFORD-I’ll second Tom’s motion. AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sanford NOES: Mr. Hunsinger ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. SUB 2-2005 [P] SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JEFFREY CLARK AGENT(S) JARRETT- MARTIN ENGINEERS OWNER(S) JOHN LICCARDO ZONING RR-5; LC-10 LOCATION NYS RT. 9L, JUST SOUTH OF OLD NORTH CHURCH PROPOSED 4 LOT SUBDIVISION OF AN APPROXIMATE 55 ACRE PARCEL INTO LOTS OF 15.4, 14.3, 16.3 AND 9.7 ACRES RESPECTIVELY. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. CROSS REF. AV 48-05, SUB 18-04 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 55 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.1-49 SECTION A-183 TOM JARRETT & JONATHAN LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Staff notes. MRS. BARDEN-A 4-lot subdivision of an approximate 55-acre parcel, creating lots of 15.4, 14.3, 16.3, and 9.7, acres. It is located on Route 9L and is split-zoned RR-5A and LC-10A. It is a SEQR Unlisted Action, and the applicant has submitted a Full EAF form. During the discussion at the ZBA meeting, the Board requested that the applicants provide only one curb cut off of Ridge Road, to widen the roadway and provide for pull-offs, this was in response to concerns regarding emergency vehicle access. The current site plan reflects these changes. In addition, the Zoning Board requested that the applicant limit cutting between Ridge Road and the roadway to provide a natural buffer, which addressed visibility concerns. To reiterate staff comments from sketch plan review, the “Board may wish to require a note on the plat indicating further subdivision will be prohibited due to the presence of wetlands and Town development density requirements”. Disturbance limits should be staked out in the field prior to clearing, significantly for lots 3 and 4 due to their close proximity to the wetlands. Driveway easements have been submitted for review. Any cross easement or maintenance easement required for the septic system servicing lot 4, but located on lot 3 should also be documented. We do have verification that the sign was posted on the Clark property, and I do have faxed today from C.T. Male comments that I will read. This is from a submittal from the applicant that was received on October 13, and this is from Jim Houston. “Many of our th 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) comments were not addressed because the applicant’s consultant indicated that proposed grading is not critical at this time, and can be addressed later. Due to the significant site constraints, i.e. APA, wetlands and associated setbacks, we feel that additional information should be provided to demonstrate that the property can support the proposed development. In particular, it appears that portions of the homes on Lots Number Three and Number Four are located within the 100 foot wetland setback. The response letter indicates that revisions were made to the stormwater report but were not received.” They did not receive a revised stormwater report. That’s all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-The floor is yours, gentlemen. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper with project engineer Tom Jarrett. This subdivision, as you can see, was designed to avoid the wetlands. We did what the Planning Board and the Zoning Board like, which is to limit curb cuts, even though that requires a variance, which is something that hopefully will be cleaned up in the zoning code revisions. When you have frontage, but you don’t use your frontage, you have to get an Area Variance. So we went to the Zoning Board and received that. Ridge Road’s an arterial. So having four lots with only one curb cut is obviously an advantage. The owner, Mr. Liccardo, is going to retain the southern most lot, the 9.7 acre Lot Four, and Jeff Clark is going to develop the other three, and obviously we knew that this had to be designed to avoid the wetlands, and for that reason, the shape of the lots is a little unusual but it’s good planning. The only thing that we’re curious about is that 100 foot wetland setback, because these are only Federal wetlands, Corps wetlands, and not DEC wetlands. The closest building location is 90 feet from a wetland, which Tom feels is sufficient and also meets Code. So we’re confused about that comment from C.T. Male, but let me turn it over to Tom, and he can give you the details. MR. JARRETT-Thank you, Jon. We received a number of comments from C.T. Male approximately 10 days ago, and we addressed them, we feel satisfactorily. I think Jim Houston’s language in his e-mail today is unfortunate, because I don’t think I characterized his comments as being not critical, and being able to be addressed later. I feel they’re premature. This is a subdivision. We’ve shown that the lots are buildable, but we have no idea what the ultimate development plans will be for each of these lots. We don’t know where homeowners will propose the house, what configuration they will be and what size they will be. So obviously during the building permit process, landowners, homeowners need to come in and obtain a building permit and obtain a stormwater and wastewater permits for construction, but we’ve shown, in the meantime, that each lot is buildable. So we find his language unfortunate. We also, as Jon said, don’t understand his comment regarding the 100 foot setback to the wetland. Either we’re confused or he’s confused, and we checked the regulations and we talked with Craig today, and we feel that we’ve provided the proper setback to the wetlands. Other than that, we feel we’ve addressed all the Board and engineer’s comments, and we think we have a good project here. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-Could we have that amplified with today please? MRS. BARDEN-Yes. Craig has indicated that it is a 75 foot setback is all that’s required, and you said the homes are 90 feet. MR. JARRETT-They’re 90. We’re not even sure we agree with the 75, but they’re 90, so it’s immaterial. MR. HUNSINGER-Since this is a new application, I thought we should go through the subdivision review criteria, in terms of our review and questions. Questions, comments related to design standards? Conformance with Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Open Space Plan, density calculations, clustering criteria, phasing schedule or requested waivers? Questions related to development criteria, site conditions, utilities, street design and layout, traffic patterns and access, sight distances, emergency access and services? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, that’s where I had some questions, and obviously this is for a subdivision, and some of these questions might be asked later, but this is one of the most strangely configured subdivisions I’ve seen, and I’ve only been here a short time, but it is quite odd, and I can’t imagine owning one of, well especially Lot Two. MR. JARRETT-Remember, the lines are only on paper. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MRS. STEFFAN-I know, but the hydrology of this area, obviously it’s very wet. There’s wetlands, and in the environmental forms that were sent along with this, there’s some potential for blasting because there’s quite a bit of bedrock under this, and so as a subdivision it has some issues, and could be quite problematic to develop, and so those are all concerns. It’s not one issue. It’s just several issues together make it kind of questionable in my mind. MR. JARRETT-This is a tough site. I would point out that I would not expect landowner and builders to blast or blast much, because I don’t think they’re going to want to go down very far, because there are groundwater issues. I think they’re going to want to build up, but you’re right. This is a tough site. MR. HUNSINGER-So you think that these houses would not have basements? MR. JARRETT-Typically I would expect they would not. MR. HUNSINGER-I just share the same concerns as Gretchen. If you look at your Drawing C-2, where you have all the test pit data, I had highlighted Test Pit One, 20 inches before you hit ledge, Two, twelve inches before you hit ledge, and so on. I think the furthest was 30 inches. One of them you went down three inches before you hit ledge, and then finally there were a couple where you went a little deeper, but you noted water at 16 inches. So it is a pretty tough site, in terms of hydrology and topography. MR. SEGULJIC-Given the fact that the ledge is so high, you have a couple of stormwater retention basins, in particular one on the northern portion of the site. You have a retention basin marked up next to where there’s ledge. MR. JARRETT-We’re actually building up in those situations, to impound water. We’re not going down. We’re not going into the bedrock. We’re building up to get our separation, and we’ve looked at those areas, and we believe that those areas are amenable to stormwater management. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, the whole site’s going to have to be built up, if you’re going to get the stormwater. You’re going to build that up to get the retention basin. MR. JARRETT-Well, we don’t really have to build up the road, other than to place our normal driveway. The houses probably will not be built with basements, what I’m suspecting, at least that’s the way I would propose it. For stormwater basins, we need two foot of separation to groundwater or bedrock, if we build it as a dry pond, and that’s what we’re proposing so far. MR. SEGULJIC-Say that again? MR. JARRETT-If we’re building it as a dry pond. They can be built as wet ponds, which we have not proposed as yet. MR. SEGULJIC-You’re going to build them as dry ponds, you said? MR. LAPPER-That’s why they’ll be higher. MR. JARRETT-Right, but other than that, we do not have to build anything up. MR. FORD-Septic? MR. JARRETT-Pardon me. Yes, septic we have to build up. MR. SEGULJIC-As far as the lot configuration, this is, pardon me, the best you can build? MR. JARRETT-Well, this was intended to avoid impacts to wetlands, and the lot lines were drawn around the wetlands on purpose. MR. SEGULJIC-And the driveway doesn’t that go through any wetlands, if I’m correct? MR. JARRETT-No. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re able to completely avoid that? MR. JARRETT-The shaded area on your plan is the wetland. In fact, if you look on the large print on the board, you’ll see the large shaded area is the wetland, and the road skirts back to the west of the wetland boundary. MR. HUNSINGER-How long is the proposed driveway? MR. JARRETT-I think the common section is, in total from the Ridge Road, is probably in the area of seven, eight hundred feet. MR. HUNSINGER-But it’s not more than 1,000? MR. JARRETT-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-The bottom line is that it’s done to protect the resources. So that it looks totally strange, but it’s a good design in terms of finding the good soil to put a house, deal with stormwater and deal with septic. MR. SEGULJIC-Any problems with maintaining the buffer along Ridge Road? MR. LAPPER-None of those requested conditions were a problem, including that one. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions on development criteria? MR. SANFORD-Where is the density calculation? I’m sure it’s here. MR. JARRETT-It’s on Drawing C-1. We went through that in length at Sketch Plan, back some time ago. MR. SANFORD-I always have to refresh my memory a little bit. You netted out all the wetlands. There’s no real slopes, right? MR. JARRETT-No slopes. MR. SANFORD-And then you do the division by, what, 10 acres, or did you do it by both 10 and five? MR. JARRETT-It’s a mixture, yes. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. JARRETT-We qualified, I believe, it’s two acres in the front, excuse me. MR. SANFORD-Well, I’m just concerned because of all that high groundwater that you were able to pass a density test, that’s all, hearing what people have been going back and forth with, you know. MR. JARRETT-Yes. The wetlands are all flagged by the APA. So this is a flagging that’s official, and you’ll see the flagging notes here. MR. SANFORD-When was that done, do you know? MR. JARRETT-Actually, we had three visits from the APA, three different seasons, as a matter of fact, Spring, Summer, and Fall of 2004. MR. SANFORD-2004. MR. SEGULJIC-Within your SEQRA form, maybe I’m getting ahead of myself, but one of the questions says streams within or contiguous to project site. You have unnamed stream/wetland complex. That leads me to believe there’s a stream across here which is not on the map. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. JARRETT-There’s a stream in the extreme rear of the property, off the development plan to the east, at the base of the mountain, then flows to the north and crosses Ridge Road, north of this site. MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s not in this? MR. JARRETT-Not in the development area at all. MR. SEGULJIC-Not in the development. Okay, but, I guess, is it on the site? MR. JARRETT-It’s at the rear of the site, the very eastern portion of the property. It’s near the Washington County line. MR. LAPPER-Part of the wetland. MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s part of the wetland, so it’s within that area. MR. JARRETT-If you see on Drawing C-1, it’s very, it’s toward the very eastern limit of the property, the stream is in that large wetland complex. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So it’s within the wetland area. MR. LAPPER-Right on the County border. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MR. JARRETT-And then flows north off site. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions on development criteria? Questions, comments on stormwater/sewage design? That would include the stormwater report and management plan, retention/detention basin, flood plain, sewage disposal, potable water supply. We kind of already talked about some of it. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, one of the other issues, we talked about fill, under development criteria, but one of my thoughts was where does the water go, but we are also, as part of the environmental form, I think we were putting 1200 gallons of water, that’s a potential, into this, into the system. We’re putting four houses there with the potential for 1200 gallons of water going through them a day, then we’re putting that back out, even if it’s into a filled septic and leach. MR. JARRETT-Well, it’s not a large quantity of water. I mean, that’s common for all the houses that have on-site septic systems. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it’s just in an area that’s this wet. MR. JARRETT-And actually we design it for that kind of, actually, it’s designed for 440 gallons a day, these are four bedroom designs. The average home uses less than that, but they’re designed for 440. The septic tank is 1200 gallons in size. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. JARRETT-Which I may have just confused you, but it’s in those calculations. MRS. STEFFAN-No, that’s okay. I understand. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments? Questions, comments on buffering or landscape design, clearing plan, no cut areas, buffering, screening and planting schedule? Questions, comments from the Board on neighborhood character, including neighborhood impacts, homeowners association and public services, recreation facilities, health, safety and welfare of community? Environmental concerns including wetlands, noise, air quality, aesthetics, historic factors or wildlife? MR. FORD-That’s one of the items, right, wetlands? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. FORD-It seems like this whole issue is about the wetlands. MR. JARRETT-Well, we knew early on, when we first walked on the site, that there were wetlands. That’s why we contacted the APA and did this right up front, and they visited three times, in fact, they were very excited by the wetlands in the rear portion of the site, along the Washington County line. The wetlands toward the west, closer to Ridge Road, are not high quality wetlands, but they were back three times looking at them and flagging them for us. MR. SEGULJIC-What do you mean by they were excited about them? MR. JARRETT-The wetlands in the rear are very high quality. They were very excited by the quality of those wetlands. MR. LAPPER-Plant and animal species. MR. JARRETT-And the hydrology of it. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Just don’t hear that very often. MR. JARRETT-It’s a term you can use with the APA. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments on environmental issues? Questions, comments regarding involved agencies, County, DEC, APA, Army Corps or any other? Any other criteria not reviewed? Final questions, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-I just wanted to make a point. I went back in the environmental form, the project information, and number twenty-three, total anticipated water usage per day, 1200 gallons a day. MR. JARRETT-For the four houses. MRS. STEFFAN-For all four houses? Okay. MR. JARRETT-Yes. That’s a realistic figure, as opposed to a design figure. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. JARRETT-Because the average home uses somewhere between two and three hundred gallons a day. MR. FORD-Four bedroom? MR. JARRETT-Yes, even four bedroom homes do. I mean, it’s not an absolute, but that’s average. When you’re looking at water supply design, you’re typically looking at two to three hundred gallons a day per house, as an average, even though you design wastewater systems for more than that. MR. SANFORD-Do you have a really clear layout of the lots? We’re connecting dots here, and we’re all over the board. So do you have something that shows it just with the lot delineation? MR. JARRETT-On C-1, I can put the large drawing up for C-1, which is slightly clearer, possibly. MR. SANFORD-Yes, you know, we try to encourage some sense of regularity, the lot lines and stuff. This is all over the board, if I’m reading this correctly. MR. JARRETT-You are reading it correctly. The lot lines are. MR. LAPPER-The dark lines on C-1, that are the lot lines, it probably would have looked better if it was in color. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. JARRETT-The solid line is the zone change. MR. SEGULJIC-The solid, then dash, dash. MR. JARRETT-Right. MR. LAPPER-That’s right. MR. JARRETT-The double dash is the property line. MR. SANFORD-That’s what I thought. In the past, we’ve had issues on how lots are laid out. We’ve never gotten this far. MR. LAPPER-This is a Picasso subdivision. MR. SEGULJIC-If the lot line goes across the wetland. MR. JARRETT-It creates more issues with the APA. MR. SEGULJIC-And creates more issues with the APA. So you’re doing that to avoid? MR. JARRETT-Exactly. MR. LAPPER-So we don’t have to mess with subdividing wetlands. MR. SEGULJIC-And what’s the issue with subdividing wetlands? MR. LAPPER-It’s just another thing that the APA would rather you didn’t do. Just to protect the wetlands. MR. HUNSINGER-Any final questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone from the public that would like to speak to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening, Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. I had submitted a letter this afternoon, after discussions with the applicant’s engineer. I’ll just go over a couple of the points. Some of them have already been touched on by yourselves and the consultant. Number One, I have a concern about the proposed drainage functioning as proposed without a grading plan along the common driveway. As designed, you want the runoff to go to your stormwater management basins, but I’m not sure, without a grading plan, how that will work on this site. Two was touched on by the Chairman and others, about the depth to either seasonal high groundwater or bedrock. Two foot separation is required, and eight of the nine test pits have encountered ledge rock at 24 inches or less. My third point was that there’s a concern about the detention ponds providing the management based on the peak water elevation information, which was contained in the stormwater management report. For example, Pond One is to drain down into Pond Two. However, if you look at the high water elevation of Pond Two, that’s higher than what Pond One is. So Pond One will actually back up into Pond Two. So there’s concerns about that and the hydrology of the way that will work, and similar concerns with, two of the ponds will require excavation into the existing grade. So I understand, from talking with Mr. Jarrett, there’s some revisions to the stormwater report, but that was not available for review. My fourth point is regarding the stormwater management flow chart. Pond Three is to drain to Pond Four, which Pond Three is the lowest one by the entrance. Pond Four is halfway up along 9L. I’m just not sure how that will happen without the grading plan. My fifth point is, regarding the construction of the pond, and the grading, I think the grading should be provided because a lot of the design runoff going to the ponds will be from the common driveway, which will need to be constructed to access the lots, no matter what the final design is. So although the individual lots may vary, the driveway will not. So you’ll need that information anyway, for the design. The sixth item is regarding stormwater management ordinance, which requires showing all the disturbance, including the grassed areas, which were previously woods. That was not 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) shown. My last is regarding buffers along the wetlands. Although it is not a criteria of anywhere, one of the concerns that we push with my program is protection along stream corridors and wetlands, and I included some verbiage from the APA that they recommend a 35 foot buffer between any development and wetlands. That’s just to protect the quality of the wetlands and the runoff going to the wetlands. Right now it’s down to as little as 15 feet for the common drive. So I encourage any way that we can maximize that buffer to 35 feet, and thank you for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. FORD-Thanks for your input. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? EVERETT VOORHIS MR. VOORHIS-Everett Voorhis, 220 Ridge Road, adjacent property owner. I’d just like to let you know, I’ve lived in that area 25 years, and these gentlemen seem to be providing a subdivision that would blend in with the area, due to the circumstances of the terrain, and that all the talk about water and the stream and what have you, it really isn’t that bad. I think the way it’s laid out and everything, everything will work out for the best for the community. The stream in the back, the far back on the Fort Ann side, is basically dry from May to November, and as far as your groundwater goes, the way they have it laid out, I think everything will work out fine for everybody. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? I will leave the public hearing open for the time being. Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. SANFORD-Yes. Just a clarification. If I understand the earlier remarks that Mr. Jarrett made, that you didn’t do grading at this time because you’re just not sure what’s going to be built exactly where. MR. JARRETT-On the house sites. MR. SANFORD-Right. MR. JARRETT-We’ve shown development plans on the house sites to show buildability, constructability on the individual lots. With regard to the common driveway, we had felt we had provided enough detail for that common driveway to be constructed. Mr. Navitsky feels that a grading plan would be advisable, and that’s up to the Board. MR. SANFORD-Well, I guess I appreciate your point, but if this is approved or granted, this subdivision, then when houses are going to be built, it doesn’t come back here for a review. Is that correct? MR. JARRETT-It would go to the Building Department. Correct. MR. SANFORD-Just for the building part. We wouldn’t see it. MR. JARRETT-Correct. MR. SANFORD-So I guess to the degree that we might have concerns regarding the placement of the homes, we would probably want to address those before we grant the approval. Because we’re not going to have an opportunity to take another look at this. I’m just trying to clarify where you’re coming from with this. MR. JARRETT-Exactly, right. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Now, I anticipate, looking at the sketch, that most of the homes are going to be very much close to Ridge Road. Is that correct? MR. JARRETT-That’s by design, that’s correct. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. SANFORD-And so these crazy configurations, in terms of ownership, property lines, is really going to remain undeveloped properties? MR. JARRETT-Correct. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Needless to say there would be no further subdivisions of any of these lots. MR. JARRETT-We’d stipulate to that. Right. It was a recommendation from Staff, ad we stipulate to that. MR. SANFORD-All right. MR. LAPPER-Actually, Richard, the house locations will look pretty typical from Ridge Road. MR. SANFORD-I understand. You look at this, and you go, what a nightmare, but then you realize that, as you go deeper into the lot, it’s going to stay just the way it is now. MR. JARRETT-Nothing changes. MR. SANFORD-Right. MR. JARRETT-It’s wooded. MR. SEGULJIC-You said it’s going to look just like a typical? MR. LAPPER-It’ll look, the houses, and proximity and the location of the houses as they interact with the road, they’d be set back, except for one of them, they’re set back a little far, but they’re all arranged the way subdivision houses would look. You wouldn’t be able to tell. MR. JARRETT-I think it would fit in with Upper Ridge Road, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-You won’t be able to see them. MR. LAPPER-Well, we agreed to keep the vegetation that’s existing in the front. MR. JARRETT-Two of them you probably won’t see at all. Two of them you may see, but there’ll be vegetation between them and the road. MR. SEGULJIC-How much of a buffer can we fit along Ridge Road? MR. LAPPER-There’s a good buffer now. MR. JARRETT-We control, the closest house, there’s probably 50 feet of trees between the property line and the house. MR. SEGULJIC-So you can put in a minimum of a 50 foot buffer along Ridge Road, then. MR. LAPPER-There’s a buffer that’s there. MR. JARRETT-There are trees that are there. Now, to construct that house, you would have to cut into that buffer somewhat, but you can maintain at least 50 feet everywhere else except right in front of that house. MR. SEGULJIC-Which house would that be? MR. JARRETT-That’s Number Three, the second one from the bottom. MR. SANFORD-Yes, Lot Number Three’s the, it’s going to have to be close to Ridge Road. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. JARRETT-It’s the closest to Ridge Road, that’s correct. You can see the structure itself is roughly 50 feet from the right of way line, property line. Now there are trees between 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) the right of way line and the road, but I will warn you that they’re not an excessive amount of trees, and a lot of them are smaller. So I’m not going to stand here and tell you that there’s a huge buffer on the public right of way. MR. SEGULJIC-How about the comment of maintaining the 35 foot buffer between any development and the wetlands? MR. JARRETT-Right now our driveway is shown less than that. As you can see, it’s nominally 25, 20 to 25 at the closest point, but I just heard Mr. Navitsky’s comments today, and I’m understanding why he’s suggesting that, and we could move that driveway slightly to the west and to get a bigger buffer. We could get the 35 feet I believe. At this point I don’t see any reason why we couldn’t. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess what we’re saying, too, we’d like to see a grading plan for the road. Is that what we’re saying? MR. FORD-Yes, I would. MR. SEGULJIC-I think it would make sense. MR. HUNSINGER-It makes sense, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess the only other comment is there’s some rock walls on the site, on the property lines. MR. JARRETT-Some what? MR. SEGULJIC-Rock walls, stone walls. MR. JARRETT-Yes. I know of one on the north line. I’m not sure of how many others. MR. SEGULJIC-Do we want to condition those at all? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we have in the past. MR. SEGULJIC-Have you ever seen them, are they just piles of rock? MR. JARRETT-I have seen them. They’re somewhat overgrown. They’re an old, you know, farm fence. I’m not sure what condition they’re in. They’re not brand new. MR. SANFORD-I mean, that’s why we want to probably look to preserve them. MR. JARRETT-I don’t think that’s a problem. MR. SANFORD-You’re here for, what, Preliminary at this point? Could they be included in a drawing? MR. SEGULJIC-They are. MR. HUNSINGER-They are. MR. JARRETT-There is one along the north line shown. Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And one on the south also. MR. SANFORD-Yes, I see the one on the south. MR. SEGULJIC-Actually, the south one’s on C-1. The north one’s on C-2. MR. JARRETT-The one on the south property line is further to the east, back away from the development area. The one on the north line is adjacent to the development area. MR. SANFORD-I see it, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Both, I assume, are not a problem to preserve. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. JARRETT-Not from our perspective, no. MR. HUNSINGER-So it seems as though we’re heading towards a tabling? Is that fair? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any other concerns, other than moving the driveway and a grading plan of the driveway, that would tie into the stormwater management plan? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, and preserving the wetland. MR. HUNSINGER-And preserving the wetland, yes. I’m just thinking of items that have to be changed on the drawings. MR. LAPPER-And the buffer that Staff asked for. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. That’s the whole purpose to move the driveway. Yes. MR. LAPPER-There’s the wetland buffer that Chris asked for, and the road buffer that Staff asked for. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I’m sorry. MR. FORD-I want to make sure that all of Chris’ issues are addressed. MR. SEGULJIC-Given the high quality of the wetlands, do we want to have a no cutting, for lack of a better term, to the back 40? MR. LAPPER-That’s restricted anyway, in terms of disturbing a wetland. So we don’t care. That’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would someone like to make a motion? I left the public hearing open. MR. SCHACHNER-You’re not talking about a decision resolution, then? MR. HUNSINGER-No, we’re talking about a tabling resolution. MR. SEGULJIC-I’ll take a stab at it. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2005 PRELIMINARY JEFFREY CLARK, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic, who moved its adoption, seconded by George Goetz: For the following considerations: 1. That the stonewalls on site be noted that they not be disturbed. 2. The driveway be reconfigured such that there would be a 30 foot buffer between the driveway and the wetlands. 3. A buffer of 50 feet be noted along Ridge Road, except Lot 3, a 35 foot buffer. 4. No further subdivision of the land. 5. C.T. Male Associates review and sign-off. Duly adopted this 18 day of October, 2005, by the following vote: th MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to just ask for a cutting plan? MR. LAPPER-We can add that. MR. FORD-Designation of no cut zones. MR. SANFORD-Just give a drawing showing it. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. LAPPER-We can show a cutting plan in the back to show what will be protected. MR. FORD-Have we made sure that all of Chris’ points have been addressed? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I think so. MR. HUNSINGER-I think we hit on the big ones. MR. SEGULJIC-The grading plan, the 35 foot buffer, and then the C.T. Male. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and then C.T. Male signoff. MR. SEGULJIC-And C.T. Male review and signoff. MR. JARRETT-There were only two that Jim Houston responded with. One was the APA, or the wetland setback, which we don’t agree with, and I think Staff has agreed that that’s not applicable, and Number Two is, they did suggest a grading plan, which we’re going to provide, and then also we’ve discussed that the individual houses are subject to the actual lot owners, what they want to do for configuration. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I guess we should have C.T. Male review this again because Mr. Navitsky pointed out that there’s some concerns with the stormwater flow into the pond. MR. JARRETT-Actually, well, you could certainly do that. C.T. Male reviewed the same, reviewed the report and came up with the same comments, and what we responded in the letter back to them was that we had mislabeled the elevations in the stormwater, in the software calculations. So that was the confusion. MR. HUNSINGER-So it was corrected to C.T. Male, but not to the copies that were reviewed? MR. JARRETT-And I don’t think Mr. Navitsky saw that, no. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-It turns out water doesn’t flow uphill. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, my first thing was to look for the C.T. Male comments to see if they picked up on them as well, and there was no reference. MR. JARRETT-I think if you look at their earlier letter, they had it. MR. HUNSINGER-Their earlier letter, yes. Okay. Any other items for the tabling resolution? MR. SEGULJIC-I think that’s it. MRS. STEFFAN-In the Staff notes it talked about disturbance limits staked out, on the plan, but that’s on the clearing. MR. LAPPER-Cutting limits. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So that takes care of that? MR. HUNSINGER-I think we’ve covered that, yes. MR. JARRETT-We’ve shown disturbance limits on the plan, and now we’re going to tighten that further with an actual cutting restrictions to some degree. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. SUBDIVISION 4-2003 [F] SEQR TYPE UNLISTED THOMAS SCHIAVONE AGENT(S) TOM NACE, NACE ENGINEERING; JONATHAN LAPPER, B P S R OWNER(S) ANNE BETTERS ZONING SR-1A LOCATION SOUTH SIDE SHERMAN AVENUE PROPOSED 32-LOT CLUSTER SUBDIVISION, WITH LOTS RANGING FROM 0.46 ACRES TO 0.79 ACRES WITH +/- 29 ACRE COMMON LOT. CROSS REF. FW 6-2003 LOT SIZE 49.87 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.7-1-2 SECTION A-183 JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Staff notes? MRS. BARDEN-This is Subdivision 4-2003, Final Stage, Tom Schiavone is the applicant. The proposal is to subdivide a 49.87 acre property into 32 residential lots. It’s located on Sherman Avenue, west of Pine Ridge Estates subdivision, zone Suburban Residential One Acre, and is a SEQR Unlisted Action. Planning Board issued a SEQR Negative Declaration on October 19, 2004. Project Description: The applicant proposes to subdivide this approximately 50 acre parcel into 32 residential lots. Thirty-one of the lots will be residential building lots with one lot to remain as undeveloped. The lots would be accessed off of an internal subdivision road to be built as part of the subdivision. The road would connect to Sherman Avenue and the recently approved Pine Ridge subdivision to the east. Staff Comments: C.T. Male issued a signoff on this application on January 19, 2005. Have the grading, drainage and stormwater plans changed between the time of this signoff and this most recent submission? Does the applicant propose to create an HOA to maintain the drainage easement, street trees and open space parcel? Previously the applicant and the Planning Board have discussed potentially transferring ownership of the proposed open space lot to a separate private, or possibly public entity as open space. Has the applicant contacted any public or private organization about purchasing and preserving Lot One as open space? Staff suggested a deed restriction be included with Lot One that no further subdivision or development of this property shall take place. Additionally, all no cut buffers should be deed restricted in order to protect and preserve these buffers. Previously, the Planning Board approved a Freshwater Wetlands permit for this application. Some wetland disturbance, along with a proposed wetland mitigation area to be constructed as a replacement for the disturbed area. Staff suggests that a condition of any approval of this application, that the wetland mitigation be constructed to the satisfaction of DEC, and will be constructed prior to the acceptance of all roads within this subdivision. The proposed subdivision shows a connector road to be constructed to the adjacent subdivision to the east. Staff suggests a condition of approval that prior to acceptance of all Town roads, proposed barrier shown within the current NiMo right of way shall be constructed to the satisfaction of NiMo. Additionally, Staff suggests a condition that prior to acceptance of any right of way by the Town Highway Superintendent, the vehicular connection to the east will be constructed to the eastern boundary of the adjacent NiMo lands. Additionally, Staff recommends a condition similar to one that was approved with the subdivision to the east, that prior to any site disturbance, clearing or construction associated with this subdivision, the applicant shall obtain any necessary permits from NiMo for the construction of the proposed roadway beneath the NiMo power lines. No cut buffers should be proposed adjacent to the NiMo right of way on each adjacent lot, as this adjacent NiMo right of way contains some areas of lupine. Consideration should be given to requiring that all property deeds shall contain a restriction stating that no dumping of yard clippings or motorized access of NiMo lands. Planning Board should also consider requiring fencing at the rear of the lots, adjacent to the NiMo lands, in order to prevent unauthorized access of this property. That’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Gentlemen, the floor is yours. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper and Tom Nace. The suggested conditions from Susan are thorough and they’re really mirroring what we did, Tom and I represented Rich Schermerhorn on the subdivision on the east side of the project, and they’re very similar, and obviously they ultimately will be connected. So there are a couple of minor points I want to 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) bring up, but in general, we have no problem with the conditions. In this case, we had to purchase from the neighbor in the rear a stormwater easement to connect this roadway to the Town stormwater system along Luzerne Road, and when Susan asked, is the Homeowners Association going to maintain that, the answer is, no, because that would be conveyed to the Town, along with the road, because that’s a stormwater system that drains the road. So like whenever we dedicate a road to the Town, we have to dedicate the stormwater drainage facilities that go along with the road. So that’s not going to be a Homeowners Association responsibility. When we were here for the public hearing for the Preliminary approval, attorney Howard Krantz was here on behalf of the other neighbor to the back, and we had agreed at that time, the Board asked us to include no cut buffers. Apparently the map that was submitted showed the no cut buffer along the NiMo line, but it showed the buffer along the south side, but it didn’t say no cut. Tom and I were on the phone with Howard this afternoon. So we’ll add that. That was just an omission. That was a mistake. That was intended to be no cut along the south property line as well. We had the condition last time about the, Susan suggested no site disturbance until we have the NiMo permit for the crossing, and what we’d like to propose is that it would be that the road can’t be dedicated until we have that. This was designed the same as the road was designed on the other side of the power line. To meet the NiMo standard, Tom designed both sides of the road, but it just takes a while to actually get the easement from NiMo, months and months. So we’d just like to propose that the road can’t be dedicated to the Town until we have the NiMo easement, but that the site work can start, the road construction, and then my only other comment is, she is suggesting a condition, a deed restriction on Lot One, that there would be no further subdivision, and Lot One, if you see where the entrance drive is, Tom will show you, the majority of Lot One is the open space wetland area. MR. SANFORD-Do we have this on overhead, Susan, by any chance? No? Because I can’t see that, and I don’t have the benefit of the. This must have been an old packet that we needed to save? I didn’t get anything. MRS. STEFFAN-I didn’t either. MR. LAPPER-What we’re proposing is that the bulk of that could never be subdivided, but the part on the east side of the road could, in the future, be subdivided, potentially. That doesn’t have wetlands on it, that’s why, but we would agree to all the other conditions. MR. NACE-This would remain unsubdividable, but his portion (lost words). The reason that this was left undivided now was because of the groundwater conditions. In the future, if the groundwater conditions change then that might be possible to be subdivided. MR. LAPPER-I think that covers it. Tom, do you want to add anything? We did have a C.T. Male signoff. MR. NACE-I would only respond to Susan’s question, the first question or the first note there, regarding the C.T. Male signoff, there have been no changes to the drainage of the drainage or stormwater plans since that signoff. The only changes we’ve made have been to the sanitary facilities for the Health Department review. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? MR. LAPPER-I’ve got one other comment, that this is going to be developed by Tra-Tom, which actually wound up purchasing from Rich the land next door. So it is all going to be tied together, ultimately, as one development. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-With those future lots, there’s a 3.29 acre piece for future development. Would that be proposed to be developed at the one acre zoning that it currently is, or as part of this subdivision? MR. LAPPER-There is no plan for that. So that would have to come back. It depends on what would be appropriate at the time. MRS. STEFFAN-So it would have to come back. MR. LAPPER-If that ever happened. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. HUNSINGER-No questions or comments? The only reason why this was held over to this month, as opposed to last month, was so we could hold a public hearing. So, I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in regards to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED HOWARD KRANTZ MR. KRANTZ-Good evening. Howard Krantz, attorney in Lake George, representing Madeline Drellos. She owns the majority of the property adjoining the subdivision to the south. If you look at the subdivision plan, she owns at least 80% of the adjoining property. I appeared with my client earlier in the process for this subdivision, and we expressed at that time concern about the migration of water, surface water onto my client’s property. Subsequently, or maybe even at that first meeting, there was an agreement to create the buffer zone at the southerly end of the subdivision that adjoins my client’s property. Jon has spoken to the fact that there was just an omission that the buffer zone restriction, the no cutting restriction, would be included in all the deeds on the southerly buffer, as well as the one to the east, that adjoins NiMo’s property. We would ask that the same restrictions, as set forth in deed, will be in both buffers, that we have the same benefit as NiMo would have. Notwithstanding that, given that the property’s going to be developed and going to have increased impervious areas of road and building footprints and so on, there’s going to be additional water, unfortunately, flowing onto my client’s property, and while the developer certainly has the right to develop within your Ordinance, the property, likewise my client has property rights. She has the use and enjoyment of her property as well, and we want to keep it absolutely to a minimum the increase in water that’s going to be coming on to her property. So the buffer has been addressed as reasonably well as it can be addressed. The concern is that, in the earlier maps, the second concern and last concern, is that in the earlier maps, the only drainage easement, if you can call it that, was shown, I believe, between Lots 10 and 11, and as Jon has explained to the Board, apparently they negotiated or purchased an easement running through that neighbor’s property to become part of the Town’s system to deal with that surface water. Okay, but what now appears, which didn’t appear before, was an additional easement between Lots 12 and 13, which looks to me like it’s proposing to dump some additional water onto my client’s property. No easement has been obtained by my client, and we would oppose that easement between 12 and 13. In speaking with Jon Lapper and Tom Nace today, they’re not really in favor of that easement. This is not really a dispute between my client and the applicant. They don’t believe it’s necessary at all. They believe it’s redundant to do all the engineering that they’ve done there, and they’re probably right. I’m not an engineer. I can’t say. They say that this is something that C.T. Male wanted to see. It’s almost like a belts and suspenders type approach to things. So I don’t think the Town, you know, I mean, Mark is more than capable of advising the Town, but I question whether the Town has the right to impose a restriction on a developer that legally the developer can’t do. In other words, I don’t believe the developer can push this surface water onto my client’s property. So although C.T. Male’s redundant concern may be admirable, I don’t think it’s doable. Not without consent from my clients, and we would just ask that that easement, that drainage easement between 12 and 13 be eliminated. Legally it’s not doable, and as a practical matter I don’t think it’s necessary. Tom Nace can speak to that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. KRANTZ-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Was there anything else? MR. KRANTZ-No, thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak on this project? COLBY LA BELLE MR. LA BELLE-I’m Colby LaBelle and I live on the west of this property, this development. I have four acres, four and a half acres out here on the side of this west. I was concerned like this buffer zone I’m seeing all the way around this thing. I was wondering, why isn’t there a buffer zone on the back side of this, the west side of this, where my land is, and my other 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) concern is this wetland. I’ve lived there all my life. Water comes way up, 600 foot to the back of where my house is on Luzerne Road. I put a dike up there three foot tall to keep the water out from the swamp. This wetland you’re showing is one thing, but there’s another wetland over here, and they both flow into this wetland, which you’re probably not aware of until they start developing the other end of Sherman Avenue, Stephanie Lane, Amy Lane area. Okay. That’s my concern is the wetlands, you know, and also the buffer zone here for my property. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, sir, where is your property located? MR. LA BELLE-My property is on the west side of this property, off of Luzerne Road. MR. HUNSINGER-But you front Luzerne Road? MR. LA BELLE-Yes, from Luzerne Road. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LA BELLE-I go out there about 800 feet, along with this development, which, I know everybody, you know, you have to buy the land to keep them out and whatever. There’s a lot of houses on this wetlands there. I mean, the acre thing was in, but these are definitely not acre lots. I mean, it looks like a glorified Glens Falls City block is what it looks like to me. I mean, there’s so much of the Adirondacks, you know, but my concern, like I said, is this water, and like the gentleman just said about Madeline’s property, my house is right next door to Madeline’s and I’ve got another house on the other side of that. This water starts dumping into there, where is it going to go? And the water table there is very high as it is. Very high. I’ve got a well that’s only 18 feet deep. You’ve got water. That’s my concern, water, and I’m looking for a buffer zone like everybody else is getting here. Because you’re going to have all these houses. They’re going to have families. They’re going to have kids. They’re going to be like in Glens Falls. You go out your back door, you’re going to see people. I mean, I understand it’s their land and they want to develop it, that’s great, but I would still like the buffer zone bordering my property here also, and I’m very concerned about the water runoff. Because it is wetter than this thing is looking like here. In the Spring, there’s actually a brook out there that flows, and we had to build a bridge so the kids could get their bikes over it and stuff. I mean, there’s a lot of water out there in the Spring. A lot of water. MR. FORD-Flowing in what direction? MR. LA BELLE-It’s flowing right towards this development. Right towards this development on this back side where this drainage pipe is, there’s a lot of water in there. You couldn’t even drive a car through it, a truck through it, it’s so deep and so muddy in there. I’ve seen skidders out here, when they were logging on this other side of my property actually get stuck. Two skidders to get the one skidder out. That’s how bad it is in the Spring. I’m serious, but my concern is the buffer zone and also where this water is really going to go, and who is going to be responsible if this water starts flowing my way. That’s my concern. I’m done. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else? I will leave the public hearing open for the time being. Are there any written comments received by Staff? I guess there were a couple of concerns. MR. NACE-Okay. The first thing is, just so there is no misconception, the existing drainage in here, it’s a flat area, okay. The rainfall that hits this piece of property pretty much stays on. It soaks in. There is a little bit of flowing water up in here that disappears by the time you get down in here. We’ve been over the site probably 15 times, several of them with DEC, once with the Corps of Engineers, but the misconception that because we’re putting houses here, that we’re increasing the amount of water that hits the site is not true. There’s no more rainfall going to occur because we have houses built here. We’re handling all of the stormwater back into the ground, just the way it’s being handled now. So we’re not increasing any potential for more water on the site. We’re simply replacing the infiltration that occurs naturally through the soil now by use of drywells, perforated piping, to get it back into the soil. Howard Krantz mentioned this drainage easement that’s here between Lot 12 and 13. The drainage system that we’ve designed is designed so that all of the stormwater is handled with, as I said, by the drywells and the infiltration pipe. As an emergency overflow, we have also included an overflow pipe in this easement that we spoke of that was a 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) purchased easement going out to the storm system on Luzerne Road, so that if, for any reason whatsoever, our infiltration system becomes overloaded, there is an alternative place for that overflow to go. C.T. Male looked at the site and said, well, there’s an existing low spot here on the back side where water could be expected to run off of the site. If any water was going to run off it, would run off in this low spot back here in the corner. Therefore, let’s leave an outlet for stormwater to go that direction. So they asked us to put this easement on with the stipulation that the homeowners maintain a four foot wide drainage swale at elevation 90.5, which is at existing ground level, to the rear property line, okay. So that’s simply telling the homeowners that they can’t build up along this lot line for a distance, or a width of four feet, that they can’t raise the existing grade above what it is now. It’s, as Howard said, it’s belt and suspenders. If this system that we’ve designed ever became overloaded for any reason, we already have designed in an outlet, an emergency outlet, for this surface outlet back here. I cannot envision any practical circumstance which would require that to function, okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So let me just understand. There’s an existing swale there. It’s a notation on the map, but it’s not. MR. NACE-Well, there’s an existing, there’s just an existing low point. That’s the, if you traverse the entire property line, that’s the low point of the property line. Okay. So that if there were any runoff, right now, if you sealed the surface here and put some rainfall on it, that’s where it would go. Presently. We don’t intend for any of our drainage under developed conditions to ever go that way, but C.T. Male wanted a provision that if it ever had to follow its natural path, it could. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s really not an easement. It’s really not a drainage easement, as much as it’s a restriction on the homeowners to not build that up. MR. NACE-It’s a restriction with what they can do with that little piece of property. That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-If it’s existing, it would be like riparian rights upland, going low land, if it’s existing, but according to Tom, it’s not going to be needed because his system to go into Luzerne Road should take care of it, but we just did what C.T. Male asked for. MR. NACE-I believe the other property owner that spoke fronts on Luzerne Road over here in this corner, and correct me if I’m wrong. There is, in back of his property, and to the west of ours, there is a wetland area that DEC, I guess, has flagged, but that does not come over onto our property. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, part of his question, also, was why didn’t we extend the no cut zone along that western border. Is there any reason? I can see the shaded area on that map as well. MR. NACE-How far did you say your property extends back? MR. LA BELLE-It runs out there almost 800 feet. MR. NACE-Eight hundred feet. MR. HUNSINGER-So that would be Lot 16, 17. I don’t know if it would go as far as 18 and 19. MR. NACE-Well, that’s 800 feet from Luzerne Road, though, right? MR. LA BELLE-There’s 200 feet before the. MR. NACE-Before the, okay, and this is 100 scale. So his property probably extends back here into Lot 17, behind Lot 17, there’s a property corner there that may well be his. I don’t see why we couldn’t provide that same buffer at least along behind 17 and 16, which would cover his property. We’d extend it. His property, I believe, ends there, and we could extend that buffer back to there easily enough. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. FORD-Beyond his property line, what is there, then, that would be a continuation of that? Why are we stopping it there? MR. NACE-Beyond that is an area that’s been pretty heavily logged, and it is fairly swampy. So there’s nothing really there to protect. Am I right, you back up on that area that’s been logged? MR. LA BELLE-Right. The rest of that property goes back to the top of the hill, the yellow house. MR. NACE-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. GOETZ-You said there’s some open space area that at one time you were thinking of trying to donate to the Town or some other entity? MR. LAPPER-We did talk to the Queensbury Land Conservancy. They weren’t interested in it, just too small a parcel. So that will have to just be owned by the homeowners, but we’re not going to do anything with it, an Association. We’re not going to be anything other than we submitted a restriction. That’ll just say that it would never be developed. That’ll just be open space property. MR. GOETZ-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Who would actually own that? MR. LAPPER-It would be all of the owners, but it’s not going to cost anything. They’re just going to. MR. HUNSINGER-So there’d be no Homeowners Association? MR. LAPPER-Well, there’ll be an entity for them, but just to own that, and that’ll be the extent of it. They’re not going to have to maintain it. There’s no cost to that, and it’ll just be restricted, forever wild. MR. GOETZ-And then just the entrance that comes up, this lupine loop. I can’t determine on those trees, are you taking some trees out and clearing some of them? Are you adding them? How are you landscaping that? MR. NACE-Just street trees. MR. GOETZ-Just street trees that are already there? MR. NACE-No, that will be planted. MR. GOETZ-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, if there’s no further questions or comments from the Board, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And is there a resolution? MRS. STEFFAN-A question. If C.T. Male said that that easement needs to be there, do we have the ability to take it out? MR. HUNSINGER-We certainly have the ability. Their role is advisory. If that’s the question, whether or not we should. MR. NACE-To add, maybe, some clarity to that, thinking of it in a different manner, the homeowner that would adjoin that certainly have the ability to leave it, even without the easement, to leave that at the existing grade, which would simply maintain current conditions, and would really, I mean, whether there’s an easement there or not, if they left it, 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) it would present the adjacent landowner with the same circumstances that they’re concerned about now. Okay. So whether there’s an easement or not, it could still be a low area. We don’t anticipate there would ever be any water going there, but it could still be in that condition. MR. HUNSINGER-So we could just delete the reference to the easement, and say that the property owners can’t fill it in. MR. NACE-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Just have a deed restriction. MR. NACE-Correct, yes. We could do that. MR. LAPPER-Change the note on the map. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-I think we’ve got some additional public comment. Can we re-open that? MR. KRANTZ-I’m nodding in agreement with how you were solving that easement issue. Again, just so it’s clear, we’re looking to get the same benefit of the buffer, 25 feet, the deed restriction, the side of the back (lost word) the buffer. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-It is noted on the plot. MR. KRANTZ-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Unless I missed it, because it looked to me like the arrow did, indeed, go to that south property line. MR. LAPPER-That was always our intent. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I had at least six, seven conditions. MRS. STEFFAN-That were in the Staff notes. MR. HUNSINGER-Six from the Staff notes, one from the discussion. Would you like me to run through them, and then someone can offer a resolution? The Staff notes included a condition that a deed restriction be included with Lot One that no future subdivision or development of that property take place. We had been asked to limit that to the land that’s west of the proposed road. That the no cut buffer should be deed restricted in order to protect and preserve the buffers. That the wetland mitigation will be constructed to the satisfaction of NY DEC and will be constructed prior to the acceptance of all roads within the subdivision. That prior to acceptance of all Town roads proposed barriers shown within the current NiMo right of way shall be constructed to the satisfaction of NiMo. That the applicant shall obtain any necessary permits from NiMo for the construction of the proposed roadway beneath NiMo power lines. That all property deeds shall contain a restriction stating that no dumping of yard clippings or motorized access of NiMo lands occur. That the reference to the easement between Lots 12 and 13 be removed from the plot. That the reference to the four foot wide drainage swale be deed restricted on Lots 12 and 13, and finally that the no cut buffer be extended along the west property line through Lots 16 and 17. MR. SANFORD-If we agree with what the applicant is asking, that they have the opportunity to subdivide that parcel of land on the other side of the road, does the density calculation still hold up? MR. FORD-Good question. MR. HUNSINGER-It does, because, you know, I guess I would ask the applicant. It would, because your density calculation, you show the ability to build 40 lots, and you’ve only proposed 32. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. NACE-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Yes, we’re not even close to that, and we’re not suggesting that it will be. We’re just not giving up the right yet. MR. SANFORD-Well, you have a parcel that’s a little less than 50 acres. See, I don’t have the benefit of the drawings. It’s not your fault. Maybe it’s mine, but we didn’t get them. MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t have them, either. MR. SANFORD-Probably because we should have retained them from the past, okay. So I don’t have it in front of me, but you net out all the wetland from that 49.87 acres, and then you divide through by one acre, what’s the number? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The calculation that’s shown on S-2 removes a little over four acres for roads, 5.7 acres for wetlands and mitigation, leaving 40.06 acres for development, which would be 40 lots. MR. LAPPER-Yes, we’re well below that. MR. HUNSINGER-They propose 32. MR. LAPPER-That would be maybe three more at most. There was one other thing, Chris, that I had asked with NiMo that we couldn’t dedicate the road before we had the NiMo easement, but not that it was no site disturbance before we had the NiMo easement. MR. HUNSINGER-I struck that reference, yes. MR. LAPPER-Okay. I missed that, sorry. If everyone’s in agreement with those conditions, I guess anyone could make the resolution. MRS. STEFFAN-Do we have to read it again? MR. HUNSINGER-No. I would reference the resolution from Staff. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2003 THOMAS SCHIAVONE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Applicant(s) Thomas Schiavone Subdivision SUB 4-2003 [F] Owner(s) Anne Betters SEQR Type Unlisted Agent(s) Tom Nace, Nace Engineering Lot size 49.87 +/- acres Jonathan Lapper, B P S R Location South side Sherman Avenue Zoning SR-1A Tax Id No. 308.7-1-2 Section A-183 Cross Ref. FW 6-2003 Public Hearing 12/16/03, 5/27/04, 7/27/04, 10/19/04, 9/20/05 [left open]; Tabled to 10/18/05 Project Description: Proposed 32-lot cluster subdivision, with lots ranging from 0.46 acres to 0.79 acres with +/- 29 acre common lot. Subdivisions of land require Planning Board approval. WHEREAS, the application was received; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record. WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 12/16/03, 5/27/04, 7/27/04, 10/19/04, 9/20/05, 10/18/05; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, upon granting conditional approval of the final plat, the Planning Board shall empower a duly designated officer to sign the plat upon compliance with such conditions and requirements as may be stated in its resolution of conditional approval. Within five days of such resolution, the plat shall be certified by the Chairman of the Planning Board as conditionally approved and a copy filed in the Planning Office and a certified copy mailed to the subdivider. The copy mailed to the subdivider shall include two findings sheets, one of which shall be signed by the applicant and returned to the Planning Board. Such requirements which, when completed, will authorize the signing of the conditionally approved final plat. Upon completion of such requirements to the satisfaction of the duly designated office of the Planning Board, the plat shall be deemed to have received final approval, and such officer shall sign the plat accordingly. Conditional approval of a final plat shall expire 180 days after the date of the resolution granting such approval unless the requirements have been certified as completed within that time. The Planning Board may, however, extend the time within which a conditionally approved plat may be submitted for signature if, in its opinion, such extension is warranted in the circumstances, for one or two additional periods of 90 days each. [Amended 6-3-1991] WHEREAS, the final plat shows exact location and depth of sewer and water service. It has also set forth the exact layout and dimensions of proposed streets with the street names and house numbers. WHEREAS, final approval of the subdivision plat plan shall be limited to that phase of the development currently pending before the Planning Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Final Stage is hereby Approved according to the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plat submitted for Planning Board Chairman’s signature and filing: 1. A deed restriction be included with Lot One that no future subdivision or development of that property take place, to limit that to the land that is west of the proposed road. 2. That the No Cut Buffer should be deed restricted in order to protect and preserve the buffers. 3. That the wetland mitigation will be constructed to the satisfaction of NYS DEC and will be constructed prior to the acceptance of all roads within the subdivision. 4. That prior to acceptance of all Town roads proposed barriers shown within the current Niagara Mohawk right-of-way shall be constructed to the satisfaction of Niagara Mohawk. 5. That the applicant shall obtain any necessary permits from Niagara Mohawk for the construction of the proposed roadway beneath Niagara Mohawk power lines. 6. That all property deeds shall contain a restriction stating that no dumping of yard clippings or motorized access of Niagara Mohawk land occur. 7. That the reference to the easement between Lots 12 and 13 be removed from the plat. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) 8. That the reference to the four (4) foot wide drainage swale be deed restricted on Lots 12 and 13, 9. That the No Cut Buffer be extended along the west property line through Lots 16 and 17. 10. Recreation fees in the amount of $ 500.00 per lot are applicable to this subdivision modification. 11. No-Cut Buffer areas shall be field located by surveyor and flagged in a color that is different from boundary markers. 12 All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 13. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. 14. Final, approved plans in compliance with this subdivision must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt 15. All site related improvements, such as but not limited to landscaping and lighting, shown on plans shall be complete within one year of obtaining a building permit, and no later than 6 months after receiving a building and codes certificate of occupancy. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Metivier MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. You’re all set. SITE PLAN NO. 49-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED STARK GROUP AGENT(S) JOHN RICHARDS, ESQ. OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION 1545 ST. RT. 9 PROPOSED 4-STORY COMFORT SUITES HOTEL AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. MOTELS REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. AV 75-03, AV 62-05 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 8/10/05 LOT SIZE 4.96 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288-8-1-5.2 SECTION 179-4-020 JOHN RICHARDS & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Staff notes, Susan? MRS. BARDEN-Sure. This proposal is for a 99-room, 4-story hotel to be located off of Route 9N, North of Route 149. This is a SEQR Unlisted Action. At the September 20, 2005 Planning Board meeting, the Board granted a Negative Declaration. Following that finding, the Zoning Board, at their meeting, on September 21, granted 11-feet of height relief from the maximum 40-feet and approved a four-story, 51-feet high hotel building. The applicants will still need Town Board approval for sewer and water extensions to service the hotel, a DEC SPDES permit, SHPO review, as well as site plan approval from this Board. A couple of areas of consideration include Water and Wastewater. The applicants must provide a map plan and report and make application to the Town Board for extension of municipal services. The applicants should extend these services to the North end of the property to provide for future extensions further North of Route 9. As proposed, the lines are located in an area that the applicants agreed to remain undisturbed. Access Management. The applicants in their EAF, stated that the project will generate a maximum of 70 vehicular trips per hour (B1g). In our commercial driveway spacing standards, a development fronting on an arterial road, 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) with 70 peak hour trips, requires 330-feet between commercial driveways. The proposed access road is 35-feet from the driveway accessing the “Boats by George” building. “The Planning Board may waive the separation standards in the event the applicant can demonstrate that no negative impact on the transportation system will result in the relaxing of this standard and the applicant has provided for future consolidation of curb cuts”. Consideration should be given to requiring the closing of the curb cut accessing the “Boats by George” building in the back of the “Mohican” property. What is the distance between the proposed and the road accessing the Mohican Motel? The applicants have agreed to provide interconnected pedestrian walkways to the North (Mohican) and to the South (Lumberjack Pass) from the rear of the property. These connections need to be shown on the plan, per CT Male comments, dated August 13, 2005. A sidewalk placed in the front of the property, South along Route 9 to the corner of Route 149 should be incorporated. This would allow hotel guests to walk to the outlet stores along the Million Dollar Half Mile. The Board should require the applicant to provide safe pedestrian access to nearby shopping and dining amenities. A crosswalk should be provided across the parking lot between the western walkway and the basketball court/play area, per CT Male comments, dated August 13, 2005. Archeological/Historical/Cultural Impacts. The applicant is required to make application to SHPO and be reviewed by their office with respect to the Phase I and Phase II archeological investigation conducted by Hartgen Assocs. An application for consideration on the National Registry of Historic Places should be made for the Van Dusen house. The applicants agreed at the September 27 meeting that they would not disturb the area around where the Van th Dusen house is located. Again, the proposal shows the water and sewer extensions in this area. The Town Wastewater Department will require a 30-foot easement for maintenance of these lines. This seems to be a contradiction that the applicant should address. The applicants have stated that their archeological team will delineate a “buffer zone” sufficient to protect these resources during construction. This mapped delineation of these areas should be provided before any final site plan approvals. The applicants should be strongly encouraged to have an open dialogue with the Warren County Historical Society with respect to alternatives for the future of the Van Dusen house, for example, deeding this house to the Society for preservation and maintenance. This house, and the area surrounding it, is in no way going to prevent the applicants from realizing the construction or operation of their hotel. The Warren County Planning Board resolution of approval with comment, “Van Dusen home not to be demolished but evaluated for use with the site as a museum for visitors to learn about local history”. Under Landscaping and Lighting. The Zoning Board, when granting height relief for the hotel included some comments in their resolution regarding landscaping, “there was a considerable concern by members of the board regarding the trees around that site, and it should be very apparent that the planning board will be the ultimate authority in determining which trees are to remain, and those trees should be marked prior to any kind of cutting on site in the starting of this project. As also proposed, a significant number of white pines will be planted on that West side along the Northway margin there to also screen the view from the Northway on the site.” That’s a quote from the Zoning Board approval, condition of approval, and it’s, I think, attached as well. These concerns of the ZBA should be considered and incorporated in any review of the proposed landscaping plan. What is the area between the back of the building and the parking lot, is this lawn area? It should be labeled as such. There appears to be some light spillage onto the property to the South. That’s all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. The floor is yours. MR. RICHARDS-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is John Richards. I’m an attorney in Glens Falls. I’m here on behalf of the Stark Group, the applicant. With me, on my left, is Tom Nace from Nace Engineering, and George and Marilyn Stark, and Michael and George Stark are also in the audience, if you need to get some more input from the applicants themselves. We’re here, of course, to request final site plan approval for this really what we think is a magnificent project, set out in the sketch before you and in your packages, because we need to begin the site prep and the foundation work this Fall. This will be a Comfort Suites, four story, 99 room hotel and a tremendous asset to the area, both aesthetically and economically. With respect to the comments that Staff has prepared, I thought as I did when we had our SEQRA hearings, that I’d just run through and highlight some of our input on these, and then be open for questions from the Board. On the water and wastewater, we certainly know we have to receive an extension of the wastewater district, or the sewer district, and permission to connect to the existing water district. We’ve been in touch both with Mr. Van Dusen, when he was still there, Mr. Van Dusen, and Mike Shaw, and I know Tom is working on the details on that, and will be submitting that to the Town once we receive your approval. Tom, did you want to add anything to that? With respect to the 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) access management, and one of the things in the comments relates to the separation on the driveways on an arterial road, I would just point out that the Boats By George accessway, if you want to call it that, that is a storage facility, in the rear of, we’ll call it the Mohican Motel parcel. Very minimal intermittent seasonal use, totally separate and apart from any typical motel use or retail use, very, very low impact access way and vehicular traffic on that access road. It’s a building that’s built for storage. It’s owned by the Starks. It’s leased to Boats By George. It’s not conducive, without site plan approval, to any more intensive use, and in view of that, we would certainly ask the Board to waive the 335 foot requirement, particularly as DOT has indicated that the current and sited driveway location is the only one that they would accept for our project. The pedestrian walkways between the two adjacent parcels on the north and south, Tom is putting that together, pursuant to the C.T. Male comments, and adding it to the plan, and certainly do intend to do that on both north and south parcels. The sidewalk, it’s maybe a good idea in some respects. Unfortunately there’s an intervening landowner between us and Route 149, so we really don’t have control over that. We’d be in favor of working with them to do any kind of pedestrian access down there that would be good for the area, and we’ll certainly keep that in mind, but we can’t commit to doing that because we don’t have control over the other lands. The crosswalk and painting on that or marking it, certainly we’ll be doing that, as part of that final plan. On the archeology and history, as I said at the outset when we had our SEQRA review, and I have repeated, that we are very sensitive to this. This was discussed in great length during the SEQRA, and we did obtain the negative declaration, as this Board knows. It will be reviewed again, the impacts would be reviewed again, when we apply for our SPDES Permit from DEC. The buffers that are mentioned in the comments, and which we had intended to do in any event, and put in our application, those would be applied to any areas that Hartken found that had potential for archeological resources. I want to emphasize, nothing at all was found, not even artifacts, in the western 300 feet of that property where 90 to 95% of the work is going to take place, and they’re finishing up on the easterly part, and if they find any potentially sensitive areas, they will certain buffer those, so we will not disturb them during construction, and until they’re properly investigated. The Van Dusen home, as this Board will recall, we did agree to amend our plan, and said that we would not remove that building without this Board’s approval, and we stand by that amendment at this time, and so some of those comments I don’t think are really applicable to this decision tonight. We are proceeding, our initial indication, you’ve seen the letter, is that this building does not have the historical integrity or the architectural significance to be remotely qualified for inclusion on any register of any kind at either the State or the National level, but we are proceeding with a 1A and 1B report on that, when that’s prepared, and should we feel it necessary to go to SHPO before we come to this Board, we will, in any event, not do anything to that building until we come back before this Board and request your approval to remove it or alter it. So that stays where it is. I want to emphasize that as everyone has noted, that building has been moved several times, and the site where it is now is not where it was 100 years ago, but we’re going to continue to treat it with sensitivity and will certainly keep lines of communication open. We’ve not been contacted by the Town or the historical society or anyone else who has any interest in doing anything with the house, but we’ll certainly be ready to talk to any person or organization or municipality that is interested in doing something. As far as the last aspect, the landscaping and the light, that was addressed at great length both in the visual impact report or visual assessment that Tom prepared, as well as in our discussions with the Zoning Board, I think George Stark told me he counted nearly 200 trees, above, what was it, I think six inch diameter, fairly large trees that were slated to remain, and we certainly are sensitive to the light spillage, landscaping and whole issue involved with our neighbors, and the neighbors, in fact, as you’ve seen from the letters, have endorsed this project as well. So I’m going to turn the light issue, though, over to Tom for a little more detail. MR. NACE-Sure. Just that light spillage to the south, the lighting plan assumes a flat surface, like a piece of paper, and gives you light intensities on that flat surface. There are trees along that border, that property line, that will certainly buffer the very low levels of light. I think the highest light level over on the adjacent parcel, assuming a flat plane, is about .3 foot candles, and it doesn’t take much of a tree canopy to shade that. MR. RICHARDS-That’s really our comments on the comments, and we’re available for questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Why don’t we go through the site plan review criteria. First is design standards. Questions, comments on design standards? 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. RICHARDS-Mr. Chairman, I’ve got one thing that I should just mention. Tom, do you want to just mention about that e-mail from C.T. Male? MR. NACE-Sure. If you are aware, we had provided a response to C.T. Male’s last comments. Their comments were dated September 13. Our response was dated the 22. I just got a thnd copy of an e-mail to Craig Brown from Jim Houston, this afternoon, that says, and I quote, in response to our September 13, 2005 comment letter, we have received a submittal from the applicant’s consultant, dated September 22. We received this response package at our office nd on October 13. The response letter references revised plans that will be forthcoming. We th have not yet received the revised plans. The written responses to our comments appear to be reasonable, though we would like to confirm that the revised plans reflect the changes. MR. HUNSINGER-So a conditional signoff, it sounds like. MR. NACE-Yes. They haven’t made their final review of it, but they agree with the way we responded. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions, comments from the Board on design standards? Conformance with Comprehensive Land Use Plan, conformance with design corridor standards, building design layout or signage? MR. SEGULJIC-I was just going to say, I think the building looks good. MR. HUNSINGER-One other item that we had added as a result of the project, how about construction concerns or construction mitigation? That’s something that we also need to consider. MR. SEGULJIC-With regards to? MR. HUNSINGER-Whatever. MR. SEGULJIC-The house. MR. HUNSINGER-That could be one. No comments, questions? How about site development plans? Site conditions, vehicle access and traffic patterns, pedestrian access, parking field design and emergency access? There were Staff notes about a sidewalk in front of the property. What’s the feeling of the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-I hate to say it, but I’d be in favor of the sidewalk. We’ve got to start somewhere. I think the applicant indicated they’d be willing to talk to the other adjacent property owners and see if they’d be? MR. RICHARDS-Certainly willing, it’s just we wouldn’t want to have it as a condition, because we have no control over the adjacent. MR. SEGULJIC-No, but I think that’s a good idea to talk to the others. MR. NACE-I think we would also have to talk to DOT, very definitely about it. I’m not sure what their stance would be. MR. SEGULJIC-But I think I was at the meeting on Saturday. One of the concerns that people have is that Queensbury is not pedestrian friendly, because every time someone talks about putting a sidewalk in, we always talk ourselves out of it because there’s no sidewalks elsewhere. You’ve got to start putting them in somewhere. MR. RICHARDS-Well, I would just say it’s to our benefit as well as the businesses down on the Million Dollar Half Mile to make it as accessible as possible. It’s just that we can’t commit to things outside of our control. We would certainly do everything to encourage safety and accessibility. It’s to our economic benefit from a self-interest standpoint. MR. HUNSINGER-Does anyone else want to chime in on that? MR. FORD-The curb cut, does that come in under this? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. FORD-How do we want to react to that recommendation with the curb cut with Boats By George? MR. NACE-One of the things to consider is the use of the Boats By George volume. As was previously stated, that’s just a storage building. It’s used to bring boats in and out, or the road’s used to bring boats in and out to that building in the Spring for a couple of weeks, and in the Fall for a couple of weeks. It’s normally a couple of trips a day, mid-day, mid-week, not a high traffic time for the motel. So we think the potential for any interference between the two adjacent street openings would be very, very minimal. MR. GOETZ-I went up that road today, and it obviously isn’t very much used. So what you say, I would guess, would be true. MR. NACE-We even looked at the potential for trying to get access to that building from the new motel parking lot, and there’s a retaining wall there. It just didn’t make any sense, plus those are really two separate parcels of land, and I hate to separate, you know, or make them inter-dependent on access. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions on site development design? Stormwater/sewage design? We do have the Staff comment about the map plan and report, as well as the water supply. On the site plan, you show water and sewer connections, really in the southern corner of the property. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Seeing how the applicant owns the motel to the north, is there any plan to hook into the Town water or City sewer for the next hotel? MR. NACE-To the Mohican? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. NACE-Maybe for water, but probably never for sewer. It’s down the road a ways, if there were a connection for water, the problem is, even with the water system, we’re getting, as we go north on Route 9, we’re getting just to the limits of the elevation service that the Water Department can provide pressure for, okay. So I’m not even sure that it’s practical to hook into the Mohican, for water. It may have to be done on the down side. If we have a pressure pump or booster pump serving the new motel, it may be practical, on the downstream side of that booster pump, to provide a private extension onto the other motel. As far as providing any public extension of the water to the north would be, probably, impractical. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board on that? Lighting design, conformance with design standards, accessory lighting? Landscape design, planting schedule, buffering, screening, commercial industrial buffer setbacks? MR. SEGULJIC-There was a comment that there were 200 trees of some size counted on site? MR. RICHARDS-Nearly 200. MR. SEGULJIC-Are those to the rear, then? I guess what vegetation is to the rear of the site, now? I see new plantings. What is there now? MR. NACE-To the rear of the site? MR. SEGULJIC-To the rear. MR. NACE-I have some pictures. MR. FORD-Some hardwoods I know. MR. RICHARDS-These are from the visual assessment report that you should have in your packets. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. FORD-Mostly hardwood, but you’re adding white pine, right? MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, they were in the visual analysis report, right? MR. NACE-That’s looking from the top of the hill about where the gazebo will be, or the little play yard area, looking west toward the Northway. So it’s scrub, down almost to the property line, along the property line are a few decent hardwoods. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So looking at the site plan is sort of misleading, because it looks like all that’s going to get cleared and you’re just going to grass it, but that’s not the case. MR. NACE-No. Anything behind the planting there will remain as is. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. NACE-It will be allowed to grow out. Anything to the rear of what we’ve shown for disturbance limits on the site plan there will remain natural. MR. SEGULJIC-Will remain. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments on landscape? Questions, comments on environmental issues, wetlands, noise, air quality, aesthetics, historical factors, wildlife, including rare or endangered species? MR. FORD-I just want to go back a second to this. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MR. FORD-The white pine, can you address numbers or placement or anything of that sort, please? MR. NACE-They’re shown on SP-3. They’re white pine. The actual numbers are shown on here. I’m not going to take the time to count them up, but there’s a fairly good buffer of white pine just behind the disturbance, or just at the disturbance limit, to the west of the site. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Getting back to the environmental issues, where do you stand with SHPO review? Has there been any movement since the last meeting? MR. RICHARDS-We have not submitted anything to SHPO. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. RICHARDS-And may not have to, but if DEC requires it, we will certainly do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. How about the, at the last meeting we discussed a buffer around the Van Dusen home. MR. RICHARDS-I didn’t recall saying we would definitely, I said we’d buffer any potential sensitive areas and that we would not remove the house, because that site wasn’t even a site of the house until at least the 1930’s from what we can tell. There may not be any need to buffer around the house, as far as even just the general site. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, during construction. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess the issue was that there’d be no construction in close proximity of the house that would have the potential to cause any disruption of the property, of the house itself. MR. RICHARDS-That’s certainly true. We would not do anything to damage the house during the course of construction, absolutely not. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Looking at the site plan, the water and sewer line. MR. NACE-I was just going to address that. MR. HUNSINGER-The water line specifically goes within 10 feet of the house. MR. NACE-Correct. Just talking with George outside before the meeting, we are going to swing those water and sewer lines around to be more of a 90 degree angle off of Route 9, so they go up more parallel to the southern boundary line, before entering the actual motel site. So that will increase the distance between those and the building. Is that clear? MR. HUNSINGER-No, sorry. MR. NACE-Right now, the water and sewer lines come up at an angle, off of Route 9, and pass close by the house. We’re going to swing those up, try to work them in between the large hardwoods here, until we get up close to the site, and then bring them in to the motel. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. NACE-So that’ll increase the distance from the house considerably. MR. HUNSINGER-So is there a minimum distance that they would be within the proximity of the home? MR. NACE-I would say approximately 40 feet. Say 30, if you want to put a minimum, say 30 feet. MR. FORD-What methods were employed for the search for artifacts? MR. RICHARDS-The archeologists do what’s called a Phase I, well, you can do any number of phases, but the initial one is a Phase I, and that really is a two part process. Phase IA is a document, literature research, and Phase IB is an actual grid of shovel pits, and they go through, they diagram the whole, and both of those have been done. They diagram the whole site, the entire five acre site, and then do pits at specific intervals, and then whatever they find, and we use the term artifacts, I think just any evidence of human habitation. It could be a cigarette butt from last week, but whatever they find, they have to put in, catalogue it, where it was found, what depth, what type of soil, put it in a plastic bag, and then they go through and analyze it, as to whether it rises, or could potentially rise, to indicate the presence of potentially significant archeological resources, and so that’s what they do. MR. FORD-All digs prove negative, in terms of any artifacts? MR. RICHARDS-All digs? MR. FORD-On site. MR. RICHARDS-They have not found, no, they’re still going through, they put these into a computer program, it’s a fairly specific expertise, and they have not found, to my knowledge and what I understand from them, they have not found any artifacts in the western 300 feet, and they’re not coming up with anything on the eastern 200 feet of significance or potential significance, but if they do, they’ll buffer it out. Until then, you might, it’s possible you might want to go to a Phase II, which is a more intensive dig. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments on environmental concerns? Neighborhood character, including neighborhood impacts, health, safety and welfare of the community? Involved agencies, County, DEC, APA, Army Corps or other agencies? Any questions, comments from the Board? Any other criteria not previously reviewed? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Actually it was opened and tabled, left open. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-I will leave the public hearing open for the time being. What is the will of the Board? 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. GOETZ-It’s just my opinion, it’s a very nice project. It’s going to look very nice. It’s well thought out, and it looks like you’re trying to comply with the request of the community, and that’s very important. So I’m very much in favor of it at this time. MR. SEGULJIC-The one Staff comment about provide an interconnect, pedestrian walkways, the Mohican and Lumberjack, providing walkways from the rear of the hotel to Lumberjack to the south and the Mohican to the north. MR. NACE-That’s being done. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s being done? MR. NACE-Absolutely. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. RICHARDS-The Lumberjack letter even confirms it. They’d like to have that done. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. FORD-My compliments on the design and the efforts that have gone into this, and the seriousness with which you have taken our previous concerns. MR. HUNSINGER-I have sort of a general question for Staff, related to the SHPO review. How far can we go with site plan review, without that in hand? Generally speaking, if you will. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, there’s no formal requirement for State Historic Preservation Office signoff prior to any Planning Board action. You’ve already rendered a SEQRA Negative Declaration, and DEC, I believe, was notified as a potentially involved agency. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-So they consented to this Board being the SEQRA Lead Agency. Easiest answer is the wimpiest answer, which is that you have no obligation to await State Historic Preservation Office signoff, but if you wanted to make that a condition of approval or if you wanted further input from that office, you have the right to seek that input, as the SEQRA Lead Agency and as the Planning Board ultimately responsible for site plan approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions, comments? Would anyone like to offer a resolution? We’re finished with SEQRA. I will close the public hearing, since there were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, where do we want to go with the resolution? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I’m asking the Board. MR. SEGULJIC-Are we satisfied with everything? I think, personally, I’m satisfied with everything. I don’t think we have to table it. We’d have a number of conditions. MR. FORD-I feel good about it, but I understand there will be some conditions, but I’m pretty positive about it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, why don’t we begin to go through the conditions, then. MR. SEGULJIC-Plans that show the sidewalk interconnect to the north and south. The site plan to show a no cut zone to the rear of the property. This is what I have. That we have the plans show the sidewalk interconnect to the rear of the building to the properties to the north and south. A no cut zone to the rear of the building, to the west of the proposed white pines. The applicant submit the map plan for the sewer, map plan and report. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to say that that’s subject to the Town Board approval? 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Town Board approval. MR. NACE-Are you making the site plan approval contingent upon the Town Board approval of the map plan and report, or just submitting it to the Town Board? Because that takes a couple of months to go through that process, at the Town Board, just for legal purposes, and we’d like to get going, if we could, and not make that subject to their final approval, but if you want to make it subject to submittal to the Town. MR. HUNSINGER-The concern here is that you need to have municipal sewer to proceed, and if you don’t have it, then you’d have to come back for site plan review. So how is the best vehicle to express that in the resolution? MR. RICHARDS-I mean, that’s what the plan indicates now. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. RICHARDS-So if we can’t get it, we’d have to come back anyway for an amendment. MR. NACE-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-If you can’t get it, you’d have to come back anyway. Okay. So I guess just submission of the map plan and report. MR. SANFORD-Well, wait, what are you suggesting? Are you suggesting that you begin construction without having the Town Board approvals in place? MR. NACE-Without having the sewer district actually formed. We’ve worked out the details with the sewer department. We know it’s available. MR. SANFORD-Let’s say you start construction, and for whatever reason you can’t get a sewer and/or a water extension approval, then you come back in front of us, it’s going to be hard for us to say, we don’t think it’s a good idea to build the hotel, because you’ve already begun construction. MR. NACE-We can’t build the hotel without the sewer. That’s a foregone. MR. SANFORD-So what’s the issue, then? MR. NACE-There should be no issue, because the sewer, we’ve worked out the details with the sewer department, okay. There is sewer capacity available. There’s a sewer available. We’ve worked out the easement to get there. There’s, you know, there are no red flag issues. MR. FORD-What’s left, then? MR. NACE-Just going through the map, submitting the map plan, you know, once we’ve gotten this approval from this Board, submitting the map plan and report to the Town Board, and they go through a legal process. By the time they set public hearing, have the hearing, have a period to send the map plan and report to the State for their approval, it takes a couple of months to do that, to get that final signoff and the district formed. MR. FORD-And you had to go through this Board, prior to initiating that? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. FORD-This couldn’t have been going on simultaneously? MR. SANFORD-But the sequencing is the concern. MR. RICHARDS-I don’t know what you’d approve. If we don’t know what you’d approve, we don’t know what to take to the Town. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. SANFORD-Right, but are you suggesting that you start moving dirt and putting up brick and mortar prior to obtaining the Town Board approvals? MR. NACE-Prior to having the sewer district formed, legally formed. MR. SANFORD-Okay, and what I’m saying is that, from a sequential point of view, is problematic in that there’s, while it’s anticipated you’ll receive those approvals, in the event that you don’t, it is almost illogical for us to say go ahead and start building this without that. So, I guess I ask Counsel to weigh in on this. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Sanford’s question is very appropriate, I think, and I can tell you that, regardless of the popularity or lack of popularity of our advice, this question actually comes up quite frequently. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-And it’s generally considered, basically, the Town Board approval process, which is largely how the applicant’s engineer described it, is not an administerial process, by which I mean it is by no means an automatic, it is a discretionary, subjective process. Neither the applicant nor this Board can bind the Town Board to approve either the creation of a new municipal sewer or water district or an extension of an existing municipal sewer or water district. So, typically, the way this issue is handled, in most municipalities, and it does come up frequently, is, as Mr. Sanford I believe is indicating that a condition of site plan approval, if that’s where you’re headed, is that the sewer, or in this case whichever municipal utility district it is, I think it’s principally sewer district here, extension be approved, not just applied for. MR. SANFORD-Right, and that’s really what I, I mean, I appreciate the inconvenience to the applicant, in terms of timeline, but I see no other way in which we would be responsible to allow forward moving plans to start taking place without those approvals in place. MR. RICHARDS-If you did that, that would prevent us from even doing site work on the property, preliminary site work, which seems unduly punitive to what we’re trying to do here. We’re trying to explain the timeline to you. It seems to me it’s, I understand your concern. We don’t want to take a chance and spend money that’s not a proper allocation of funds either. We don’t want to make bad business decisions. There’s a certain amount of risk, perhaps, but we’re certainly going to approach it cautiously, but we’d at least like to be able to do some site prep work this Fall. We can’t do that without your okay. MR. SANFORD-I think you’ve got to be talking to the Town Board at this, I mean, after we’re done tonight, I really think it’s outside of our scope to go there with you. I think really the audience, you need to be addressing the same concerns that you have right now with us, is with the Town Board about the need to expedite the process. MR. RICHARDS-We certainly will. MR. SCHACHNER-My only other comment is again, regardless of the popularity or lack of popularity of this advice, I don’t believe it’s the case that someone is precluded from approaching the Town Board with their map plan and report and their proposal to extend or create new municipal districts. I believe that question was not answered 100% accurately earlier when asked of the applicant. In fact, if you think about it, it’s pretty common for municipal district extensions or creations of new districts to occur prior to application, or during an application process. So to that extent, you know, unfortunately, it may be unfortunate that the timing is what it is. It may be unfortunate that our long, glorious summer has ended, but the fact is that there’s no legal reason that these processes could not have occurred simultaneously. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. RICHARDS-Be that as it may, we’ve told you where we stand on this, and the plan we’ve submitted is predicated upon Town water and sewer access. So if we don’t get it, obviously we’re not going to be able to go forward. I don’t understand why the Board cannot give us approval based on the plans submitted tonight. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. SANFORD-Well, I guess we can’t allow you to begin the construction phase, because you’re doing exactly what you’ve said you can’t do, if you don’t get the approval. In other words, if you don’t get the approval, it’s not likely we’re going to approve the construction of the hotel without the sewer connection, and so it would be imprudent for us to give you the green light to begin building something that may ultimately prove to be, as I said earlier, problematic. What we can do is we can give you these approvals conditioned upon you receiving the Town Board approval for sewer and water extensions, but you first have to, following this meeting, if you get those approvals, you have to go to the Town Board and receive those approvals. Then once you receive those approvals, get your shovels ready and go to Town. Not before. MR. HUNSINGER-We had another comment from Staff Counsel. Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, yes, I mean, Mr. Sanford’s pretty much said what I was going to say. Just that I think the applicant’s counsel has just characterized our advice as saying the Board should not grant approval. That’s not our advice at all. As Mr. Sanford indicated, the Board is free to grant approval. It seems to me that’s where you’re headed here, but conditional approval would be appropriate. MR. SANFORD-But I think what they’re asking is something more than that. Is that correct? MR. SCHACHNER-Right. I think what they’re asking is to be allowed to start the project. In other words, they don’t want your approval to be conditioned upon obtaining those approvals from the Town Board prior to commencement of construction. As I understand it. MR. SANFORD-Right. So we’ve clarified our position. I think it’s clear at this point, maybe not to your satisfaction, but I think our position is pretty clear at this point. MR. FORD-Expediting the remainder of the process is between you and the Town Board. MR. NACE-Okay. So I guess if that were conditioned upon Town Board approval, and not necessarily the final district formation, isn’t there a lag in that process, between the Town Board, Mark, when the Town Board accepts then approves the district and it’s actually formed, the resolution becomes effective. MR. SCHACHNER-Do you want me to answer that question? MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. MR. SCHACHNER-Short answer, no. Let me just clarify. I think Mr. Nace may be confusing the acceptance of a map plan and report and scheduling of the public hearing from final approval of the district extension. There is a preliminary step, which I would say is largely administerial, nondiscretionary, which is acceptance of a map plan and report for the purpose of scheduling the mandatory public hearing and going down the required process, but the answer is essentially, no. There is not a preliminary approval, if you will. The district approval occurs upon the final resolution of the Town Board. MR. HUNSINGER-If we were to remain quiet on this particular issue, and not make it a special condition of approval, would they be able to begin construction, without having those things in place, when their plans clearly state that they have municipal water and sewer? I think you see where I’m headed here is the practical nature is they wouldn’t be able to do it anyway, whether we put the condition on or not, because the building permit won’t be issued without it. MR. SCHACHNER-But I wouldn’t want to throw that in the Building Department’s lap. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-But I think that’s probably correct. MR. HUNSINGER-But my point is I think we’re sort of debating a moot issue, if the Building Department wouldn’t issue a permit without that anyway. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. RICHARDS-What George just reminded me, and I thought we made it clear to the Board, we don’t plan to do anything right away, beyond the site prep work, clearing the area, getting the footings in, and then we’re going to shut down for the winter. That’s what I had said, and during that time, we would finish getting whatever district extensions we needed. MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the advantage in doing that, just to get a jump start on the Spring construction? MR. RICHARDS-Jump start. We’ve got a number of factors going into this. We’re in constant dealings with the franchise holder and with the financing. There’s a number of economic factors as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Does that change anyone’s opinion? MR. SEGULJIC-No. I can understand and feel for them, but it puts us into a bad situation if they don’t get the approval. MR. FORD-We could stipulate, however, that we could allow site preparation, and no construction. MR. SANFORD-Tom, if the applicant came in front of us with very limited scope, that they just wanted to cut down a bunch of trees, for a yet to be determined project, we would not be entertaining it, and that’s basically what we’re dealing with here, in the absence of the Town Board approval. What I would encourage is that the applicant, following a successful approval on our end, expedite their process with the Town Board to get their approvals lined up, and that’s the best we can do. I really think, there’s no way we can encourage development without them having that Town Board approval, and I think that’s pretty well just the reality of the situation. MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any other conditions, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-Sidewalk along Route 9. MR. HUNSINGER-How does the rest of the Board feel about that? MR. SANFORD-Tell them to go forward with that. MR. RICHARDS-Mr. Chairman, during the brief recess, the Tom has suggested perhaps an interim step that will solve all our concerns, which is that we make the approval conditioned upon the Town accepting us as an outside user of both the water and sewer to the existing districts, and that way we can get our construction underway and proceed at a later date with the district extension. Certainly the practical result is the same, as far as the engineering and the use. MR. HUNSINGER-Would Counsel see that as an acceptable solution? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. The Town has the authority to enter into contracts to provide services out of district. I have no idea if that will happen, as a practical matter, faster or not, but that’s fine. From a legal standpoint, that’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. NACE-Actually, they’ve asked us to do it that way permanently for the water system. MR. FORD-So you’ve initiated that process? MR. NACE-On the water system? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. NACE-Not yet. We’re waiting, again. MR. FORD-Why not? 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. NACE-Because we thought we had to have this Board’s final approval of the project to know it was going forward before we made that formal request to the Town. MR. RICHARDS-We’ve certainly been in preliminary contact with both Departments. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Let me make sure I understand what you’ve suggested. Could you please go through it again? MR. RICHARDS-I’m just saying that the condition of this approval tonight would be the Town’s acceptance in entering into a contract with us as contract users to the existing water and sewer districts. No change in the engineering or use proposed at all. MR. SANFORD-Well, I’m not sure I understand the difference. MR. HUNSINGER-It takes less time to get that approval, than going through the map plan and report process. MR. SANFORD-So they would still need the Town’s approval. MR. RICHARDS-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-They would still need Town approval. MR. SANFORD-Before you started the construction, but you would be, again, that’s fine, that’s kind of what we were suggesting, they deal with the Town. Basically that’s what I’m hearing. You still have to work through the Town to get a certain kind of an approval before you begin construction. MR. RICHARDS-That’s correct. We’d need binding approval from the Town. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s correct. I just want to say, Tom just said something about conceptual approval. It’s not a conceptual approval. It’s a different means of acquiring access to the municipal infrastructure. Instead of either creation of a new district or extension of the existing district, neither of which would be foreclosed, by the way, as an option, it would be a potentially short term, although it doesn’t have to be short term. I think Mr. Nace indicated it might not be, agreement with the Town, meaning the Town Board, to be what’s called an out of district user through contract, through a contractual arrangement, but it would still be a binding approval. Again, the Town Board’s not obligated to give that, but I think the applicant’s point is, and I don’t disagree with them, that there’s a chance they could achieve that more rapidly than going through the formalities and district extensions, simply because district extensions, regardless of anyone’s best wishes, and I think the applicant accurately characterized this, has a certain series of formal steps, some of which have mandatory minimum timeframes within them. The out of district contractual agreement is something that at least in theory could happen more rapidly. I tend to agree with them. MR. SANFORD-Okay. That’s fine with me. I’m comfortable with it. MR. FORD-Good solution. Thank you, Tom. MR. HUNSINGER-It sounds like a good compromise. Just back to the conditions that we were discussing, I think, Tom, you hit all the ones that I had. I don’t know if there were any others from other members. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess, what was everyone’s feeling on the sidewalk? MR. HUNSINGER-George? MR. GOETZ-Well, I think you already know what I feel about sidewalks. I think they’re great, but sidewalks to nowhere aren’t so good. MR. SEGULJIC-You’ve got to start somewhere. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. GOETZ-However, I’d like to see them, some sort of condition that they approach their neighbors about working with them to put in a sidewalk. It would be a start, and it would be actually advantageous, I think, for the hotel. MR. HUNSINGER-We were talking about a sidewalk on Route 9, as opposed to what the applicant has proposed to the rear of the property. MR. GOETZ-Yes. I understand that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, just to make sure everyone else knew. Gretchen? Richard? MR. SANFORD-I don’t have a strong opinion on it one way or the other. I think Tom makes a good point, you’ve got to start somewhere, but I actually would think the way, if you really want sidewalks up and down that road, this has to be Town Board initiated action, some form of requirement, rather than to try to do it through this Planning Board process on a piecemeal basis, but I certainly would encourage the applicant pursue it with their neighbors and I would like to see it put in, but I don’t know what more we can do. MR. HUNSINGER-Tom Ford? MR. FORD-I agree with that process. We can’t, or we could, but it seems like a stop gap measure for us to be addressing it every time here, but it needs to be started, but the Town Board is the way to handle it. MR. HUNSINGER-I think there’s clearly some instances where it is good to condition it, I just don’t feel it is in this case, personally. We did one on Aviation Road that I think was a good one, because there were other places to connect. MR. SEGULJIC-But the problem is, you’re going to have 100 hotel rooms, is it? MR. RICHARDS-Ninety-nine. MR. SEGULJIC-Ninety-nine. I would think there would be some thinking in people that they’d want to walk down to go shopping, instead of having to hop in their car. My concern is traffic. I mean, we start here and the next site south of them comes in for review, and we say you have to have sidewalks. We’ve got to build the momentum. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we approved the Lumberjack Pass a few years ago. We should have started there. MR. SEGULJIC-And then you’d have this place. MR. RICHARDS-Don’t forget the Dollhouse is between us. MR. HUNSINGER-So it looks like there’s three and three, Tom. So if you want to put it in your resolution. I’ll leave it up to you. MR. SANFORD-If you’re doing the resolution, put it in, see how it goes. MR. SEGULJIC-Does someone else want to do the resolution? All right. I’m going to need help with the conditions, though. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, approval by the Town Board to extend municipal water and sewer as a contract user. The water line to be re-routed to more than 30 feet away from the Van Dusen house. A new plot should be submitted to show that route. You had mentioned the interconnects, the plans to show the interconnects to the north and south and in the rear of the property, and the no cut zone in the rear of the building. I think those are the only conditions, beyond what the Staff had provided. MR. SEGULJIC-Obtain C.T. Male signoff. MR. HUNSINGER-And final C.T. Male signoff. That’s already in the draft resolution from Staff. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. SEGULJIC-I think that’s everything. The buffer to buffer the existing house from any construction activity. MR. SANFORD-I think buffer’s maybe not the right word. How about protect. MR. RICHARDS-That’s fine. That’s what we basically said anyway, at the outset. I’d just like to, I don’t want to leave the sidewalk issue, I don’t want to have our resolution denied because of the sidewalks. So I’m not exactly sure what you’re saying? Are you saying that you would like to have us do a sidewalk really to nowhere? MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. Yes. MR. RICHARDS-Ending at a bank, and then what do the people do? MRS. BARDEN-A sidewalk to 149, which hooks in with the sidewalk. MR. RICHARDS-But we don’t have the power to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Their property doesn’t go that far. MRS. BARDEN-Well, it can be addressed when the Town Board brings the water and wastewater. MR. RICHARDS-I mean, is that good planning to run a sidewalk into a bank and then funnel the people out onto Route 9? MR. SEGULJIC-At this point I think so, because one of the concerns in this Town, we’re not pedestrian friendly. Every time we talk about sidewalks, we never put them in because they go to nowhere. We’ve got to start somewhere. That’s my opinion. It’s an obvious location for it, and when the Lumberjack Pass people come in, we should ask them to put in a sidewalk. MR. NACE-I don’t disagree with you, but I really feel it needs to be a concerted effort to serve an extent of road, just a property, and there’s some questions there that have to be addressed consecutively with all the property owners, as to where is the sidewalk going to be. Is it going to be on the DOT right of way or is it going to be on the private property? Who’s going to maintain it. I mean, it’s not something that, you haven’t been successful piecemealing it because it’s not something that can easily be piecemealed. That’s my opinion. MR. RICHARDS-I mean, we’ll certainly, we’d like to see a sidewalk go the length of the street. We certainly will contact the neighbors and see if that can be done, but to have it a binding condition of this approval, I’m not sure is appropriate or even beneficial in either the short or the long run. MR. HUNSINGER-I’d prefer you leave it out. MR. SEGULJIC-I disagree. This always comes up when we don’t have any sidewalks, and people say we’re not pedestrian friendly. This could be a signal to the Town Board to do something about it. MR. SANFORD-It really should be a Town Board reg. It should be sort of part of a major planning process on the part of the Town Board to do this. That’s what I think. MR. RICHARDS-We don’t even know if it’s safe. I mean, I’d prefer to have them use the access to Lumberjack Pass, if they need to get there. MR. SANFORD-I don’t know. I hear where you’re coming from, too, Tom, but, you know. I would think mapping out and planning for sidewalks should be sort of a project in and of themselves, initiated by the Town Board, and then put into place. MR. FORD-I think we have a mechanism in place right now, with the PORC, to review and make recommendations along that line. So I don’t see this as protracted, but I think that by early next summer, that could be very well addressed. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it looks like we’re not going to get the sidewalk. Could we at least say you’ll talk to your neighbors? MR. RICHARDS-Absolutely. MR. SEGULJIC-I think when you get the sewer in, it’s going to be an ideal time. MR. RICHARDS-We’ll certainly visit it at that time, and if they agree, and there’s no problem with DOT or any of the other factors that go into it, we’d be more than happy to do that. MR. SANFORD-Can we condition it that if and when the Town initiates a plan to install sidewalks, that this particular project would be willing to be a participant in it? MR. RICHARDS-I think that’s even better, a little more objective. MR. SANFORD-In other words, what you’re basically saying is, when the timing is right, they won’t refuse to participate. I don’t know. MR. SCHACHNER-If that’s the Board’s wish, and that’s fine. From my standpoint, I have to just ask you to clarify what “participate” means. I’m assuming “participate” has something to do with funding, but that’s up to the Board. I just want to make sure whatever you decide is enforceable, and that nobody asks us or Staff what was meant by participation X number of years ago. So just define that, if you decide to impose that as a condition. MR. SANFORD-Yes, I hear you. It’s probably not very workable. Poll the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s three to three, Richard. MR. SANFORD-Three to three on sidewalks? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. RICHARDS-If I could suggest this. We would agree to join in any extension of the sidewalks up from Route 149 intersection. To the extent it requires participation of adjoining landowners, we would agree to participate on a pro rata basis like anyone else. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SANFORD-All right. That’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-You started the resolution way back when, before we, half an hour, forty-five minutes ago. You started the conditions. We didn’t actually make a resolution. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 49-2005 STARK GROUP, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Applicant(s) Stark Group Site Plan SP 49-2005 Owner(s) Same SEQR Type Unlisted Agent(s) John Richards, Esq. Lot size 4.96 acres Location 1545 St. Rt. 9 Zoning HC-Intensive Tax Id No. 288-8-1.5.2 Section 179-4-020 Cross Ref. AV 75-03, AV 62-05 Warren County Planning 8/10/05 Public Hearing 9/20/05 Tabled to 9/27/05; 10/18/05 Project Description: Proposed 4-story Comfort Suites Hotel and associated site work. Motels require Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. WHEREAS, the application was received on 8/15/05; and WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on September 20, 2005, September 27, 2005 and October 18, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning) per 179-9-080; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and WHEREAS, the use complies with all other requirements of this chapter, including the site plan review standards as set forth in Subsection F of this section, the dimensional, bulk, and density regulations of the zoning district in which it is proposed to be located (Table 4),EN the applicable requirements of Article 4, Schedule of Regulations, the applicable requirements of Article 5, Supplementary Regulations, the applicable standards and requirements of Article 6, Environmental and Performance Standards, the standards/guidelines in Article 7, Design Guidelines, and the requirements of Article 8, Landscaping and Buffering Standards. WHEREAS, the use is in harmony with the general purpose or intent of this chapter, specifically taking into account the location, character and size of the proposed use and the description and purpose of the district in which such use is proposed, the nature and intensity of the activities to be involved in or conducted in connection with the proposed use and the nature and rate of any increase in the burden on supporting public services and facilities which will follow the approval of the proposed use. WHEREAS, the establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed use will not create public hazards from traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the Town. In the review of such projects the Planning Board considered and will make a finding that traffic access and circulation, road intersections, road and driveway widths, and traffic controls are adequate. Additionally, the Board finds that the off-street parking and loading facilities are appropriately located and arranged and sufficient to meet traffic anticipated to be generated by the new use. In the review of commercial and industrial development, where internal roadways are not provided, the Planning Board has determined it is feasible to link parking areas to allow for an internal flow of traffic. Where it is feasible, a twenty-foot connection way must be provided. If the adjacent property is undeveloped, then a connection way shall be identified on the site plan for future linkage. The Planning Board shall also consider interconnection of commercial use areas or other properties to allow for pedestrian access and circulation. WHEREAS, the project will not have an undue adverse impact upon the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resources of the Town or the Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project, taking into account the commercial, industrial, residential, recreational or other benefits that might be derived from the project. In making the determination hereunder, the Planning Board has considered those factors pertinent to the project contained in the development considerations set forth herein under this § 179-9- 080 of this chapter, and in so doing, the Planning Board has made a net overall evaluation of the project in relation to the development objectives and general guidelines set forth in this § 179-9-080 of this article. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby Approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) 1. The pedestrian walkway interconnect be placed to the rear of the hotel that accesses the properties to the south and north. 2. A crosswalk across the parking lot between the western walkway and the basketball court play area be installed. 3. Protection around the existing house be provided during construction. 4. C.T. Male Associates sign-off be obtained, 5. No cut zones be provided to the west of the proposed white pine plantings. 6. Approval by the Town Board to extend municipal water and sewer. 7. The water and sewer lines on the site be relocated to avoid the existing house and shown on the site plan. 8. A DEC permit is required. 9. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 10. Lighting poles and bulbs for inspection on the ground before placing upright. 11. C.T. Male Associates engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator on approved plans. 12. All site related improvements, such as but not limited to landscaping and lighting, shown on plans shall be complete within one year of obtaining a building permit, and no later than 6 months after receiving a building and codes certificate of occupancy. 13. Final, approved plans in compliance with this site plan must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt. Duly adopted this 18 day of October, 2005, by the following vote: th MRS. BARDEN-Do you want any signoff or review from SHPO before any construction? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Signoff from SHPO be obtained before construction. MR. RICHARDS-I don’t think that’s what we had said. We may not even need it. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So what do we want? How do we say that? MR. SCHACHNER-Obviously, I wouldn’t advise whether you’d want to implement such a condition or not, but I don’t think it’s, you need a DEC permit, right? MR. RICHARDS-Yes, if they’re going to require it, then obviously we’d have to get it. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, if you need a DEC permit, then you’re not going to be able to get a DEC permit without State Historic Preservation Office signoff, I believe. MR. RICHARDS-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Just DEC permit. MR. RICHARDS-DEC permit. MRS. BARDEN-DEC permit. MR. SEGULJIC-DEC permit be obtained. MR. RICHARDS-If that’s what we have to do for them, and it may well be, then we have to have a signoff, but I don’t think for this Board it needs to be a condition. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Steffan ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. RICHARDS-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 58-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED HUNTER BROOK LLC ROBERT SHARP, D.D.S., M.S.D. OWNER(S): SAME ZONING PO LOCATION: 16 HUNTER BROOK LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONVERT A PORTION OF THE EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING INTO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCT A 1092 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE WITH 208 SQ. FT. OF TOTAL AREA FOR STORAGE. RESIDENCES WITHIN PROFESSIONAL OFFICES REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. SP 34-2003 LOT SIZE: 1.3 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.15-1-4 SECTION 179-4-020 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DR. ROBERT SHARP, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could just quickly summarize Staff notes so we could move this along. MRS. BARDEN-I will. Applicant proposes to convert a portion of 2,012 square foot of the basement of the existing 6,496 square feet office building into residential living space, and construct a 1,092 square foot detached garage with 208 square feet of which to be utilized as storage space. The applicant proposes an owner occupied apartment in the basement of their existing office building. The conversion of office to living space requires review by the Board for the residential use. Construction of the detached garage is also proposed. The submitted plan shows that 208 sq. ft. of the garage will be used as storage area. Eight hundred and eighty-four square feet will be for storing vehicles. The applicant is also proposing an additional 885 sq. ft. of driveway/parking area. Any previously approved landscaping that is displaced should be replaced. The applicants are intending to relocate the designated, future, septic tile field to the South, to accommodate the garage. That’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper with Dr. Bob Sharp, and in light of the hour, we think this is a very simple project. Obviously close proximity to Town Hall. So you’re all familiar with it. Just so that Dr. and Mrs. Sharp can have an apartment underneath the office, and the garage is really a minor addition. The development there has turned into a mixture of offices and residential. So this building being a mixture of office and residential certainly fits in with the character of the Hunter Brook neighborhood, and that’s really it, unless you have any questions. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll open it up for the Board. Any questions, comments? Just a general comment for my own opinion. I think any time that we can encourage a mixture of commercial and residential uses on the same site, I think that’s an admirable goal. The only question I had I think is more directed for Staff. Is there any way that this could be limited to only owner occupancy? MRS. BARDEN-I think that would be very difficult to track. Don’t you think? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, it’s not only difficult to track, which I think is what Staff said, but what would be the basis? 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. HUNSINGER-It was just a question. MR. SCHACHNER-What I’m trying to ask is the rationale for it. Generally speaking, remember that your authority is limited to use of property as opposed to who the people are. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-So, generally speaking, if you approve somebody’s subdivision application for four lots, then they can sell their four lots. If it’s a residential subdivision, four houses can be built, and if the owner wants to rent them out, they can rent them out. MR. HUNSINGER-They can rent them out. That’s what I thought your answer would be, yes. The reason why I ask it is because there’s certain, you know, advantages to having owner occupied residential and commercial properties together. Because you’re encouraging pedestrian traffic, limiting the use of cars and traffic and other impacts. So there’s a lot of benefits to having it the same users within the building being in the building, which is why I asked the question. MR. LAPPER-You need a dentist at two in the morning, you know who to call. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Anyway, I had to ask the question. I got the expected answer. Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, were there any written comments for the record? MRS. BARDEN-No, none. MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the feeling of the Board? MR. SANFORD-It looks pretty straightforward. It’s Unlisted for SEQRA. MRS. STEFFAN-We have a Short Form. Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 58-2005, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: HUNTER BROOK, LLC, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 18 day of October, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any further discussion? If not, would anyone like to offer a resolution? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 58-2005 HUNTER BROOK LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Applicant(s): Hunter Brook LLC Site Plan SP 58-2005 Robert Sharp, .D.D.S., M.S.D. Owner(s): Same SEQR Type Unlisted Agent(s): Lot size 1.3 acres Location 16 Hunter Brook Lane Zoning PO Tax Id No. 289.15-1-4 Section 179-4-020 Cross Ref. SP 34-2003 Warren County Planning N/A Public Hearing 10/18/05 Project Description: Applicant proposes to convert a portion of the existing office building into a single family residence and construct a 1092 sq. ft. detached garage with 208 sq. ft. of total area for storage. Residences within Professional Offices require review by the Planning Board. WHEREAS, the application was received on 9/15/05; and WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on October 18, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and WHEREAS, the use complies with all other requirements of this chapter, including the site plan review standards as set forth in Subsection F of this section, the dimensional, bulk, and density regulations of the zoning district in which it is proposed to be located (Table 4),EN the applicable requirements of Article 4, Schedule of Regulations, the applicable requirements of Article 5, Supplementary Regulations, the applicable standards and requirements of Article 6, Environmental and Performance Standards, the standards/guidelines in Article 7, Design Guidelines, and the requirements of Article 8, Landscaping and Buffering Standards. 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) WHEREAS, the use is in conformance with Chapter 136, Sewers and Sewage Disposal, Chapter 147, Stormwater Management, and other applicable local laws. WHEREAS, the use is in harmony with the general purpose or intent of this chapter, specifically taking into account the location, character and size of the proposed use and the description and purpose of the district in which such use is proposed, the nature and intensity of the activities to be involved in or conducted in connection with the proposed use and the nature and rate of any increase in the burden on supporting public services and facilities which will follow the approval of the proposed use. WHEREAS, the establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed use will not create public hazards from traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the Town. In the review of such projects the Planning Board considered and will make a finding that traffic access and circulation, road intersections, road and driveway widths, and traffic controls are adequate. Additionally, the Board finds that the off-street parking and loading facilities are appropriately located and arranged and sufficient to meet traffic anticipated to be generated by the new use. In the review of commercial and industrial development, where internal roadways are not provided, the Planning Board has determined it is feasible to link parking areas to allow for an internal flow of traffic. Where it is feasible, a twenty-foot connection way must be provided. If the adjacent property is undeveloped, then a connection way shall be identified on the site plan for future linkage. The Planning Board shall also consider interconnection of commercial use areas or other properties to allow for pedestrian access and circulation. WHEREAS, the project will not have an undue adverse impact upon the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resources of the Town or the Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project, taking into account the commercial, industrial, residential, recreational or other benefits that might be derived from the project. In making the determination hereunder, the Planning Board has considered those factors pertinent to the project contained in the development considerations set forth herein under this § 179-9- 080 of this chapter, and in so doing, the Planning Board has made a net overall evaluation of the project in relation to the development objectives and general guidelines set forth in this § 179-9-080 of this article. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that WE FIND THE FOLLOWING, The application is hereby Approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 2. Lighting poles and bulbs for inspection on the ground before placing upright 3. C.T. Male Associates engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator on approved plans. 3. All site related improvements, such as but not limited to landscaping and lighting, shown on plans shall be complete within one year of obtaining a building permit, and no later than 6 months after receiving a building and codes certificate of occupancy. 4. Final, approved plans in compliance with this site plan must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt. Duly adopted this 18 day of October, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. DR. SHARP-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 55-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED CARROLL’S CORPORATION AGENT(S): PAUL LENOWICZ OWNER(S): DOUBLE H HOLE IN THE WOODS ZONING HC-INT LOCATION AVIATION ROAD APPLICANTS PROPOSE TO ENCLOSE THE EXISTING GREENHOUSE ON THE FRONT OF THE BURGER KING RESTAURANT – RESTAURANT USES REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. BP 8897, 98-466 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/12/05 LOT SIZE: 1.5 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.06-1- 30 SECTION 179-4-020 PAUL LENOWICZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you would summarize Staff notes. MRS. BARDEN-Sure. This is really just a change of the façade of the existing restaurant, essentially enclosing the greenhouse. This is the Aviation Road Burger King Restaurant. It’s a SEQRA Unlisted Action, and it’s for about 464 square feet of alterations, interior alterations. It will not increase the footprint of the existing building, and will not add additional impermeable surface. The applicant proposes to remove the greenhouse in the front of the existing restaurant and rebuild with new walls, windows and roof. This will change the look of the façade only. Some wall lighting is proposed, is the existing to be relocated or additional lighting units? Any landscaping that is displaced should be replanted. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The floor is yours. MR. LENOWICZ-My name’s Paul Lenowicz. I’m Construction Manager for Carroll’s Corp., an basically it’s what Susan just said. We want to remove the existing greenhouse structure from the building, and replace it with typical storefront glass and extend the roof out to cover the glass. MR. HUNSINGER-Could you speak to the lighting question that was asked? Is there additional lighting being added? MR. LENOWICZ-Yes. There are 12 soffit lights, each one 175 watts. They are aimed downward and they illuminate the window area. MR. FORD-Could you elaborate on the rationale for this? MR. LENOWICZ-Yes. The greenhouse is, I think they’re kind of an outdated item. Typically they leak. They’re hot in the summer and they’re cold in the winter. So, that’s our reason for taking it off. MR. HUNSINGER-I actually thought Mr. Ford’s question was more related to the rationale for the additional lights, rather than the project itself. MR. LENOWICZ-Well, if we don’t have any additional lighting there, the facility will be dark around the front and side of the building. Typically we like to have a well lit property. It is also a Burger King standard that we have to try to achieve. MR. FORD-I hope that coincides with the Queensbury standard. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any questions or comments for the applicant? MR. LENOWICZ-Again, the lights are directed downward. They will be under the new soffit area, and they only direct downward. They don’t go outward out onto the street or out into the parking area. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. FORD-This’ll be a sidewalk area that’ll be on? MR. LENOWICZ-No. It’s a landscaped area. MRS. STEFFAN-And will there be displaced landscaping? MR. LENOWICZ-There is a planter along the side now, and I can maintain that area. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Typically we do get a lighting plan that would show conformance with the Town’s lighting standards, which include a uniformity ratio, as well as limits on the foot candles that are emitted on the site. MR. LENOWICZ-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I am a little concerned about 175 watts. Are they standard light bulbs? MR. LENOWICZ-No, they’re the metal halide. MR. HUNSINGER-Were we provided with, I didn’t see cut sheets. Did we get cut sheets on the lights? MR. LENOWICZ-I don’t believe so. On the architectural plan, it did give the spec on it, but I don’t believe there’s a cut sheet. MR. SANFORD-Can we condition it, so that it’s in conformity with our guidelines and reviewed by Staff for approval? Rather than have them come back with a lighting plan? MR. HUNSINGER-We have before. The question is, what if it’s not, though? MRS. BARDEN-It’s also a condition of C.T. Male approval. Do you have, I don’t know that you have their response dated October 10. The second item is, it is not clear whether th additional exterior lighting will be provided, and if so, what the level of illumination. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we have that C.T. Male letter. Yes, and they also had a question about how the new roofing system might drain. Well, we do have a public hearing scheduled. So I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the will of the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-In the C.T. Male comments, it does mention, will the new roofing system change drainage patterns or anything? MR. LENOWICZ-What’s coming off the front sides of the building now will remain the same. MR. HUNSINGER-Why don’t we do the SEQRA. It’s an Unlisted Action, Short Form. MRS. STEFFAN-“Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resource; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. FORD-Maybe aesthetic. We still haven’t addressed the lighting. MRS. STEFFAN-How does everybody else feel about that? MR. SANFORD-I think on the lighting, I think if we can merely reference will not exceed, illumination and foot candles on the site will not exceed something that might be stated in our zoning, and/or that it’s reviewed by Staff, and/or C.T. Male, for conformity with our regs, 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) I’m comfortable with it, but I’m just one person. I think we need to have something in there, but I would address the SEQRA with that in mind, that we’re going to have a conformity with our regs. MR. LENOWICZ-I can live with that, too. I can provide a lighting survey, which will show the foot candles. MR. SANFORD-Right. I mean, I just don’t see this as a big deal. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So we’ll answer no. MR. FORD-Yes, correct. MRS. STEFFAN-And then we’ll condition it. Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 55-2005, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: CARROLL’S CORPORATION, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 18 day of October, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. How do we want to deal with the lighting issue? 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. SANFORD-No greater than 2.5 foot candles, and maintain a Uniformity Ratio of four to one. MR. HUNSINGER-Isn’t at least one of the lights over a building entrance, which has a 5.0 illumination? MR. LENOWICZ-Two of them are. Well, the main entrance. MRS. STEFFAN-But that’s not being renovated, is it, the main entrance? MR. HUNSINGER-We’re just referring to where the new lights would be installed. MR. LENOWICZ-There are two new lights going in there, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-There are? MR. LENOWICZ-Yes, and then one, we have the double door entrance and then we have a single door entrance on the corner. There’s one light there, too. MR. SANFORD-Well, you could specify building entrances at five, and then the rest of the parking lot not to exceed 2.5. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anyone want to offer a resolution? MR. SANFORD-Yes, I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 55-2005 CARROLL’S CORPORATION, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Applicant(s): Carroll’s Corporation Site Plan SP 55-2005 Owner(s): Double H Hole in the Woods SEQR Type Unlisted Agent(s): Paul Lenowicz Lot size 1.5 acres Location Aviation Road Zoning HC-Int Tax Id No. 302.06-1-30 Section 179-4-020 Cross Ref. BP 8897, 98-466 Warren County Planning 10/12/05 Public Hearing 10/18/05 Project Description: Applicants propose to enclose the existing greenhouse on the front of the Burger King Restaurant – Restaurant uses require review by the Planning Board. WHEREAS, the application was received on 9/15/05; and WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on October 18, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and WHEREAS, the use complies with all other requirements of this chapter, including the site plan review standards as set forth in Subsection F of this section, the dimensional, bulk, and density regulations of the zoning district in which it is proposed to be located (Table 4),EN the applicable requirements of Article 4, Schedule of Regulations, the applicable requirements of Article 5, Supplementary Regulations, the applicable standards and requirements of Article 6, Environmental and Performance Standards, the 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) standards/guidelines in Article 7, Design Guidelines, and the requirements of Article 8, Landscaping and Buffering Standards. WHEREAS, the use is in conformance with Chapter 136, Sewers and Sewage Disposal, Chapter 147, Stormwater Management, and other applicable local laws. WHEREAS, the use is in harmony with the general purpose or intent of this chapter, specifically taking into account the location, character and size of the proposed use and the description and purpose of the district in which such use is proposed, the nature and intensity of the activities to be involved in or conducted in connection with the proposed use and the nature and rate of any increase in the burden on supporting public services and facilities which will follow the approval of the proposed use. WHEREAS, the establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed use will not create public hazards from traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the Town. In the review of such projects the Planning Board considered and will make a finding that traffic access and circulation, road intersections, road and driveway widths, and traffic controls are adequate. Additionally, the Board finds that the off-street parking and loading facilities are appropriately located and arranged and sufficient to meet traffic anticipated to be generated by the new use. In the review of commercial and industrial development, where internal roadways are not provided, the Planning Board has determined it is feasible to link parking areas to allow for an internal flow of traffic. Where it is feasible, a twenty-foot connection way must be provided. If the adjacent property is undeveloped, then a connection way shall be identified on the site plan for future linkage. The Planning Board shall also consider interconnection of commercial use areas or other properties to allow for pedestrian access and circulation. WHEREAS, the project will not have an undue adverse impact upon the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resources of the Town or the Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project, taking into account the commercial, industrial, residential, recreational or other benefits that might be derived from the project. In making the determination hereunder, the Planning Board has considered those factors pertinent to the project contained in the development considerations set forth herein under this § 179-9- 080 of this chapter, and in so doing, the Planning Board has made a net overall evaluation of the project in relation to the development objectives and general guidelines set forth in this § 179-9-080 of this article. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby Approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. That we received C.T. Male Associates signoff on their comments raised in their October 10, 2005 letter. 2. That the illumination of the site not exceed five foot candles on the building entrances and overall parking lot not exceed 2.5 foot candles. 3. That all lighting shall maintain a uniformity ratio of four to one. 4. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 5. Lighting poles and bulbs for inspection on the ground before placing upright 6. C.T. Male Associates engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator on approved plans. 7. All site related improvements, such as but not limited to landscaping and lighting, shown on plans shall be complete within one year of obtaining a building permit, and no later than 6 months after receiving a building and codes certificate of occupancy. 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) 8. Final, approved plans in compliance with this site plan must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 2005, by the following vote: MR. LENOWICZ-When you said the parking area, I’m not sure what our foot candles are there now, the existing. So are we permitted to keep our existing parking lot lights as is? MR. SANFORD-No, actually what I’m saying is that you would bring the site into compliance with our new standards. It’s likely that it is already, but you’d have to work that through. Okay. I mean, that’s what we’ve been doing anyway when we get revisions or modifications to gas stations and things of this nature. We don’t accept, as a point of departure, what has existed and grandfathered in. We almost always make sure that it’s re- addressed and is in conformity with our Code. MR. LENOWICZ-And 2.5 foot candles is the rule for parking areas? MR. SANFORD-Yes, well, commercial parking lot is 2.5. Industrial parking lot is 1.0. Office parking lot is 1.0, but gas stations are 2.0. Service stations within a gas station are 3.0. That 2.5 made sense, with the exception of your entrances which we permit as high as five. So, other than that, I mean, again, we can make this resolution. You don’t have to accept it. If you don’t accept it, what we could do this and table this and you could come back with a drawing, and we could do it again. MR. LENOWICZ-No. He said are there any questions, and I had a question. MR. HUNSINGER-The real issue is, what if your existing lighting plan doesn’t conform with the Town Code, then I guess you’ll either have to bring it into conformance, or come back to the Board for further review. MR. LENOWICZ-Okay. AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. LENOWICZ-Thank you. I have one more question. In the draft that I got, there’s a paragraph that talks about an interconnection between our lot and the Mall parking lot. That is not why I’m here. MR. SANFORD-No, and in fact I think we recently had an application with the Mall, and that was put on hold, if I recall. MR. HUNSINGER-No. What we decided to do was to have it on paper, but never built, basically. MR. SANFORD-If I recall, they had issues about the competition, too. I mean, that was the real issue, because they have food vendors in their Mall and they don’t want to encourage migration to competitors and blah, blah, blah. At least I had an appreciation for that argument when it was discussed. I don’t know if anybody else did. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. We talked about it at length. MR. SANFORD-We talked about it. I thought that the way it was left, well, there were two issues all connected to the same thing. One was the remote parking lot would only be used as sort of a parking lot of last resort, as an overflow, and I think the interconnect got put on hold, I kind of thought. 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. LENOWICZ-The way it’s worded, where it is feasible, a 20 foot connection way must be provided, if the adjacent property is undeveloped. So this is something that Carroll’s Corp. has desired for at least 10 years now. MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. LENOWICZ-And I know you’re trying to alleviate traffic. MR. SANFORD-We have an opportunity to deal with these when applications were brought in front of us. The Mall was in front of not too long ago. It was discussed and I’m not 100% sure where we left that. MR. HUNSINGER-My recollection is that the Mall insisted that it be a one way, from Burger King into the Mall overflow lot. MR. GOETZ-That’s right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We said that it should be a 40 foot right of way with a 20 foot pavement. MR. SANFORD-Yes. Of course this applicant’s not going to accept, of course that’s the condition that’s going to be unacceptable to the Carroll’s Corporation. MR. HUNSINGER-The thing is, they didn’t show anything on their site plan. MR. LENOWICZ-That site plan was based on getting a building permit to do the greenhouse work. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. LENOWICZ-The connection was a separate issue. MR. SANFORD-I think, to some degree, I believe it’s our call. MRS. STEFFAN-Susan, how did that get in here, then? MR. HUNSINGER-It’s just a standard language. MRS. BARDEN-It is a standard thing. MR. LENOWICZ-Now, wasn’t that a condition of Pyramid’s permit, when they were constructing another portion of the Mall, that they were supposed to provide a connection at that time, and it wasn’t enforced? MRS. BARDEN-The most recent approval was they would build that interconnect when they expanded or re-developed that overflow parking area that’s adjoining your site, but I also think that as far as the Town is concerned, there needs to be some agreement between Carroll’s Corporation and Pyramid to kind of solidify that agreement to do the interconnection on the other side. MR. LENOWICZ-We’d like to have an agreement, and we’d like to do the work. MRS. BARDEN-Right. MR. LENOWICZ-So is there some way we can? MR. SANFORD-I think the way we would feel more comfortable handling it tonight, with this application, is to certainly encourage that you establish a dialogue with them. My understanding Mr. Lapper, who’s in this room, represents the Aviation Mall on a regular basis. You could begin with him, but we would prefer to see a meeting of the minds between Carroll’s Corporation and the Aviation Mall for our consideration. Because we have an appreciation for the multitude of issues that exist with the connect here, and we think it’s best if the parties could resolve them, rather than us. 69 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. LENOWICZ-We’d like to, and it’s not my position to come to that agreement. I mean, we have our legal department, our real estate department. They handle that. MR. SANFORD-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-We can tell you, though, that it was on the Mall site plan. So you should be able to obtain a copy of their site plan and identify where that would be. MRS. STEFFAN-So if you went back to your legal department, or whoever, and had them make the connections, that would be appreciated. MR. LENOWICZ-Okay. I just didn’t know if anything was going to come of this paragraph that was in here today. I just received this. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it wasn’t on the site plan. We kind of missed that in the language. MR. SANFORD-Well, I think that’s kind of like a feel good, where it is feasible. It’s an encouraging statement, and I’m not sure that there’s a lot of teeth to this particular provision. So I think we can leave it in the resolution without it compromising what we’ve just done. MR. LENOWICZ-The Town is for it, and Carroll’s and Pyramid have to come to an agreement. MRS. BARDEN-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Basically. MR. SANFORD-That’s probably a safe way to put it. MR. LENOWICZ-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you. MR. LENOWICZ-Thanks a lot. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 54-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED AGENT(S): JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS OWNER(S): SAME ZONING CI-1A LOCATION 26 LOWER WARREN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 7500 SQ. FT. STORAGE BUILDING. WAREHOUSE USES REQUIRE REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. SP 19-92, UV 40-92, SP 16-02 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/12/05 LOT SIZE 14 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.19-1-49 SECTION 179- 9-020 TOM JARRETT & JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff notes. MRS. BARDEN-Yes. Very quickly. This is site plan review for an expansion to an existing auto sales and service use, specifically constructing a 7,500 sq. ft. warehouse building. The property is located at 26 Lower Warren Street, and is zoned Commercial-Industrial. It’s a SEQRA Unlisted Action. Construction is proposed in back of an existing warehouse building, the 7,500 sq. ft. building will replace the same amount of paved area. The applicant is requesting waivers from the required landscaping and lighting plans. The existing lighting (Type B) in the front of the sales/office building seems excessive, and results in considerable spillage onto Lower Warren. These should be removed or moved and used to illuminate the proposed building. Consideration should be given to curb-cut consolidation to better mark the entrance and exits for tractor trailers loading and customer car access. Clarification is needed with regard to landscaping existing and proposed, and we do have responses to C.T. Male comments. Their comments, I believe you have them, from C.T. Male dated 10/12 and response, 10/14 from the applicant. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Gentlemen, the floor is yours. 70 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, Tom Jarrett and Larry Brown. This is part of Larry’s plan to continue to move the outdoor operation indoors, which protects the parts and is visibly more attractive for the site and is a better use of the property, rather than having outdoor storage, which obviously bad weather is not a good thing, and this is just, the business has changed to where he’s shipping parts all over the country, and this is a better way for him to catalogue, to package, and ship his goods. So we look at this as an improvement to the site. When Larry brought Tom in to design the site plan, it was to improve the existing condition. There were comments about lighting and Tom has proposed now, in response to those comments, to change the lights in the front of the building to comply with the Town Code, but in general we’re obviously not getting rid of the rest of the yard, but we’re getting rid of a piece of it, and we hope you’ll view that as an improvement. Let me hand it over to Tom. MR. JARRETT-Thanks, Jon. Just one clarification. We actually had proposed to change the lighting on the front of the site, even before we received Town comments, but we didn’t make it clear we were doing that. I think it required some searching on the plan. So I think we probably could have made that a little clearer, but we propose to change the lighting on the front to be compliant. The waiver, and we did give you a lighting plan, but the waiver we’re requesting is from intensity and uniformity, since it is an existing site. MR. SANFORD-Could you give me a little history on this? It seemed like it wasn’t too long ago that we went there and you were going to do something in the rear of that building. That took place. That’s history and this is something new? MR. JARRETT-I think the other two could probably answer better than I. LARRY BROWN MR. BROWN-That project more or less got scrapped, and after further review, we decided to go with this rather than that. We didn’t go with the original project. It was two years ago. We never did it. MR. SANFORD-You never did it. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. SANFORD-Okay, because I remember we approved it. MR. BROWN-Right, and this kind of is superseding that. After, like I said, a lot more thought went into it, this seemed to fit the direction that we were going a lot better. Originally it was going to be on the west side, the other building that we have on the west side of our property is where the project that you’re referring to is, or was. MR. SANFORD-Okay. All right. I remember it. I just didn’t know if that was done. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So, just to clarify, the comment that Mr. Jarrett made, the lighting plan as proposed does bring it into conformance? MR. JARRETT-The fixtures are compliant in the front. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-The remaining fixtures remain the same, and we’re proposing no changes to lighting anywhere else except on the new building itself, but we’ve changed the fixtures in the front of the site to be compliant. MR. HUNSINGER-And so the areas that are non-compliant would be those light fixtures labeled as C on your lighting plan? MR. JARRETT-That would be non-compliant? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 71 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. LAPPER-The whole back of the yard is non-compliant because in the Uniformity standards, he’d have to light up the whole property to make it uniform, and the area with outside storage, which is the whole back of the property, is primarily dark. So this a case where if you were going to make it uniform, you’d really be lighting it up like K-Mart’s parking lot. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I’m just looking at the one fixture Labeled C on the sort of Z shaped building there, and you have a foot candle rating of 29.1 underneath it. MR. JARRETT-That’s an existing fixture that we’re not touching. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. JARRETT-We’re proposing to change only the ones in the front, right along Warren Street. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, yes, and I take it that the smaller numbers are what were the existing and then the bold numbers are the proposed? MR. JARRETT-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-And the landscaping was updated some years ago, in accordance with Town requirements, at the time Larry was in front of the Board, so we’re proposing no changes to landscaping. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? There are a number of comments from C.T. Male. I don’t believe that we received the response letter from the applicant, but has there been any further discussion or correspondence from C.T. Male since the letter of 10/12? MR. JARRETT-We responded on October 13 to C.T. Male. We’ve not heard back from th them. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-We can review those with you if you wish. MRS. STEFFAN-I think it would be helpful, just to know where we stand. MR. JARRETT-With C.T. Male? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. JARRETT-Okay. I’ll try and do it quickly. First comment is just that, it’s regarding disturbance and it’s less than an acre. So that’s acknowledged. The second comment was, they suggested a new site plan at a larger scale, which we’ve provided, with that letter, with C.T. Male, just for the records, really. Number Three, the building plans show overhead doors on all sides. Is vehicle access available from the north and east sides of the building, only the west side shows a concrete pad. Well, the west side is the primary access, and that’s where we have the loading dock. The north side would be small delivery vehicles. We do have enough room for those. The east side, there’s an overhead door for a hand cart and for a small forklift. There’s no truck traffic on the east side. Number Four, the comment is just cross referencing on detail notes. We’ve corrected that on the drawings that the Town has now. Number Five is additional grading and details should be provided for the trench drain from the concrete pad to the retention basin. Consideration should be given to increasing the diameter of this pipe and specifying that it have a smooth interior, due to very shallow pitch that will be provided. It is, there’s relatively little elevation difference between the docking area and the retention pond, the stormwater retention pond. It could be problematic during winter conditions, but I think the owner, we’ve worked out a design that we feel the owner is amenable to, and we think it will work fine, but there could be situations where, in the winter, he’ll have to manually pump out that dock area. There’s nothing really we can do about it because the elevation of the existing building dictates, as well as the existing drainage conditions on the site. 72 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. HUNSINGER-I’ve managed industrial buildings where that was the case. MR. JARRETT-There’s really not much else we can do. We’ve maximized that situation. Number Six, additional topographic information is needed, especially in the area of the proposed retention basin to establish existing drainage patterns in this area to determine where basin overflows will go. Well, we’re proposing a retention basin in the existing drainage path across the site. Right now it comes across the site and exits on the east property line without any kind of impediment at all. We’re proposing a small retention area there that will encourage infiltration during summer and some fall conditions. It will not work in the Spring because of shall groundwater. It’s just an existing condition we have no control over. The topo survey that we had when we started the project only dealt with the area where the new building is going to go, and we didn’t feel it was warranted to extend that topography. We’ve proposed a basin, based on our own observations, and we feel there’s enough information on the plans to build the basin as we designed. So we don’t feel that’s warranted. Soil percolation results is slow. It is possible that the pond may not dewater between storm events, resulting in water not being able to drain from the depressed dock area on the west side of the building. We’re acknowledging that. We have that condition, and we think that, at the worst case scenario, once in a while it may have to be pumped out manually. The next issue is regarding a symbol on the drawings, which we’ve corrected. Number Nine is what is the elevation of the raised fill leachate system. The detail shows a 40 by 80 fill area. Also will fill need to settle prior to use of the system. We’ve designed the system to have a two foot separation from the bottom of the infiltration laterals to existing grade because of groundwater in that area. The mound height will be dictated by the cover over the Eljen In-drain units. This will result in a fill depth of approximately four feet. Specifications on Drawing C-3 in our package call for fill to be compacted in six inch lifts. This obviates the need for settlement of the fill over a winter season. Number Ten, for water service, a new well is discussed in the notes. The location and detail of the well are not shown. Also, given the long history of the use of this property as an auto yard, water quality from the aquifer may be a concern for consumption. The office building is served by municipal supply. The warehouse and the new building will be served from an existing well in front of the warehouse on the Warren Street side. That’s the end of their comments. That’s quick. So if you wish me to go into any of these in detail, I will. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments? MR. SEGULJIC-The Staff notes and the curb cuts. How do you feel about consolidating the curb cuts? MR. BROWN-I feel that’s going to be very hard with our facility, just due to the fact of the traffic flow that we have, where basically the flow comes into to get out into the salvage yard area where we have cars dropped off crushed cars leaving there, so on and so forth, and the majority of our customers park in front of our showroom area, which was a pre-existing building, which doesn’t meet Town of Queensbury setback. So, I think it would be hurting our parking area a lot, for what we would have for customers let alone employees. I think we need that openness. MR. SANFORD-How many curb cuts have you got? MR. BROWN-It’s just open. There are some natural curb cuts there, from the rough road from the Town of Queensbury not fixing that yet. MR. FORD-I remember those. MR. JARRETT-And the traffic patterns internally will not really be modified based on our project. We’re just enclosing existing storage areas and we’re not modifying traffic patterns on site. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, as you know, though, any time you come before the Planning Board, we have the right to bring the whole site up to standards. MR. JARRETT-Absolutely. 73 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. HUNSINGER-We didn’t do a public hearing yet. There is a public hearing scheduled. Seeing how there’s no one here, I will open the public hearing and seeing as how there’s no one here to comment, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Is the Board ready to move to a SEQRA? MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 54-2005, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JERRY BROWN AUTO PARTS, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 18 day of October, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the feeling of the Board? MR. SANFORD-Let’s approve it. MRS. STEFFAN-With the C.T. Male signoff. 74 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) MR. SANFORD-Yes, just C.T. Male conditioning. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the draft resolution already has that in there. Anything else that we haven’t addressed that we want to see addressed? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, if no one’s got anything, I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 54-2005 JERRY BROWN AUTO PARTS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Applicant(s): Jerry Brown Auto Parts Site Plan SP 54-2005 Owner(s): Same SEQR Type Unlisted Agent(s): Jarrett-Martin Engineers Lot size 14 +/- acres Location 26 Lower Warren St. Zoning CI-1A Tax Id No. 303.19-1-49 Section 179-9-020 Cross Ref. SP 19-92, UV 40-92, SP 16-02 Warren County Planning 10/12/05 Public Hearing 10/18/05 Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 7500 sq. ft. storage building. Warehouse uses require review by the Planning Board. WHEREAS, the application was received on 9/15/05; and WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on October 18, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and WHEREAS, the use complies with all other requirements of this chapter, including the site plan review standards as set forth in Subsection F of this section, the dimensional, bulk, and density regulations of the zoning district in which it is proposed to be located (Table 4),EN the applicable requirements of Article 4, Schedule of Regulations, the applicable requirements of Article 5, Supplementary Regulations, the applicable standards and requirements of Article 6, Environmental and Performance Standards, the standards/guidelines in Article 7, Design Guidelines, and the requirements of Article 8, Landscaping and Buffering Standards. WHEREAS, the use is in conformance with Chapter 136, Sewers and Sewage Disposal, Chapter 147, Stormwater Management, and other applicable local laws. WHEREAS, the use is in harmony with the general purpose or intent of this chapter, specifically taking into account the location, character and size of the proposed use and the description and purpose of the district in which such use is proposed, the nature and intensity of the activities to be involved in or conducted in connection with the proposed use and the nature and rate of any increase in the burden on supporting public services and facilities which will follow the approval of the proposed use. WHEREAS, the establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed use will not create public hazards from traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the Town. In the review of such projects the Planning Board considered and will make a finding that traffic access and circulation, road intersections, road and driveway widths, and traffic controls are adequate. 75 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) Additionally, the Board finds that the off-street parking and loading facilities are appropriately located and arranged and sufficient to meet traffic anticipated to be generated by the new use. In the review of commercial and industrial development, where internal roadways are not provided, the Planning Board has determined it is feasible to link parking areas to allow for an internal flow of traffic. Where it is feasible, a twenty-foot connection way must be provided. If the adjacent property is undeveloped, then a connection way shall be identified on the site plan for future linkage. The Planning Board shall also consider interconnection of commercial use areas or other properties to allow for pedestrian access and circulation. WHEREAS, the project will not have an undue adverse impact upon the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resources of the Town or the Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project, taking into account the commercial, industrial, residential, recreational or other benefits that might be derived from the project. In making the determination hereunder, the Planning Board has considered those factors pertinent to the project contained in the development considerations set forth herein under this § 179-9- 080 of this chapter, and in so doing, the Planning Board has made a net overall evaluation of the project in relation to the development objectives and general guidelines set forth in this § 179-9-080 of this article. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby Approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 2. C.T. Male Associates engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator on approved plans. 3. Lighting poles and bulbs for inspection on the ground before placing upright 4. All site related improvements, such as but not limited to landscaping and lighting, shown on plans shall be complete within one year of obtaining a building permit, and no later than 6 months after receiving a building and codes certificate of occupancy. 5. Final, approved plans in compliance with this site plan must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you for your patience. MR. BROWN-Thank you. MR. JARRETT-I appreciate you hanging in there. MR. HUNSINGER-If there is no other business, motion to adjourn. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 76 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/05) Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 77