The URL can be used to link to this page

2005-10-25 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2005 INDEX Subdivision No. 13-2005 Al & Eleanor Oudekerk 1. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 289.12-1-9.1 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 56-2005 David Lanning 14. Tax Map No. 302.8-2-66.2 Site Plan No. 59-2005 Nicholas Daigle (Cont’d Pg. 53) 24. Tax Map No. 303.20-2-34, 33 Subdivision No. 15-2005 Curtis Harrington 24. Tax Map No. 316.9-1-9 Site Plan No. 53-2005 Jason Maynard 29. Tax Map No. 226.19-1-82 Site Plan No. 60-2005 GGV, Inc. d/b/a The Cherry Tomato 36. Tax Map No. 279-1-62 Subdivision No. 16-2005 Schermerhorn Properties 44. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 289.20-1-7 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 10/25/05) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2005 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GEORGE GOETZ THOMAS SEGULJIC RICHARD SANFORD ANTHONY METIVIER THOMAS FORD, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT GRETCHEN STEFFAN LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-MIKE HILL STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2005 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED AL & ELEANOR OUDEKERK AGENT(S): PATRICK BURKE OWNER(S): SAME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION 936 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 5 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF A TOTAL 5.35 ACRE PARCEL, RESULTING IN ONE 1.3 ACRE LOT AND ONE 4 ACRE LOTS. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. AV 77-05, SP 30-90, SUB 2-03, SUB 13-05 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 5.35 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.12-1-9.1 SECTION A-183 JON LAPPER & PATRICK BURKE, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Staff notes, Susan, if you could summarize, please. MRS. BARDEN-The applicant proposes a five lot residential subdivision of an approximately 5.35 acre parcel, creating lots between 1-acre and 1.30-acres. The subject property is located between Bay Road and Berry Drive, and is zoned Suburban Residential One Acre. This project is a SEQR unlisted action and the applicant has submitted a Full Environmental Assessment Form. The variance application was approved on 10/19/05. The request sought was for relief from the minimum lot width requirements for one lot, Lot Three. This proposal is for a 5-lot subdivision, creating lots of approximately one acre, respectively, for all five lots, and resulting in four new house sites. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant received a variance on 10/19/05 for lot 3, from the double lot width requirement for a residential lot abutting an arterial road. At sketch plan review on 7/27/05, the Board, in their advisory recommendation, suggested that the applicant either reconfigure lots 1 and 2, with a shared driveway accessing lots 1, 2 and 3; or consider a 4-lot subdivision. The Board also requested a density calculation that would subtract the slopes over 25% from the total acreage. As well as, “A survey of the trees on lot 2, and those trees maintained as much as possible” (see minutes from sketch, 7/27/05). Clearing limits and individual, substantial trees (old maples) to remain be identified on the site plan. Test pit and percolation test information has been supplied, but should either be included on the map or filed with any subdivision plat. That’s all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. The floor is yours. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) MR. LAPPER-For the record, I’m attorney Jon Lapper with Patrick Burke, the applicant. I’m here tonight filling in for Matt Steves who’s unfortunately in Horicon, and I have an agency form that Patrick signed that designates me for tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-As Susan just mentioned, this has been here for Sketch Plan, and then to the Zoning Board for an Area Variance which was granted. We’ve reviewed the comments in the Staff notes and all of the conditions that are suggested by Staff are acceptable to the applicant. The test pit information that was submitted separately can be put on the final plat. The large maple trees in front of Lot Two are something that Patrick wants to save as well. So he will move the house farther back on that lot, so that he can do that to keep those trees, and the final map can show that as well, that those trees will be saved. MR. SEGULJIC-Could you just clarify, you said about the trees that were saved. Where is that exactly? MR. LAPPER-On Lot Two, which is the one. MR. FORD-The southwest corner. MR. LAPPER-Yes, so it’s right there. Which is on the, that’s the southernmost lot on the Bay Road frontage, where it says proposed house, it’s within that area where we show the trees along Bay. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So the house would be moved further? MR. LAPPER-The house could be moved back. You can see the building envelope. There’s a lot of room to move the house back. MR. SEGULJIC-Further to the east? MR. LAPPER-Further to the east, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. FORD-And you said it’s on a plan? MR. LAPPER-We can add that to the plan. We can have Matt add that to the plan, to show that those trees will be saved, and that the house will be moved back. MR. FORD-We don’t have a plan that incorporates that move already? MR. LAPPER-Well, that was just something that we just saw today from the Staff notes, that was suggested, and we’re agreeing. MR. SEGULJIC-Any test pit information? MR. LAPPER-That was submitted. It just was submitted on a separate piece of paper. MR. SEGULJIC-Was that in our package, because I missed it. MRS. BARDEN-It is. It’s not on the map. MR. SANFORD-Yes, I saw perc tests. MRS. BARDEN-Do you have it in your preliminary packet? MR. SANFORD-It’s not in Staff notes. It’s in the other one. MRS. BARDEN-It’s in the preliminary. MR. SEGULJIC-Was it in the preliminary? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) MR. SANFORD-Yes. MRS. BARDEN-Preliminary Stage. No, it’s in the Final Stage. I’m sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, while you’re looking for your information there. I guess my inclination would be to go through the subdivision review criteria, starting with design standards, conformance with Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Open Space Plan, density calculations clustering criteria, phasing schedule, request for waivers. Any questions, comments on that? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, on site design, if I’m correct, we have requested that lots one, two and three have a shared driveway or be reduced to four. MR. LAPPER-Lots one and two have a shared driveway. MR. SEGULJIC-But during the meeting we had requested that one, two and three have a shared driveway, or be reduced to four lots, if I’m correct. Is there a reason why we didn’t do that? MR. LAPPER-The variance was granted so that there would be two curb cuts on Bay, which is what’s there now, two curb cuts. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, if I recall correctly, we were concerned about creating a flag lot and creating another curb cut, whereas if I recall discussions where you’d come in on the northern side of lot two to get access to lots one, two and three, this existing driveway would be taken out, and access to lots four and five are coming off of Berry Drive. MR. LAPPER-According to Patrick, he would have needed an additional variance because then there would have been another lot that didn’t use its frontage on Bay, because the Ordinance requires that you use, even though we all know that better planning is for fewer driveways. So he got the minimum variance that he needed, which was to eliminate one curb cut instead of two. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments on design standards? Development criteria, site conditions, utilities, street design and layout, traffic, pedestrian access and circulation, sight distances, emergency access and services? Okay. Questions, comments on stormwater, sewage design? I had a question on the proposed septic location for lot four. It looked like you’re going to be removing trees to include the, to locate the septic where you’re showing on the map. MR. BURKE-We’re not going to need to clear any trees there. MR. LAPPER-Well, is that a tree, or is that just the over foliage? MR. HUNSINGER-I saw those sort of squiggly lines. Usually they represent some sort of, you know, wooded area. MR. BURKE-Where the test pit was taken, physically, there’s no trees there. I didn’t have to dig under any trees for that test pit area. Probably a little bit more to the left than what it showed there. MR. HUNSINGER-I assume that that’s a tree, just to the left, just to the south of the proposed septic? MR. BURKE-Correct. MR. LAPPER-But even if you look at where the trees are massed, even if it does require thinning it, it’s the smallest area. So it’s probably the best choice over there. MR. HUNSINGER-I was just wondering if you could just slide it a little bit to the north, and avoid taking any trees at all. MR. LAPPER-Well, part of it’s probably the distance to all the wells. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) MR. FORD-Could you address the issue of stormwater roof runoff shall be down spouted to a vegetative area or a sufficient gravel pit? MR. BURKE-Whatever is exactly required by the Town to, you know, as far as building inspection requirement to catch whatever roof runoff, because that’s a very sandy and very percable ground out there. So we were going to run it to just keep it on our site without running off on anybody else’s site. Which, kind of right now there is really no place for it to runoff to anyway. MR. LAPPER-But you would agree, as a condition, to handle the roof drainage that way? MR. BURKE-Yes, it would have to be, with the kind of homes we’re going to put in there, no one’s going to want a big puddle in their front porch or something. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions on stormwater, sewage design? Buffering landscape design, clearing plan, no cut areas, buffering, screening, planting schedule? When we discussed this at Sketch Plan, we talked about maintaining as much as possible the mature trees. Some of them are labeled on the map on your plot, but we also didn’t define that at all. I assume that when you said earlier that, you know, you would go along with Staff comments, that it included that comment as well. MR. LAPPER-It’s primarily that lot two, where the big trees are, and certainly that’s agreeable as a condition, to move the house back and avoid that and show those trees by the road to be maintained. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions, comments from the rest of the Board on buffering, landscape design? MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, from my perspective overall, I’d like to see more buffering along Bay Road, for example to the south of the existing trees on lot two, which would be lot one, like in that area, just to plant some trees in there. Is that possible? MR. LAPPER-To add some trees, on which lot, I’m sorry. MR. SEGULJIC-It would actually be on lot one, to the south of lot two. Up along Bay Road. MR. LAPPER-You mean on that piece on the other side of the driveway? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Any problem with that? MR. BURKE-I’ve got a bunch of homegrown trees that are right in the middle there to the south side of the existing house that are going to be re-planted. They’re more of a homegrown for Christmas trees and different vegetative trees that I plan on using some of them to doctor up, for lack of a better word, the prettiness of the land. MR. LAPPER-So those are evergreens? MR. BURKE-They’re evergreens yes, blue spruces, evergreens. MR. LAPPER-Would that be acceptable if those got relocated to the Bay Road frontage? MR. BURKE-Yes. MR. FORD-And the purpose is for beautification and not for cutting. Correct? MR. BURKE-Of course, yes, not for cutting. MR. FORD-I don’t know. You talked about Christmas trees. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) MR. BURKE-Yes, they were grown there by my wife’s uncle. So he’s a farmer, and he grew a lot of trees there, and he just grew too many and planted too many. He got a bunch of them from a nursery when he removed the barn out back for part of the other old subdivision, and that was part of the deal, that they gave him a bunch of trees. So he just planted them right there to use accordingly. MR. SEGULJIC-Then also along the western edge of lot four, along Bay Road. Could we get some buffer along there, some trees? MR. BURKE-On the Berry Drive side? MR. SEGULJIC-No, on the Bay Road side. MR. BURKE-On the Bay Road side? We can put trees there. MR. SEGULJIC-Because right now, here’s where I’m coming from. Right now it’s very nice driving down Bay Road. MR. BURKE-Sure. MR. SEGULJIC-And all of a sudden I’m going to be driving down Bay Road and have all these houses and I’m just trying to minimize the impact, shall we say, visual impact. MR. BURKE-I don’t have a problem doing that kind of stuff. I’d be worried about the drop off, planting on the drop off versus the salt and what not from the road to get at them. I mean, I could put them there. I can’t guarantee that they’ll be. MR. LAPPER-He’ll probably put them a little farther from the road, but in that area, between the house and the road. MR. BURKE-Yes. I can plant. MR. HUNSINGER-And then the other area is the eastern edge. If you recall when we went out on site visits that Saturday, it’s just all wide open. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and I was just wondering, there’s no requirement for buffering between residential subdivisions. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I realize that. MR. SEGULJIC-I was asking a question. There is not? MR. HUNSINGER-There isn’t. There’s no requirement. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-But, you know, it is an aesthetic issue. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, it’s pretty wide open from the tree line of lot two and the few scattered trees on the existing house site, you know, to that whole rear, it’s all pretty open. MR. LAPPER-What would you like to see, what kind of trees? MR. HUNSINGER-No specific species or anything, just something to cut down the visual. MR. LAPPER-Put a number on it? MR. BURKE-There’s probably seven or eight trees that I could use out of that grouping of trees in the middle there. MR. HUNSINGER-How big are they? MR. BURKE-Some of them are quite tall, 20 feet. Probably 12 to 20 feet. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) MR. FORD-What kind of trees are they? MR. BURKE-Evergreen pines. MR. SEGULJIC-They’re doing well there. They should do fine. MR. BURKE-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Pines like sandy soil. MR. HUNSINGER-Where do we want him to put them? MR. LAPPER-Well, Tom wanted some in front, on Bay, on the southern edge. MR. FORD-We’re talking about the same six or eight trees? MR. BURKE-It depends on how many you guys want. I didn’t count them. I didn’t think it would be part of the deal, but I can use what I’ve got, because they’re just kind of there, you know. MR. SEGULJIC-Every 20 feet, something like that. MR. BURKE-There’s about eight of them up in that one lot there. MR. LAPPER-There’s about 600 feet. MR. BURKE-That’s actually a knoll back there anyway, that’s separated by the contour. It’s kind of a drop off back there, only to separate subdivision from subdivision, plus I’d really like not to put things back there for viewing purposes. There’s a nice view of the mountains back that way. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I agree. MR. METIVIER-I hate to even bring it up, and I probably shouldn’t because I’m going to get shot, but what’s to say that he’s going to move all these trees, and the people that move into these houses aren’t going to just go and cut them down? I mean, honestly, there’s no way to control this, monitor it or anything. I mean, he’s going to be moving trees that there’s no guarantee first they’re going to take because they’re probably Blue Spruce which doesn’t do well once you transplant them, and, secondly, these homeowners are going to come in, and if they don’t like that tree, they’re going to chop it down anyway. I guess that’s my concern. We’re talking about the number of trees. There’s no guarantee in six months from now. I mean, they’re going to come in, he’s going to build them a house, hopefully landscape it and could very well, people don’t like pines. They’re going to chop them right down and put in maples and whatever. I just don’t see, I understand where we’re going with this. It’s just, I don’t see it working. I honestly don’t. MR. SEGULJIC-I think, well, I’m definitely for maintaining some type of buffer along Bay Road. MR. METIVIER-I understand that, but there’s nothing there now. MR. SEGULJIC-But not on the back, I can understand. MR. METIVIER-It’s one thing if there was a buffer there, but there’s not. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, the difference is it’s a nice field with a nice view, and all of a sudden when you’re driving by, you’re looking at someone’s house, and I think that the person who lives there is going to want to see something there. MR. METIVIER-And I’m sure that a homeowner that buys any one of those lots on Bay Road is going to want to do their own landscaping. I just, again, go back to the point that we can spend hours trying to develop some landscaping plan and there’s no guarantee it’s going to be there a year from now. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) MR. SEGULJIC-Well, let’s give it a shot. I mean, I think we should have something along Bay Road. MR. METIVIER-Well, usually we try to maintain buffers that are existing, unless it’s a situation where we’re trying to beautify, you know, a commercial establishment type thing, but in this case, we just have no control over it. I mean, do we? I mean, I understand what you’re doing. I applaud it, but it just. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, Susan, do we have control over that at all? MRS. BARDEN-Well, you have control over the site plan that you approve, and if you approve a certain number of trees on the property, it would be, the site would be inspected. I don’t know what the difference between time of when this application is approved and when homes will be built, and at that time, what would happen after that. I mean, the homes don’t have to come back to you for review. So, the subdivision, as you approve it, will be enforceable. The site will be inspected, and expected to be developed per the plans, and that includes clearing. So you could do, certainly, Mr. Burke would be responsible for any clearing or any buffering that you require to maintain. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-The thought that came to mind, Tom, I think the biggest concern that I’m hearing from you is the Bay Road corridor. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-And we do have street tree requirements for the Bay Road corridor, although it only really applies to Professional Office zoning, but it just says that landscape shrubs will be provided along both sides of the street. A combination of trees should be used and each variety should be (lost words) conditions. I think what we’ve approved in the past were maples. So maybe if we had a couple of maple trees along Bay. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, something like that. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you think that would be appropriate, Tony? MR. METIVIER-I missed part of that. I apologize. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have the landscape requirements along Bay Road in the Professional Office corridor. MR. METIVIER-That’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-A few maple trees. MR. METIVIER-That would be great. I mean, I just have no objection in the world to trees. That’s not my point. I love trees. I grow trees. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I know what you’re saying. MR. METIVIER-But Blue Spruce, and they don’t work, so, yes, that’s fine with me. MR. FORD-You’ve got, at the northwest corner, a planter. Correct? MR. LAPPER-It’s part of the entrance to Berry Drive. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s already there. MR. FORD-That’s there. Would there be any advantage to putting something similar to that at the southwest corner, in other words, on that southwest corner of Lot Two? MR. BURKE-Not that I can see. I mean, it’s not an advertisement or something for somebody’s home or what not. I don’t know what that would really do. I could plant some flowers out there or something, a garden type thing or what not, but I think that’s just more of a landmark for the Bayberry Subdivision. Because it’s really not on a commercial 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) driveway or something like that. I mean, we’re going to have some trees starting there anyway. According to what he said a little bit ago about a bit of a buffer. I could keep the first one close to the corner, keep closer to the road. MR. LAPPER-What’s interesting is that what the map shows is that that’s actually an encroachment on this lot, that was done by the developer of that subdivision. MRS. BARDEN-Pat, are you keeping one of these lots? MR. BURKE-Living in the middle one. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments on buffering, landscape design? Questions, comments on neighborhood character, including neighborhood impacts, homeowners associations, public services, recreation facilities, health, safety and welfare of the community? Questions, comments on environmental concerns, including wetlands, noise, air quality, aesthetics, historical factors or wildlife? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I think historically, I notice there’s the rock wall on lot three. Are we concerned with that at all, preserving that? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think he’s planning to do anything to it, to the rock wall? MR. BURKE-No. MR. FORD-It’s part of your plan, is it not, maintenance of that? MR. BURKE-Well, I guess it’s been there for as long as the house has been there, or somewhere there. I’m not planning on ripping it down or bulldozing it over to put a pool in or something, but I don’t know. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions, comments about involved agencies? County, DEC, APA, Army Corps or other? Any other questions, comments, any other criteria not reviewed? No? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here that wanted to make comments on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARY HALL MS. HALL-My name is Mary Hall. I live on Berry Drive, which is right down past where Pat’s considering building. As far as, and I’m hoping I’m keeping track and remembering these things, the planter that’s going down into our development, and you had suggested maybe putting one of those on lot two. That’s the last thing I’d want to do, because nobody’s responsible for maintaining those planters, and the two that we have up there now are already falling apart and weeds are growing up out of them. So I really wouldn’t recommend putting another one up there. That’s one less thing to be taken care of, and as far as aesthetically, there already is a row of maples that grow down. You went to the site, right? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MS. HALL-On both sides, and I don’t know if he had intended on taking any of them out. I didn’t notice that in the plans. To me, personally, being in the neighborhood, aesthetically, the only thing that I’m concerned about is the location, the way he’s got the houses situated on the lot. Whereas all the other houses on our entire street are facing the road, all of these seem to be like angled. So as you pull down the road, you’d kind of be looking directly at the house. Do you understand what I’m saying? So aesthetically, and because those trees, the maples will mature, and that’ll take care of, aesthetically, from Bay Road. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MS. HALL-And I don’t know why the houses are situated that way. I’m sure it has something to do with design and building, but. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I think it has to do with the topography of the site. They’re designed to go with the slope. Yes. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) MS. HALL-Right. Yes, because it is a deep grade, and I understand that, but those were my two comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MS. HALL-You’re welcome. MR. HUNSINGER-Does anyone else have comments about this application? Okay. Why don’t you come back. MR. FORD-Just for the record, I wasn’t recommending a planter. I just raised it as a topic of discussion. MR. METIVIER-I actually was going to bring up the question. Your house configurations are very strange, as far as the location. I mean, they really are. MR. LAPPER-Well, it’s oriented towards Bay Road. So when the last speaker was talking about lot four, and the Chairman’s right. If you look at the topography, you don’t want it to go across the hill. So lot four you certainly would have it facing Bay Road, and if you have a corner lot, it’s not unusual that it would face the primary road, rather than the secondary road, and on lot five, I look at that as just that’s the flat area on the site, but again, whoever comes and buys the lot, they could decide to build, you know, a big colonial that faces Berry. This is just a proposed location. You don’t know, you know, what’s going to be there, the size or anything else. MR. METIVIER-Right. I just would hope that the builder would, you know, take into consideration. MR. LAPPER-Yes, that doesn’t mean anything to Patrick, in terms of that. MR. BURKE-I’ll talk to my surveyor. MR. METIVIER-And it usually doesn’t, but I just hope that you would be conscious of neighbors that are already there, and that you wouldn’t throw a house in some bizarre location and upset their views, and, you know, I wouldn’t want to have a house next to me that’s looking sideways. If my house is facing Berry Drive, I don’t want a house that’s, you know, stuck in somebody’s back yard just in a weird configuration. I hope that you would at least take their thoughts into consideration before you just slap a house up there. Does that make sense, or am I missing the point? MR. BURKE-No, that makes perfect sense. I really didn’t think that these houses would stay the way that they look on the maps. They’re just kind of put on there by the surveyor following the contours. There’s nothing to say that they can’t be square, which to me as a builder, I would think they would be square anyway with a road. So, I’ve got to live here, too, so I wouldn’t want to look at something like that myself either. So that is just a given by me, but the map does kind of state differently, but I’m sure that it won’t be like that. MR. FORD-Patrick, would you address the abandon driveway, please. To what extent is it going to be abandoned or addressed or to abandon something simply means just to leave it. Is that your intent? MR. BURKE-Yes. It’s a gravel down slope, I guess, or sort of an acting driveway right now that’s been in use. I don’t know how long it’s been there. MR. LAPPER-What would you like to see, gravel (lost word)? MR. FORD-I’d like to see it finished in some way so that it doesn’t simply look like an abandoned gravel road. MR. BURKE-Yes, we can do something with it. MR. FORD-It certainly could encourage use, and we don’t want that, do we? MR. BURKE-No. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? Do people feel comfortable in moving forward? Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-They did submit a Long Form SEQRA. MR. HILL-Mr. Chairman, if I may, the applicant has submitted a SEQRA Long Form here, a Full EAF. Is that correct? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MR. HILL-Okay. Is there a particular reason why the Board wanted a Long Form in this case? Was there a determination that additional data was needed? MR. LAPPER-All subdivisions in Queensbury have to have Long Forms. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I was going to say, we typically do the Long Form for a subdivision. MR. HILL-Okay. All right. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 13-2005, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: AL & ELEANOR OUDEKERK , 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 25 day of October, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Goetz 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a motion? MR. SEGULJIC-Just give me a minute here to get this together. MR. LAPPER-It’s Preliminary and Final. So you’ll put the conditions on the Final, I assume. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, as far as conditions, just to get our act together. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, Preliminary doesn’t require conditions. If you want to do Preliminary first. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2005 AL & ELEANOR OUDEKERK, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Applicant(s): Al & Eleanor Oudekerk Subdivision [P/F] SUB 13-2005 Owner(s): Same SEQR Type Unlisted Agent(s): Patrick Burke Lot size 5.35 acres Location 936 Bay Road Zoning SR-1A Tax Id No. 289.12-1-9.1 Section A-183 Cross Ref. AV 77-05, SP 30-90, SUB 2-Warren County Planning N//A 03, SUB 13-05 Public Hearing 10/25/05 Project Description: Applicant proposes a 5 lot residential subdivision of a total 5.35 acre parcel, resulting in one 1.3 acre lot and 4 one acre lots. Subdivision of land requires review by the Planning Board. WHEREAS, the application was received; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and 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 10/25/05; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, the character and extent of any required improvement for which waivers may have been requested and which, in its opinion, may be waived without jeopardy to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare; and 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) WHEREAS, approval of this preliminary plat shall not constitute approval of the subdivision plat, but rather, it shall be deemed an expression of approval of the design submitted on the preliminary plat and as a guide to the preparation of the subdivision plat. WHEREAS, the developer shall sign and date a copy of the Planning Board's findings sheet, and such approval shall be deemed to have occurred upon the return of such signed findings sheet to the Planning Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Preliminary Stage is hereby approved as per resolution prepared by staff. Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Goetz ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Motion for Final. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. We had the roof drainage issue that Tom brought up. Then the landscaping. What I would propose to say is that we have Norway Maples every 40 feet along Bay Road within lot four, and that the existing. MR. HUNSINGER-Can I back up to the stormwater? Are you looking for that citation to be on the plot? Is that what you’re looking for? Because it’s already in the application package. MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s part of the? MR. HUNSINGER-So it is part of the application. Would it be beneficial to have it on the plot? MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we’ll just say to have that September 15 letter from Kenneth th M. Koza, Consulting Engineer, that that be included on the final plot. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-We had also talked about the perc test data on the final plot. MR. SEGULJIC-Perc test data, and then the Norway Maples every 40 feet along Bay Road on lot four. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. How many feet? MR. SEGULJIC-Every 40 feet? MRS. BARDEN-On only lot four? MR. HUNSINGER-I think usually it’s more spread out than that, isn’t it? MR. SEGULJIC-I didn’t see anything for Bay Road. The one I saw was 35 feet along Route 9, and 40 feet is going to be like four trees. MR. LAPPER-There’s already some trees along Bay Road on Lot Four. So that sounds okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) MR. SEGULJIC-And then on Lot Three, Lot Three’s okay. MR. LAPPER-And Lot Two has the big maples. MR. SEGULJIC-Lot Two, how far back are you willing to keep that existing buffer, that existing trees on Lot Two? MR. BURKE-I don’t plan on taking any trees down. That’s been in the family for years, and I’d be sorry to take some of those down at all. MR. LAPPER-What if he’d commit to moving that house back a certain number of feet from what’s shown? MR. BURKE-I’m going to move it back. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, if I look at it, you’re going to have to take some trees down on Lot Two. MR. LAPPER-In the middle. These trees will have to come down. MR. BURKE-I’m going to try not to take any of those trees down, if I can help it. MR. HUNSINGER-What if we just say that they don’t remove any trees within the setback? MR. LAPPER-You want more than that. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m just trying to think of something easy. Fifty feet? MR. SEGULJIC-What is the setback? MR. HUNSINGER-It’s shown on the map. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I realize, but what is it approximately, how many feet is it? MR. HUNSINGER-It looks like 50 on the map. MR. LAPPER-An inch equals thirty. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s 30. Okay. Yes, that’s really not enough. MR. BURKE-I would like to stick that house back in the corner and open space. MR. LAPPER-This here is 150 feet. So what if you said 100 feet, which would be to like here, and then you wouldn’t have to cut down any trees? MR. BURKE-Yes, that’s fine. MR. LAPPER-All right. So we can offer 100 feet, that the trees would not be removed 100 feet back from Bay Road on that lot. MR. FORD-A buffer of one hundred feet from Bay Road. Good. MR. BURKE-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. LAPPER-On Lot Two. MRS. BARDEN-What about the driveway? MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, it’s labeled as driveway to be abandoned. I don’t know if we really need to do more than that, do we? MR. FORD-What would you recommend with that, other than just leaving it? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) MR. BURKE-I can put a fence across it. MR. METIVIER-Why don’t you just put some topsoil on it? You only need a quarter inch of topsoil to grow grass over it. MR. FORD-Can you topsoil and seed it? MR. BURKE-Yes, I can topsoil that, and throw some seed down. MR. FORD-That’s basically what I after. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That sounds like a pretty simple solution. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2005 AL & ELEANOR OUDEKERK, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Applicant(s): Al & Eleanor Oudekerk Subdivision [P/F] SUB 13-2005 Owner(s): Same SEQR Type Unlisted Agent(s): Patrick Burke Lot size 5.35 acres Location 936 Bay Road Zoning SR-1A Tax Id No. 289.12-1-9.1 Section A-183 Cross Ref. AV 77-05, SP 30-90, SUB 2-Warren County Planning N//A 03, SUB 13-05 Public Hearing 10/25/05 Project Description: Applicant proposes a 5 lot residential subdivision of a total 5.35 acre parcel, resulting in one 1.3 acre lot and 4 one acre lots. Subdivision of land requires review by the Planning Board. WHEREAS, the application was received; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and 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 10/25/05; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 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 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) 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 as per 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. The letter dated September 15 from Kenneth M. Koza, the final plat shall include th perc test information; 2. Norway Maples shall be planted every 40 feet along Bay Road, within Lot No. 4, and the 100 foot buffer of the existing trees be maintained on Lot 2 3. In the area of the notation driveway to be abandoned be topsoiled and seeded 4. Waiver requests granted. 5. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 6. Recreation fees in the amount of $ 500.00 per lot are applicable to this subdivision modification. 7 C.T. Male Associates engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman signature on mylar. 8. No-Cut Buffer areas shall be field located by surveyor and flagged in a color that is different from boundary markers. 9. 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. 10. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. 11. 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 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. Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Goetz ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you. MR. BURKE-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 56-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED DAVID LANNING OWNER(S): DARREN & NANCY MANZARI ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 306 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTLIZE A 100 SQ. FT. AREA WITHIN THE EXISTING QUAKER AUTO SALES BUILDING, AND ASSOCIATED PARKING/DISPLAY AREA FOR AUTOMOBILES ON SITE. AUTO SALES & SERVICE USES REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/12/05 LOT SIZE 1 +/- ACRE TAX MAP NO. 302.8-2-66.2 SECTION 179-4-020 DAVID LANNING, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff notes, please. MRS. BARDEN-Sure. The applicant seeks site plan review to utilize 100 sq. ft. of interior office space and corresponding parking/display area for auto sales. The subject property is the Quaker Auto Sales at 306 Quaker Road, zoned Highway Commercial Intensive. This is a SEQRA Unlisted action. The applicant has submitted a Short Form. The applicant proposes to convert 100 sq. ft. of existing interior space to office space and utilize existing site parking as display area for the sale of autos. The site plan shows two areas of parking, is this customer parking or display area for autos? It is stated in the project description that the proposed will also display 10-15 autos for sale. The area currently used for display of cars is in the County ROW. Are the parking spaces delineated? Do they meet the dimensional requirements, is the drive aisle at least 24-feet? The site plan approval of SP 13-99, included the use for Northway Car Care, an addition in the front, and a landscaping plan, which included removing a considerable amount of pavement in the front and rear of the site. This would have made the site conforming with respect to the permeable requirements of the site, 30%. This approval was never acted upon. This site is totally paved (98% of site) with a small strip of landscaping along the perimeter of the adjoining property line with Hewitt’s Garden Center as shown on the submitted site plan, “new green space”. The applicant is proposing a new slate entrance and a couple of planters at the entrance. Consideration should be given to conditioning any approval on the property owner removing at least the asphalt in the rear as previously approved. I guess that is it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. The floor is yours. MR. LANNING-Good evening. Thank you all for being here. A very small business on Quaker Road where there’s already a lot of automobile dealerships. I’m just going to be adding to the mix there, doing some pre-owned vehicles. Right now I have about 10 to 12 pieces on site, and I will definitely consider any of your requirements for where they should be displayed. The office that I’m currently using is a 10 by 10 office that’s existing at that facility. I do not supply any service work, whether it be automobile mechanical or detailing or things of that nature. I use the office solely. I am the sole proprietor and employee of Quaker Road Auto and Truck Sales. A lot of my business is conducted on-line. I wholesale cars throughout the East Coast, and that’s primarily what I do, but I do know, by renting that space, I should take the opportunity for retail sales. So that’s why I choose to put out about 10 to 15 cars, and that’s what I’d like to do, and any ideas you have for parking, let me know. Included in my packet, you’ll see the improvements I did to somewhat of a dreary property. I did those out of pocket. General maintenance. I supplied the monies and the ideas to do those. So I am just a tenant there. Anything concerning the landlord I think should be directed towards him, and I could relay that. He’s now an absentee landlord, moved to the State of Florida with his wife for health reasons. So although he was approved for some remodeling and additions, a few years ago, he’s no longer active at that facility. So I’m asking the Board for permission to conduct business at that location, knowing that I’ll, you know, preserve the integrity of that area. I’ve already gone to great lengths to increase the eye appeal of the building and the facility, and as I grow with it, I’ll always keep those 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) things in mind for the Town of Queensbury. I’m a resident here as well, and curb appeal in automobile sales is probably your largest asset to attract your potential customers into your facility. So, any recommendations and requirements I’m more than happy to comply with. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’m not sure you stated your name for the record. MR. LANNING-David Lanning. That’s me. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. I had a question before we really get into this, for Staff. It said that there was a previously approved site plan, 13-99, that was not acted upon. Does that mean that the previous owner didn’t do the project, or did they just not do the improvements, the landscaping improvements? MRS. BARDEN-They didn’t do anything, as far as the site plan period. There was a subdivision. This was all one parcel with Hewitts. When Northway Car Care came in, they had a site plan approval to utilize a building that was there, take out quite a bit of asphalt in the back, and the one strip between Hewitts and this site I think was done by Hewitts. So that is one improvement since that ’99 approval. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I’m just trying to understand. I mean, if, I mean, certainly not this applicant, but the owner of the property, I mean, are we looking at an enforcement action, or is it a project that he just never completed? MRS. BARDEN-No, it’s not a project that he just didn’t complete. It’s a project that he didn’t get any permits to do, didn’t do anything. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. BARDEN-So he’s not in violation at all. MR. HUNSINGER-He’s not in violation. That’s what I was looking to find out. Okay. MRS. BARDEN-No. MR. FORD-Not even on the permeability issue? MR. SANFORD-No. He just didn’t act on his prior approval. MRS. BARDEN-Right. MR. SANFORD-He got approved a while back and didn’t do anything, and time expired. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. Questions of the Board? MR. SANFORD-Well, how agreeable are you to the Staff recommendation regarding removal of some of the asphalt that was originally part of the site plan that was never acted upon. In other words, you’re not calling for removal of that, I don’t believe, in your application. Staff thinks it’s a good idea. We probably do as well. Are you willing to work with us to remove some of that pavement? MR. LANNING-I would definitely consult with my landlord and the property owner, and let him know your views on that, and I’m going to be a long term tenant there. So I’ll work with him, in a sign of good faith, as when I come before you in the future, we can continue to work together. MR. SANFORD-Yes. I’m just wondering about the sequencing of this application process. I think that’s something that, if we want to get nailed down, we’re probably going to have to be looking at a tabling, then. Right, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, that’s certainly up to the Board. I guess I wasn’t necessarily led in that direction, other than, you know, making it a condition of approval. MR. SANFORD-Yes, but what he’s saying is, without having the benefit of having the conversations with the owner, he just can’t comment on whether or not it’s acceptable or not, 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) and so if we condition it, I guess we could condition it, and if it’s not acceptable, he could always come back. MR. HUNSINGER-And we’ve done that in the past. MR. SANFORD-Okay. All right. Okay. That’s all I had. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, the parking. You have 21 parking spaces noted on the drawing. What are those for, are those for parking? MR. LANNING-Northway Car Care, which is the existing business, and the service facility, they continue to operate out of there, and as I went in this Spring for beautification, I had put down a seal coat, and we did some lining for eye appeal, and they used some of that up front parking for their customers, but now their customers are delegated to the side of the building, where you see those parking lots running up the side. So really my customers park in that immediate front area, as they come in to talk with me and negotiate and purchase vehicles. MR. SEGULJIC-So, Northway Car Care is operating out of here as well as you? MR. LANNING-Yes, correct. MR. SANFORD-They also have an operation up on Glen Street, right, Route 9? MR. LANNING-No. Actually, they had been on Miller Hill in the past, but they closed that facility and went here permanent a number of years ago, I think about four, five years ago. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So this is their sole location? MR. LANNING-Their sole location. MR. SANFORD-And you have sort of a sublet inside that building? MR. LANNING-Yes. I have a 10 by 10 existing office. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. LANNING-With rights to the facilities. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So where are we going to display these 10 to 15 cars? They’re not shown on here, then, the display area. MR. LANNING-Currently, they’re located in the Warren County right of way, up front there, obviously, for frontage and for folks to see them easier, but I have the rights to that whole front parking area, and when I talked to the Code Enforcement Officer, he knew the right of way was the logical place to put them, but he just wanted to make sure I didn’t overload that area, so it wasn’t hard for customers and clients to get in and throughout, but he and I both said they were going to be parked pretty much as close to the frontage as we could get, and I did not line that front area. MR. HUNSINGER-How many cars do you think you would typically have? MR. LANNING-Twelve. MR. HUNSINGER-Twelve. MR. LANNING-Right now I’ve had twelve from the beginning and currently have twelve, and the vehicles I bring in for automobile wholesale and things they go right out towards the back. They’re parked out of the sight of the customer. MR. SEGULJIC-Where is the access to the site? MR. LANNING-The front door at the front entranceway. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) MR. SEGULJIC-No, I mean from Quaker. MR. LANNING-From Quaker? It’s 306 Quaker Road. It’s located, it’s got a double curb cut with a median that’s pretty much shared by my neighbor Mac The Knife, and Northway Car Care. MR. HUNSINGER-There is a drawing that kind of shows it, the smaller one. MR. SEGULJIC-This one here. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Where does it show it? MR. HUNSINGER-You see the grass islands? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, that’s confusing me. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, the rest is all paved. MR. SEGULJIC-So you go in more like that. Okay. MR. LANNING-That grass that’s illustrated there, that’s mostly a gully with a pretty significant drop for drainage right there. MR. GOETZ-I noticed that your 12 cars took up pretty much all that Warren County land, and it makes me wonder, now you’re going to move these off of that and onto the front of the building? Is that what you’re planning on doing? MR. LANNING-I would enjoy where they’re located on the right of way there. There’s been cars displayed there from when that used to be Sherm’s place years ago, Queensbury Motors. So I would, of course, like that display area, but I’m not in charge of that display area. I have a lot of space there, and as much as I’d like to keep them there, it’s your recommendation that I have to deal with. MR. GOETZ-Well, just because of all those, I actually missed the turn, and I ended up at the Garden Center next to you, and, you know, my first observation, as I’m looking at all cars and a few buildings and all asphalt, and I couldn’t see the landscape, and the only landscaping I could see from there was where your cars were parked, and I think it’s less than appealing, and I’d like to see something done to spruce it up some. MR. LANNING-The existing asphalt that’s there does butt right up to that gully. That’s why I mentioned it as a gully there. There is a small area of greenery, of green space. So I agree with you. I do feel beautification’s the way for me to go. If you’d seen the property, especially that green area over to the right, earlier in the Spring, you’ll notice that I did take the right to put some other soil down, some topsoil and some grass, and probably just created another small parcel of grass there, but it definitely makes a big difference right there. The only thing I can propose to do is, after this hard winter we’re going to have, is in the Spring, back the cars up a little bit, maybe put out some more appealing aesthetically correct plants and plantings and things of that nature, and I’m not opposed to any of that at all, and probably not keep that one area as congested, where you missed the turn in. Maybe keep the vehicles a certain distance to the right of that. So it keeps it as open as possible. MR. GOETZ-Yes, it was very congested, and I also thought it was dangerous. MR. LANNING-Okay. Which I could understand. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. FORD-Can you address the issue of signage? MR. LANNING-My sign or the sign that is there now? MR. FORD-Yes. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) MR. LANNING-And how would you like me to address it? What question are you asking? MR. FORD-Basically, the signage that is currently there, is that what you intend to continue to maintain, or are you going to be changing that? MR. LANNING-At this particular point, I’m going to maintain what’s existing right now, and give it our upcoming year here, and then address what improvements we can make and go from there. I did, this year already, seal coated and did some nice landscaping and actually painted the building, and went from a real drab old white to a nice bisque with some stripes in there, and the facility does look a lot cleaner because of it, and it’s been getting a little bit more attention. People aren’t driving by it as they used to. MR. SANFORD-So I think the way we can condition this, without having the benefit of the old SP 13-99 is just to, in the motion, perhaps reference that, Chris, and say that approval would be conditioned upon the removal of pavement as per Site Plan 13-99, and then if the applicant can then talk to the owner, and if it’s agreeable, they go ahead and do it. If, for some reason, the owner won’t agree to it, I guess then he has to come back to us for further discussion and review. MR. HUNSINGER-We certainly could do that. MR. SANFORD-Yes, I’m just trying to think, because I don’t have the benefit of knowing what they were suggesting in that site plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have a sense for what was proposed? MR. LANNING-What they were originally going to do, when he was approved back in April of ’99, was he was going to try and gain some office space up front on the front of the building. He was going to bring it out with an atrium and with an office, and because he was going to take away that property, they wanted him to, you know, concede to the taking of the large unused portion of the parking lot in the rear and make that green. So that was the give and take, and then, after getting estimates and going through the process of possibly doing it, he realized that, financially, he couldn’t. So the project never got off the ground. It never left the ground. So, it is, as he originally purchased the property, and it’s still that way currently. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SANFORD-So you’re not adding to the footprint here or anything, are you? MR. LANNING-Not at all. MR. SANFORD-You’re just doing something internal. MR. LANNING-Yes, correct. MR. SANFORD-Really, I don’t see this as much of a change. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s really not. Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled tonight. Is there anyone here that would like to speak? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ROBERT NEMER MR. NEMER-Good evening. My name is Robert Nemer, Nemer Ford, and I don’t really have a question about David’s project, but I am a little confused. I’ve been in Queensbury for 22 years, and I was told by many enforcement officers that when you go into a piece of property and you want a change of use, you have to come to this Board to get approval. When I first noticed what David was doing, I spoke to the Enforcement Officer, and I said, gee, I never got a notice about a hearing. Doesn’t he have to go for a change of use to the property, and he said, yes, he does. So I guess where I’m confused at is, did I miss a meeting within the last three or four or five or six months where David came in and asked for a change of use for the property? I’ve been told by the Town enforcement person that if a property 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) was an automobile sales and service at one time, and there was a different usage for that property after, and you wanted to put automobile sales and service in there again, you had to go back, from Ground Zero, and ask for a change of usage. So I guess that’s something that I’d like to have somebody comment on, as to where we stand in terms of what the usage is, or has it been changed and I’m not aware of it? MR. HUNSINGER-No. I think it’s a real good question. Basically what a change in use necessitates is Site Plan Review, and that’s what we’re going through this evening. MR. NEMER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Why that wasn’t caught earlier, I don’t know, but, I mean, technically you are correct. He should have come here first. I don’t know if Staff has a comment to offer on that. MRS. BARDEN-I don’t believe it’s a change in use. I believe it’s an expansion of an existing use. Auto sales and service is operating there now, as Northway Car Care, and Mr. Lanning is expanding the use by utilizing a small portion of interior space and putting, and selling additional cars on the site. MR. SANFORD-I think what Mr. Nemer is saying is that, going quite a ways back, it might have had some sale of automobiles, and that was discontinued, and it was a service shop, and then they resumed some limited cars for sale, and at that particular point in time, that should have triggered a site plan review, because that was the change in use. MRS. BARDEN-Before this application. MR. SANFORD-Right, and what it is, it’s, obviously, if we’re not aware of it, you know, if an applicant does something different on their site, it first has to come to the attention of the Town of Queensbury, I believe, and probably what happened is, when the use was changed, and there were some automotive sales taking place, we were unaware of that, and not notified, but I think you’re probably technically correct. That should have triggered a site plan review at that point in time. I don’t know how long ago that was. We’ll ask the applicant when he comes back to the table. MR. NEMER-I’m not here to attack the applicant, okay, but I have a similar scenario in the Town of Queensbury, where I have a piece of property that at one time was automobile sales and service, okay, and the people moved out and somebody moved in with a construction company, okay. Now I want to put automobile sales and service back in there, okay. I’m being told by the Enforcement Officer that I have to start from Ground Zero, okay, and ask for a change of use and all I’m asking for, being in this Town for 22 years, is that everything should be fair for everybody, okay. That’s the first thing that I wanted to get out, as a matter of public record. The second thing that you ought to be aware of, and once again, I’m not attacking David. He’s a nice guy, but if you were making this small little property available for automobile sales, you’re setting a precedent where I may come back to you, in six months, and I might say to you, well, Cumberland Farms is closed, okay, and I want to put automobile sales and service in there, and it should fly right through because David has a very small piece of property where he has automobile sales and service. So I want you to think about the precedence you’re setting here and what it might bring in terms of future people that come to you for examination of their projects. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I certainly understand your concerns. Unfortunately, we can only speculate as to how those other actions happened. We’re charged with reviewing the application that’s before us this evening. MR. NEMER-No, I understand that. I just wanted to make it a matter of public record. MR. HUNSINGER-Like I said, I appreciate your comments and concerns. Thank you very much. MR. NEMER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else have comments about this application? Okay. If you could come back to the table. I mean, you heard the question. One of the questions is, you know, at what point did you approach the Town? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) MR. LANNING-Actually, the Town approached me. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s kind of what we speculated, yes. MR. LANNING-The Enforcement Officer, Bruce Frank, and I had gone through the process of securing the property, and actually registering with the County and going as far as getting my retail certificate through the Department of Motor Vehicle and going through compliance courses and all these things and really believed I was, cya, you know, doing the right thing, and then Bruce approached me and said, hey, what are you doing here, you need to get a CO. So he and I worked together, along with Susan and Craig, and got my application together, and generated what’s in front of you today, and in regards to Bob, I have no problems with his operation either, but I don’t think he’s worried about me. We’re all here to sell some automobiles and do good business in the Town of Queensbury. Bob actually came over and met with me, and I understand his concerns for his future program. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, we all do. MR. LANNING-So I just want that to be noted, too, I’ve got no problems with Bob. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It seems like the only, I don’t want to speak for the whole Board, but it seems like the only issue is the green space that may have been on the previously approved site plan. Is that fair? MR. SANFORD-Well, the public comments did raise an interesting question. I know the zoning does allow for automotive sales along Quaker Road. We know that. I don’t believe there are dimensional limitations, in terms of lot size for that. MRS. BARDEN-Highway Commercial? MR. SANFORD-Well, it begged the question, could small, former service stations and things of that nature be utilized for automotive sales, and is that desirable, and so my question is, are there any parameters that the 179 establishes for automotive sales, in terms of minimum lot size? MRS. BARDEN-Well, the Highway Commercial Intensive zone is one acre minimum lot size. MR. SANFORD-And that’s what this is, one acre, at least what the drawing says. It says one acre exactly, okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I’m not sure where you’re going with this, Richard, and how that pertains to the project in front of us. MR. SANFORD-I think it’s very obvious, if for some reason or another it’s an undersized parcel, perhaps you shouldn’t have that use. That’s my question, okay, and I don’t know whether or not there’s anything that I’m unaware of on that. I know it’s zoned, the corridor is zoned for automotive sales. I didn’t know if there were any minimum sizes that we have. That’s all. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SANFORD-I’m just clarifying it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. BARDEN-Highway Commercial Intensive, auto sales and service is a use subject to site plan review. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So apparently the only parameter we have is the one acre minimum size. MRS. BARDEN-For the lot, yes. I mean, there’s dimensional requirements, but, right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is the Board comfortable moving forward, or do we have additional information that we need to get from the applicant? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) MR. SEGULJIC-Where are we going with this asphalt? MR. HUNSINGER-I guess that’s one of the outstanding questions. MR. METIVIER-Well, he almost answered the question. The gentleman before him was going to build out, so they wanted to get back in the back. He’s not building out. He’s staying within the perimeter of the building. So why would we require him to remove asphalt in the back if he’s not making any changes to the front? MR. SANFORD-Well, to bring it into conformity, we have that option. Every time an application comes in front of us, we can use that as an opportunity to improve upon the site, and this is in front of us, and it was going to be improved, but never was acted upon and so it’s almost logical to say, you know, we’ll give you your approval conditioned upon you removing the pavement as agreed upon in prior Site Plan No. 13-99, as a condition. MR. METIVIER-I understand, but that site plan had to do with. MR. SANFORD-I hear you, Tony, but either way it was nonconforming and by having the 30%, it would then become conforming. Why not aspire for that, independent of whether there’s an addition to the building or not. MR. FORD-We have a site plan review, correct? So let’s review the site. MR. SEGULJIC-I think we should condition it upon the 30% permeability and if he can’t, the owner doesn’t agree to do it, he has to come back and we can discuss it from there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Would a variance be needed for this, then? MR. HUNSINGER-No, because it’s an existing condition. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s an existing condition. MR. HUNSINGER-He’s not changing the building at all. Tom Ford, how do you fall on this? MR. FORD-Condition it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. George? MR. GOETZ-I think there should be some sort of a condition. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do people feel we have enough information before us this evening to move forward, I guess would be the next question. MR. SANFORD-I do. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. Well, I will, then, close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-SEQRA is a Short Form. Am I right on that, Susan? MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 56-2005, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) DAVID LANNING, 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 25 day of October, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ford, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to propose a resolution? MR. SANFORD-Yes, I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 56-2005 DAVID LANNING, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Applicant(s): David Lanning Site Plan SP 56-2005 Owner(s): Darren & Nancy Manzari SEQR Type Unlisted Agent(s): N/A Lot size 1 +/- acre Location 306 Quaker Road Zoning HC-Int. Tax Id No. 302.8-2.66.2 Section 179-4-020 Cross Ref. Warren County Planning 10/12/05 Public Hearing 10/25/05 Project Description: Applicant proposes to utilize a 100 sq. ft. area within the existing Quaker Auto Sales building, and associated parking/display area for automobiles on the site. Auto Sales & Services 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 25, 2005; and 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, 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. 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: 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) 1. The applicant comply with the conditions stated in Site Plan 13-1999 in reference to the removal of pavement in the front and rear of the site, resulting in the site becoming conforming with respect to permeability at the 30% level. In the event that the applicant cannot obtain on this condition then the applicant will have to re- appear in front of this Board for further discussion. 2. 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 25 day of October, 2005, by the following vote: h MR. HUNSINGER-I had a question. When you mentioned green space in the front of the property, I’m not sure where that would be. MR. SANFORD-Again, we don’t have the benefit of it, but my presumption, and I mentioned it earlier in discussion, that the original site plan specified that, that SP 13-99 mapped that out, and I’m asking for that to be followed at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SANFORD-Again, I’m trying to be accommodating to the applicant. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I understand what you’re trying to do. MR. SANFORD-We’re not having the benefit of that site plan, and it is a leap of faith that that was done appropriately and for the best interests of the Town back when that was done. So that’s why I’m saying, do it like you were going to do it when you were going to do it. If you can’t, come back and see us. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SANFORD-That’s the thinking. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ve got you. AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. LANNING-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You, too. SITE PLAN NO. 59-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED NICHOLAS DAIGLE OWNER(S): SAME ZONING CI-1A LOCATION 15 BOULEVARD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 8,000 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE BUILDING. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL/RETAIL USES REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. AV 78-05 SP 27-04, AV 43- 04, AV 1328, AV 7-96, SP 11-96, SP 15-02 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/12/05 LOT SIZE 1.3 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 303.20-2-34, 33 SECTION 179-4-030 MR. HUNSINGER-Is there no one here? We’ll come back. Moving right along. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED OWNER(S): SAME ZONING WR- 1A & SR-1A LOCATION BIG BAY & WOLFE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF A TOTAL 3.5 ACRE LOT RESULTING IN LOTS OF 1.54, 1.01 AND 1 ACRES. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. AV 56-05 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 3.5 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 316.9-1-9 SECTION A-183 CURTIS HARRINGTON, PRESENT MRS. BARDEN-Okay. Applicant proposes a 3-lot residential subdivision of a 3.55-acre parcel, creating lots of 1.0, 1.01, and 1.54, acres. The subject property is located off of Big Bay at Wolfe Road. This property is split-zoned SR-1A and WR-1A. This project is a SEQR unlisted action, applicants have submitted a Full Environmental Assessment Form. This proposal, again, is for a 3-lot subdivision. Lots 1 and 3 will have direct access off of Wolfe Road, and lot 2 will access from Big Bay Road. STAFF COMMENTS: No topographic information is shown, however the site development notes on the submitted site plan indicate, “Existing topographic relief on site and adjacent properties is minimal; approximate center of development area is slightly higher than periphery of proposed subdivision.” Clearing limits are shown for each lot. The sites will be serviced by municipal water and individual on-site septic systems. What are the results of the percolation tests that were taken? The area is located within neighborhood 13 in the Town Comprehensive Plan. Karner Blue Butterfly sites and unoccupied Lupine patches exist in this area. The applicant should contact DEC to inquire whether there are endangered species on the property. Area Variance No. 56-2005 was withdrawn by the applicant August 17, 2005. That’s all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HARRINGTON-Hi. My name’s Curt Harrington. I’m the current owner and person proposing this subdivision. As you’re aware, we came in with a four lot subdivision with slightly different configuration. We’ve removed that application completely after a Zoning Board review, and went back and re-did with all the suggestions that were given by the Zoning Board and a preliminary meeting with Susan and Craig Brown. I believe we’ve now met all the current criteria of the Town, and accommodated all the suggestions to date, and we’ll certainly be willing to what other suggestions you have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-The endangered species Karner blue butterfly. Have you contacted DEC at all? MR. HARRINGTON-No, I have not. I just read that in the notes tonight. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s a tough one. MR. METIVIER-That’s going to be a show stopper until next Spring. MR. HUNSINGER-The site currently is wooded, right? MR. HARRINGTON-Yes, it is. MR. SEGULJIC-So what you’re just showing on this drawing, it’s all wooded but you’re just showing the clearing limits, then? MR. HARRINGTON-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. SANFORD-Well, refresh my memory on the show stopping aspects of this Karner blue butterfly thing. MR. METIVIER-Well, think about every other application we’ve had where, God forbid there’s blue lupine in the area. You have to stop everything. You have to get DEC involved. They have to come in the Spring in a two month period, or a two week period, and they have 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) to stare at this blue lupine until the Karner blue either shows up or doesn’t, and you know damn well that that’s what we’ve done every other application where there’s been evidence of blue lupine. MR. SANFORD-Right. MR. METIVIER-So why are you questioning my comment about it being a show stopper? MR. SANFORD-I’m not questioning it. I’m trying to get clarity on it, because I remember there was a study commissioned on the butterfly and there was all kinds of options. Option One, Option Two, Option Three, and I’m vague on it. I genuinely just don’t remember it. My understanding was virtually nothing was done in terms of us adopting a Karner blue plan. MR. HUNSINGER-And what that does is it puts the burden back on to the individual applicants before the Planning Board. MR. SANFORD-And what does that mean by the burden being put onto them? MR. METIVIER-They have to go back and contact the DEC, which has to go out to the site. They have to investigate the site, look at the blue lupine, which they can’t do at this point, because it’s dead, and then have to discover, in the Spring, when it comes back, like I said, they have to stare at the plant for how many weeks to see if a butterfly shows up, and you know that that’s what we’ve had to do in every other case. MR. SANFORD-Well, Tony, bottom line is, my memory isn’t as good as yours, and I wasn’t being argumentative. I just didn’t recall the process. I will say this, however. There’s obviously certain areas that we’ve designated as having the potential for this. Because obviously in many applications it’s not even an issue. Why does this particular application trigger that? Because Staff notes say it perhaps might? MR. METIVIER-That’s right. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s within Neighborhood 13. MR. SEGULJIC-We’re kind of stuck until we get an answer. MR. HUNSINGER-Although if DEC goes to the site and sees that it’s wooded. MR. SEGULJIC-That might answer it. MR. HUNSINGER-They might be able to get their clearance. MR. SEGULJIC-So we’re kind of left hanging here until we get direction. MRS. BARDEN-I don’t know if DEC has, you know, soil maps or anything like that that can give you a good idea of whether or not, you know, the soils are conducive to that type of plant or if it would be a field investigation, but I think they can tell a lot from just that information. MR. HUNSINGER-And I also know that in the past, that if a site was heavily wooded, DEC has signed off and said, you know, the site’s heavily wooded, you know, blue lupine cannot promulgate in a heavily wooded site and they’ll sign off. MR. SANFORD-There’s this woman, Deborah Roberts, I think that’s her name, she rings a bell, and she used to walk sites. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, she’s a consultant. She doesn’t work for DEC. MR. SANFORD-She’s a consultant. MR. HUNSINGER-She’s not with DEC, but she is trained in identifying the species. MR. SANFORD-So if my memory serves me correct, sometimes this woman is engaged, then, by the applicant, to pass a judgment for this Board? 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and then she runs it by DEC and, I forget the woman’s name at DEC who reviews them. MR. SEGULJIC-Do you want to explain to the applicant what’s happening? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that might be a good idea. He looks confused. MR. GOETZ-Couldn’t this project be approved subject to DEC approval? MR. METIVIER-Well, it could be, to a degree. MR. SEGULJIC-But what if mitigation measures are required, then, and then we can’t answer the endangered species? MR. METIVIER-He’s got a point. MR. HUNSINGER-Does Counsel want to weigh in on that? MR. HILL-I think you have a good point. I wouldn’t recommend approval subject to, because essentially in order to do that you would have to go through the SEQRA analysis and come to the conclusion that there are no significant adverse environmental impacts, and if with this question unanswered, I think you really can’t take that step. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So, what do we do in this case? Do we table this until a determination from DEC? MR. HUNSINGER-You’ve heard of the Karner blue butterfly and blue lupine? MR. HARRINGTON-Yes. Blue lupine apparently is the plant you’re looking for. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HARRINGTON-If there’s no plant there, and I’m not familiar with it, I don’t know if you can tell if it’s there this time of year or not. MR. METIVIER-At this point you can’t, and that’s the problem, but there’s evidence of it. It’s in the Staff notes. So that’s my whole comment about this being a show stopper is the fact that there’s evidence of blue lupine on the site which there wouldn’t be anymore because it’s going to get snowed on, but, you know, there’s a problem, and that was my only comment, is that, you read this now, we’re in November, and this poor guy is going to have to literally probably wait until June or July of next year for this thing, and my only comment, it wasn’t directed toward Richard at all, my God, it was just the fact that we’re stuck here because Deb Roberts is going to go out, and she’s going to stare at this thing and say, I can’t make a determination on it. MR. SANFORD-I agree with you, Tony, it really is a crazy situation. MR. METIVIER-And, Richard, I wasn’t directing anything at you whatsoever. MR. SANFORD-Well, apparently, it’s clear to me now you were just somewhat exasperated by this. MR. METIVIER-Well, I’m exasperated by the fact that, I don’t know when this application came to be, but, you know, we’re at the end of October, beginning of November, it’s going to snow, and I look at this and think, why is this poor guy in here? And that’s my only point to the whole thing. I don’t know. It just gets so frustrating after a while, it just truly does. MR. SANFORD-It does. I mean, I agree with you, especially since no one’s seen one of these butterflies. MR. HUNSINGER-There have been projects, though, where we were able to get a sign off. I realize, but I just think that this is one of those cases where we’re really stuck, because if you look at the Sherman Avenue thing, the Sherman and Potter, no, West Mountain and Potter, how long that was held up because we were looking at that in the wintertime as well, and they had to wait until Spring. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) MR. HUNSINGER-And one of the other things that is taken into consideration is the size, and, you know, they very well may get a signoff on this just because it’s only three and a half acres, and it’s not large enough to sustain any kind of Karner growth. MR. METIVIER-And I just, I wonder if, you know, when they did their pre-scheduling conference, if they brought this up that maybe he should contact DEC because of the Karner blue to try to get something for us tonight. I’m not going to dwell on it anymore. I stated my point. MR. HARRINGTON-Are there any other issues, other than that? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s what I was going to ask. I think, for me anyway, other than that, it looked pretty straightforward. I don’t speak for the whole Board. MR. FORD-Perc test results? MR. HARRINGTON-Perc test results are there under I believe it’s Note Two, but it’s basically two minutes, thirty seconds or two minutes forty seconds. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Are we looking for a signoff from DEC? Is that the right way to phrase it? MR. HUNSINGER-What was your intent? Were you hoping to start construction this year? MR. HARRINGTON-I would like to have started clearing this winter. That was my intention was to clear during the winter, so I could be ready to build in the Spring. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Well, you still may be able to. Who knows? We do have a public hearing scheduled. I will open the public hearing and we will obviously leave the public hearing open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-I think what we would need in order to get through the SEQRA process in the subdivision review is something from, some sort of signoff from DEC. I guess there’s a couple of different ways where you can obtain that. Staff can certainly give you the contact information, who to contact at DEC, or you could hire a consultant to look at that for you and then give the results to DEC. Obviously we can’t advise you one way or another, but, I mean, when you contact DEC, they may say, heck, if you’re only talking about three and a half acres, you don’t need to worry about it. So, you know, we might be seeing you next month, but in terms of a tabling motion, I don’t know if we can specify a date since we don’t know if and when he may get signoff. I mean, it could be Tony’s worst case scenario that they have to go out and do field work in the Spring. MR. SANFORD-Yes, I know, and so much for that tabling to a specific date. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SANFORD-Because there’s no way we’re going to know what that date is. Why don’t we just make a tabling motion, so the applicant officially knows what we need before we can re-evaluate the application. MRS. BARDEN-Well, maybe you could table it to a specific date, and then if he doesn’t have the information, then it could be withdrawn. I mean, I think whatever information you can get from DEC they’re probably going to have in print or map form or some advice on whether or not there needs to be any further field investigation. So I don’t really think that that would take that much time. MR. SANFORD-Well, what’s the relevance of tabling to a specific date anyway? I mean, I’m not sure why that’s. MRS. BARDEN-So that you don’t have to reschedule the public hearing, re-advertise. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. METIVIER-Chris, can you open up the public hearing and see if anybody wants to speak to it? MR. HUNSINGER-That I didn’t ask, Tony. Is there anyone here that would like to comment on this application? Like I said earlier, we will leave the public hearing open. I mean, my inclination would be to see if we can get him back in November, but we probably already missed the deadline for submission. MRS. BARDEN-Well, he wouldn’t have any new information. MR. HUNSINGER-Just a DEC signoff. MRS. BARDEN-Exactly. So that would be it. MR. SANFORD-How long would that note reasonably take, if, in fact, there’s anything they can do, probably not before December, knowing how DEC works. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, there’s basically one person that’s in charge of Endangered Species. I don’t know what her workload is, I mean, I realize we’re talking about DEC here, but I can’t imagine that it would take more than three weeks getting a letter out. MR. SANFORD-In terms of your timeline, should you be able to resolve this issue regarding the environment for the butterfly, does it matter if it’s November or December? MR. HARRINGTON-I would prefer November, if possible. MR. HUNSINGER-Let’s look at the 22 meeting, then. nd MR. SANFORD-That’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Does someone want to make that resolution? MR. FORD-Could I ask one question on the perc? Is that information here on the site development notes, does that address that concern that was raised in the Staff notes sufficiently? MRS. BARDEN-Curt, they’re not on the map. MR. FORD-Site development notes on the large map. MR. HARRINGTON-The perc test locations are noted on each lot, and under site development notes, under Note Two gives the average perc test results. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. MR. HARRINGTON-It’s a combined average of each location. There was no significant difference from one lot to the next. This is all sand. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. I think that’s fine. MR. FORD-That addresses the concern? MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. FORD-Okay. Thank you. MR. SANFORD-All right, Mr. Chairman, I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2005 CURTIS HARRINGTON, Introduced by Richard Sanford, who moved its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) Pending receipt from DEC clarifying whether or not there are any endangered species on the property. In specific terms, we’re interested in having a better understanding of whether or not there are Karner Blue butterfly sites, and lupine patches on this parcel of land. We’ll table this to the November 22, 2005 meeting, which is our second meeting in November, and the applicant should strive to get clarification from DEC and bring it back to this Board at that time. Duly adopted this 25 day of October, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-Hopefully it won’t delay you too long. MR. HARRINGTON-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 53-2005 SEQR TYPE II JASON MAYNARD AGENT(S): BILL DEAN, CREATIVE CONSTRUCTION OWNER(S): SAME ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 226 LAKE PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES A 521 SQ. FT. BOATHOUSE/SUNDECK, DOCK REPAIR, REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING RETAINING WALL AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 993 SQ. FT. PATIO. BOATHOUSES REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. AV 72-2005 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/12/05 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE: 0.62 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-82 SECTION 179-4-020 BILL DEAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Summary of Staff notes, please. MRS. BARDEN-This is a site plan review for development within 50-feet of the shoreline, totaling 757 sq. ft. of hard surfaced area. The property is located at 226 Lake Parkway. It’s zoned WR-1A, Waterfront Residential One Acre. This is a SEQRA Type II action. The Area Variance for side setback relief for the dock was approved October 19 of this year. The th applicant proposes dock repair, replacement of an approximate 520 sq. ft. boathouse, construction of (2) terraced retaining walls, and the portion of the patio that’s within 50-feet of the Lake. STAFF COMMENTS: The portion of the patio and walkways within 50-feet of the Lake is approximately 660 sq. ft., the total brick paver area totals 993 sq. ft. The proposal includes removing the existing pressure-treated timber retaining wall and replace with two masonry retaining walls. These will be terraced and include landscaping. The proposed project includes a stormwater management and erosion control plan. Per §179-6-060, “Within 35-feet of the mean high-water mark, no vegetation may be removed”. That’s all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. DEAN-Good evening. My name is Bill Dean. I’m here on behalf of Jason Maynard, hopefully to get approval for this boathouse, dock and retaining wall, and the patio work, and if you have any input or I can answer any questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Before we take questions, my compliments on the drawings. I wish we always had such good drawings on both docks as these. They were really good. MR. DEAN-Well, hopefully that answers some of the questions ahead of time. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll open it up to the Board. Any questions or comments? MR. SANFORD-Is the reason this isn’t on Expedited because of the other work regarding retaining walls and what have you? Because I’m wondering, normally I thought, deal with these types of things, not that it makes any difference, but on an Expedited basis. MRS. BARDEN-Well, there’s quite a few things. It’s not just a dock. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) MR. SANFORD-Okay. That’s what my question was. MRS. BARDEN-Or, I mean, a boathouse. There’s other. MR. FORD-Is total height an issue? MRS. BARDEN-Total height is not an issue. It is going to be slightly higher than existing, but it is not an issue, and Mr. Maynard does have a permit from the Park Commission for a wharf construction. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s still well within the requirements. MR. FORD-Okay. That was my concern. Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Is there going to be any vegetation removed within the 35 feet of the water? MR. DEAN-Within 35 feet? If any, it would be very limited, and actually it would probably be dictated by installing the silt fence that was required for erosion control. MR. SEGULJIC-So, are you saying, then, that there will be some? MR. DEAN-In order to install that silt fence, yes, there will be. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, why, when you install the silt fence, I mean, isn’t that just driving some stakes into the ground? MR. DEAN-No. We have to embed the fabric into the ground in order to do it properly. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re going to tuck the silt fence into the ground? MR. DEAN-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So it’s going to be very minimal. MR. DEAN-Very minimal. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. SANFORD-This seems to have a land bridge, and I’m always confused, again, on where do we stand with land bridges? I know that I think at the County level they’re discouraged, and what’s our position on it, Mr. Chairman, at this point? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s always case by case situation. In general they are discouraged, but it all depends on the individual site. In this case, if there wasn’t one, it would be very difficult to get to the. MR. SANFORD-Why, because of the slope? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but, you know, again, it’s always at the discretion of the Board. MR. SANFORD-Yes, again, I’m just trying to be consistent with what we’ve done in the past. I’m not sure what that is. MR. METIVIER-Most of the time we’ve overridden the Warren County’s approval or recommendation and we’ve favored land bridges where they’ve denied them, but in cases like this, well, over on most of that side, you really can’t get to these docks without a land bridge. It’s actually more dangerous to do it that way than to have the land bridge, based on the slopes. MR. SANFORD-In other words, it’s safer to have it. MR. METIVIER-It’s much safer to have it. Much safer. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) MR. SANFORD-Okay, because I recall one application where the person wanted one so they could get a snow blower on to clean off the snow, and I don’t know if we gave it to them. MR. METIVIER-Well, we didn’t. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that was a different issue. MR. METIVIER-Yes, that was a much different issue. MR. HUNSINGER-I was looking for the County letter. Did they comment on the land bridge at all? MR. METIVIER-That was in last week’s packet, and I left it home. MR. HUNSINGER-I think there was just a general signoff on all of them. MR. METIVIER-Yes. MRS. BARDEN-I know that none of them had County impacts. MR. METIVIER-Here it is. Maynard, No County Impact. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. BARDEN-And that was it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Just a clarification. The patio area. Is that existing that’s going to be repaired, or is that new? MR. DEAN-There’s some existing patio area, nowhere near what is being installed, though. MR. SEGULJIC-So the patio area is being expanded? MR. DEAN-Yes. Everything as it exists is being removed. MR. SEGULJIC-And how about stormwater control from the patio area? MR. DEAN-That’s being covered by the two retaining walls that are terraced in front of it, they have retention area. MR. SEGULJIC-So we retain it behind a retention wall, and then where does it go from there? MR. DEAN-Behind the retaining wall. Hopefully it leaks into the ground, percolates into the ground. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So it’s going to roll across the patio, hit the retaining wall, and then percolate into the ground? MR. DEAN-Yes. The retaining walls are held four to six inches higher than the grade in order to achieve that. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. FORD-We certainly are impacting the 50 foot lake front setback line aren’t we? MR. SEGULJIC-That’s part of the reason why we have to review it. I guess, just for clarification, where is it shown on the plans? MR. DEAN-In regards to? MR. SEGULJIC-The retaining wall. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) MR. DEAN-The retention in the retaining walls? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. DEAN-That would probably be in the stormwater part of it. I believe there’s a detail of that. Yes, the second page of the stormwater. MR. SEGULJIC-That one there, okay. MR. DEAN-Yes, the second page of that, it shows the retaining walls and the make up of them. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. DEAN-And that’s actually based, I believe, on some criteria, I think it was in Town of Queensbury’s stormwater plan I took off the Internet, or from the Lake George Park Commission. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. SANFORD-Are you allowed to use treated wood anymore, on the lake? MR. METIVIER-You can use it up to, really, the mean high water mark and anything below has to be regular. So you can use it on your decking, and for the first twelve inches into the water. MR. SANFORD-Really? Okay. Into the water? MR. METIVIER-Not into the water. Twelve inches from your decking down. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. METIVIER-So really it’s the first two six by sixes, and beyond that, I believe it has to be. MR. DEAN-I thought it was mean low water mark? MR. METIVIER-Mean low, mean high. Sorry. MR. DEAN-Mean low is going to put you into the water, usually. I don’t even know if there’s an actual set criteria. I’ve talked to a couple of building inspectors. MR. METIVIER-Really the first two layers are just six bys. You can use pressure treated, because they’re typically above the water line. Anything below that point has to be just conventional pine or whatever it is. Right? MR. DEAN-I don’t think so. I believe you can still go down, I think it’s mean low water mark. I believe, because I had actually talked to Dave Hatin and Craig Brown, and I believe Craig had clarified the fact that, yes, we can still do it, and I think it’s mean low mark. Because once the wood gets wet and goes away, that it will rot. So they allow you to go just into the water. MR. METIVIER-Right, but my point was typically it’s the first two, based on the height of the dock. MR. DEAN-Yes. MR. METIVIER-Now they’re going much higher because actually Lake George is flooding. MR. SANFORD-Okay. What happened to the other dock, it got hit by ice? MR. DEAN-A few times. MR. SEGULJIC-One last question. The terraced areas, are you going to put plantings in there? 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) MR. DEAN-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t know how everybody feels about this, but can we state that no fertilizers are to be used in the terraced areas? MR. DEAN-It doesn’t have to be, and I wouldn’t recommend it anyway. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t recommend it, either, but I think a lot of people do it. MR. SANFORD-I’m comfortable with that kind of condition. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Sure. I don’t know how you’d enforce it. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m just getting it out there. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. GOETZ-It looks like this has been approved by everybody in sight so far. So, I would hope that we could just move on with this. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-I would like a comparison, within this 50 foot setback, how it compares with the current condition, as opposed to proposed. MR. DEAN-I believe I included paperwork for that in there. MR. FORD-I’m sure you did. MR. DEAN-Yes. I think it was in the application itself, actually. Third page, I believe. MR. METIVIER-Site development data, is that what you’re looking for, Tom? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Are we all set to do a motion, then? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we have to do a public hearing and SEQRA. MR. SEGULJIC-Sorry. I got ahead of myself. I’m getting anxious. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled. I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to make comments regarding this application? Then I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Short Form. MR. METIVIER-This says Type II. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, Type II. The applicant submitted a Short Form. MR. METIVIER-On the agenda it’s listed as a Type II. MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Does that mean Long Forms? MR. METIVIER-No, it means that we don’t have to do a SEQRA. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SANFORD-See, Type II, we don’t do a SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. BARDEN-That’s right. MR. HUNSINGER-So SEQRA’s not required. MRS. BARDEN-That’s right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, what’s the will of the Board? MR. SANFORD-Entertain a motion. MR. SEGULJIC-I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2005 JASON MAYNARD, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Applicant(s): Jason Maynard Site Plan SP 53-2005 Owner(s): Same SEQR Type II Agent(s): Bill Dean, Creative Lot size 0.62 acres Construction Location 226 Lake Parkway Zoning WR-1A Tax Id No. 226.19-1-82 Section 179-4-020 Cross Ref. AV 72-2005 Warren County Planning 10/12/05 Public Hearing 10/25/05 Adirondack Park Agency Yes Project Description: Applicant proposes a 521 sq. ft. boathouse/sundeck, dock repair, replacement of an existing retaining wall and construction of a 993 sq. ft. patio. Boathouses require Site Plan 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 25, 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. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) 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. 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. 2. 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. 3. That no fertilizer shall be used in the landscaped terraced areas. Duly adopted this 25 day of October, 2005, by the following vote: h AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Ford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) MR. DEAN-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 60-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED GGV, INC. d/b/a THE CHERRY TOMATO AGENT(S): THOMAS MC NALLY OWNER(S): SAME ZONING NC-1A LOCATION BAY & ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES 600 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE EXISTING 2100 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT AND A 2,000 SQ. FT. EXPANSION TO THE EXISTING PARKING LOT. RESTAURANT USES REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. AV 32-93, AV 79-05 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/12/05 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 1.89 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279-1-62 SECTION 179-4-030 THOMAS MC NALLY & JOE GLEASON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Summary of Staff notes, Susan. MRS. BARDEN-The applicant seeks site plan review for expansions to the existing restaurant and site. The property is located at Bay Road and Route 149, and is zoned Neighborhood Commercial. This is a SEQRA Unlisted action. Area Variance No. 79-05 was approved on 10/19/05, for relief from the minimum setback requirement of the Travel Corridor Overlay District, for the restaurant addition. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes a 600 sq. ft. addition to the rear of the existing 2,100 sq. ft. restaurant, a 2,000 sq. ft. expansion of the existing parking lot, and associated site work. STAFF COMMENTS: The proposed 600 sq. ft. addition is to expand the kitchen and is to be located in the rear of the existing restaurant. The applicants have expanded and paved the parking area on site, totaling an approximate 2,000 sq. ft. of additional surface area. The plan shows the required parking calculation, with these spaces delineated and the drive aisle widths scaled. The proposal includes a plan for improved ingress and egress to the property. Access is now proposed to be directed in and out of the site, exclusively from Route 149. The other existing entrance near the corner of Bay and 149 will be closed and landscaped. The applicants have submitted a drawing with septic design details, and DOH approval, dated 6/28/05. This map indicates a fence to be installed to keep vehicles off of the septic field. The site plan—parking/landscape sheet shows a post and rail fence along the property line adjoining 149, but not the fence between the building and the parking lot for the purposes of protecting the septic system. Installing and maintaining this fence should be made a condition of approval. Existing and proposed landscaping and lighting should be discussed. Stormwater management should be discussed for the site, specifically for the parking area. Consideration should be given to requiring the installation of either a fence or guardrail at the back of the parking lot where there is a steep drop-off. Again, Area Variance approval for setback and some comments from C.T. Male as well. That’s all I’ve got. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. GLEASON-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Would you like to tell us about your project? MR. GLEASON-Good evening. My name is Joe Gleason. We’ve come before you to try to expand our kitchen facility and to pick up an extra, I think it’s 16 seats of the restaurant. That’s all. We’ve complied with all the requirements. I think that we’re amiable to any suggestions you may come up with. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions from the Board. MR. METIVIER-I’ll just ask a question. I’m assuming that the parking lot that is existing is the way you want it to be. MR. GLEASON-Yes. MR. METIVIER-But you need us to approve that, even though it’s already done? Susan? MRS. BARDEN-It’s after the fact, yes. MR. FORD-They did it without approval? MRS. BARDEN-Right. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) MR. GLEASON-We paved an area that was a parking lot for the existing, for the restaurant that was there before us. MR. METIVIER-So they’re actually, at this point, out of compliance because they just paved an existing parking lot that was graveled? Is that what the understanding is? MRS. BARDEN-Well, they’re in front of you to hopefully be in compliance. MR. METIVIER-But why are they out of compliance, just because they paved it? MRS. BARDEN-I believe they expanded it as well. MR. METIVIER-Well, not really. I mean, if you look at the existing, yes, it was very overgrown, but it truly was part of the parking lot that was there. MR. GLEASON-It was part of the parking lot. MR. METIVIER-So that’s why I’m asking the question. MRS. BARDEN-Well, it’s the Zoning Administrator’s determination on what needs to be reviewed for the site plan, and they included, he included the expansion of the parking area, for the site plan review of the entire site. MR. MC NALLY-Could I maybe clarify something? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Use the mic, please, and identify yourself. MR. MC NALLY-With the first renovation of the structure, the parking lot was paved. All that was still gravel, and obviously the parking lot. When we wanted to increase the size of our parking, had the paver come who his first step was to scrape the grass off and it was already, it was never paved but it was already crushed gravel parking area some time in the past. We didn’t have to add any fill or sub base. It was just put the paving on, which he basically hadn’t the first time around, and when we met in a pre-application, it was an additional paving, but it wasn’t new parking area. It was just paving an area that basically was missed the first time around. We didn’t realize that it was the original parking area. Grass had grown over it, but basically it was not an expansion of the parking. It was, you know, expanding the paved area. As far as I understand it, you know, crushed gravel is considered the same as asphalt, as far as permeability and that kind of stuff. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes, you didn’t identify yourself. MR. MC NALLY-My name’s Tom McNally. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. SANFORD-Well, in other words, I’m confused now. I understand the parking lot deal, though. I’m not confused on that. The project description, proposes 600 square foot addition to the existing 2100. Is that to be done, or has that been done? MR. GLEASON-No, to be done. MR. SANFORD-Okay, to be done. So that’s another component to this. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Gotcha. All right. MR. FORD-What sort of restrictions do we have, relative to placement and protection of LP tanks? I noticed the proximity here to a dumpster pad, to delivery unload and to takeout pick up. That’s a pretty high traffic area, and two LPG tanks there. MRS. BARDEN-Well, one of the things that the applicants had indicated, or that the Department of Health had as well, that I outlined in Staff notes was that a fence was 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) supposed to be around that area where the new septic system is, in the back there, around that area that you’re referring to. If you pull out your sheet. MILON VESIC MR. VESIC-Can I comment on that? My name’s Milon Vesic. I’m one of the owners there. The Health Department wanted a fence. There’s existing drywells that he approved that were under the driveway. He wanted those fenced off, but I got a letter from our septic guy saying that they’re traffic safe. So that’s why we never put the fence up. I’ll be happy to put a fence up around the new drain field, but people won’t drive on that because that’s where the pavement ends. It’s not under the pavement. The existing drywells have safety covers on them. That’s why they weren’t concerned about the fence anymore. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, they have what? MR. VESIC-Safety covers, traffic covers on them. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VESIC-So he was okay with that, and I have a letter I can get for you. MR. GLEASON-I don’t know of any Ordinance that requires a brick wall or an encasement to those little tanks. MR. FORD-Or fencing, or any type of protection. MR. GLEASON-(Lost word) any we’d be glad to do it. MR. VESIC-Maybe a concrete column or something in front of them. MR. FORD-I’m more addressing it to Staff to see if there was anything in Code relative to that. MRS. BARDEN-Not in Zoning Code. MR. VESIC-For what we pay in gas, I’m sure the gas guy will put a steel wall there for us, if he wants to, a lot of propane. MR. METIVIER-The only requirement is that tanks are 10 feet off the house. That’s really the only requirement for a propane tank, unless it’s an above ground, under 250 gallons or something, you could put that at the house, but anything that’s buried or larger than that has to be ten off, house, building, that idea. MR. FORD-How far from the delivery and unload and the takeout and pickup area would the closest tank? MR. VESIC-Say about 20. MR. GLEASON-Twenty feet. MR. MC NALLY-That area also has a line of probably 30 inch oak trees. MR. GLEASON-No, that’s not oak trees, locust trees. MR. MC NALLY-Yes. There’s a row of trees between the parking area and the side of those tanks. MR. GLEASON-Yes, they’re a good 30 inches in diameter, twelve trees. MR. SANFORD-I’ve got nothing to add on this one. It looks pretty clean to me, Chris. MR. SEGULJIC-You did a great job on the building. MR. GLEASON-Thank you. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) MR. GOETZ-I only have one comment. I think you’ve done a nice job. Other than that, I have a concern with the back side of the parking lot. That’s pretty steep going down to that ravine, and it can be pretty dark on a rainy night like tonight or something, and I could see somebody going right over the edge and right down into that ravine. MR. GLEASON-Do you want us to put a fence up? MR. GOETZ-I would like to see something. MR. GLEASON-That’s fine. MR. GOETZ-I think it would be for your good as well as for your customers. MR. GLEASON-And also, Mr. Ford, we’ll speak to our propane delivery guy, and I’ll see if he can put a couple of concrete poles where the parking lot faces east, or where the tanks face east. I can see your concern. MR. FORD-Fencing, or something, just to prevent some event occurring that there would really be an accident, but if we could prevent that, then let’s do it. MR. GLEASON-I agree. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here to speak about this application? If you could just speak your name for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN MATTHEWS MR. MATTHEWS-John Matthews. I’m the adjoining neighbor to the south on Bay Road. I didn’t realize, when I came here that they weren’t going to add more parking. One of my main concerns is the parking. Just about every weekend we get several cars parked in our parking lot, next to boats that we have on display and what not there, and my concern is now that the weather is bad, they walk out of our parking lot and down Bay Road, all the way through the intersection in order to get to their front door, and I’m very concerned with, first of all, the transient parking on my property. I mean, it’s their business and I don’t park on their property, but I’m also very concerned with the safety, and if there’s any way possible, I don’t know if they meet the criteria for the Code as far as parking spaces and what not. If that could be looked into and if they have to add some more parking, I would be in favor of that. I’m concerned with people’s safety and they cut through the side and the back and what not, and somebody falling and getting hurt. I’m in favor of the addition. I see no reason to oppose any addition. That only brings to my thought that if they don’t have enough parking now, and they’re going to add another several more seats and more capacity. They seem to be doing very well and I’m all in favor of that. They’ve done a wonderful job with the corner. We looked at the place as a mess for several years, and it’s really great to see it cleaned up and fixed up, but if this has to be addressed, and I don’t mean it in any bad way, but I think now’s the time to do it. So, I’m in favor of their project. I just want to make sure they have enough room. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you very much. Anyone else? I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Would you like to address the parking issue? I know I went to go there one night when you first opened and it was packed. I mean, every business should be so lucky, and actually we ended up going somewhere else. I hate to tell you, and it was because we couldn’t wait. MR. GLEASON-The parking lining, we had a professional liner come in and put some lines in the parking lot the way it was before we extended to the old parking lot. Once we get the new lines drawn, there’s more than, there’ll be more than ample parking. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) MR. FORD-How many more parking spaces do you have? MR. GLEASON-Between 36 and 40. MR. MC NALLY-As many as 50. MR. FORD-That would be total, not added? MR. GLEASON-No, no. That would be total. MR. FORD-Okay. As compared to how many now? MR. MC NALLY-I think there was 32 that were striped out, originally. MR. SEGULJIC-Your plan says 40, if I’m correct. MR. GLEASON-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. We can only show 40, or we need a variance. MR. GLEASON-We showed 40, but it’ll accommodate 50. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-If we have more than 20% of the requirement for the seating, than we need a variance to do that. MR. VESIC-Do you have the Code, what the ratio is per seat to parking spots? MR. SEGULJIC-One per four seats. MR. VESIC-With the addition, we’ll be at 95 seats, 90 seats. MR. GLEASON-Ninety-five seats. MR. MC NALLY-We would only be required to have 30 some spaces. MR. GLEASON-And we’re going to have close to 50. MR. MC NALLY-No, we’re going to have 40, unless we start this process again, and get a variance to have more than 40. There’s room for almost 50, depending on how it’s striped out, and that’s why we closed entrances to get the traffic out of the intersection, etc. MR. FORD-You must be equally as concerned about parking as the gentleman and we are. MR. GLEASON-Yes. MR. VESIC-Yes, we are. We were just waiting to re-stripe until after we came here. MR. FORD-And this variance is? MR. MC NALLY-If you provide more than 20% than are required, you have to get a variance to do that. We’re only required to have, I think it’s 32 or 30 some spaces. MR. VESIC-Thirty-four. MR. MC NALLY-So I show 40 to be less than 20% more than that. MR. SANFORD-I’ve got you. MR. GLEASON-That’s where we’re at. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any ability for overflow parking on your site? 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) MR. GLEASON-There really isn’t. I approached a couple of our neighbors trying to see if we could park employees, and this is in the old striping, but believe me, I think that when we have it re-striped, there will be ample parking. MRS. BARDEN-I think you just have to really clarify what, I mean, what you approve is what’s on the plan, and that’s what you do. So if you’re showing 40 spaces, and you’re required to have 34, and 20% of that is 41, right now you can’t exceed 41 spaces when you re- stripe. MR. MC NALLY-Right. MR. GLEASON-Right. MRS. BARDEN-Okay, without coming back and applying for an additional variance for parking. MR. HUNSINGER-Because, I mean, you know how it is. If somebody wants to go there badly enough, they’re going to find a place to park. Whether it be on the neighbor’s property or in the road or somewhere else. In fact, the night that I was there it was so busy there were some cars parked on 149. MR. GLEASON-Mr. Hunsinger, we would also align the parking lot so that when you pull off 149, we’ve allowed a large enough egress, ingress, rather, so that a car can pull in off the west bound lane and go in off the east bound lane, but the exit will be at the far end, away from the light. Some of those lumber trucks come down 149 at the speed of sound. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I know. MR. GLEASON-But we’ve aligned it so that you can pull in and pull all the way around and come out and go again. You don’t have to pull back out if there isn’t any parking on 149. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. No, it’s a good circulation plan. MR. GLEASON-I think it is. We got some people from Fairly Dickinson University to help us on that. MR. FORD-It’s an excellent addition to our community. MR. GLEASON-Thank you. We’ve gotten great response. Far greater than I ever thought. MR. HUNSINGER-Any final questions or comments of the Board? MR. METIVIER-We still have to address Mr. Matthews’ issues, I think. MR. GOETZ-Is there any way you gentlemen can work with Mr. Matthews to try to solve the problem that he has, you know, on a personal type of thing? MR. GLEASON-Sure. MR. VESIC-Sure. MR. GOETZ-I would think that might be a good way to proceed. MR. VESIC-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-We have to do a SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we do. MR. GLEASON-I’ll speak with him, and perhaps we can pay for a gate on his property, so you can’t pull in. I can see his concern. He has some very valuable boats there. Right now, I don’t know what kind of a block he has late at night, and I’d get someone to put a chain across it so that it wouldn’t be, it would prohibit anyone from parking in there, if he’d approve that. That would eliminate any parking in his lot. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) MR. HUNSINGER-If they have a site plan that meets the parking requirements of the Town Code, and then there’s a complaint, would that bring an enforcement action and bring them back before the Planning Board? I mean, how would something like that be handled? Because our job is to comply with the Town Code. The plan complies with the Town Code. MRS. BARDEN-Right. I don’t think it would be a Town issue, per se. I mean, you’re charged with reviewing a plan in accordance with the Zoning Code. So it’s not even a discretionary, parking isn’t even a discretionary element. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. So, this certainly wouldn’t have any kind of complaint further site plan or site plan approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So, are there any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. SANFORD-None here. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 60-2005, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: GGV, INC. d/b/a THE CHERRY TOMATO, 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 25 day of October, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ford, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-We do have outstanding comments from C.T. Male, but I believe the Staff resolution includes final signoff. MR. SANFORD-Does it? 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) MR. HUNSINGER-I’m checking as we speak. Yes, Item Three. MRS. BARDEN-Did you receive comments from C.T. Male? MR. MC NALLY-No, we didn’t. MR. HUNSINGER-They’re dated October 19. I mean, there’s a total of 10 comments, th largely engineering in nature. MR. SANFORD-Let’s just talk for a moment. Pretty much in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff, but are we going to deal with any kind of partition or fencing or anything in this motion? I think he’s just going to work with the adjacent property owner to come up with a workable solution to overflow parking, that kind of thing. Right? MR. SEGULJIC-Right. George had brought it up with the steep grade of the parking lot, a fence. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Safety fence. MR. SEGULJIC-Safety fence. MR. FORD-And some sort of barrier or fencing or something around the liquid propane tanks. MR. SANFORD-Okay, around the tanks. Is there any other fencing we’re talking about? MR. GOETZ-Yes, we’re talking about the end of the parking lot. MR. GLEASON-On the parking lot to the south side, southeast corner, that whole area in the back. MR. GOETZ-Yes, where it goes down into a ravine. MR. SANFORD-All right, and then also around the propane tanks. MR. GLEASON-Yes. MR. SANFORD-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 60-2005 GGV, INC. D/B/A THE CHERRY TOMATO, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Applicant(s): GGV, Inc. d/b/a The Cherry Site Plan SP 60-2005 Tomato Owner(s): Same SEQR Type Unlisted Agent(s): Thomas McNally Lot size 1.89 acres Location Bay & Route 149 Zoning NC-1A Tax Id No. 279-1-62 Section 179-4-030 Cross Ref. AV 32-93, AV 79-05 Warren County Planning 10/12/05 Public Hearing 10/25/05 Adirondack Park Agency Yes Project Description: Applicant proposes a 600 sq. ft. addition to the existing 2100 sq. ft. restaurant and a 2,000 sq. ft. expansion to the existing parking lot. 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 25, 2005; and 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, 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. 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: 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) 1. The applicant shall install fencing on the southeast corner of the lot, as well as fencing containing the propane tanks located on the property. 2. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 3. Lighting poles and bulbs for inspection on the ground before placing upright 4. C.T. Male Associates engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator on approved plans. 5. 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. 6. 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 25 day of October, 2005, by the following vote: h AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. MC NALLY-Thank you. MR. GLEASON-Thank you, gentlemen. SUBDIVISION NO. 16-2005 SKETCH PLAN SEQR TYPE PUD CONSISTENCY SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES AGENT(S): NACE ENG., J. LAPPER OWNER(S): GLENS FALLS HOME ZONING PUD LOCATION HAVILAND/MEADOWBROOK APPLICANT PROPOSESA 42 LOT SUBDIVISION RESULTING IN 38 RESIDENTIAL LOTS [TOWN HOUSE UNITS] AND 4 COMMERCIAL LOTS OF 2.07, 1.39, 1.28 AND 1.30 ACRES, RESPECTFIVELY. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 40.00 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.20-1-7 SECTION A-183 JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RICH S., PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to summarize Staff notes, Susan? MRS. BARDEN-Sure. This is a Sketch Plan review. The zoning designation is PUD, 20 acre parcel in PUD, Hiland Park PUD. The Town Board issued a consistency finding with the Hiland Park PUD for this development project. This project is designed to correspond with the County’s plan for the relocation of Meadowbrook Road. Any subsequent approvals of this subdivision should be conditioned on the completion of the new Meadowbrook Road before any permits are issued for the project. This is a proposal for a 42-lot mixed-use, cluster subdivision, resulting in 38 residential lots ranging from .17-acres to .33-acres. And, 4 commercial lots of approximately one acre each, and one of two acres. Twin houses are proposed on the residential lots, these will straddle the adjoining property lines, with 0’-side setbacks. The residential aspect of this development is similar to Waverly Place, across Meadowbrook Rd., with townhouses and an HOA-controlled open space with walking trails. The PUD does not specify a shoreline setback. Most residential and commercial zones have a minimum 75-foot setback from wetlands. The proposed townhouses on lots 37 and 38 are placed 10-feet from the ACOE wetlands. The Board should require a reasonable setback from the wetlands and the applicants should identify these lines on any subsequent maps. Consideration should be given to requiring a 75-foot setback from the wetlands to the commercial lots. As well as, erecting a fence or vegetated barrier, to protect these areas on the commercial side. The commercial lots will have to come back for site plan review. The 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) proposed access road to the residential lots from Haviland Road should line-up with the driveway across the street. It may be possible to move or reconfigure lots 11, 12, 13, and 14 slightly to accomplish this. That’s all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. The floor is yours. MRS. BARDEN-You’re welcome. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper and Rich Schermerhorn. I guess, to start with, the way Rich got into this project was because the County indicated that they wanted Meadowbrook Road to be located. There’s a sight distance issue going up the top of the hill going up Haviland, and as you’ll recall, when we were here in the Spring, doing, the single family subdivision on the north side of Meadowbrook, of the intersection of Meadowbrook and Haviland, the County DPW, because Haviland is a County road, told us that they were in the process of trying to design a relocation of Meadowbrook Road and that they wanted a four way intersection with Rich’s single family subdivision. So, after we got into that whole discussion, Rich approached the Glens Falls Home, which bought this at the time that they developed with the Eddy the Glen at Hiland Senior project, and Rich now has a contract to purchase the 20 acre piece that was always going to be another commercial component of Hiland under the PUD, and also had a residential component on the south side of that. So, in the original PUD, it was the same density or the same percentage of land that would be devoted to commercial and devoted to residential, but the configuration was different. It was commercial along Haviland and residential behind that. However, after working with the County and their traffic consultants, Creighton Manning, and realizing how they wanted Meadowbrook Road to be relocated, it made sense to Rich to put the commercial next to Meadowbrook, just because that’s going to be somewhat of a busy intersection, and better to shield the residential and to have the residential more on the east side. So we came up with this proposal. It was subject to approval by Glens Falls Home, because in the contract they reserve the right both for architectural approval and to approve the site plan because they wanted to make sure it was compatible with what they have to the south, where they’ve got a big investment, obviously in The Glen at Hiland. So we ran this by them. Then we had to go to the Town Board for compatibility, and the Town Board looked at this and voted that it was compatible with the original, consistent with the original Hiland Park PUD. We just made changes to accommodate the new road, and we have a signoff from the County that the road that’s been designed is exactly where they want it, and the intersection is how they want it. So we’re at the final stage, in terms of the residential, to come before you for subdivision approval. As Susan just mentioned, the commercial lots are something that Rich doesn’t know what he’s going to do yet. So you don’t have a site plan. We don’t have a proposal for a commercial yet. That’ll be the second phase. So that’s just for the sake of the subdivision, that it’s a subdivision for the townhouse project, and to subdivide the commercial lot, and we’ll have to come back for site plan approval when he decides to develop the commercial lots. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have concepts for the commercial lots, you know, like types of uses or anything? MR. SCHERMERHORN-I don’t have types of uses, but I would imagine probably like a doctor’s office. Actually the Glens Falls Home was hoping maybe there’d be a physician’s office. I could see lawyers, accountants, but honestly at this time I don’t have any idea what will go there, but obviously we’d come back for site plan review. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, yes. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I just want to clarify a few things, because I know it’s going to come up. These are duplex town homes. They’re not rentals. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons Glens Falls Home was willing to work with me is because I allowed them to place a lot of conditions on me. One of the things was not to have rentals, which I agreed to. Another thing is they have full architectural approval of what I do on this property, as well as they understand that the Town wants the, they realize that it has to be compatible with the Hiland Park PUD. The buildings are going to be a story and a half, which is nature with Waverly Place. They’re not looking for the two story, full two stories on the buildings, just because they want to keep the views and the aesthetics for the people in the development. That also applies to the commercial buildings, that, not only did we agree upon, it’s in the contract, and they’re conditioning me on these items. The office buildings will be similar to what I’ve been doing on Bay Road, more residential in look, but not a full two stories. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) They’d be like a story and a half, something that would be more cape style, but honestly I’m finding, with this type of neighborhood and the development across the street, they’ll probably one level buildings. They won’t be a story and a half. I did, they have a grass walking trail that the seniors have been using in there, and I’ve agreed to do that, and also I put a wooden foot bridge over an area that indicates as wetlands, but it’s really not wetlands. It’s just, it’s the type of vegetation that’s in there, but that foot trail, I would blacktop that, so that it would be similar to the one that The Michaels Group did. I think it’s just a little easier on people if they’re going to use it as a walking trail, especially the elderly people. Now, landscaping’s always a big thing with this Planning Board, and I hope that you can see that, if you were to count the numbers of trees that I put on here and the sizes, and the sizes are quite large, three to three and a half inch. Sometimes we have problems getting three to three and a half, but I’m trying to address things that have come up, year after year, month after month when I’m in front of this Board. So it is fully loaded with landscaping. I couldn’t fit anymore where the townhouse development is. Now the commercial part, we did it in keeping with what the Bay Road corridor would require, the maple trees, and again, this will be a Town road, and the County, now this is important. Michaels Group wasn’t happy about the County wanting to do this because you can actually tell they’re going to lose, they don’t have a corner lot anymore, but a value on a corner lot typically usually is if you’re going to do something commercial. Their plans to me they showed, preliminary stuff, which, who knows, they might come in next month or next year, but was to do possibly a condo or a townhouse project some day. So what I provided for them, and I have a copy here on concept, because we disagreed upon it, the County asked if I could work with them. I’m going to give them an easement through my property where they could do a roadway into my property, or into their property through mine. There is a letter in the file, which I believe you guys have, from Mr. Lamy, I think it is, where they’re doing a fair market value and appraisal on this property and stuff, and it’s the way they have to go about it, but they’re dead set that this, you know, road is going to go through. I know there is a Staff comment about conditioning building permits per that. The only condition I would respectfully ask is that, you know, we wouldn’t be able to develop the inner commercial lots, but allow for the subdivision to go in and naturally do a cul de sac or turn around, I guess, until that time, because the whole alignment of this, my subdivision across the road, that was approved, and it was all based upon the County pushing forward and my cooperation to work with them on this. So I would just ask that if it comes to Final that we’d find a reasonable way to work it out. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SANFORD-Yes, just a couple. Not really going anywhere with this, but there was an original PUD which pre-dates my tenure on this Board, I believe. MR. HUNSINGER-All of ours. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SANFORD-I guess to the degree that there’s been changes in ownership and now the road’s going to be angled a different way, etc., etc., to what degree is the original PUD compromised at this point in time, or is it still as viable as it was before? I mean, what is, I mean, not just with this project, it’s in any project. Once you start having changes of a material nature, if you will, to what degree does the integrity of the original PUD lose its legal credibility? If the question makes any sense. I’m just wondering when does it become a point where we basically say, well, we’re going to put the original PUD aside and we’re going to look at this in a new light? MRS. BARDEN-Well, I think that that’s a Town Board, the Town Board, with their resolution affirming consistency of this development with regard to the Hiland Park PUD, they did deem that this was consistent. Is it, I mean, I’m not sure if I could, I certainly can’t answer whether or not that this is consistent with the first vision of Hiland Park PUD and what it was supposed to be. I understand that it’s not, but, you know, I think we need to go, this Board needs to go with the resolution of consistency by the Town Board. MR. SANFORD-And consistency means that, in the granting of the original PUD, there were certain things addressed, perhaps densities and things of that nature. MRS. BARDEN-Exactly. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) MR. SANFORD-And so that they still hold true as we move forward? MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It’s kind of like an umbrella permit, if you will. The concept is sort of like an umbrella permit, and basically in saying that this is consistent with the original, the Town Board is saying that it’s within the original scope, in terms of impact and magnitude. MR. SANFORD-So the Town Board thought that it was of such a material deviation they could basically say it no longer is, and then I guess it would go back to whatever the, I guess it would have to be within a particular zone type of a situation. MRS. BARDEN-That’s correct. MR. SANFORD-Okay. I’m just trying to understand it. MR. LAPPER-Richard, I have a copy, if you just want to take a look, I have a copy of the original PUD map. It’s small but it shows all the area. MR. SANFORD-Yes, I would like to see it, maybe after the meeting. MR. LAPPER-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Actually, I think maybe everyone would like to see that. I mean, not right now, but with the submission of any application. MR. LAPPER-Yes, I can go through it. MR. SANFORD-The real question I have, and I don’t have any recommendations for, Richard, on this, but you know from the past that I don’t think a whole lot of creativity went into that Meadowbrook corridor, but we have a couple of parcels that still have to be developed, and I would hope to think that in terms of the commercial application, you could work with the Town Board, and/or the Planning Board, and also the community there, to put into place businesses that could be utilized by those people and actually compliment and move in the direction of a Smart Growth type of thing. This perhaps being contrasted with the typical Bay Road corridor professional office building, which might be an OB/Gyn or an orthopedic building or something like that, but, you know, there’s, I had access to a number of tapes prepared by my former neighbor, which talked in terms of developments similar to this where they kind of did a survey and found out, well, what would be something of interest for all the people now living in there, and it might be something as simple as a bagel shop or a donut shop or newsstand or whatever, and have those things placed in close proximity to all these people, so they could wake up and go get a New York Times on Sunday or something along those lines, as opposed to the traditional concept, okay, we’re going to put in a big medical building here or something along those lines. I don’t have any recommendations, but I would like to plant that seed with you for your consideration as you move forward. I think you could maybe come up with something a little bit creative here, in terms of how it would be perceived by people in Waverly, and I’ve been talking to a lot of those people in Waverly, and they keep asking me what’s happening here, and I say, I don’t know, but they talk in terms of that kind of stuff, and I’d like to share that with you as you plan. MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, I think it’s a great idea. As a matter of fact, I’ve had a few Town employees thought it would be a great idea if there was a deli or something there because there’s not too many places to go, other than down to Stewarts or Chopsticks, Chinese food, I guess, to get food in the Bay Road corridor area. So, no, and again, I’d be back for site plan review and certainly by planting the seed, I do remember each and every time I come back. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments? MR. METIVIER-I just have one quick question. MR. HUNSINGER-Tony? 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) MR. METIVIER-The lots are only a quarter of an acre a piece, on average, is it safe to assume that there’ll only be one part of the duplex on each of those lots? Does that make sense? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, your typical zero lot line, they call it. MR. METIVIER-Okay. So you’re not going to have 76 town homes, you’re only going to have 38 total? Thirty-eight total. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. METIVIER-That makes me feel a lot better. MR. SCHERMERHORN-No rentals, for sale. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions? MR. GOETZ-Will this be accompanied by a Homeowners Association type of plan? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, a Homeowners Association, and one of the things, lighting. I’m specifying that the lights are the same as the development I did across the street. So that the two developments compliment each other, the Victorian, I call it the Saratoga street lights, but it’ll be the same lighting, but it will be an Association, just like Waverly Place and Cedar Court and the other developments. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? MR. SEGULJIC-How about the Staff comment about the, I guess the residential units being somewhere like 10 feet of the wetland areas? MR. FORD-Wetland. MR. SEGULJIC-Can we move those back? MR. LAPPER-The simple answer is that the Army Corps wetlands don’t require, they’re not like DEC wetlands. They don’t require any setback whatsoever. You just can’t disturb the wetland itself. So there’s not a requirement for that, and due to the nature of this wetland is not something that requires anything to be setback in terms of to protect the foundation of the unit. So, Tom designed this to use the wetland as a buffer between the commercial and the residential, just as a natural buffer, but there’s no legal requirement that you have to buffer that Army Corps wetland. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess I’m more concerned about protecting the wetland. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, I was just going to approach that. Often the word “wetland”, you hear “wetlands”, you think of marsh and you think of wet. This particular parcel, year after year, they mow it and they hay it. I don’t think they did it this year, but it’s vegetation, certain vegetation that’s in there. Army Corps has not restricted from mowing these certain type of areas. It’s not like there’s standing water in there. MR. FORD-There might be now. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Today yes. Today there possibly could be, but for the most part, from what I’ve observed and been out there, it’s typically always dry. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they mowed the trail all summer, they mowed the trail. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, and they don’t restrict you from mowing those particular areas, Army Corps. Now DEC it’s a little different. You’re not supposed to approach them. MR. LAPPER-But in terms of protecting the wetland, this is, we should have mentioned that it’s both public sewer and public water. So sewer is one of the issues, in terms of effluent and making sure that you have separation distances, and that’s not an issue here because this is all going into the Glens Falls Sewer Treatment Plant, and you don’t really worry about people throwing trash out in the back in the wetland. So in terms of protecting an Army 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) Corps wetland, you don’t have to have a buffer, but you have to protect it. You can’t disturb it, and we think that using it as the buffer between the commercial and the residential will do that. There’d be no reason for anyone to walk in it. MR. FORD-So I notice there aren’t any plantings in there. MR. LAPPER-Right, because you can’t do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, how about the other Staff comment, the alignment of the access to the Haviland to the driveway across the way? MR. LAPPER-I’ll let Tom talk about that. MR. NACE-Sure. For the record, Tom Nace, Nace Engineering. The issue of alignment of the driveways or access from intersections right across from each other pertains to intersections with any major volume to them. The issue is you’re going to be able to see the intentions of the driver coming off (lost words) the opposing driveway. These are offset by 25 feet from center line to center line, which is not significant enough to keep drivers from being able to tell what the opposing driver is going to do. Also, of important consideration in this case is the driveway opposing is a very low volume driveway. My office looks out on the driveway. If there’s a dozen cars that use that a day, it’s a lot. MR. HUNSINGER-What’s that driveway to? MR. NACE-It’s the back end driveway into (lost words). MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SANFORD-How about on Meadowbrook, when Meadowbrook hits, you’re going to angle that off, so that it meets your new development road I understand. Now, is there any possibility of a light being put there, or is there a need for a light there, a traffic light, Meadowbrook hitting Haviland? It would be a four way intersection. MR. NACE-It’s a County road. So that would be up to the County. My guess is it will not have enough volume, at least at this time, to warrant a light. Some day it might. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, some day it will. MR. NACE-One of the reasons in moving that intersection is to get better sight distance. MR. FORD-It’s currently dangerous. MR. SANFORD-I understand. Well, again, you know, talking to a lot of the people on Meadowbrook, and particularly the Waverly people, they’re terrified of that going out to that road, because as you know now, you don’t have much sight from the hill, and you’re going to make a difference there, but it’s still going to be, is kind of a dangerous situation because people go pretty quick on Haviland. I don’t know what the process is for the County to look into that, but it’s also becoming more heavily used than it has in the past with all the development. MR. NACE-I would think that if the Town feels strongly enough about it, that a letter to the County during the design of that to consider a light. MR. SANFORD-Yes. So the best way for that process to take place would be a Town Board decision to inquiry of the County as to whether or not it made sense for a light? MR. NACE-Correct. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I’d hate to have a light there. MR. SANFORD-You would not want to have a light there? 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SANFORD-If you were involved in an accident there, you might change your mind. MR. FORD-Well, something needs to be done. MR. HUNSINGER-Traffic lights have one function only. Slow down traffic, impede traffic. MR. NACE-I agree, right now it’s a very dangerous intersection. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely, no question. MR. NACE-The reaction time, pulling out onto Haviland is, moving it 300 feet, that’s going to add considerably. MR. SANFORD-Yes, it will be a big improvement. MR. NACE-It’ll make a big difference, that extra 300 feet. MR. FORD-We’re also going to be adding volume, however. MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. NACE-Actually, volume may help slow down traffic on Haviland. MR. HUNSINGER-It might, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-What is that, for lack of a better term, weird configuration of D and Haviland Road. Is that anything? Looks like the plotter got stuck, under the “D” on Haviland Road. MR. NACE-That’s an existing water valve. There are four of them. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. This .49 acre Homeowners Association off of Haviland Road. MR. LAPPER-There’s a bunch of those. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, but the one, the .49 acres, it just seems to be in no man’s land, whereas all the other ones, people have access to. MR. NACE-Actually the .49 one helps to create a little buffer along Haviland. It keeps the back property lines from being right out on the road. It goes across all the way and in front of these lots. MR. SEGULJIC-So it goes all the way across. MR. NACE-So none of these individual lots have frontage on Haviland. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. LAPPER-That means that the Association will be responsible for taking care of the landscaping. MR. HUNSINGER-I had two questions and a comment. The one question was already addressed and that is the proposed re-location of Meadowbrook does line up with your new project that’s north. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-The second, and somewhat related question, you sort of alluded to. When The Michaels Group was here, they actually started a roadway, they piled up dirt there. MR. LAPPER-Yes. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Where does that line up on this site plan? Is it south of the re-located road or is that the need for the easement? MR. SCHERMERHORN-That piled dirt that you saw was just a stockpile of excess material that they had that they moved from the last phase, because they put silt fence around it. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, when they first started putting it there, it was almost like they were beginning to construct a roadway in. I guess that was really sort of the point that I was making is we’d want to see that. MR. NACE-This is on the Preliminary submission, but this is sort of an overall overview, let’s see. Okay. Here’s Haviland. Here’s what Rich is proposing now. Here’s the Hiland Estates subdivision that’s under construction, and this is Michaels Group parcel here. What is proposed now is an extension straight across of the road that Rich would be building with this subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. NACE-The pile of dirt they put in there is somewhere down in here. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say, I thought that was further south. MR. NACE-I think Rich is right. It was just a stockpile area to get rid of some extra dirt that they might use later on. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I thought it was more significant than that. MR. NACE-No, they have, in talking to John today, they have not firmed up their plans for that parcel at all. They need an access point, and this is a logical access point to line up with Rich’s road and to sort of come in to the center of their property. MR. HUNSINGER-So, does that diminish the value of the southern lot? MR. NACE-Of this? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. NACE-Yes, it makes this smaller, which Rich is giving up a considerable, and this would be reserved as part of this lot, probably for stormwater management. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I guess I also had a comment. I had a comment sort of to take off on Richard’s comments about the type of commercial uses. When The Michaels Group was here, when they did Waverly Place, and they still have the land to the north, as you know, and I asked them what their intention was for the commercial uses, they said they really had no idea, and one of the things I sort of challenged them with were very similar to the comments that Rich just made, and maybe another concept, I understand it won’t work on your site, but would be to have owner occupied commercial units, you know, have an apartment upstairs with commercial downstairs, and to get, to try to implement some Smart Growth ideas in this neighborhood, and to me that would really fulfill the whole concept of the original PUD. Have sort of neighborhood convenience type commercial uses that people in Waverly Place or your development or even your apartments to the south could walk to, whether it be to pick up a newspaper or a deli or whatever, and I guess in my mind that would be sort of the ideal commercial use, really start to create a neighborhood. MR. LAPPER-Like the Neighborhood Commercial zone. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, exactly. MR. SANFORD-Let me ask you a quick question on demographics. Is this being restricted to or targeted or marketed in a targeted way to certain age groups or type of thing, or not? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, what I envision, to be honest with you, is very, very similar to Waverly Place. I mean, there are a few, when I say a few, there’s very few kids, children, that you see there, but I see this, the people that have approached me already about interest 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) in this are people that their children are grown, and they’re here eight months a year, four months down south, out west, not all, but a lot of them are the, I guess to use the term the empty nesters. MR. SANFORD-Yes, but what I’m wondering, I’m just not versed in this. Did Waverly happen by design, in terms of attracting that demographic, or was it something that was basically, I don’t know, required or part of the? MR. LAPPER-No, it wasn’t. I did all the closings for The Michaels Group on that, and it wasn’t marketed that way. It was just townhouses for sale. MR. SANFORD-And it just turned out to be like empty nesters is a good way of putting it. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. LAPPER-That was who was interested, but it certainly wasn’t a senior project or anything. They were just trying to sell them fast. MR. SANFORD-Okay. No, I just didn’t know. I think it works very well for the people who live there. I think they’re very happy with their community, and I just didn’t know if you had some kind of, it’s probably against the law, to some degree, to have. MR. LAPPER-You’re actually allowed to discriminate in favor of seniors. MR. SANFORD-Yes, but what constitutes a senior? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Fifty-five or older. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. SCHERMERHORN-But I’d have to restrict the subdivision, if we said it was seniors only, we’d have to restrict it to 55 and older. MR. SANFORD-Okay. All right. MR. HUNSINGER-And you have no intention of doing that? MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, because I might limit myself, because, like I said, there may be, I mean, there are some younger couples, I mean, in the development across the street, and, you know, as far as pricing goes, you know, these are units that are going to be similar to Waverly, if not maybe a little bit more because prices have gone up. Some of the demands of people have gone up. MR. HUNSINGER-How about the size of the units, though. I mean, these lots aren’t as big. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Very comparable. MR. HUNSINGER-Really? MR. SCHERMERHORN-As a matter of fact, we used the same footprint to layout on this property. We actually borrowed their footprint because we have it on the CAD system. So that’s pretty much how we came up with the design. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SANFORD-Will this have more or less units than Waverly? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Less. Waverly, I think, has 56. MR. SANFORD-At least that many. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other final questions, comments from the Board? 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/05) MR. SCHERMERHORN-One thing I’ll address is stormwater. Tom’s taken a lot of careful consideration. The Glens Falls Home had a big concern with that, with the stormwater. So we’ll make sure that when we come back for Final, that we have a complete stormwater review and signoff by C.T. Male. MR. SANFORD-What’s your timeline on this? MR. SCHERMERHORN-November 15 if we can. th MR. SANFORD-No, I don’t mean coming back here. I was just wondering, you know, this is Sketch, if everything goes according to plan, when do you envision, let’s say, the completion of the project? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, we’re getting late in the year. So even if I was, there’s only two meetings in November. I’m out of Town for the second one. So I was hoping to be on for the first one, but it would be, I don’t know if we could get a whole lot done with winter coming, to be honest with you. I don’t know if it would be beneficial to anybody to try and, for me to try and start it in the middle of winter. So, you know, early Spring. MR. SANFORD-Is when you would envision. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Starting the road, yes. MR. FORD-Going to market with your first town home? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, typically you try and start one as a model. You’re allowed to start one. In this case right off of Haviland there’s a convenient spot. Like Lot 14 would be an easy one to start, while the road’s under construction. Probably start one in the Spring and see where it goes from there, but, realistically, it’s always two or three months. Two months to put the road in and then you’ve got to get it accepted by the Town Board and all that stuff. So it would be probably July, the middle of July, beginning of July before we really start. My intentions of course, once I close on this, is to start right away. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Back to the final item on the agenda, Nicholas Daigle, Site Plan No. 59-2005. I don’t suppose there’s anyone here who showed up? I will open the public hearing and leave it open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other business before the Board? If not, I will entertain a motion for adjournment. MR. FORD-So moved. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 57