Loading...
09-20-2016 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 20, 2016 INDEX Site Plan PZ 131-2016 Great Meadow Federal Credit Union 1. FWW PZ 132-2016 Tax Map No. 296.20-1-10 Site Plan PZ 216-2016 Dunham's Bay Fish & Game 2. Tax Map No. 253.-1-19 Site Plan PZ 217-2016 Nicholas Daigle 6. Tax Map No. 303.20-2-34 Subdivision PZ 163-2016 PRELIM STG. Joseph Leuci 8. Subdivison PZ 206-2016 FINAL STG. Tax Map No. 295.15-1-6 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 20, 2016 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN PAUL SCHONEWOLF, SECRETARY STEPHEN TRAVER BRAD MAGOWAN THOMAS FORD GEORGE FERONE DAVID DEEB LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN ENGINEER-CHAZEN ENGINEERING-SEAN DOTY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'd like to welcome everyone to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting on Tuesday, September 20, 2016. Members of the audience, welcome. There's copies of the agenda on the back table. There's also a handout for public hearing procedures. We do have public hearings scheduled on all three regular items. The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from July 19th and 26th, 2016, if anyone would like to move those. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 19, 2016 July 26, 2016 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 19TH AND JULY 26TH, 2016, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 201h day of September, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We have an item under tabled items. TABLEDITEMS SITE PLAN PZ 131-2016 & FWW PERMIT PZ 132-2016 GREAT MEADOW FEDERAL CREDIT UNION FURTHER TABLING/DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SITE PLAN PZ 131-2016 & FWW PERMIT PZ 132-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED GREAT MEADOW FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AGENT(S) ETHAN P. HALL — RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE ZONING CI LOCATION MEADOWBROOK RD. NW OF QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 1,915 SQ. FT. BANK BUILDING INCLUDING A DRIVE THRU. BUILDING TO HAVE 24 X 24 SQ. FT. UPSTAIRS PORTION. SITE CONTAINS WETLANDS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 AND CHAPTER 94 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE A NEW COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE AND WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF A WETLAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FOR BUILDING SETBACKS AND SHORELINE SETBACKS. CROSS REFERENCE SP 7-08 CONST. OF 2,886 SQ. FT. OFFICE BLDG. 5/6/08 WARREN CO. REFERRAL MAY 2016 SITE INFORMATION WETLAND LOT SIZE 0.63 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-10 SECTION 179-3-040 & FWW PERMIT CHAPTER 94 MR. HUNSINGER-And we have a motion to deny without prejudice. This could be going for months and months. MRS. MOORE-Correct. What we've, what the applicant has explained to me is that the DEC hasn't responded in writing about not allowing further development on that site, and so the applicant is waiting for that correspondence. This, by denying it without prejudice, puts it back in the applicant's court and gives them some supporting information to bring to the DEC. RESOLUTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE SP PZ 131 & FWW PZ 132-2016 GREAT MEADOWS On May 19, 2016 the Planning Board tabled the application to a September, 2016 meeting date. No new information was submitted by the August 15, 2016 deadline. The applicant has explained they are waiting for correspondence from DEC and they do not know when it will be provided. MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE SITE PLAN NO. PZ 131-2016 & FWW PERMIT PZ 132-2016 GREAT MEADOW FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, Seconded by: George Ferone Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Now we're into our regular business. Just for reference to the public, the discussion item for Cerrone Builders will be tabled until October. That's at the request of the applicant. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN PZ 216-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED DUNHAM'S BAY FISH & GAME AGENT(S) SEAN GARVEY OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING LC-10A 2080 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 12' X 48' OPEN-SIDED POLE BARN OVER AN OUTDOOR RANGE/TRAINING AREA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3- 040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW STRUCTURES FOR GUN RANGE AREA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE 2003-502 DEMO PERMIT, 2003-487 SEPTIC ALTERATION, 92-450 NEW CLUB BUILDING WARREN CO. REFERRAL SEPTEMBER 2016 SITE INFORMATION APA, PORTION WETLANDS, CEA LOT SIZE 20.74 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 253.1-19 SECTION 179-3- 040 SEAN GARVEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MR. TRAVER-Mr. Chairman, excuse me. I need to recuse myself from that application. I am a member of the club. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think we have another one, too. MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have to recuse myself also as a member of the club. MR. HUNSINGER-If our alternates would like to sit in for this item you're welcome. We need two. I'm sorry, Laura. Go ahead. MRS. MOORE-That's all right. The applicant is proposing to complete installation of a 12 foot by 48 foot open-sided pole barn. This is to go over an outdoor range training area, and the applicant, as it explains in the Staff Notes, the applicant was made aware that building permit was necessary because of putting a cover over the training area, and the applicant is before the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. GARVEY-Good evening. I'm Sean Garvey. I'm a local businessman and I'm also President of the Dunham's Bay Fish and Game Club. I'm here tonight because we were building an outdoor pistol range. We had called and gotten permission for the walls. It was a simple range with two eight foot walls, 50 feet apart, about eight feet high, poured cement with a berm or like a hill to catch the spent rounds. As time went on people wanted additional things added to the range and one of the final things that people wanted was a canopy, a 12 by 48 canopy at the far end of the range to match basically the design we had on the other 50 shooting positions for weather protection and for training. So we got an estimate for it and proceeded with the installation of this pole barn canopy design, was unware that, I wasn't thinking, I should say, I wasn't thinking and I wasn't aware, I wasn't cognizant that I should get a building permit. I know better. It's over 100 square feet. So that just wasn't on my mind and we didn't and therefore we got a Stop Work Order. So the pole barn has been stopped and the Building Department and the Planning Department has worked very closely with me and tremendous, as they've done in the past, they've done their job. So they allowed me to apply for site plan review to get a building permit for this canopy. You might have a picture of this in your application. It's a simple pole barn design, 12 feet by 48 feet. It's to match the rest of the canopy that we have. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from Board members? MR. FERONE-Is there any electric in that area that they had to put in? MR. GARVEY-There isn't now. I mean we might, with lights or something, but nothing's planned right now. MR. HUNSINGER-That was going to be my question was lighting. MR. GARVEY-Normally we shut the range down at night, but I'm not ruling that out. There's lighting now in the parking lot and things such as that. There's normal security lights and there's cameras and things such as that. If we were going to put lighting it would be on the back of the building, aiming towards the range, so it would not diffuse or affect anything. Currently, and we haven't for the life of the range. It's been there since 1945 or so, ever had night shoots there. So we aren't designing any sort of outside lighting with it now, except like a security, like a, there's a safety lighting that we have, which is a shoot/no shoot lighting. It's not, they're red bulbs and yellow bulbs. They're encased in a glass container so they can be seen by the shooter in daylight. It wouldn't affect any neighbors at all. JOHN SHAFER, ALTERNATE MR. SHAFER-1 noticed the first sketch you had did not have the knee braces in it. MR. GARVEY-Yes, the first sketch was a hand sketch that was how we designed it. The Building and Codes, or the Building Department wanted a signed permit, a signed architectural drawings that had wind and snow weight bearing on the roof. When they did, when the architect did that or the engineer he added these. MR. SHAFER-Knee braces. MR. GARVEY-Yes, and they will be on there. MR. SHAFER-What is proposed for the footings at the bottom of the posts? MR. GARVEY-1 believe that it's six or eight inches of cement, but I think they're three feet in the ground, roughly, maybe four feet, with crushed stone that hardens. MR. SHAFER-There will be some form of attachment from the concrete to the posts? Sometimes there are metal L brackets that are. MR. GARVEY-Yes. I don't know if that's part of the design. If it's required we'll do it, but I don't believe that it is because they're cemented in place I believe. One of the things that the Building Department, Dave Hatin wanted, was to excavate one of the footings so he could see exactly it was made, and that was one of the requirements. So that will be done for them to give me a building permit. I've applied for the building permit and obviously we're waiting for the site plan review. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board? MR. FORD-How many positions would there be there? MR. GARVEY-This is not basically, this canopy wasn't really made for a shooting position like we had. We will have tables underneath it. It's going to be used as a training area and as a staging area. This has gone through a lot of changes. It was supposed to be just a standup combat range which is where we, police would go for HR-218, it's their yearly course they take for proficiency and things such as that, and other people want to use their range also. Some of them ask for rifle, like for 4-H, and Appleseed, and they wanted heavy duty benches. They wanted this protected canopy area. So probably 10 shooting positions, to answer that. That's how it's being designed, but there won't be 10 separate tables at all. Because it's made to standup the range. You're shooting a three yard, five yards, fifteen yards, such as that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So a place to do certification there. MR. GARVEY-Yes, and Army National Guard, Air Guard. Also 4-H uses it and Appleseed. They like it because it's a separated range and they wanted a protected training area so it's resistant to weather and they can match kind of what we have now in the other 200 feet or so of range, and we wanted to make it better than the previous canopy. That's why it's a pole barn design and it's very heavy duty. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-1 have none. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board on this project? I don't see any hands going up. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We'll open the public hearing and let the record show no comments were received. We will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted action. Are there any concerns that may result in a moderate to large impact that the Board has? MR. FERONE-No. MR. DEEB-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a draft SEQR resolution. If you'd like to move it. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC SP PZ 216-2016 DUNHAM'S BAY FISH & GAME The applicant proposes to complete installation of a 12' x 48' open sided pole barn over an outdoor range/training area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new structures for gun range area shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN PZ 216-2016 DUNHAM'S BAY FISH & GAME CLUB, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Motion seconded by Thomas Ford. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Ms. White, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And unless there's any final comments or concerns, mentioned by the Board, we do have a draft resolution to grant or deny. The applicant has not specifically requested waivers, but there is a list in the Staff Notes for the waivers that would apply. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ 216-2016 DUNHAM'S BAY FISH & GAME The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to complete installation of a 12' x 48' open sided pole barn over an outdoor range/training area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new structures for gun range area shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 9.20/2016 and continued the public hearing to 9/20/2016, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 9/20/2016; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN PZ 216-2016 DUNHAM'S BAY FISH & GAME CLUB; Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers requestrg anted: 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; b) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; c) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; d) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. MR. GARVEY-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. GARVEY-1 appreciate it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, good luck. SITE PLAN PZ 217-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED NICHOLAS DAIGLE OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CLI LOCATION 15-19 BOULEVARD APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW RETAIL/COMMERCIAL USE FOR AN EXISTING 2,800 SQ. FT. BUILDING. PROJECT IS FOR BUILDING #19 AND ASSOCIATED PARKING WHERE THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE BUILDING OR SITE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179- 9-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW USE FOR BUILDING AND SEVEN YEARS SINCE LAST SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 4-09 HAUN WELDING, SP 59-05 & AV 78-05 8,000 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE AND SEVERAL BUILDING PERMITS WARREN CO. PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2016 LOT SIZE 1.3 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.20-2-34 SECTION 179-9- 020 NICHOLAS DAIGLE, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant proposes a new retail commercial use for an existing 2,800 square foot building. This is to be a karate facility. The project is specifically for Building 19 and associated parking that is pre-existing is not proposed to be changed at this time, and that's all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. DAIGLE-Hello, Board, I'm Nick Daigle the applicant. We're proposing to move in the Karate Center. There is no alterations or any adjustments to the site that we need that requires, we're just looking, we're in that seven year re-visiting. There's really no alterations or changes to the site whatsoever. We're just going to use it as his karate center. Currently he has approximately 30 students. Most of them are dropped off. MR. FORD-You don't anticipate parking to be an issue, then. MR. DAIGLE-We don't, no. His classes start, earliest class is at four o'clock, for any types of groups that would come in. So that works well with the other tenants. The parking lot would be freed up so that they have plenty of parking. Like I said, most of the children are being dropped off by mom and dad. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-It said in the Staff Notes that there was no sign proposed. MR. DAIGLE-I don't have anything to do with what the tenant chooses to do with the sign, but I'm pretty confident he is looking to go through the procedures to apply for a sign permit. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It just would need to be Code compliant. MR. DAIGLE-Right, understood. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments from the Board? If there's no other questions or comments from the Board, we do have a public hearing scheduled on this project. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? I don't see any hands. Any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show that no comments were received. We will open and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted action. Does the Board have any items that they feel may result in a moderate to large impact? MR. FERONE-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If anyone would like to move the SEQR resolution. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC SP PZ 217-2016 NICHOLAS DAIGLE The applicant proposes a new retail/commercial use for an existing 2,800 sq. ft. building. Project is for Building #19 and associated parking where there are no changes to the building or site. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, new use for building and seven years since last site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN PZ 217-2016 NICHOLAS DAIGLE, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Motion seconded by Thomas Ford. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And unless there's any other questions or comments, there is a draft resolution in your packet. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ 217-2016 NICHOLAS DAIGLE The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes a new retail/commercial use for an existing 2,800 sq. ft. building. Project is for Building #19 and associated parking where there are no changes to the building or site. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, new use for building and seven years since last site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 9/20/2016 and continued the public hearing to 9/20/16, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 9/20/2016; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN PZ 217-2016 NICHOLAS DAIGLE; Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers requestrg anted: 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. e) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; f) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; g) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; h) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. DAIGLE-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you're welcome. We don't need a motion for the Discussion Item, do we? MRS. MOORE-You do not need a motion for the discussion. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So it's just tabled to October. MR. HUNSINGER-It's just tabled to October. MRS. MOORE-I'm moving it to an October time. SUBDIVISION PZ 163-2016 PRELIMINARY STAGE PZ 206-2016 FINAL STAGE SEAR TYPE I JOSEPH LEUCI AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) EXCESS LANDS ZONING MDR LOCATION JOHN CLENDON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE 66 ACRE PARCEL AS CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION REVISED WITH 20 LOTS - 19 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING FROM 1.9 +/- ACRES TO 0.80 ACRES WITH ONE LOT OF 41.6 ACRES TO BE USED AS OPEN SPACE PARCEL ACCESS THROUGH EASEMENTS WITH RUSH POND. PROJECT INCLUDES GRADING, CLEARING, ON-SITE SEPTIC, MUNICIPAL WATER AND STORMWATER MEASURES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 ARTICLE X CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 11-1992; SUB PZ 117- 2016 SKETCH PLAN WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A LOT SIZE 66 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.15-1-6 SECTION 183 ARTICLE X CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION JON LAPPER & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOE LEUCI, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the previous month the applicant provided information to show a 20 lot subdivision where 19 would be single family residential lots ranging in size from 1.9 to 0.80 acres and the one remaining lot would be 41.6 acres and that would be conveyed to the Town, and that information was forwarded to Chazen for review and the information has been received back to the Planning Board. I e-mailed that information out yesterday and the applicant has provided an e-mail response back, and I'll let the applicant clarify that. I do have a copy here, but it can simply be read into the record at that time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. Jon Lapper with Joe Leuci and Project Engineer Tom Center. So compared to a typical subdivision this has a real public benefit for the community and for the adjacent neighbors. The Rush Pond Trail has access on the north side and the south side. It's a big trail area, and this project is an almost 42 acre dedication to the Town, will allow a really nice access on the west side with a small parking area so that you can get in in the middle of the trail and this'll just open up access a lot closer to a lot of the residents in the Town of Queensbury. The average lot size is bigger than the average lot size in the adjacent neighborhood. Right now there's not a cul de sac for the Town Highway Department and this project will provide that as well. So there were engineering issues that had to be addressed because of the slope grading which essentially is three lots which have to be graded more than everything else. We've gone through the process as you've asked us to do, responded to the Town Engineer. As Laura said we got a response letter which were pretty technical changes and Tom sent a letter to Sean today to address that. I think that those guys are real close and nothing that's a showstopper. We hope that the Board is ready to approve it at this point. As we've stated previously, under the density requirements this site could have had 29 building lots and we're now proposing 19 which we hope you'll see as a fair compromise. Just adding a residential neighborhood next to a residential neighborhood, you know, built to modern standards. With that, I'll hand it over to Tom to talk about the engineering. MR. CENTER-Good evening. With regards to our comments last meeting, we talked about, if you go to the last two drawings, I believe it's S-9, we added Drawing S-9 and S-10, which show that Phase I disturbance area and how we will construct it, how we will protect the slope from erosion and sediment control, and how we will maintain that first phase of the development, and with that we also went a step further an provided a second drawing that shows the, actually this one right here. This one is the S-9 drawing that shows the area that will be disturbed for construction to the road. We've added check dams, we've added the sediment basin. We've shown the area that will be disturbed to create those three terraced lots, and from that there's a few technical things that I've discussed with Sean that we have to revise the standards in a couple of notes, but in the whole scheme of things we've provided what was requested to show for erosion and sediment control for the Phase I disturbance and how we will do it. There's some additional information he needs as far as the size of the sediment basins and things like that. If we have any problem we can provide that to them. The second drawing that we added, it's a 20 scale of the three lots, showing all three lots as they would be graded with the erosion and sediment control protection that we would protect them, get grass growing on those three lots, during the road construction phase. It's the best time to do it.. You're creating these lots. The homeowners will be able to see the level areas. They'll be able to see the locations where the houses will go and what the slopes will be, and we've also shown additional, beyond what we had last time, additional silt fencing on the toe of the slopes along the bottom toe, inside each lot, there's additional silt fence that was added right here, additional silt fence that was added here, and additional silt fence added here, as well some additional silt fence that was added over here that was requested in the last comment letter. We've talked about it. Normally in a stormwater management, erosion and sediment control, it's a lot of generalities that are in the design and there's notes there to say you're disturbing slope one to five, one to three, you can use erosion and sediment control, and it's more prescriptive, but this is telling them exactly what they need to do on their slopes for protection. It's something that the Town can enforce if there's an issue, and it lays it out for the contractor who'll be looking to grade those areas. In regards, I know there was some discussion about street trees. Looking at that and trying to lay out and figure the street trees along the sloped areas, one side of the road is going to have a water line that's going to have utilities. Street trees can have an issue within the right of way there. The other side of the road, looking at that, we're on a, you know, a sloped road, and then you have the sight distance issues. I think with this, if there's anything in particular on these three lots, this middle where we're doing a lot of the grading, if the Board sees locations where they think planting trees during the Phase One would be helpful we're open to discuss that along those three lots. I just thought that maybe if you got a chance to see it and saw it in a greater scale, those three lots, you'd understand the one on five slopes. There's actually more room, you know, when you look at it on a 60 scale drawing those contour lines look very close together. This is 20 scale of those three lots. You can see that it's not as, those contour lines aren't as tight. That means that slope is a more gradual slope on those plans, but I just thought it was a better way to kind of convey the questions that I think the audience had and the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? Did you want to talk about the response to the engineering letter? MR. CENTER-1 can go through our response if that would help, or if there's any particular question. Do you want me to sum it up? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, Laura had mentioned she could summarize it. MRS. MOORE-1 mean, I could read through his comments individually, and I think he can probably summarize it better than I can summarize it. MR. CENTER-With regards to comment one, we'll revise the sediment trap detail to provide calculations as requested. Again, like I've said, we've shown them and they are sized for the area. Question Number Two, we'll revise the check dam detail as per the attached engineer's comment. Comment Number Three, we will forward comments, any correspondence regarding the location of the water line and the drywells that has to do with the water line and drywell separations. Again, as stated in the letter, the same design has been approved by both the Water Department, the Highway Department, and New York State Department of Health on very similar projects. Number Four there's no comment required. Number Five, we're going to provide the grate documentation that Sean requested and I think it's just a matter of he and I sitting down to discuss how I do HydroCad versus what he was looking for. I think we're in the same ballpark. We just had two different methodologies how we went through the process of designing the HydroCad for the vein grates, but I think they will be adequate, and those vein grates were also used on Veranda Lane that Mr. Nace designed which is actually a 10% slope road, and it worked adequately for that. Comment Number Six is a detail cleanup. We'll show the stone envelope to be three and a half feet deep to match the HydroCad. Comment Number Seven we revised the lot grading details, but we'll also add some grading arrows for Lots 17 and 18 as he requested, and Comment Number Eight, in response to site plan for certain lots, looking at this, New York State Department of Health is going to, in their typical subdivision conditions, are going to require us to do a perc test on every lot. So we are going to go back and the lots that are graded, they will get a perc test at every location for the septic systems. We would offer on Lot Five, which is the lot that is going to be graded the most, and cut in this lot in here, that we will perform a test pit in both the septic system area and the infiltration area for the stormwater for the group to confirm that we have deep well-drained soils. We know we have very consistent soils throughout, but we have no problem doing another one when that lot is graded, just to confirm that we have consistent soils in those areas, and in regards to the stormwater management design for individual lots, again, our exfiltration rate that we've used and, not only of the individual stormwater infiltration but of the drywells and of the site itself, we've been very fair with our exfiltration rate which allows for excess storage and capacity, and most of the stormwater infiltration trenches that you look across for the residences are either in a little bit of fill area that's graded off by a foot or two or they're into the existing grade a foot or two. So really we know what the soils in this area are and they're very consistent. So doing an individual site plan review for this, it's not like a five acre parcel where you're completely picking up the house and the stormwater management in the driveway and putting it in an entirely different area of a large five acre lot. This is, I think we spent the time to do it in the Phase One disturbance where you really have the most land that's been moved, the most concern about erosion and sediment control, which we've shown the final grad on already. The individual lots, some are being filled in, cut in a foot or two on the side and cut in and cut down, which we've provided all the details that are necessary for erosion and sediment control on the individual lots. Again, think the general consensus, although we have a different mixture of hard woods and soft woods in here, similar to what we're doing right now on Burnt Hills where the houses are being located on those lots and folks are trying to save trees. The contractor's going out, locating the house, working with the homeowner. The same thing is going to happen here, and those lots will be attempted to minimize, I've shown the clearing limits that I think you need to get a septic system and a lawn in there. Someone could go with less once they lay out the actual size of the house, the actual location and the lawn area or to move it around so they can save trees when they go to build a house, and that's all the comments that we have. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else that you wanted to add? MR. LAPPER-Not at this point, no. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll open it up for questions, comments from members of the Board. Mr. Ford? MR. FORD-Yes. Over the months there's been so much discussion about the potential for problems with septic systems. Has any consideration been given to the installation of at least some septic systems that would tend to be appropriately used near some of our lake areas in the Town of Queensbury? In other words, not just a regular septic system, but you know them better than 1. MR. CENTER-Elgin or one of those types? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. CENTER-I'm not, I'm a firm believer of pipe and stone. The pipe and stone septic systems are the tried and true method of trenches where you get the most surface area for your effluent to leach into the soil. We have very good deep well drained sands. We're down to 12 feet I believe in most areas and we don't see anything there, and we also are greater than 100 feet from what's a dry stream now, but the potential runoff area that comes from, and stream that comes from Butler Pond. So we have our separations for standard systems. When we get into the Elgin units for single family residential homes, that's a last resort where you have space issues. When you can take effluent and put it in in three 50 foot laterals and spread it out in the soil and have six feet of separation, there's nothing better than the existing soils that are there, albeit these soils have a fast percolation rate in some areas, it's not 10, 15 seconds. It's 30, 40 seconds, but there are appropriate methods to modify it and we still have that separation to the seasonal high groundwater, condition and from my experience in doing replacement systems, there's nothing like the pipe and stone system. That is a standard design. MR. FORD-So, to answer my question, you found no need to look at any other type of system? MR. CENTER-Not here. In my experience it has the potential to have more issues down the line. You're not, you know, the Elgins are very good where you have space constraints, where you have a house on a very small postage stamp size lot and you don't need a variance. We have fairly large lots here, and we have deep well drained sands. You just have the typical issue that happens throughout Queensbury where the soils are, you know, 30, 40 second soils, which sometimes, you know, when we bring enough water we get in there we can modify them and get that minute when we grade off those areas and we actually bring enough water out to do the percolation test, because the Department of Health manual allows you to pre-soak up to 24 hours. So when you're in a wooded condition, you can only bring so much water out in the field. When you actually have that house lot opened up and you can come out and you can bring in additional water, there's the potential there to presoak as well to get it to that one minute perc rate. MR. FORD-There are there lots in particular that are going to be especially challenging, correct? MR. CENTER-1 wouldn't say challenging. We're going to be cutting, filling and changing the slope, yes, but again, our soils, and most of the septic systems are not that, except for the Lot Five, again, which we said that we would do the test pit and the perc test on, will be the deepest, you know, greater than four or five feet, that we will just confirm that the soils are consistent with what we found up above. The other lot, the Lot Four, this lot right here, this is actually a fill area. So this is sloping down, and we're filling that area so the septic system will be, you know, the bottom may be close to grade but, cut in fill material. This lot right here is the one where we'll be cutting the most, and that's why we'll do the additional test pit in those areas to confirm the separation, and then this one, again, is a little bit of fill there, a little bit of cut in this area, but again, not more than I believe three feet at grade. MR. FORD-You don't like the word challenging, but was consideration given to making them non-buildable lots, those three? MR. CENTER-No, I think, again, using the conservation subdivision model, we've been trying to stay away from encroaching on the environmentally sensitive areas, being the wetlands, and everything to the east was the goal of this project and that allows you to try to put the lots closer together. That's why I said coming in with 29 1 felt most comfortable with the 24, 25 submission that we came in with. That gave us enough room. We were doing some land grading, but we have good soils where we're taking some and we're moving them around, and we're following generally the path of that trail that's there now. We're only cutting in to the, more or less, in the areas of those three lots for the houses., and those three are large lots on top of that, and to explain, I guess, I know there was some question, not to do a, meaning to do a show and tell, but this is a one on five, this is six inches, two and a half feet. That's the slope that we're discussing. That's a one on five slope. MR. LAPPER-So that's the finished grade. MR. CENTER-That would be the finished grade that we were talking about, that slope that goes up, albeit it's longer, but that's a one on five slope. That's what we're talking about. So just trying to get a visual of cut section if you will, that's what the slope would be, finished grade, on the back side. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Those three hydrants are hooked together, the new ones, and fed from where? MR. CENTER-1 believe it would be, West Mountain Road. Does it come in from West Mountain Road? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't know. MR. CENTER-Or does it come in from Crownwood? I'd have to look. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There's a pressure problem, I would think, depending on where they're coming from. MR. CENTER-Well, downhill. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, downhill there won't be any. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-Yes, I had a question on these three lots that you're highlighting on S-9 and S-10. When you talk about trees and the concern about trees, with the amount of slope modification you're going to have to do, how many trees are going to be left after you do that, or are you going to have to cut everything? MR. CENTER-In those areas, that's why we've shown that as a disturbed area, as being a cut area. MR. TRAVER-Clear cut. MR. FORD-Totally cut. MR. CENTER-Yes, but again, when you take 66 acres, that this lot was, and if you were to do two acre lots across 66 acres and go with 20 some odd lots, you could have more than 20 acres of clearing, and then you've got to include the road and everything else there. So, yes, in respect to those three lots, there's a lot of clearing, but in respect to the size of the parcel, we've minimized it, and that's the basis of conservation subdivision, is trying to keep, you're keeping your disturbance in a smaller area. It may look larger for that smaller area, but across the 66 acres, the 41 that you're keeping absolutely pristine, and you're keeping still wooded, you're saving more. If you were to take that entire 66 acres, put a road through it and develop two acre lots, you could be disturbing, you know, close to 20 acres. MR. TRAVER-Well, one of the reasons that I was asking, and it's my experience being up there, with some of the other members of the Planning Board, that a concern was raised that, in anticipation of certainly having to do some clearing, but especially where the clearing was 100%, what the impact of wind loading would have on the surviving trees around the, that big open area, because it's just a matter of comment experience, as outdoorsmen, that if you have a storm event or man-made clearing or something, it can tend to almost self-generate additional force damage caused by straight line winds and things like that that before were broken up by the existing forest cover. I wondered if you had any comment or thoughts on that? MR. CENTER-Well, I think this area particularly sits down in a hollow. So over the top of it you kind of sit, both sides go up to the neighbors. Crownwood, Moorwood sit up here, and the other parcel sits up higher. We're not getting into, you know, it's not like we're sitting on top of the hill and coming back down. We're coming down the whole way. So I don't think that would be an issue in this case. MR. TRAVER-And can you give me an idea of approximately the distance from, I guess it would be the west side of Lot Four, or the uphill side of the sloped area to the downhill side, the widest portion in feet approximately? MR. CENTER-You want the acreage? MR. TRAVER-No, I was thinking, again, of the wind loading. The size of the opening at the widest point. MR. CENTER-You're looking this way? MR. TRAVER-Yes, exactly. MR. CENTER-350, 400 feet, I'm guessing. Less than 400. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-1 remember, you know, walking it and saying that, and we've seen that in other applications where you've, you know, taken density and you've cut down the trees, and when they're all together they kind of sway all together. They work against each other and then having a clear cut where you actually have a stop line, where you have a single, you know, now you don't have a group anymore. You've got a row of trees where I see, it also happens out in Northumberland Road down there in, the northern road in Wilton when they put in that building they cut and then all the other trees just fell over onto the existing house that was there, but is that what you were trying to get at, Steve, is the, you're weakening the group by. MR. TRAVER-Well, yes, certainly weakening, but I guess I would have a follow-up question, too. I mean, this area is not going to be open forever. I mean, you're going to be building houses there and presumably some landscaping and so on. Do you have any idea approximately how long this would be clear cut during this slope mitigation and when there would be structures actually on site? MR. CENTER-You're probably looking at three to four months for construction of the road and the clearing, and then once those lots are stabilized, then they can turn around and, once the road is completed and taken over by, they could have a house on one lot and then once the road is taken over and spec house on one lot, and then once the road is accepted by the Town and is a Town road, then we can start opening up the lots for construction, and, you know, with our experience things have moved fairly quickly on the Peggy Ann Road, and the price point of the houses. We've been approached by several people already asking questions about the lots and the location. So I don't think it's, probably less than a year. These lots will already be open and people can see them. I've seen on, like Geneva Drive, some of the folks have moved into those houses, similar price point, where they had this slope in the back where after they've done house sells they've been in there for a year or two and then they start doing their own landscaping. They've done very creative things to get back to the lots with retaining walls and things like that. We're going to give them the blank slate of it's already graded. It's already there, but certainly with something like that on a one on five slope, it could be a lot to grow back. We're going to, you know, do the grass and allow nature to take its course on this slope areas, and we want to keep the flat areas, you know, keep that mowed so we get a good stand of grass in those areas. MR. TRAVER-Well, that would help with the erosion. MR. CENTER-It would help with the erosion, and that's going to allow the sloped areas, you know, if people want to come in and brush hog it and start to landscape and do different things that that'll be their option, but certainly having it done early in the Phase One type of thing will allow it to grow back quicker than if you were to try to do this individually and just have a steep bank, if you will. Burnt Hills Drive that the Michaels Group is doing over there, that's an undulating, you have some deep cuts, you have some depressions. It's very difficult to try to come in with a design for a single lot and grade every single one because that's what I'm looking at. That's undulating. This is a little different. We have a pretty consistent slope. So we've gone to the step of grading individual lots so that there's a level of comfort, plus the stream and the environmentally sensitive area. We want to show that, yes, this can be done. This can be done safely, and we've gone to the extra step of erosion and sediment control. The Town Engineer has looked at that final grading. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. FORD-You mentioned a couple of minutes ago price point. Could you elaborate on that, please. MR. LEUCI-We're probably going to put up the same houses or similar houses that we're doing on Peggy Ann Road. Price starting around $259,000. MR. LAPPER-And where would they fall out in terms of closings? They start at$259,000. MR. LEUCI-They start at $259,000, and some people put some extras in there, $279,000, $289,000, around that area. MR. FORD-But virtually everything under$300,000? MR. LEUCI-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And what's the typical size house, three bedroom? MR. LEUCI-Three bedroom, two baths, 15, 1600 foot ranches. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LEUCI-That seems to be what people are liking today. MR. DEEB-Last month we discussed tree replacement. Where are we with that segment? MR. CENTER-1 guess I'd be looking for some input from the Board in regards to the three lots, if there's a certain area that they feel, whether it's on the property lines, along the edges, here, here, and here, and maybe down here, or if they're looking at, you know, top of slope here or toe of slope there. MR. LAPPER-Well, property lines make sense because that's outside the building. Correct? MR. CENTER-Correct. MR. LAPPER-So Joe is agreeable to planting. We just wanted to talk about what the Board wanted to see. MR. CENTER-Yes, I didn't think there was a good view of the lots as they are. I wasn't sure where we were with those trees. MR. DEEB-We won't know until it's cleared. Once you take the trees down, then we have to look, right, and then see what. There's a little bit of concern about the bareness of no trees at all. I mean, I know you have a buffer zone. MR. LAPPER-It's three lots and Joe is willing to agree to a planting plan on those three lots. MR. DEEB-I was just wondering where we were. That's all. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-On those three lots, would they be somewhat mature trees, maybe a four inch diameter along the lot line, really for erosion and that. MR. LAPPER-Yes. Joe will agree to four inch trees along the property line, if you can specify the species, probably a mix of hardwood and evergreen. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments, questions from the Board? I was going to ask the Town Engineer. We haven't asked you to weigh in yet. MR. DOTY-Yes. I think Mr. Center summarized it. We're looking for a little bit more detail on a few items. The grate, more detail on how water gets in the grate, make sure that it does not bypass stormwater system. A little bit more detail on some of the sizing and sediment traps. Clean up of some housekeeping items on the model and some grading, but nothing significant. It's all, I would categorize largely as housekeeping items at this point. MR. MAGOWAN-1 know we talked about the ones down at the bottom. You've said, we talked about extending pipes. MR. CENTER-Yes. I did extend, what we did was, if you look on S-6, between drywells 14 and 16, we tied those drywells in together, those series on both 14 and 16, and 13, 15. We've provided a trench in between those. I was looking at it. We have catch basins to the outside. If the Board wishes to connect to the ones at the cul de sac, I would just want to talk with the Highway Superintendent first, regarding going underneath the road. I would just want to talk to him. I don't see an issue with that, but I would want to talk with him. That was a comment that was brought up by the Town Engineer. That was something that we were going to address during the pre-construction regarding the cross connections under the road with the Highway Superintendent. It's not in the model. Again, it's something that would be extra, but certainly could be done as another layer of protection, again for additional stormwater management, but we routed them along the, underneath the swale connecting the drywells together. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. That was on 14 and 16. Right? MR. CENTER-Yes. That was, we had talked about connecting from 16 to the ones at the cul de sac, but again, I'd come down at the bottom of the slope. Remember everything is also sloping. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I thought we talked about connecting, but I thought, did we kind of talk about extending the pipes to, you know, almost like a leach field underneath? MR. CENTER-Well, that's what the, we had the stone and perforated pipe with a two by two stone on both sides of the road, from drywell to drywell. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, those are tied together, but I was thinking down at the bottom. I'm more worried about the cul de sac. MR. CENTER-Down at the bottom, each one of those are interconnected from the drive. We certainly could make the pipes that are connecting in between the drywells that are in the center. We could do all of those as infiltration trenches. MR. MAGOWAN-That's really, because if it doesn't, you know, I think the laterals in between, you know, to me it's going to catch water on either side of the road coming down. So, but really what doesn't catch on those and makes it down to the bottom, that's where I'd like to see the, you know, the most filtration as we could get. MR. CENTER-We can do those in perforated pipe and stone in the center of the cul de sac. Yes. So that's three lengths for about 20 feet, two by two stone, perforated pipe, probably a foot and a half, two foot up from the bottom. MR. FORD-Could we have the Town Engineer weigh in in the public session, please, regarding the three lots that you've been concentrating on so much, from two perspectives, stormwater management and septic. MR. DOTY-Sure. Not a specific question, just generalities I guess? MR. FORD-What's your reaction to what is being proposed? MR. DOTY-1 think they've gone back to develop a more detailed erosion and sediment control plan which was one of the requests, both of us and of the Planning Board last month. It's, I think it's, you know, State compliant. I think that obviously every construction site is dynamic and has to be watched during construction and that's why the State requires weekly inspections, and so our opinion of the erosion and sediment control plan is that it's compliant and provides sufficient detail for what's proposed. We didn't review the septic systems as part of our scope of review, but what's proposed we understand will be done in accordance with DOH standards, and DOH themselves has to review the septic systems when they do a realty subdivision review of the whole subdivision. So we're not really in position to comment on the septic systems, but that would be the process anyway. MR. TRAVER-1 had a question for the Town Engineer as well. Did I understand you to say that during the construction phase there would be at least weekly inspections? MR. DOTY-Yes. So this is a project that requires general permit coverage, and so during construction the owner has to hire a qualified inspector, which I assume would be someone from Tom Center's office, but I'm not sure, that has to go out on site, check all the erosion and sediment controls to make sure that they're functioning properly, and if there's deficiencies, he writes a report that both gets reported to the Town Planning Office and reported to the owner that those deficiencies need to general be corrected within 24 hours, and there are State levied fines for problems that occur that are significant for noncompliance. So if you have a noncompliance issue that the State can levy fines that are $37,500 per day per offense. So there's a pretty heavy hand that can be levied for significant problems. MR. TRAVER-And those inspections would be based upon the, whatever the final approved project plan is? MR. DOTY-Yes, and when I say construction's dynamic, obviously what you see on that plan, or on these plans, is a snapshot in time is what I like to call it when it comes to erosion and sediment control, because one day the bulldozer's over in this section, the next day it's over here. Right? And you don't know when you're going to get a storm event, and so the State has what they call the blue book which is the standard specifications for erosion and sediment control, just updated. You saw Jim talk about that, and so that is the manual in which erosion and sediment control practices are designed and enforced, and so what may happen on this site is that additional erosion controls that aren't sown on this plan may be needed due to whatever the current situation is, and those will have to be implemented to make sure that there's, you're controlling erosion and sedimentation such that it does not discharge from the site. Right? So you go by that book and your plan. So if there's deficiencies when you compare it to that book and the plans, those are what need to be corrected or could be enforcement actions taken. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. DOTY-You're welcome. MR. DEEB-Sean, would you say that the developer has gone above the minimum State requirements for stormwater mitigation? MR. DOTY-1 think there's some added assurances in the stormwater management design where, for example, they had very fast infiltration rates and they've taken a conservative infiltration rate and designed around, designed the infiltration practices around that, and some of the other items talked about our, like the equalization pipes that are perforated. Those aren't modeled. So they are not considered in the calculations as mitigating some of the stormwater runoff, but in practice they actually will. So there are some items in this design that are above and beyond the State standard, what the State requires. MR. DEEB-Thank you. MR. FORD-Laura, I have a question. Over the months that this has been repeatedly coming before us, there's never been a Planning Board meeting where there wasn't discussion pertaining to septic. Would you agree? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. FORD-Why has the Town Engineer not been engaged to review that? MRS. MOORE-Because as explained it's Department of Health that reviews that. It's under the purview of the Department of Health. MR. DOTY-Yes, and then on top of that when each one comes in for a building permit, Dave Hatin would review it as well. MR. LAPPER-Because it's five or more lots it's considered a realty subdivision. So it's the Department of Health jurisdiction. A level above the Town. MR. CENTER-And the Department of Health has been out to the site. We have performed with soil test pits with them. They have seen the soils. We dug the test pits at their direction in the locations of where we may have had concerns, and as we dug the test pits, we decided, okay, you can spread them out some more we're seeing consistent soils. Okay we definitely want to do them at the toe of the slope down by the stream. Everything was consistent in that regard. He talked about standard conditions similar to what we had used on Peggy Ann, where we needed to do perc tests on every lot because of the faster soils, and certain projects where we do these test pits and we do perc tests through those test pits, and we have, you know, consistently one minute, two minute soils next to the test pits, there's those times where he feels that level of comfort where he says okay we don't need a perc test for every lot, but it's becoming more and more that we are doing a perc test on every lot and providing that information just as a confirmation that it's been designed, and that's worked its way into the standard DOH notes. That level of review is still done. There's no showstoppers in regards to soils on these lots from the Department of Health, and he particularly wanted to do test pits at the toe of the slope, at the stream to see them. So we did them. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the items we had talked about last month, at the August meeting, was the Town acceptance of land. Where do we stand with that? MR. LAPPER-The Town acceptance of the 41 acres? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-We met with the Supervisor and one of the Town Board members right up front before we even came to the Planning Board and they were very excited about it because they think this is important because of Rush Pond. So we're confident this is something the Town wants. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So there was no further discussions or meetings? MR. LAPPER-No, they just said to go to the Planning Board and then come back to us, but it's something the Town Board really likes. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? Staff? Town Engineer? MRS. MOORE-1 have more of some information. When you talk about a planting plan, and we don't have knowledge of what that planting plan is, and you're considering including that in your resolutions, I do have guidance from our buffer standards that you might want to include because it does highlight a certain distance and so many trees for so many hundred feet, things like that. So when we get to that point I want to be pretty detailed about that, if you do that. MR. LAPPER-Yes, we can do that. That's fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. The purpose of the public hearing is for interested parties to comment on the project to the Board. We have literally taken hours of public comments in the prior meetings in April, June and August. A number of issues have been raised, a number of issues have been discussed by this Board and asked of the applicant. So I would ask, to the extent possible, that anyone wishing to comment, that they try to comment on either new items or items in the newest plan or the newest information and with that, who would like to be first? Sir, would you like to be first? I would ask anyone wishing to comment to speak their name clearly into the microphone and we do use the, the meeting is taped. The tape is used to transcribe the minutes, and the tape is also available on the Town's website. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOHN DAVIS MR. DAVIS-John Davis, 10 Crownwood Lane. Thank you for your service. Three points. Point One, how long is the road? Nobody can answer that. It's a cul de sac that everything else in the Town of Queensbury averages about 800 feet. You add the 900 feet to John Clendon gate and whatever the road is, and it probably comes to over half a mile, downhill. Mr. Lapper is entirely wrong. From Fox Farm Road, Potter Road, to John Clendon, to even West Mountain Road, everything is flat like that table. This is the first one that's going on this little show and tell five to one downhill to Rush Pond. Point Number Two. I would ask, I've been going to the Town Board ever since this started saying who accepted the conservation easement, and I got thrown out of it last time because you people accept the conservation easement and then the Town Board has to take it. I think people in this, in Queensbury, especially Ward Three, are getting the short shift because you guys are passing the buck and the Town Board is passing the buck. It comes to me after four meetings that the sole determinant of this housing thing is because the plow doesn't want to back up 400 feet. It would rather go half a mile down a five percent grade to a sensitive area to turn around. You people are protecting our watershed. Glens Falls does a better job. I urge you to reject this conservation easement, no matter who it's coming from. Thank you for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. SCOTT SORGER MR. SORGER-Good evening. Scott Sorger. I live at 18 John Clendon Road. I'm basically Ground Zero for this project. I would like to start off with, they said before the indicated benefit to the Town, you know, of access to this land, but it's really a joke. The land has always been accessed, and 19 new homes in a pristine area is not a benefit to anyone except the developer. Outside of two neighbors who have some unknown issues with me, that have said they are for this project, there's no one in the neighborhood who thinks this project has any good aspects to it. The environmental impact is obviously heavy, and the road and dead end issues have not really been resolved. A dead end of 1800 feet is not safe for obvious reasons, and I feel the Board should talk to the Town, as this other gentleman said, the Town Board and Supervisors about the acceptance of the 40 acres because what we've heard tonight on that is hearsay, and I ask the Board, if you are considering this project, to reduce the number of lots. All the other issues we have gone over before, and I urge you to reject this whole project. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. Good evening. ROMAN JAROSH MR. JAROSH-Good evening. I'm Roman Jarosh. I reside at 8 Crownwood Lane. You have heard from us and me about the merits of this project. My concerns have not dissipated. Issues of increased traffic, noise, steep unsuitable terrain for building, clear cutting, destruction of the green space and buffer from the Northway and Great Escape noise, future degradation of water quality and pollution of Rush Pond leading to adverse consequences for Glen Lake. Mr. Leuci has made a business decision on his own to purchase this property. He did not ask for your advice whether he should do it or not. You as a Board do not have to bail him out by granting him what he wants. You should be able to look through this quote unquote donation of land as a conservation easement for what it is, a pay to play to the Town as approval for development. You should reject this quote unquote donation. Mr. Center, Mr. Lapper and Mr. Leuci have all been silent toward the neighbors. They have not spoken to us directly or taken the opportunity to address us in this public forum. I, for one, would like to hear directly from Mr. Leuci as to his love of this land and his vision for this development. I know that if this project is approved the silence and lack of concern toward the neighborhood will continue. Since we will not have the ability to contact the developer, his contractor, his attorney or engineer regarding violations, concerns and complaints, we have to turn to you, the Planning Board. Mr. Deeb, when the construction trucks go barreling down our street, tearing up our roads and debris and dirt is falling off them, can we count on you to call the contractor and developer for us? Can you give us your phone number so we can contact you? Mr. Ferone, would you give us your cell phone number and contact information so that we can call you when the first child gets hit by a speeding car because of increased traffic? Will you, Mr. Ford, still be in the area when lots are being cleared and dust and noise permeate our houses, would you let us know your contact information here and in Florida? And in not many years from now when serious issues arise as to the compliance and the provisions to the development, will you, Mr. Hunsinger, take responsibility for your vote? Will you give us your personal contact information? Will any of you still be on the Board when these issues arise? And you, Mr. Schonewolf, when violations of setback requirements occur, can we count on being able to contact you? And, you, Mr. Traver, when areas of the property have been clear cut by mistake or on purpose, and 50 and 75 foot trees are gone and are being replaced by five inch seedlings, will you answer our calls? Silence. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that's a rhetorical question. MR. JAROSH-It's not rhetorical. MR. HUNSINGER-If I could comment. I think you're out of order because you're picking on individual Board members. I think that's inappropriate, but let me just finish. We're bound to follow the Town Ordinance. So is the developer. There are policies and procedures and plans in place so that if there are issues that come up during construction we have a Code Enforcement Officer. So there is a vehicle for these issues to be raised. MR. JAROSH-For us to call? MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. JAROSH-All right. I'd like to see that. MR. HUNSINGER-It is in writing. It's in the Town Ordinance. MR. JAROSH-1 know. I'd like to see who we can contact. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JAROSH-And notify. I mean, you're voting on it. Not the enforcement officer. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we're the legislative body and the administrative body takes care of the day to day. MR. JAROSH-I'm getting there, and you, Mr. Magowan, as the winter snows melt and the rains wash salt and silt in and out of these sediment basins, flooding their way into Rush Pond, can you give us your contact info. so that we can notify you as to what is happening? We, as a neighborhood and community, appeal to your better nature. Your votes and approval of this project have the power to literally change the landscape of Queensbury, change the character of our neighborhood and change the quality of our life. Please ponder your decision carefully. We're relying on your vote to exhibit your nature as stewards of the land, open space, our Town. We'd like to remind you of your civic duty that you have not only to business people and developers, but to your fellow taxpayers, neighbors and citizens. Yours is not an elected position. So we have very little recourse such as voting you out of office. Once you cast your votes, it's over. If you will not give us any consideration or any way to enforce the violations and complaints we have with this development going forward, then our only recourse is for you to vote no on this project in its entirety. We will be watching you and remembering you and your vote for many years to come. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Yes. Good evening. CLAUDIA BRAYMER MS. BRAYMER-Good evening. Claudia Braymer. Thank you. I'm an attorney with Caffry & Flower representing an adjoining landowner, Mr. Sorger, and we just want to re-iterate that Mr. Sorger, along with many concerned neighbors and people in the area continue to be opposed to the size of the current proposal. This is still in preliminary stage of your review and so you do have the jurisdiction according to the Zoning Code in order to require the applicant to reduce the number of lots. That means eliminating completely those three problematic lots. That might be a solution, or simply changing the size of some of those lots to reduce that number from 19. It's still a significant number of lots, and creating a significant amount of environmental concerns for this particular area next to what they've admitted several times earlier is an environmentally sensitive area, and that leads me to my comments about the SEAR. Part 11 has still not been completed and it's our position that when you go through that form you will find that there is at least one potentially significant environmental concern requiring a positive declaration. This is a Type I project, and there are things in addition to the stormwater and septic, like traffic, as well as the steepness of the lots. Tonight I believe I heard the applicant's representative say they couldn't put street trees in because it would interfere with the line of sight, and yet they're asking to squeeze those three lots, Four, Five and Six, I believe, into that area where they're saying it's too steep for site line. I mean, that seems contradictory, and should require you to take a closer look at eliminating those three building lots. Additionally, as has been mentioned earlier, the length of this dead end road is very long and would require a waiver and we ask you not to provide that waiver to this applicant. In addition they need a waiver for having only one access point to that dead end cul de sac, and that's in the Zoning Code, too. We would ask that you not grant them a waiver for that particular requirement either, and finally we do respect that it is a conservation subdivision and that they are preserving acres to the east of the creek, the stream. However, the Planning Board should have some sort of formal input from the Town Board before you do anything to accept or approve the subdivision, because then we're going to be in a quagmire if the Town Board doesn't accept this afterwards, unless they're requiring the applicant to put it in an HOA, but I think you should have that Town Board input before you go any further. So again we ask that you reduce the number of lots and give this a positive declaration under SEAR. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. I just wanted to add for the record that attorney Braymer is a member of the Warren County Board of Supervisors, and sits on the Health, Human and Social Services Committee. As an employee of Warren County and Director of Employment and Training, I do report to that Committee, just for full disclosure, if anyone sees that as a conflict. I don't think it infringes upon my ability to make an informed decision on this application, though. Yes, sir. GEORGE WINTERS MR. WINTERS-George Winters. Four John Clendon Road. I've been on this piece of property for 54 years and I go to the Town meetings quite often, and I talked to John Strough and has was very interested, this was three or four years, maybe five years ago when Finch Pruyn owned it, before they sold out, and the Town of Queensbury was interested in buying that because I told them it was up for sale. So the Town of Queensbury would like this piece of land, and I think that's a great asset to the Town and the neighbors. I don't have anything against the other neighbors and mine. I have a difference of opinion, and I've signed a variance for different neighbors. So, you know, I don't have anything against the other neighbors. He says I had something against the neighbors. I don't have anything against the neighbors. I have a difference of opinion. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. WINTERS-1 think you should approve this project, too. It's very good for the Town. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else. PHIL BUTTLING MR. BUTTLING-I've got a question. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead, sir. MR. BUTTLING-Good evening. Phil Buttling. I live at 21 Bonner Drive. I thank you folks for your service. Quick wish I've got is a traffic concern. By quick count there's about 100 houses along Mountain View Lane, John Clendon Road, Dorset, and Crownwood. This is going to add 19, maybe 40 more cars. Now we all know Mountain View Lane is only supposed to be 30 or 35 miles an hour, but children try to ride their bikes on that road to get back and forth to school or down Aviation Road. Crownwood's a neighborhood street. Are there any provisions to take into consideration how this project's going to affect the traffic? Because now you're going to have 40 cars coming and going to work from this project on those roads, which are already pretty stressed, and not very well, you know, policed. So that would be my question regarding this project and traffic. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. There was someone else over there that wished to speak. MIKE DE GREGORIO MR. DE GREGORIO-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. DE GREGORIO-Mike DeGregorio, 24 Crownwood Lane. I've lived on Crownwood Lane 21 years. My concern is traffic. Just like Phil said. Even just more kids in school. Are we going to build another school? And septics, too, flowing all down the hill. It is all downhill. Everybody's going to be putting their fertilizer out, big rainstorm it's all going to go downhill. Other than that, it's going to be busy. I live on Crownwood Lane and I see it every day. People come down Crownwood Lane, John Clendon, cutting over to Mountain View Lane, just to avoid the traffic from Prospect School. Because school's in session now and all that, and it is a beautiful area down there. I've been going down there for 31 years. I've been in Town since '78. So, thank you for your service. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes, sir. ROBERT DALABA MR. DALABA-My name is Robert Dalaba. I've lived on Aviation Road since 1959. My road was dirt at that time. As I see, and I grew up in the same spot. I'm never going to leave there probably unless I die there. My kids are all gone. It's only me and my wife in our little house between Pinewood Avenue and Crownwood Lane. When we moved there, Crownwood Lane was not there. We sold some of our land in the back, and that's where Warner Pruyn got started and building houses in there, okay. So I'm looking at this John Clendon Road, and, you know, when I was riding my snowmobile many years ago I used to go up that way and go out there to Rush Pond and come back home. And I said to myself someday, you know, maybe we ought to be able to get to Rush Pond without having to go through the woods. Now the idea that this contractor has got maybe to make a circle to come back out might be a good idea, but I don't know that we need 19 homes to go in there. Maybe we just need a spot for the emergency vehicles to get to Rush Pond in case there's a problem on the trail. And then I had another thought, with 19 new homes back there, what's the possibility of some of those septic tanks overflowing and going into Rush Pond? Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes, sir. The gentleman in the back. I'm sorry. JOHN SCRIVO MR. SCRIVO-John Scrivo, 23 Moorwood Drive. I just want to thank you all for obviously a lot of time that's been put into this over these meetings. I haven't been able to go to all of them but I've been trying to kind of trying to keep up to date as much as possible. I just wanted to, I was looking at the actual Code for a conservation subdivision, and it says the purpose of a conservation subdivision is to preserve large areas of open space along with the natural and scenic resources in them. Well-designed conservation subdivisions also lower building costs my minimize infrastructure, increase home values for residents and protect the overall Town environment by among other things reducing stormwater runoff. I'd just ask, you know, when you look at that purpose, does this plan really follow with that vision and purpose of a conservation subdivision? I don't feel it does. Thank you. Good evening. LIZ DALEY MRS. DALEY-Hi. I'm Liz Daley. I live at 1 Crestwood. So I think I'm up the hill maybe from the cul de sac. I'm not really sure, according to this map. My concern isn't for me. We've got a large lot. My concern is the impact on Rush Pond. We've been there for about 23 years. It used to be that I wouldn't go out in those woods because that would be a little bit scary. There were fox. There were pheasants. There was lynx, and those things we haven't seen in years. I'm sure do in part to the expansion of The Great Escape, to Indian Ridge, to all the other pieces, and while I really enjoy the trail system at Rush Pond, and I'm glad that other people now are enjoying it, I recognize the effect of that on that area, too, and that would put traffic, both parking lots are full, from early morning until, you know, dusk. So just the number of feet on those trails, the number of dogs, the number of bikes and they're having an impact on that already. So I think we have to be even more careful, exponentially, as more develops around that Rush Pond area. So I wanted to also clarify some pieces here. What is the change in elevation from the entrance to the cul de sac? You guys keep referring to, down at the bottom, what is the change in elevation? From the entrance to the? MR. HUNSINGER-It's in the plans. MRS. DALEY-Okay. I'm just trying to get a visual on that. MR. TRAVER-It's about 50 vertical feet. MRS. DALEY-Okay. Knowing that that, you have that sort of a drop in elevation there, when we talk about clear cutting those three acres and possibly having that clear cut for, you know, even six months, I'm concern d about the runoff from that because that is all downhill, and that all goes directly into that Pond area. So just being careful to consider that, not only do you have to think about the effect when this is done, but during the actual building, what's going to, how is that going to effect that? Because it's not an area that can recover, that wetlands area. I think the other piece that I just wanted to clarify. It's listed on this document that Excess Lands still owns it. Has it been sold? What is the status of the property? MR. HUNSINGER-We'll ask the applicant that. MRS. DALEY-Okay, and I think that's it for my questions, and tough decision. Thank you for your service, and it's a struggle, however, I thought it would be helpful if I could share what I see when I go out there. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else who hasn't commented yet? Yes, sir. NORM FACKLAM MR. FACKLAM-Thanks for all your time. My name's Norm Facklam. I've been to a few of the meetings, and I appreciate your thoughtfulness. I find it discouraging that a simple question was who owns it now, couldn't have been answered,just a few seconds ago. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if I could just stop you for a second. It's not our job to answer your questions. It's the developer's job to answer your questions. So I don't want you to think that just because we don't have the answer for you doesn't mean that the answer doesn't exist. So that's why I hesitated. Okay. Thank you. MR. FACKLAM-I appreciate that comment, but there's just been a feeling of smoke and mirrors with regard to the acquisition, the amount paid, and the history and that's all I wanted to say. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. JIM RIES MR. RIES-My name's Jim Ries. I live at 21 Moorwood Drive in Queensbury, and this is my first meeting so I've missed a lot of this, but obviously a major concern is runoff and erosion and environmental impact. I was a little confused by these maps and charts, but I know there's a vernal pool back there that's sort of behind, perhaps, this woman on Crestwood. I don't know just where that falls into this layout, but I think that would be a concern as a spot where any runoff or any other issues are going to settle and, you know, perhaps cause environmental issues. So I just thought I would mention that to be investigated. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Excuse me. Before you get up, you had a letter. Do you want that still read into the record? MR. RIES-Yes, that's fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? I know we have written comments to read into the record. Ma'am? ANNE GOBBO MS. GOBBO-My name's Anne Gobbo. I live at 6 Dorset Place. This is my first meeting. So I don't really know that much about the technical and engineering ends of this, but two things that come to mind that concern me. When I sit outside at night, ten o'clock at night on my stoop, I'm surprised how far away I am from the Northway, and I'm hearing the trucks, the 18-wheelers going by, and I'm thinking, boy, it's amazingly noisy for me on Dorset to be hearing the Northway, if that's what I'm hearing, but has anyone studied, am I going to hear like distant, you know, the amusement park and more of the Northway? How's this going to affect noise would be one thing, and one other thing that's come to mind to me, and I've thought about this in the past before this even came up, there's a bus stop, as you probably know, on Aviation and Crownwood, and thank God nobody's ever gotten hit there, but it's dangerous, especially, as you probably know, when you go down Aviation, you go to make a right onto Crownwood, there's a leafy area on the right, for one thing, but it's just a bad spot. I know enough to go kind of slow, because, you know, 20 feet, as soon as I get onto Crownwood, and you don't have as much view before you turn on. There always seems to be a kid or somebody on a scooter or something, never mind the bus stop. It's not real safe already, and there's a lot of kids that play around there, and I'm thinking, how many more cars are going to come whipping onto Crownwood and construction vehicles and various other things. It's too bad. It seems like this is the main road that's going to be in and out for all these extra cars, but those are my two thoughts. I'd be interested to know how it's really going to affect, you know, how much more traffic will there be at Aviation, like in the morning when you go down Crownwood you want to make a left, which most people will onto Aviation, there's usually one car in front of you or something. Is there going to be six now? But that's another thing, never mind the danger of turning onto Crownwood too fast, which everybody seems to do, but that's the one thing, and the noise. Are we going to be hearing a lot more noise as they've cleared trees. I'd be interested in knowing that. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Was there something new that you wanted to add, sir? MR. DAVIS-Well, I just wanted to add, I might be reiterating a little. It just hasn't seemed to come up. The road that's currently there, John Clendon Road, the dead end section, the road is only 20 feet wide. It's a very, I've seen driveways bigger than that, and now you're going to be adding 19 homes on the end of that. It's just, it's going to be a nightmare. It's going to be a nightmare, and would Queensbury be required to widen the road, and how much cost would that put on the taxpayers? A developer, they shouldn't be widening roads to accommodate a developer. Some of you gentlemen were down at the site there, and if you look, that's a very narrow road, and to add all this traffic to that, it would be a nightmare. So I just wanted to add that. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Go ahead, Laura. Good evening. MIKE DALEY MR. DALEY-Mike Daley. I Crestwood Drive. As stated before, the elevation drop 50 feet, going to be five stories high. Stormwater, silt, runoff, coming down, hitting that stream that flows into eventually Rush Pond, eventually Glen Lake, and maybe, I was at the first meeting. I missed the last two. Can anybody tell me if there has actually been an environmental impact study on what that effect on Rush Pond could be? Has anybody actually, what the eventual effect on Glen Lake could be? I mean, you saw the rain we had earlier, very earlier this year. They called it a once in a century storm or something like that. I've seen that stream almost every year. It's like a flash flood. That water really flows in that stream, and it gets into, into Rush Pond and the concern of, earlier they said about an eight degree drop in elevation, but at the top of that trail it's much more. It's more like a 20, 25 degree drop, and then it comes down, and maybe they're talking about adjusting the elevation there, but you've just got to consider there's going to be quite a bit of silt and fertilizer runoff and eventually septic, if any kind of septic failure is going to get into that stream and it will get into Rush Pond and eventually Glen Lake. It's all connected. So has a study actually been done on that? Can anybody answer that question for me? Or how would that question get answered before you guys vote on it? MR. HUNSINGER-The applicant has submitted a SEQR review sheet that we need to take into consideration. There's also a SEQR portion for this Board to consider. MR. DALEY-And will that be made public to us? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It's part of the application. MR. DALEY-It is? All right. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. No more hands. Go ahead, Laura. MRS. MOORE-Okay. This letter is addressed to the Board. This is, "I'm writing to voice my concern about proposed development. I moved to Queensbury in 1978 and purchased my home on Moorwood Drive because it backed up onto the woods. The first thing I did after moving in was to take my daughters Stacey and Nancy on a hike and promptly got lost having to come out on Bonner Drive and walk back via the roads while my wife and new neighbors sounded the alarm! I was going to stay out of this debate but my daughter Stacey came home this weekend and reminded me of just how precious these woods are. She reminded me that this is where we saw our first Pileated woodpecker, Barred owl, nesting Broad-winged Hawks, Coyote, beaver, deer in our backyard and on and on. This area is truly a refuge not only for wildlife but also for residents. The area has already been squeezed by development. Fox Hollow, Indian Ridge, Leland Estates, Route 87, etc. and I believe the remaining area should be maintained for wildlife and residents. The town already has parking and access to the area and should move to protect this entire area. Thank you for listening. Jim Ries 21 Moorwood Drive Queensbury, NY" MR. HUNSINGER-Is that just one? MRS. MOORE-Just one. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If you want to come back to the table. We will conclude the public hearing for this evening. I don't know if you have any comments. MR. LAPPER-Just a couple of comments because most of the issues were engineering. Your Town Engineer has weighed in on that. Joe did close, three weeks ago, because he was required to under contract. He took it in the name of the LLC, John Clendon, Hidden Estates LLC. So he was the applicant and now he's the owner as well. In terms of just Rush Pond, because people had concerns, this project is a mile from Rush Pond. So there's a lot of land in between, most of which is going to remain forever wild, 42 acres. MR. CENTER-If you look on the Warren County GIS and you were to follow the flow line, from this parcel around, if you go to the GIS map. MR. TRAVER-While she's doing that. Could I, I wanted to ask a follow up question on some of the public comment. A lot of questions, and, Mr. Lapper, you mentioned the focus on the concern about stormwater and runoff and so on. That this property now is formally owned by the applicant. Obviously there was a prior owner. Can you describe the, in terms of the impact, a lot of concern about the impact on Rush Pond. Can you, I guess this would be a question for Tom. Can you describe the history of the stormwater management protections that are on this property prior to this application? MR. CENTER-Prior to this application? MR. TRAVER-Yes. In other words, we have your plan and the engineering, you know, in terms of the stormwater mitigation. Can you describe how the impact to, let me put it another way, I guess. Can you describe how the impact to runoff, stormwater or otherwise, on this parcel of land, will change from the current state, with the stormwater management that's in place now, if any, versus what you're proposing? MR. CENTER-Well, we're managing all stormwater runoff from any impervious surfaces greater than the 100 feet that's required from the separation of the stream, if you will. That's at the bottom of the slope. So currently anything there, whatever does runoff, runs off, goes down the slope to the stream or into the ground. We're going to be doing the same thing as currently with taking that water and putting it into the ground in the areas where it will runoff off we're leaving a buffer, again, we're leaving that 100 feet of separation for the lots that are closest to the street, and we're capturing stormwater as close as possible where it's created. On the road we're capturing stormwater, you know, at the beginning of the road into drywells and incrementally as it goes down from there. So we're trying to, at every section, catch it, catch stormwater as close to where it hits the hard surface as possible. The roof runoff is being captured on the individual lots, all except one, where it will go across the grass, and if it does get through the grass and get to the, it will go to the drywell. So there's nothing that is running off site that's any more than what is there now, or actually it's actually less. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So then would you characterize the impact to Rush Pond of general runoff from this particular piece of property to be the same after this proposal or less or greater? MR. CENTER-Well, I think we're putting it into the ground further away from Rush Pond. I hate to use the term Rush Pond because Rush Pond, if you go the flow length, Rush Pond is a fair distance away. If you walk that parcel in particular, the area that's being proposed to be given to the Town, and then the next parcel over, there's very large peaks in there. So that's why it can be deceiving. Maybe there's a short straight-line distance, but that distance isn't the way water flows. Water's going to flow down and then that stream cuts through, that stream comes down through here to the bottom of the parcel. It comes down, this gentleman right here I spoke with, he's got a wetland that's right there, and then it finally comes back and around, and it actually has to go under the Northway and then back this side of the Northway to get to Rush Pond. That's why it's a mile, and I looked at the GIS. I opened up the drawing and used the tools that were in there to measure that flow length and follow that path, if you look at it, and that's where we're saying it's close to a mile away. That stream right now is dry. That stream is not a constantly flowing stream. Yes, it does, we do acknowledge it was a stream prior to the dam being built at Butler Pond. So that's how it got its designation, but to say that we have stormwater that's going directly into Rush Pond, it's a mile away. MR. TRAVER-Well, I'm not saying that's happening. I'm raising that question because it's obviously a concern, and my thought, and again, I'm not an engineer, but what I've seen from your application, and this is aside from the other issues regarding lot size and all the rest of it and the trees and so on, but strictly with regard to stormwater, it would appear to me, as someone who's also concerned about that critical environmental area, that there's actually going to be greater protection, should the stormwater protection aspect of this project go through, than there is now. MR. CENTER-Yes, so we're getting it into the deep well drained sands, further away from the stream. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other? Could you comment briefly on traffic? There were a few traffic concerns raised. They were phrased in different formats than what we discussed before. Can you talk about the width of the road? MR. LAPPER-Nineteen single family homes is a very low traffic generator in terms of peak hour. We're adding houses next to houses. Not a big impact, and the 20 foot width of the, the peak hour calculation was 21 cars at the AM and PM peak, but the 20 foot width of the road is sufficient for two way traffic. That was what the profile was when it was built. So there's no requirement that those neighbors has to improve the road or the Town has to improve the road width. That's certainly sufficient for two way traffic. This will be built to the Town standards. So it will be wide enough. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-So the 20 foot width of the road at the top of the hill would actually be narrower than the roadway that you would be proposing for this project. MR. CENTER-Yes, basically the addition is the wing swale, the requirement for drainage. MR. TRAVER-And that's because the standards for the construction of the roads have changed. MR. CENTER-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-The other question that was also brought up was the length of the road and the egress. Now the road that we have here is, what, like 1400 feet, 1350? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. CENTER-If you measure to the throat of the cul de sac. MR. MAGOWAN-So you've got 1100, you've got 1500, no that's not it. So actually how long is? MR. CENTER-You've got 1150 to the throat of the cul de sac. MR. MAGOWAN-To the throat? MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Now, on top of that, does that include the 400 feet coming off Crownwood? MR. CENTER-Does not. That is from the, zero, zero starts at the beginning of the road. MR. MAGOWAN-So technically that whole road becomes longer, right? MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-But the benefit is that there's a cul de sac and also, as one of the gentlemen who spoke said, if there was an emergency, somebody had a health issue on the trails, it gets an emergency vehicle closer to the trails, which is a benefit as well. MR. MAGOWAN-That is a good sign, but the length of the road and the Code that the Town of Queensbury has, there's a big difference. MR. LAPPER-And we spoke to the Highway Superintendent and he's very much in favor of this project because of the cul de sac. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is there a limit on a dead end road in this Town? MR. LAPPER-There's a design guideline and the Town Planning Board has frequently waived that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That isn't my question. Is there a limit on the length of it? MR. CENTER-The design guideline is, Laura, can you give us the exact distance on the length of a dead end road? MR. HUNSINGER-It's 1,000 feet. MR. MAGOWAN-1 think the Code is 1,000 feet. MR. LAPPER-We've had many projects where the Planning Board's waived that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I know. I just wanted to know what it was. MR. HUNSINGER-What's the will of the Board? Where are we? MR. FORD-1 have a question. Tom, can you identify those, going back to those three lots that were described as problematic? MR. CENTER-The three lots would be Four, Five and Six. MR. TRAVER-S-9 and S-10. MR. LAPPER-Those are the largest lots. MR. CENTER-You're talking about a 1.2 acre lot, a 1.9 acre lot, and a 1.7 acre lot. Whereas the 1.2 acre lot would be Lot Four, is actually being terraced with fill, and then sloped down, and then you have the cut for Lot Five, and the clearing to get back up to grade to have that one on five slope, and then Lot Six is a mix of cut and fill. MR. FORD-Thank you. Mr. Leuci, would you consider not building on those three lots and going with a sixteen lot subdivision? MR. LEUCI-1 can't do it. We're at our bare minimum now. We discussed that the last meeting at the last meeting, that we really can't do anything less than this. It's not feasible. We're coming in with a lot less lots than we could have asked for, 19 and 20 lots, right now we're at 19 houses. It really is the bare minimum that would make it a feasible development. MR. LAPPER-The other point, Tom, is that those lots have to be graded in order to grade the project for the road. So if you didn't build houses there, nobody would maintain them. None of the homeowners would be happy with that. We feel that with the Town Engineer's blessing, that this has all been properly designed to be graded properly to deal with stormwater and they'll be really nice home lots, because they're almost two acres, 1.7, 1.9. They'll be very nice for homes. It's just that during construction stormwater controls have to be carefully maintained. MR. TRAVER-1 had a question on the issue of the, with the lot going to the Town. This being a conservation based project, if that did not happen, for some reason, then this project wouldn't be able to happen. MR. LAPPER-We would make that a condition, conditioned upon Town Board acceptance of that, because the Town Board wants it. MR. TRAVER-Well, there was a concern raised, and I know other members as well. I mean, there's nothing formal. MR. LAPPER-We could have a homeowners association and keep it private, but that's not the intention here. MR. TRAVER-Well, and that wouldn't be, would that qualify as a conservation subdivision? MR. LAPPER-Yes, it still would. MR. TRAVER-So we would need to condition it, then, if the plan is that the land goes to the Town, then we would have to condition it. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and we're totally comfortable with that, because we know that the Town Board really wants it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-1 know we talked about the stormwater on the road and everything else and the water created from construction, but, you know, after walking it and that, and I call them the vines, but the other low areas that comes off of Moorwood, you know, like I said because it's almost like a valley on both sides. So you have, you know, you've called them road trails, you know, but to me they're also the low points where all that water comes from up above too and also comes down. So once you start cutting in and creating these lots, what's going to happen to those natural, you know, waterways? MR. CENTER-The ones when you're looking at Moorwood and Crownwood, you're actually off this parcel to the rear, there's a draw that runs along the property line there, where they have that outlet from Crownwood, Moorwood there that comes off the side slope on these. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, that's down below, or Crestwood. Maybe Crestwood. Sorry. Thank you. MR. CENTER-Are you talking about the, can we go back to the, are you talking these trails here? MR. MAGOWAN-Those trails and then I've also walked on the other side up along the property line, that side and both sides. MR. CENTER-And this is a knob around here. This goes back down, and that stream and the wetland area that's off the page up in here, that collects stormwater, that comes down through here off the property. These trails, again, once the clearing are allowed to re-grow and brush, they're not going to be a trail anymore. MR. MAGOWAN-No, I understand that, but I'm also looking at the top of the road there, too. MR. CENTER-Up here? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. That's also. MR. CENTER-That's a relatively flat area here. MR. MAGOWAN-Relatively flat, but it also slopes down. The whole area slopes downward. MR. CENTER-In this area we're creating for the house, this is becoming a fill terrace level and then graded down. MR. MAGOWAN-So basically what we're doing is we're also changing the contour of the land. MR. CENTER-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-All right, and shifting where water used to flow. MR. CENTER-No, it's still flowing where it, it's still flowing in the same direction. It's still being treated, captured, graded by, the Town Engineer has asked us to provide the drawing that shows where we have draws and swales around septic systems and being directed within the sub catchments. It's been designed to, wherever that water flows in that sub catchment, to whatever point, end point, if you will, whether it hits the road in drywells, we've accommodated for, and the change in surface has been calculated based on HydroCading within the model. MR. MAGOWAN-Now what about the other side of the road? MR. CENTER-And the same thing with the opposite side of the road. Those lots have been, it has been broken up, I think I have over 60 sub catchments where we're looking at it to look at the grate design, you know, to draw down even closer to look for any potential issue with the rate, but again, we meet or are less than the existing rate. MR. MAGOWAN-Because all those homes along that side, except for the top, but really more down toward the middle, it's quite a slope down. MR. CENTER-Along the property lines where we've shown, especially the lots on the southern portion, we've shown the disturbance areas that we propose to be in from the property line and if there are trees, if there are ways to save the woodlands, they will be preserved, in between those lots. So we can have the good, where the good woods are, the hard woods, the maples, the white birches, things like that. MR. TRAVER-I'm not sure there are any of those. MR. CENTER-There might be. MR. MAGOWAN-If anything they're more on this side of the road up against. MR. CENTER-Coming to the south side. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. MR. TRAVER-It looked like it was mostly hemlock to me. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board? What's the will of the Board? Where do we stand? MR. FORD-1 have one more question for our Town Engineer. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. MR. FORD-Looking at it from your perspective as a total project, in its totality, would the entire project be more advisable, more acceptable, a better project, if there were not buildings being placed on Lot Four, Five and Six? MR. TRAVER-Not to put you on the spot. MR. DOTY-That's a Planning Board question, to be fair, that's a subjective question that a Planning Board would opine on. AUDIENCE MEMBER-In your experience. MR. DOTY-What I can say is that it's been designed to the State standards, you know, I think it would be unfair for me to answer the question the way it was posed. MR. MAGOWAN-Tom, I might be able to help you out on that one. Overall, not in an engineering aspect, but in what was said, what they have to do for the road and the clearing that they would have to do, you know, there would still be some form of erosion control and they'd still have to dig in. So I probably would have re-phrased that as I see you wanting like three lots that was removed that was brought up, and I still believe, and that was what was brought up and Mr. Leuci said that it's not possible, but I'd like to see a lot less lots, larger lots, to be able to spread everything out. MR. TRAVER-Financially. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, financially not feasible to do. So I can't see them just cutting in, you know, cutting those out to eliminate, not with what they have to do to prep all the other lots. I don't know if that really answers, it's not really an engineering answer. MR. TRAVER-Because of building the road. MR. MAGOWAN-But for building the road. So if they're able to use larger lots where they could require less disturbance and more of a natural flow in between the lots is what I see as the more safer environmental way to go. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I would agree with that. We've talked about this way too long, but this is not a good project with those size homes and with the classification of the type of homes they are. If there was a project with big lots and big homes, and I could trust the people to come in and tree it like it should be and set it up the way it should be, it might be a good project, but I think the way it's stacked in, with a group of homes that are middle class homes, and nothing to force those people to put trees on those lots. If they don't want to do it, they're not going to do it. If they can't afford it, they're going to say I can't afford it. MR. DEEB-There's people that have more expensive homes that do the same thing. You're making assumptions that somebody with a more expensive home is going to do the same thing. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, my assumption is they're more likely to do it. They're not likely to say I'm going to do it. MR. DEEB-It's all speculation here. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, you can call it whatever you want, but you can look around and see what's happened in this Town. I see that right up I where I live. Some people build a house and don't do anything with it. MR. DEEB-Yes, but you live in a different area. You're on the lake. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I know. That's even more important to have trees there. MR. LAPPER-The Town Engineer has said that this more than meets the stormwater standards. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's his opinion. MR. LAPPER-Yes, well you hired him. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It doesn't necessarily mean I have to agree with him. MR. HUNSINGER-The applicant's also agreed to some landscaping which we could make part of any condition. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-So the question I would pose to the Board, do we have enough information to move forward? Is there any information that is missing? If not, I would seek a motion to close the public hearing. MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry, you want a motion to what? MR. HUNSINGER-If there's no additional information that's needed to begin to make the determination on this project, I would seek a motion to close the public hearing and to initiate SEAR. MR. TRAVER-For me, personally, I think the information, the only additional information that I would want would be a list of the conditions under which a motion would be made. MR. HUNSINGER-And that's really outside of engineering? MR. TRAVER-Exactly. Yes, well, it's driven by some of those things, but, yes, I agree. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else care to comment? MR. DEEB-I think we've heard it all. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to make a motion to close the public hearing? RESOLUTION CLOSING PUBLIC HEARING RE: SUBDIVISION LEUCI MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SUBDIVISION PZ 163-2016 JOSEPH LEUCI, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, Seconded by Stephen Traver, Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The next step would be to review the SEAR. This is a Full Environmental Assessment Form. We've heard a lot of comments about perceived impacts. Would the Board like to go through it an item at a time or do we want to identify the concerns first? Do you want to go through it an item at a time? MR. FORD-That would be one person's opinion. MR. FERONE-1 agree. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think let's go through the items. MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to read these in? MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead, Laura. MRS. MOORE-This is under Part II of the Full Environmental Assessment Form. The applicant did complete Part I. The Planning Board is proceeding with evaluating Part II at this time. So Part II, the Number One item is Impact on Land "Proposed action may involve construction on, or physical alteration of, the land surface of the proposed site." MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Okay. These are suggestions, and I'll go through A through H. "The proposed action may involve construction on land where depth to water table is less than 3 feet." MR. DEEB-No. MRS. MOORE-Letter B, "The proposed action may involve construction on slopes of 15% or greater." MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. MOORE-Letter C, "The proposed action may involve construction on land where bedrock is exposed, or generally within 5 feet of existing ground surface." MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. MOORE-Letter D, "The proposed action may involve the excavation and removal of more than 1,000 tons of natural material." MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. MOORE-Letter E, "The proposed action may involve construction that continues for more than one year or in multiple phases." If it does, the question is, no or small impact may occur, and that's one check box. The other check box is moderate to large impact may occur. MR. FORD-Is this not a phased project? MRS. MOORE-It is a phased project, but the question is whether it's small or whether it's moderate to large. MR. TRAVER-Moderate to large and mitigated with the site plan, I would say. MR. HUNSINGER-Does everyone find that an acceptable answer? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-And you're saying it's mitigated. MR. TRAVER-Moderate to large impact. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Mitigated by the proposed site plan. MRS. MOORE-Letter F, "The proposed action may result in increased erosion, whether from physical disturbance or vegetation removal (including from treatment by herbicides)". MR. TRAVER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-Say that again? We don't have the Long Form with us, right? MRS. MOORE-You should have it. The applicant provided it. MR. HUNSINGER-Can we put this up on the screen? How difficult would that be? That way we can all follow along. MR. MAGOWAN-That's a tough one. MR. TRAVER-They have to be in compliance or they won't get the signoff. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I know that, but how can we sit there, I mean, what they're doing, they're changing the contours the of the land. MR. TRAVER-Subject to approval by the Town and inspection by the engineer. They cannot generate any erosion. MR. HUNSINGER-By doing this the public can also follow along. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. I guess what my concern is, if it is then it's too late, then what happens? MR. TRAVER-They're in violation, with fines per day. MR. MAGOWAN-So basically what we're saying is what we're doing, that we're not going to increase any erosion. MR. TRAVER-That's correct, because then they would be in violation of the engineering. MRS. MOORE-At this time I'll go back to Letter E where you identified "The proposed action may involve construction that continues for more than one year or in multiple phases." You've identified as a Board that it's possible that it's Moderate to Large, or you've identified Moderate to Large impacts may occur. You note that it's mitigated by the proposed site plan. MR. TRAVER-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. MOORE-Now Letter F, "The proposed action may result in increased erosion, whether from physical disturbance or vegetation removal (including from treatment by herbicides)". MR. TRAVER-1 would say no. MR. FERONE-Wouldn't you say there would be Moderate to Large, because it doesn't say will, it says may result. MR. FORD-May, the critical word is may. MR. TRAVER-Subject to approved engineering plan and weekly inspection. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. That's the mitigation. Yes. MR. TRAVER-But, I mean, it can't happen. So, I mean, it's not like it would happen then they would go back and correct it. I mean, they have to come up with a design that says there will be no. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's not permissible for it to happen. MR. TRAVER-Correct. MR. CENTER-And that's one thing we provided the erosion and sediment control plan. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, this is an engineering issue that they have to get approval. Subject to weekly inspection. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-It's not an option. MR. HUNSINGER-Is the Board comfortable with the answer? MR. FERONE-So we're saying no? MR. FORD-So we're saying no? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, no or small impact. MR. FORD-No to may. MRS. MOORE-The consensus is no? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, no or small impact. MRS. MOORE-All right. Letter G, "The proposed action is, or may be, located within a Costal Erosion hazard area." MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-In reference to Impact on Land, are there other impacts? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Number Two, Impact on Geological Features, "The proposed action may result in the modification or destruction of, or inhibit access to, any unique or unusual land forms on the site (i.e., cliffs, dunes, minerals, fossils, caves)" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. MOORE-Number Three, Impacts on Surface Water "The proposed action may affect one or more wetlands or other surface water bodies (e.g., streams, rivers, ponds or lakes). MR. TRAVER-1 would say no. MR. HUNSINGER-1 would say no. MR. MAGOWAN-May affect. That's what we've been talking about is an environmental area. So how can we sit there and say no? MR. HUNSINGER-So then the next step is to go down through the lettered items and to say which one it would impact. So if you're going to say yes, which item, let's identify which item. MR. TRAVER-Yes, let's identify. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I agree, I mean, I can't say no to the whole thing. I'm looking at the rest of them. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to go through the list? MR. TRAVER-Please. MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Letter A, "The proposed action may create a new water body." MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. MOORE-Letter B, "The proposed action may result in an increase or decrease of over 10% or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water." MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-Letter C, "The proposed action may involve dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from a wetland or water body." MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-Letter D, "The proposed action may involve construction within or adjoining a freshwater or tidal wetland, or in the bed or banks of any other water body." MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-What was the operative word there? MR. HUNSINGER-Construction within or adjoining a freshwater or tidal wetland. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Freshwater, Rush Pond. There's a stream. MR. HUNSINGER-Excuse me, sir. We've closed the public hearing. MR. TRAVER-1 don't believe there's any construction in Rush Pond. MR. HUNSINGER-No, there's no construction in Rush Pond. MR. MAGOWAN-No, but what about in the bed. What does it mean by the bed. MR. TRAVER-In the bed of the water. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. MR. TRAVER-How do you interpret it? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I'm looking at, you know, the tributary to the wetlands. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there's no construction in the bed or a bank of a water body. That's what the question is asking. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Letter E, "The proposed action may create turbidity in a waterbody, either from upland erosion, runoff or by disturbing bottom sediments." MR. TRAVER-1 would say, again, no. MR. HUNSINGER-1 would say no as well. Yes. MR. FORD-And I'm saying it may. MRS. MOORE-So you have no or small impact may occur. MR. TRAVER-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Letter F, "The proposed action may include construction of one or more intake(s) for withdrawal of water from surface water." MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. MOORE-Letter G, "The proposed action may include construction of one or more outfall(s) for discharge of wastewater to surface water(s)." MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-Letter H, "The proposed action may cause soil erosion, or otherwise create a source of stormwater discharge that may lead to siltation or other degradation of receiving water bodies." MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-Hang on a second. Soil erosion or otherwise create a source or stormwater discharge that may lead to siltation or other" MR. HUNSINGER-All of the stormwater is being captured on site. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that would create a stop work. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, that's what it's supposed to do, but what happens if we get another one of those 100 year storms? MR. TRAVER-That's why we ask the engineer. He's right here. MR. DOTY-The State standard includes evaluation and mitigation programs. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I witnessed it in my neighborhood in March when the ground was frozen, that the stormwater system, and my neighborhood's eight years old. MR. DOTY-Yes, the stormwater regulations do not require you to analyze frozen ground conditions. That's not a requirement. MR. MAGOWAN-And that's really where my concern is. Because I feel that the weather patterns are changing. MR. CENTER-Brad, if you will, if you were to have to analyze frozen ground conditions, you would analyze them in the frozen state, in the existing frozen state, which there would be runoff. MR. MAGOWAN-1 know. We've talked about that. MR. TRAVER-So frozen ground generate erosion? MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. Understood. MR. CENTER-Anything's possible. MRS. MOORE-At this time I have, for Letter H, I have no or small impact may occur. MR. DEEB-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Letter 1, "The proposed action may affect the water quality of any water bodies within or downstream of the site of the proposed action." MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-Letter J, "The proposed action may involve the application of pesticides or herbicides in or around any water body." MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. MOORE-Letter K, "The proposed action may require the construction of new, or expansion of existing, wastewater treatment facilities." MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-Well, we are creating new wastewater. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, individual septic tanks. MR. TRAVER-So that's, again, mitigated by engineering. MR. CENTER-That's a municipal wastewater. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think they're talking about a municipal. MR. TRAVER-We are creating new wastewater treatment facilities subject to. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-No or small impact. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-But it's subject to approval. MR. HUNSINGER-By the Department of Health. MR. TRAVER-Subject to study and approval of the Health Department. MR. HUNSINGER-And then the last one is any other impacts that weren't identified. MR. TRAVER-Were you thinking of any impacts that weren't listed? MR. MAGOWAN-No. I'm just confused with everything with the may in it, you know. There is that chance. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think in my mind, in thinking about may happen, and that's everything that's on these pieces of paper is a may, that's why we have a proposal for a plan for engineering. It hasn't happened yet but there is a proposal that's subject to review and approval and then subject to actually going to the site and looking at and saying are they doing what they said they would do. Then if you get into a violation situation and say, it sound like a fairly significant fine. MR. MAGOWAN-1 guess, you're looking at construction. The way I'm looking at is the end product, and protecting what is down at the bottom for the next 1,000 years. MR. TRAVER-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-1 guess that's where I'm, I'm not worried about the construction process right now because everything is in check to be inspected and what not. What happens afterwards? What happens when they take down more trees because, you know, the people don't want so many trees on their lots and they don't hold up to the erosion controls that we've put on tonight because they've decided to change the landscape of their lawn, say 10 years from now. MR. LAPPER-After construction it's revegetated. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I'm just saying, you know, you throw in a lot of mays, and you might as well say what if's, but, okay, let's move on. MR. TRAVER-But couldn't you say that about a project that was built 100 years ago? MR. MAGOWAN-If it wasn't such a high environmental area, I wouldn't be concerned. You know where I stand on that. So let's move on. MR. TRAVER-Sure, I think we all are concerned. MR. FORD-The antithesis of that, of the may, is won't. MR. HUNSINGER-We had no items that we checked moderate to large impact on that. MRS. MOORE-That's correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Was there another impact that? MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So Number Three at this time nothing was identified, A through L. So the main check box is no. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. MOORE-Number Four is Impact on groundwater. "The proposed action may result in new or additional use of ground water, or may have the potential to introduce contaminants to ground water or an aquifer." MR. TRAVER-No, but again, we should review the questions. MRS. MOORE-Letter A, "The proposed action may require new water supply wells, or create additional demand on supplies from existing water supply wells." MR. TRAVER-Well, there are going to be wells. Right? MR. HUNSINGER-There'll be new wells for the houses. MR. CENTER-It's municipal water. So this has to deal with individual residential wells. MR. FORD-But what about individual home irrigation systems, sprinkler systems, that impact? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, they haven't determined that there's an aquifer underneath the property there. Right now the only aquifer is dry. MRS. MOORE-So I have Letter A as being no. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Letter B, "Water supply demand from the proposed action may exceed safe and sustainable withdrawal capacity rate of the local supply or aquifer." MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. MOORE-Letter C, "The proposed action may allow or result in residential uses in areas without water and sewer services." MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. MOORE-Letter D, "The proposed action may include or require wastewater discharged to groundwater." MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. MOORE-Letter E, "The proposed action may result in the construction of water supply wells in locations where groundwater is, or is suspected to be, contaminated." MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. MOORE-Letter F, "The proposed action may require the bulk storage of petroleum or chemical products over ground water or an aquifer." MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-Letter G., "The proposed action may involve the commercial application of pesticides within 100 feet of potable drinking water or irrigation sources." MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-Are there any other impacts on ground water? MR. TRAVER-Not that I can think of. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. MOORE-So for Number Four the main check box is no. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Correct. MRS. MOORE-Number Five, Impact on Flooding "The proposed action may result in development on lands subject to flooding." MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-D. MR. TRAVER-On flooding? MR. MAGOWAN-The proposed action may result in, or require, modification of existing drainage patterns. MR. TRAVER-Right. They've already submitted a plan that says there will not be a change, and they're not allow to have, all the groundwater needs to be retained on site by regulation. I believe. MR. CENTER-The discharge points are not changing. I think that we would be talking about the discharge points would be relocated. They are not. MRS. MOORE-So for Number Five, Impact on Flooding, I have no. Number Six, Impacts on Air, "The proposed action may include a state regulated air emission source." MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FERONE-No. MRS. MOORE-Number Seven, Impacts on Plants and Animals, "The proposed action may result in a loss of flora or fauna." MR. TRAVER-Well, yes, they are talking about cutting some trees. MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Okay. So I'll go through Letters A through J. Letter A, "The proposed action may cause reduction in population or loss of individuals of any threatened or endangered species, as listed by New York State or Federal government, that use the site, or are found on, over, or near the site." MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-No, I think we had documentation to that fact. MR. CENTER-Yes, from DEC. MRS. MOORE-Letter B, "The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by any rare, threatened or endangered species, as listed by New York State or the Federal government." MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-Again, no, that's been examined by DEC and they've written that off. MRS. MOORE-Letter C, "The proposed action may cause reduction in population, or loss of individuals, of any species of special concern or conservation need, as listed by New York State or the Federal government, that use the site, or are found on, over, or near the site." MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. MOORE-Letter D, "The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by any species of special concern and conservation need, as listed by New York State or the Federal government." MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-Letter E, "The proposed action may diminish the capacity of a registered National Natural landmark to support the biological community it was established to protect." MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. MOORE-Letter F, "The proposed action may result in the removal of, or ground disturbance in, any portion of a designated significant natural community." MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. MOORE-Letter G, "The proposed action may substantially interfere with nesting/breeding, foraging or over-wintering habitat for the predominant species that occupy or use the project site." MR. FORD-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I would say yes. No or small impact because of the re-plantings that would be part of our. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what species are we talking about? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, but you're talking about nesting, breeding, that kind of stuff. MR. FORD-Anything that is nesting or breeding on the property currently. MR. TRAVER-Not just endangered. MR. FORD-Yes, you're going to cut trees and build houses and it's going to impact them. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You're going to strip the land. MRS. MOORE-There's no or small or moderate to large. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Moderate to large. MR. FORD-Moderate to large. MR. LAPPER-We're next to Rush Pond which is all available for nesting. How could it be moderate to large? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was going to say, I think the next question kind of gives you the level of magnitude that these questions are asking. MRS. MOORE-Letter H, "The proposed action requires the conversion of more than 10 acres of forest, grassland or any other regionally or locally important habitat." MR. HUNSINGER-So I think if you think of, you know, the prior question is 10 acres or more that's impacting the species, I don't see how it would be a large impact. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, how many trees are they going to cut down? MR. HUNSINGER-How many are left? You know, you're not impacting more than 10 acres. That's why I said, if you identified the specific species, then maybe you could say, I agree there's an impact. I just don't agree that it's moderate to large. I mean, because then the next question is what's the mitigation. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-And I certainly don't see this question triggering any full blown environmental impact study. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-So I'm just trying to put it in context. We could go to the directions and see. I mean, certainly there's an impact, but I would argue that it's small. MR. TRAVER-No or small, yes, a small impact, and then it's going to be mitigated to some degree by planting of trees which I think are going to be improvements to trees that are there, actually, from what I saw. MR. SCHONEWOLF-If they plant them. MR. HUNSINGER-Plus the cutting plan and the buffering requirements. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't think they'll plant them. MR. LAPPER-We'll plant them because it will be a condition. I promise. MR. FORD-1 don't think you're going to be clearing the amount of clearing, building of roads, putting up 19 homes, I think that's definitely going to impact the very species that are there. They don't have to be endangered species. MR. TRAVER-No, not for this question. MR. FORD-But any wildlife that has been venturing through there is going to be impacted. MR. HUNSINGER-1 agree. MR. LAPPER-They'll re-locate to the rest of the land. MR. FORD-1 think it's moderate to large. MRS. MOORE-Under Letter G you've identified it as Moderate to Large and Letter H. MR. LAPPER-They haven't decided moderate to large. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I just jumped to H to help give context. Because that talks about 10 or more acres. MR. DOTY-You could come back to the question, perhaps. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we can come back to it. Well, actually we're required to in Part III if we pick Moderate to Large impact. MR. TRAVER-Yes, good idea. Why don't we do that. MRS. MOORE-So are you continuing on Letter H? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, we're going to come back to G later. MRS. MOORE-"The proposed action requires the conversion of more than 10 acres of forest, grassland or any other regionally or locally important habitat." MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. MOORE-Letter 1, "Proposed action (commercial, industrial or recreational projects, only) involves use of herbicides or pesticides." MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and this isn't one of those three types of projects anyway. MR. MAGOWAN-How can you sit there and say it's not a commercial venture? He's building homes. MR. TRAVER-1 don't think that's the intent of the question when they're talking about the herbicides. They're talking about industry. MR. CENTER-Yes, this is a residential use. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. MRS. MOORE-And then the last item is Other Impacts. MR. TRAVER-Well, we have to come back to this general question to wrap up the discussion on Item G anyway. So why don't we wait and come back. Because we're going to need to develop our response to Question Seven anyway. Right? So why don't we go on to Eight and come back to that. MR. MAGOWAN-Why are we holding it up? MR. TRAVER-We need to figure out what the impact is and what, if any, mitigation there is MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we're going to look up in the directions to help guide us. MR. FORD-Good. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-So under Eight, Eight is Impact on Agricultural Resources "The proposed action may impact agricultural resources." MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. MOORE-Number Nine is Impact on Aesthetic Resources. "The land use of the proposed action are obviously different from, or are in sharp contrast to, current land use patterns between the proposed project and a scenic or aesthetic resource." MR. FORD-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think we need to go through the individual questions on that one. MR. FORD-Yes, I agree. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Letter A, "The proposed action may be visible from any officially designated federal, state, or local scenic or aesthetic resource." MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. MOORE-"The proposed action may result in the obstruction, elimination or significant screening of one or more officially designated scenic views." MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. MOORE-Letter C, "The proposed action may be visible from publicly accessible vantage points: i. Seasonally (e.g. screened by summer foliage, but visible during other seasons) ii. Year round" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I don't believe so. MRS. MOORE-Letter D, "The situation or activity in which viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is: i. Routine travel by residents, including travel to and from work ii. Recreational or tourism based activities." MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. MOORE-Letter E, "The proposed action may cause a diminishment of the public enjoyment and appreciation of the designated aesthetic resource." MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-Potentially yes. MR. HUNSINGER-It's not a public resource. It's private land. MR. FORD-1 think the fact that a lot of people walk on it, it's still private land. MRS. MOORE-And Letter F, "There are similar projects visible within the following distance of the proposed project: 0-1/2 mile; 1/2- 3 mile; 3-5 mile; 5+ mile" MR. TRAVER-Well, yes, we could see, at the start of that trail, we could see other houses. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-We could see other developments. So I would say yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-And is the impact small or large, considering it significant and adverse? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-It would be no or small. MR. FORD-1 guess it all depends on whether you're sitting there on your back porch or not. MR. TRAVER-Or hiking through the area like we were. MRS. MOORE-And with regards to Question Nine, are there other impacts? MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-Number Ten, Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources, "The proposed action may occur in or adjacent to a historic or archaeological resource." MR. TRAVER-No, and again we got signoff from SHPO, right? MR. HUNSINGER-No. Yes. MR. CENTER-Yes, there was a Phase I performed. MRS. MOORE-Question Eleven, Impact on Open Space and Recreation, "The proposed action may result in a loss of recreational opportunities or a reduction of an open space resource as designated in any adopted municipal open space plan." MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FERONE-1 think you have to look at Question D on that one. MR. LAPPER-We're providing open space. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FERONE-It says it's now used informally by the community. MR. CENTER-It is private land. MR. LAPPER-We're making it public. MR. FERONE-Again, it says the proposed action may result in the loss of an area now used informally by the community as an open space resource. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They walk all over it even though it's private land. MR. FERONE-Yes, no? MR. LAPPER-It's not being lost because it's being dedicated for permanent use. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, we don't know that yet, right? The Town hasn't approved it. MR. LAPPER-It's a condition. MR. HUNSINGER-I think you could argue there's a small impact, but I don't, again, it's private property. It's not public property. MR. TRAVER-1 mean, they could withdraw this application and post it I think. MR. HUNSINGER-That's right, and it is posted. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It is posted. MR. TRAVER-1 thought I saw a posted sign but I wasn't sure. So we're all guilty of trespass. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we had permission. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We stayed on the road. MRS. MOORE-So Number Eleven, you have Impact on Open Space and Recreation, and you've answered no? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Number Twelve, Impact on Critical Environmental Areas "The proposed action may be located within or adjacent to a critical environmental area (CEA)." MR. HUNSINGER-How do they define adjacent? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is Rush Pond adjacent? MR. HUNSINGER-It's not. That's why I asked the question. It's approximate, but it's not adjacent. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What's the difference? MR. FORD-It's a lot like may. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it's approximate but it's not adjacent. I mean, with the Lake George Critical Environmental Area, the boundaries are very clear. They're clearly defined. MR. TRAVER-It's it 100 feet, or 150 feet? MR. SCHONEWOLF-You mean in Lake George? MR. TRAVER-Yes, for a CEA. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't know. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there guidance on that, Laura? MR. DOTY-The answer to 12 is yes, because it is adjacent to Rush Pond as defined by DEC as a Critical Environmental Area. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DOTY-Which is identified in Part I of the EAF submitted by the applicant. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. So 12 is yes. MRS. MOORE-I'll read through the letters. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Letter A, "The action may result in a reduction in the quantity of the resource or characteristic which was the basis for designation of the CEA." MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. MOORE-Letter B, "The proposed action may result in a reduction in the quantity of the resource or characteristic which was the basis for designation of the CEA." MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. MOORE-Are there other impacts? MR. TRAVER-No, not that I know of. MR. FORD-May not be. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm not hearing any. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The others are transportation, energy, that kind of stuff. MRS. MOORE-So the next question is Number Thirteen which is Impact on Transportation. "The proposed action may result in a change to existing transportation systems." MR. TRAVER-Probably yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. FORD-Increased traffic. MRS. MOORE-I'll go through them. Letter A, "The projected traffic increase may exceed capacity of existing road network." MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No or small impact. MRS. MOORE-Letter B, "The proposed action may result in the construction of paved parking area for 500 or more vehicles." MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. MOORE-Letter C, "Proposed action will degrade existing traffic access." MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. MOORE-"The proposed action will degrade existing pedestrian or bicycle accommodations." MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, it could. MR. DEEB-Small to moderate. MR. FORD-Small to moderate. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Letter E, "The proposed action may alter the present pattern of movement of people or goods." MR. DEEB-Again, small to moderate. MR. HUNSINGER-Small to moderate. MR. TRAVER-Yes, small impact. MRS. MOORE-Are there other impacts? Number Fourteen, Impact on Energy "The proposed action may cause an increase in the use of any form of energy." MR. FERONE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Well, yes, we're going to be using, 19 houses. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We'll be heating 19 houses. MRS. MOORE-Letter A, "The proposed action will require a new, or an upgrade to an existing, substation." MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. MOORE-Letter B, "The proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two-family residents or to serve a commercial or industrial use." MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. MOORE-Letter C, "The proposed action may utilize more than 2,500 MWhrs per year of electricity." MR. TRAVER-1 don't know the answer to that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I don't know that either. MR. TRAVER-That's an awful lot of energy. 2500 megawatts? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Megawatt hours, no. MR. HUNSINGER-No, there's no way. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, that's like a small city. MR. HUNSINGER-My house is about 10. No, seriously, it's about a 10. MR. TRAVER-Megawatts? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It's the size of my solar panels. MR. SCHONEWOLF-He's got solar panels on his house. MR. HUNSINGER-So that's why I know. Otherwise I would have no idea. So 10 times 19 is 1900. It's not 2500. MRS. MOORE-Letter D, "The proposed action may involve heating and/or cooling of more than 100,000 square feet of building area when completed." MR. TRAVER-Well, let's see, 2000 square feet. MR. DEEB-Yes, times 19. 38,000. MR. HUNSINGER-So it's not even close. MR. FORD-Not even close. MRS. MOORE-Are there other impacts? MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-Number Fifteen, Impact on Noise, Odor, and Light "The proposed action may result in an increase in noise, odors or outdoor lighting." MR. HUNSINGER-I think this'll be like the last one. We'll say yes and as we go through each question I think we'll probably answer no, but I'm speculating at this point. MRS. MOORE-Letter A, "The proposed action may produce sound above noise levels established by local regulation." MR. HUNSINGER-We don't have any. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There aren't any. MRS. MOORE-Letter B, "The proposed action may result in blasting within 1,500 feet of any residence, hospital, school, licensed day care center, or nursing home." MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-1 hope not. MR. FORD-Yes, I hope not. MRS. MOORE-Letter C, "The proposed action may result in routine odors for more than one hour per day." MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-Letter D, "The proposed action may result in light shining onto adjoining properties." MR. FORD-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DEEB-Small to moderate. MRS. MOORE-Letter E, "The proposed action may result in lighting creating sky-glow brighter than existing area conditions." MR. FORD-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think we have to say yes. MR. DEEB-Small to moderate. MRS. MOORE-Are there any other impacts? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Number 16, Impact on Human Health "The proposed action may have an impact on human health from exposure to new or existing sources of contaminants." MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-Let's hope not. MRS. MOORE-Number Seventeen. Consistency with Community Plans "The proposed action is not consistent with adopted land use plans." This is the worst worded question. MR. DEEB-Yes, it is. MR. HUNSINGER-I heard no. MR. TRAVER-It probably sounds better on the original drawing. MRS. MOORE-Number Eighteen. Consistency with Community Character "The proposed project is inconsistent with the existing community character." MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-I would say no based on the examples. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, it doesn't say anything about lots without trees. MRS. MOORE-That completes Part 11. So I'm going to go back to Seven. MR. LAPPER-Seven G. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, Seven G was the only one that we had selected moderate to large impact. MR. TRAVER-So that says "The proposed action may substantially interfere with nesting/breeding, foraging or over-wintering habitat for the predominant species that occupy or use the project site." MR. LAPPER-They're just going to go to the 41 acres next door. It's not going to interfere. MR. TRAVER-It doesn't ask if they're going to move. It wants to know. MR. FORD-Does it impact. MR. MAGOWAN-It's like you're giving them an eviction notice. MR. TRAVER-So what are the predominant species? We know we have white tail deer. We have birds of various types. We know there are no endangered species there because we got a study and a signoff by DEC. MR. MAGOWAN-Coy dogs, coyotes. MR. TRAVER-So we have the whole food chain with the predators at the top and everything from field mice and insects up through to white tails and coyotes and foxes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And that's the only negative we've got in the whole thing. MRS. MOORE-I guess the comment is that you also have 41 acres dedicated to open space. MR. TRAVER-Right, but the wildlife that are there don't know that, and they don't care. I mean, they're there nesting and having all the fun they want. They're not going to care that we re-label it to the Town, but they will notice the building lots going up. So, I mean, I think, I certainly feel that there is an impact. The question is whether it's a huge impact or it's a small impact. MR. HUNSINGER-Personally I think it's a small impact. That's why I was hoping we could find guidance. MR. TRAVER-The fact that it's not endangered species has an impact on my mind. MR. DEEB-Once they see that they will move. So I think it's a small impact. They'll find other places. MR. HUNSINGER-So this is the State's guidance on this question. This will help to give us the context to decide if we should determine it's small to moderate. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Read it to us, Laura. MRS. MOORE-Considering whether it's an impact. If it's considered not an impact it would have no effect at all. You understand that. A small impact could occur under one or more of these circumstances. A very limited amount of vegetation or habitat features will be removed leaving the large majority of the habitat available. No excessive noise, lights, vents or walls will be part of the project and won't interfere with the ecology and ability of the species to survive. That would be guidance for small impact. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Well, I don't think this is threatening their survival. It's threatening their. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Existence. MR. TRAVER-Well, no, it's threatening their nesting area. They're going to have to find an alternate. MR. FORD-Their natural habitat is being impacted. MR. TRAVER-Right, but it's not impacting their survival. MR. LAPPER-The majority of the habitat is available. MR. FORD-Where does it say anything about survival. MR. TRAVER-Well, again, I can't read it, but I think Laura read something. MRS. MOORE-It's bullet number two. No excessive noise, lights, vents or walls will be part of the project and won't interfere with the ecology and ability of the species to survive. So that would be considered a small impact, and that's guidance. MR. LAPPER-The majority of the habitat will be available. MR. HUNSINGER-So let's read on to how they define the moderate to large impact. MRS. MOORE-Moderate to large. One or more moderate to large impacts could occur under one or more of these circumstances. Bullet One is a large percentage of the vegetation is removed and replaced with lawns or other covered type structures. MR. LAPPER-Forty-one acres is being left. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry, could we have order, please. Thank you. Laura, go ahead. MRS. MOORE-Bullet Two is a major feature of the habitat is removed such as removal of all ground vegetation. Bullet Three is large areas of trees will be selectively removed to thin the forest and allow more sunlight to reach the ground. This will change the ecology of the forest and thus the species that will live there. MR. LAPPER-You have 66 acres. MRS. MOORE-Four, the project will include structures built along areas known to be important, over-wintering or travel corridors. The remaining bullets, fencing or walls replaced that will prevent normal movement from one location to another, and the last bullet is bright lights will be placed that will interfere with nocturnal species. MR. FORD-On a portion of this total complex, the answer to most of those is yes. Not the total, but for a portion of it. MR. LAPPER-We're talking about 66 acres. MS. GAG LIARDI-People, please let the Planning Board finish what they're doing. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Well, I agree there's an impact. I don't believe it's a large one. MR. HUNSINGER-1 agree. There's certainly an impact. MR. TRAVER-There is an impact, no question. MR. DEEB-I think it's small to moderate. MR. HUNSINGER-So let's get a vote on this. So clearly we have identified this as an impact. How many members feel that it's a small impact? George? It's going to be either small or moderate to large. MR. FERONE-I'm with moderate to large. MR. FORD-Moderate to large. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Moderate to large. MR. MAGOWAN-Moderate to large. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So four. Steve? MR. TRAVER-Small, I'd say small. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I'd say small as well. So four members feel that it's a moderate to large, and I guess going back to those directions that we just had, did you already close it out, Laura? I would ask what item that you would point to which would lead you to that conclusion. MR. SCHONEWOLF-If I could read it I would tell you. MR. HUNSINGER-There we go. If you could go down to the definition of moderate to large, Laura. MRS. MOORE-Is that better? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I can read that. I don't know if everyone else can. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that's much better. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-So the first bullet is a large percentage of the vegetation is removed. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Which is true. MR. MAGOWAN-The lawns and other cover and structures. MR. HUNSINGER-There's 41 acres that are not being disturbed, which is a majority of the project site. That's what I'm saying, how do you define large percentage, then? When more than half is being retained. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But you're removing the trees. MR. TRAVER-In my mind if you're looking at the percentage of the property, I would say to be large it would at least have to be more than half. MR. HUNSINGER-That's my feeling. MR. CENTER-On the stormwater pollution prevention control plan, the entire, the total potential area of disturbance is listed as 13.9 acres. So 13.9 acres out of 66 total acres for the entire parcel. MR. LAPPER-But a lot of that is being re-vegetated. MR. CENTER-Yes, a lot of that is being re-vegetated. Of that 13.9, .8 acres approximately is building area, and 1.7 is paving. The rest is a mixture of trees and lawn. MR. TRAVER-But what do we end up with after the re-planting? What's the final un-vegetated area? MR. LAPPER-About two and a half acres out of sixty-six. MR. CENTER-The limits of the pavement and the building area is 1.75, that's .8, is impervious. MR. TRAVER-Okay, but how much of the first part that you read, it's like 13 acres or something. MR. CENTER-The total disturbance, that includes all disturbed land. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. CENTER-Is 13.9 acres. MR. TRAVER-13.9, and what's the total property? MR. CENTER-Sixty-six. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So 21%. MR. FERONE-Just to be clear, that includes the road, right? MR. CENTER-The 13.9 includes the road. MR. TRAVER-So that's significantly less than half. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. So I'd say we have a negative dec. MR. TRAVER-Well, we've got to answer the impact question first. Is it small impact or large impact? Right now we have four members that say it's large and we have two members that say it's small. MR. DEEB-Three members. MR. HUNSINGER-Three. MR. TRAVER-Three members that say it's small. MR. FERONE-Well, I have to say, I mean, if we're looking at the total acreage, it would have to be no to small, because you have to consider 60 acres, not the 20 that's being developed. MR. HUNSINGER-That's right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. So four members say it's no to small. MR. DEEB-And then you've got to answer J. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, were there any other, we skipped over J, which is other impacts, and this, again, is under impacts on plants and animals. MR. FERONE-I can't think of any other ones. MR. HUNSINGER-I can't either. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No because they're all gone. MR. HUNSINGER-So we have now completed Part II. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-We only have to address in Part III the items that we identified as moderate to large impacts, correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. DEEB-I think there was only one. MR. HUNSINGER-There was only one, and you already put down it was mitigated by proposed site plan. One E. MRS. MOORE-So let me just go through this. So Number One, Impact on Land, you checked yes, "The action may involve construction on or physical alteration of, the land surface of the proposed site." You identified Letter E in that section as being moderate to large, and Letter E is "The proposed action may involve construction that continues for more than one year or in multiple phases." And it would be mitigated by the proposed site plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. MOORE-So you've identified by the proposed site plan and that's how I'll finish that part. MR. FORD-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any other items that the Board feels that we didn't adequately address? Okay. MRS. MOORE-I'm sorry, you can't continue yet, I'm not done. You identified Number Seven, Impacts on Plants and Animals, you identified yes, "The proposed action may result in a loss of flora or fauna." And you identified all items as no or small impact may occur. You identified it as a Yes. MR. TRAVER-So we need to talk about mitigation? MR. HUNSINGER-But all the items we identified were no or small. MR. DEEB-We should change that to no, then. MRS. MOORE-You don't have to change it to no. You can just identify that, just for clarification for your record, that's why I'm going to go over the ones you identified as yes. So it's Number Seven. You identified it as yes, but you identified all those letters as no or small impact. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MRS. MOORE-Number Nine, under Impact on Aesthetic Resources, You identified as yes, as "The land use of the proposed action are obviously different from, or are in sharp contrast to, current land use patterns between the proposed project and a scenic or aesthetic resource." However, you identified letters A through F as being no to small impact may occur. MR. HUNSINGER-That's correct. MRS. MOORE-Number Twelve, under Impact on Critical Environmental Areas, you checked the box as yes, and Proposed action may be adjacent to a Critical Environmental Area. For all of those you identified no or small impact may occur. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. MOORE-Number Thirteen you identified Impact on Transportation as yes, "The proposed action may result in a change to existing transportation systems." And you identified all those lettered items as no or small impact may occur. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. MOORE-Number Fourteen, Impact on Energy, also identified as yes, "Proposed action may cause an increase in use of any form of energy." And those you also identified the letters as no or small impact may occur. Number Fifteen, Impact on Noise, Odor, and Light. "The proposed action may result in an increase in noise, odors or outdoor lighting." You also identified all the letters as no or small impact. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-That should complete that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Now you can go ahead. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC SUB # 163 -2016 JOSEPH LEUCI The applicant proposes to subdivide 66 acre parcel as a conservation subdivision revised with 20 lots — 19 single family residential lots ranging from 1.9 +/- acres to 0.80 acres with one lot of 41.6 acres to be used as open space parcel access through easements with Rush Pond. Project includes grading, clearing, on-site septic, municipal water and stormwater measures. Pursuant to Chapter 183 Article X Conservation Subdivision of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Long EAF has been completed by the applicant; Part 2 of the Long EAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SUBDIVISION PZ 163-2016 JOSEPH LEUCI, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. Motion seconded by Stephen Traver. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 2016 by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-We also did complete Part III as well. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So I'd like to amend the motion to include Part III. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Include Part II & III. MR. TRAVER-I'll second the amended motion. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I just amended it. MR. HUNSINGER-Any further discussion? We're voting on the amended motion. Call the vote, please. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-So now that we've completed SEAR, we have a specified time period to act on the application. If the Board is ready to act this evening, we can. If anyone would like to put forward a motion, and this would be for Preliminary Stage approval. MR. TRAVER-Mr. Chairman, just a point of clarification. I'm interested in some conditions, and would we do that, do we do that at Final? MR. HUNSINGER-Final, yes. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. I knew it was one or the other. MR. FORD-1 had the same concern. MR. TRAVER-Yes, thank you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Why can't we do them now? MR. TRAVER-It's just protocol. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it's just protocol, because if we, for example, if we condition it on a landscaping plan, they can't complete the landscaping plan, we can't approve Final until they complete the landscaping plan. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So the first step in approval would be Preliminary Stage subdivision, if anyone would like to make the motion. There is a draft. MR. SCHONEWOLF-How about somebody else make that motion for a change. MR. HUNSINGER-There is a draft provided by Staff. RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY STAGE SUB # 163-2016 JOSEPH LEUCI A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to subdivide 66 acre parcel as a conservation subdivision revised with 20 lots — 19 single family residential lots ranging from 1.9 +/- acres to 0.80 acres with one lot of 41.6 acres to be used as open space parcel access through easements with Rush Pond. Project includes grading, clearing, on-site septic, municipal water and stormwater measures. Pursuant to Chapter 183 Article X Conservation Subdivision of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 4/28/2016, 6/23/2016, 8/16/2016 and closed on 9/20/2016; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE FOR SUBDIVISION PZ 163-2016 JOSEPH LEUCI, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption. As per resolution prepared by Staff a) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; b) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration on 9/20/2016; G) WaiyersiGenditions Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 2016, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-You will include the waiver requests in reference to the road and the second access. MR. TRAVER-I'm looking at Final Stage as having waivers approved or denied, according to the draft resolution. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We're still on the Preliminary Stage. MR. TRAVER-Right. I thought she said something about waivers. My apologies. We're not doing any waivers for Preliminary Stage. They come if we approve Preliminary. MR. MAGOWAN-What about the length of the road? MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion on the table. Do we have a second? MR. DEEB-Second. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Now we can have discussion, and the discussion is whether or not the waivers for the road. MR. TRAVER-Waivers and conditions on Preliminary versus Final. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think they've got to be on Final because there's some stuff that's not even out there. MR. TRAVER-Yes. The way our practice has been, when we have a Preliminary approval and a Final approval, that we approve Preliminary Stage without conditions because if we condition Preliminary approval, then we cannot review Final approval until the conditions are met. If we make the conditions on the Final Stage, then they can't complete the project, but we're done with our process., provided they meet the conditions and get the environmental approvals and the engineer approval. So that's why our practice has been, and perhaps it's different in other jurisdictions, but our practice has been, which is why I asked that at the beginning. Our practice has been to deal with waivers and conditions as part of the Final Stage. MR. HUNSINGER-Further comments on that? MR. SCHONEWOLF-But if we don't approve Preliminary Stage, then that's it. MR. TRAVER-Well, until they come back for Final. That has happened, I guess, that we've had some changes, but I don't think it's appropriate in this case. MR. HUNSINGER-Is everyone comfortable with that? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, relevant to the Sections of the Town Zoning Code 183, right? MR. TRAVER-I don't think there are variances involved? MR. LAPPER-No, no variances. MR. MAGOWAN-So what about the fact the Board has determined the proposal satisfies the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the Zoning Code? MR. TRAVER-Because they don't need any variances. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, the road's longer than the Code. MR. TRAVER-They don't need to go to the ZBA. MR. DEEB-We can take care of that with the waivers. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that's within our purview. MR. TRAVER-So again, that's under Final. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any further discussion? We have a motion and a second. If there's no further discussion, call the vote please. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan MR. HUNSINGER-So what was the final vote? MR. DEEB-Four to three. MR. HUNSINGER-Four to three. So the motion carries. Final Stage approval, is the Board ready to consider that motion this evening? MR. SCHONEWOLF-We've got to come back and put all the conditions on it. MR. HUNSINGER-That's what I'm asking. What are the conditions? MR. TRAVER-Well, we would be talking about the plantings. We need to discuss that. We talked about the caliper of the plantings already. What was that, how many inches? MR. MAGOWAN-Four inches. MR. TRAVER-Four inches. So we just need the number and location of the trees to be planted. They have to be a four inch caliper. MR. LAPPER-We have a proposal on the trees. We've looked into that with Tom. Usually when it's deciduous we say three inches so that they'll survive, but for evergreens we say at least 10 inches, for 10 feet tall, because evergreen goes by height. Deciduous usually goes by caliper, but three inches, three and a half is just safer for honey maple trees. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, I think we need number and placement for the conditions. MR. LAPPER-Laura suggested the buffer. MRS. MOORE-Okay. So can I read this information to you? MR. FORD-Sure. MRS. MOORE-So you have on the buffer types, B would be 20 foot wide, and it indicates that evergreen trees, three trees per one hundred linear feet. So, I mean, I don't know if that addresses the question, but they're saying the deciduous trees, three trees per every one hundred feet, and you can take a look at the numbers visually, but is that what you're looking for, that they plant something every, you know, for a 100 feet in from the front of the lot. MR. TRAVER-Well, that's the basic requirement, but I think there was discussion about where, on Lots Four, Five and Six, some additional plantings that was offered by the applicant, if I recall. MR. LAPPER-We would do it on the property boundary between each of those lots. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So again, we need caliper, type and number for the resolution. MR. LAPPER-Do you want maple and spruce, or do you want maple and oaks? Maple, oaks, spruce? MR. FORD-So we don't need the location? We're just going to leave that? MR. TRAVER-No, we need type, number and location. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't think we should try to do it on the fly. I think we should take some time and look at it. MR. FORD-Yes. How else are you going to tell where they are? MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's my point. They don't have an architectural plan. MR. LAPPER-What we would volunteer would be maples and oaks and deciduous and spruce for evergreens and we would put them on those three lots on the side boundaries between the lots. MR. TRAVER-Between the lots. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and then how many? MR. LAPPER-What Laura said is three every 100 feet. That gives the maple trees especially room to grow. Whatever your pleasure is, is the answer. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, my concern is how much other clear cutting are we going to be doing. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And how many other trees are we going to insist be planted on some of the other lots? MR. TRAVER-Well, I don't think they're proposing any clear cutting anywhere other than where the slope mitigation has to take place, there you go, right there. Where the slope mitigation takes place. That's where they have to cut, and that's where they're offering, in their discussion tonight, to go in and re-plant some trees. MR. FERONE-So we're only talking about Lots Three, Four and Five, not all the lots. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, but what about all the lots? What about the other lots? MR. TRAVER-They're not talking about clear cutting in there. They're talking about cutting, just for the limits. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, some of them have got junk trees. So you know they're going to go. They're going to strip it and then they're going to look like the pictures that he's got. MR. TRAVER-So we have the Code requirements as far as plantings that Laura mentioned. So that can be part of the condition, right? And then we have additional, over and above the Code plantings, the additional trees to be planted on Lots Four, I'm sorry, should I be writing this down? MRS. MOORE-Before you continue, I was only referencing a buffer requirement that's in our Code as a buffer. I mean, it's not referencing a planting plan for a subdivision. It's a guidance that you can use. My understanding was it was specific to these three lots. You're talking about a planting plan that's occurring for the entire subdivision, that's something entirely different. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's what I was talking about. What kind of trees are acceptable, hard woods or something like that, and not just let it go, because that's my whole objection to this plan. These people that build these kind of homes aren't going to put any trees in there. MR. TRAVER-So you're saying we need a plan for every lot? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, you're stripping a, well, at least a minimum requirement. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think we have to have something, whatever we have, it's my belief that we have to be, it has to be conditional so that it's strong. I mean, we can't just leave it vague. It has to be something that's enforceable. Something that can be inspected during every phase of this. MR. FORD-1 agree. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It can't come out of the audience. MR. FORD-1 would like to have the applicant propose something for us to consider. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Fine. That's the way it should come. Because that's the way you can see the plan in my opinion. MR. LAPPER-Joe's said all along that he's willing to re-vegetate. So he's open to what you want. No argument. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, just prepare a plan so we've got something to review. Let's not do it on the fly like we're doing right now. MR. LAPPER-Could we be on for the next meeting, since this is relatively simple? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, you could go on the next meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-I haven't seen the agendas yet for October. MR. DOTY-Mr. Chairman, I had a question. I'm listening to the conversation about the plantings. I'm not clear on what the direction is to the applicant. Where are they to be planted? What should the plan include? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. DOTY-Because so far I've heard around Four, Five and Six, but it seems like the conversation shifted to across the subdivision as well. So I only ask that so that it's clear to the applicant. MR. FORD-Yes, that's where I'm coming from. MR. TRAVER-1 mean, my concern is if there's anything at all, it has to be something that's very concrete, that you or one of your Staff, for example, go out and say, okay, yes, one, two, three, there they are, and we've got to add that, I think, before I'm prepared to consider a Final. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I agree. I want something that the guy can walk out from the Town and say, yes, that's it. MR. FORD-And we've done this. This has been a requirement for much smaller projects than this. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Why would we not do it on this? MRS. MOORE-1 can tell you that there is opportunity to place it on your October meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FERONE-Before we do that, I heard that these trees were going to be planted on the property line. So we are saying where they're going to go, and if we say they're going to be every one hundred feet, and if you look at the property, the property line is 561 feet from front to back, you're talking about five to six trees. Is that not enough information? MR. FORD-There also is a landscaping requirement that goes beyond buffer. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's what I'm saying. MR. TRAVER-Right. That's what said we're going to be getting from the applicant is a landscaping plan. MR. FORD-That's what I would like to see. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So a landscaping plan to be presented, to be prepared and submitted to the Board for review. MR. DEEB-All right. For clarification, are you going to ask him at what point on each lot he's going to plant those trees, like 100 feet from the, my point is you're getting into some vagaries here that are going to be really hard to fulfill. I agree we need plantings. How are we going to get to that, or how they're going to get to that. MR. LAPPER-On the three lots that are being cleared we would plant as soon as they re- vegetate, right now, and the other lots the landscaping plan would be when the house is built. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Exactly. That's the way we normally do things. MR. TRAVER-Put that on the plan so we have a context. MR. DEEB-That makes sense. MR. HUNSINGER-So when would Staff need that plan submitted by for review? MR. TRAVER-September 15tH MR. LAPPER-Can we get on the first meeting, Laura? MRS. MOORE-You could get on the first meeting, and I would look for that information as soon as possible. The latest would be September 30tH MR. LAPPER-That's no problem. MR. TRAVER-Now do we have other conditions that would need to come forward at that time as well, or would they just be conditions of a proposed motion? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, anything could come forward. MR. TRAVER-Right, but I'm just saying for preparation for this next review, is there anything that we still need from the applicant, other than the planting plan, the landscaping plan, for them to present to us, any additional information or clarification or anything that they need to bring to us in October, for the October meeting? MR. DEEB-So you're looking for, the conditions for the Final approval are basically the landscaping plans. MR. TRAVER-Well, we're not making conditions for Final. We're making conditions for the tabling. MRS. MOORE-So, would you be looking for a final signoff from engineering? Would you be looking for any information from the Water Department? They did provide a comment, the Water Department and engineering. MR. FORD-Before Final approval? I would think so. Wouldn't that make sense? Don't we do that usually? MR. MAGOWAN-So condition that the Town is willing to accept the 40 acres? MR. TRAVER-Yes, that would be a condition of Final, but we wouldn't make that a condition, I don't believe, until the Final. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things that I think would be useful for the Board is to have Town Counsel weigh in on the draft resolution. So if Staff could work with Town Counsel, drafting up, because right now we have our standard resolution, but we know there's going to be special conditions. MR. LAPPER-So one condition would be acceptance. MR. FORD-I'd rather address them now than later. MR. LAPPER-The dedication by the Town Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. LAPPER-OF the 41.6 acre parcel. MR. TRAVER-Yes, we'd make that part of the Final. MR. HUNSINGER-But in terms of what we're asking the applicant to submit, was there anything beyond the landscaping plan? MR. TRAVER-That's what I was asking. I can't think of anything other than. MR. HUNSINGER-And when I asked if there were outstanding information, there weren't any. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It doesn't preclude us from coming up with something later. MR. HUNSINGER-No, of course not. MR. TRAVER-So for the tabling resolution, it's just the landscaping plan. MRS. MOORE-And again, do you want them to have final signoff from the Town Engineer as part of this tabling motion? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, obviously we want it to move forward. You've submitted a comment letter Sean hasn't reviewed yet. So there's still some back and forth there. I mean, we can take it to the next level. MR. DOTY-So not necessarily a condition to get back on for Final, but it would probably a condition, at least, as part of Final. MR. TRAVER-It would absolutely be a condition of Final approval, absolutely. Yes, I mean, you're not going to be able to do anything without the engineer's signoff. Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-So, I will make a motion. RESOLUTION TABLING SUB #206-2016 FINAL STAGE JOSEPH LEUCI A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to subdivide 66 acre parcel as a conservation subdivision revised with 20 lots — 19 single family residential lots ranging from 1.9 +/- acres to 0.80 acres with one lot of 41.6 acres to be used as open space parcel access through easements with Rush Pond. Project includes grading, clearing, on-site septic, municipal water and stormwater measures. Pursuant to Chapter 183 Article X Conservation Subdivision of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 4/28/2016, 6/23/2016, 8/16/2016 and 9/20/2016; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO TABLE FINAL STAGE FOR SUBDIVISION PZ 206-2016 JOSEPH LEUCI, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption. Tabled until the October 18, 2016 Planning Board meeting with a submissions deadline of September 30, 2016, and the specific information that we're asking the applicant to provide is a landscaping plan. Seconded by Thomas Ford Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And again, if we could ask the Town Counsel to work with Staff on drafting a resolution and submit that draft to the Board for their review. MR. DEEB-The public hearing is closed. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think they know that. MR. DEEB-Okay, Chris. MS. GAGLIARDI-Are we adjourned? MR. HUNSINGER-We are not. Do we have any other business? MR. FORD-1 move we adjourn. MR. DEEB-Second. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2016, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded David Deeb: Duly adopted this 201" day of September, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman