Loading...
2006-01-17 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 17, 2006 INDEX Freshwater Wetlands FWW 5-2005 Jeffrey Kilburn 1. Tax Map No. 295.15-1-30 Site Plan No. 64-2005 Jeffrey Kilburn 2. Tax Map No. 295.15-1-30 Site Plan No. 67-2005 Jeffrey Schwartz 3. Tax Map No. 308.20-1-2 Subdivision No. 1-2005 J. Michael Blackburn 18. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 253.-1-18 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 70-2005 Ellen Winch 25. Tax Map No. 290.-1-9.2 Subdivision No. 27-2005 Shirley Harvey 30. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 301.17-1-3 FINAL STAGE Subdivision No. 21-2005 Michaels Group 37. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 308.19-1-67, 68 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 17, 2006 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT VOLLARO, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER ANTHONY METIVIER THOMAS FORD THOMAS SEGULJIC GEORGE GOETZ MEMBERS ABSENT GRETCHEN STEFFAN LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. VOLLARO-Following a statement of presentation by the applicant, there’s going to be a little bit of different venue here tonight. There’ll be minor dialogue with the Board, and then I will open the public hearing right after the presentation is made, and public comments will now be limited to five minutes, and an opportunity for follow up if it substantially adds to the previous input. When the public comment is complete, I’ll ask Staff if there’s any written correspondence and have it read into the record. Following the public comment will be discussion by Board members. I’ll either use Site Plan or Subdivision criteria review material to discuss the process, then we will determine at that time whether we have sufficient information to enter into SEQRA. If we do not have sufficient information to enter into SEQRA, we may have to table the application. If that’s the case, I will most likely leave the public hearing open and table the application to a specific date. I’ve been asked to do that by Staff, that we just don’t say we’re tabling. It’s got to be tabled to a date. If we complete SEQRA satisfactorily, then I will close the public hearing and call on the Board for a resolution. I thought maybe you’d all like to know a little bit about how we work and how we do things, and I’d just open it up for the public to get an idea of what happens up here. This evening we have a couple of things, a little housekeeping to do before we enter into our regular meeting. One is the approval of minutes of November 15 and November 22, 2005. thnd May I have a motion from the Board? CORRECTION OF MINUTES November 15, 2005: NONE November 22, 2005: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 15 & NOVEMBER 22, 2005, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Goetz: Duly adopted this 17 day of January, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Ford ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) FRESHWATER WETLANDS FWW 5-2005 SEQR TYPE II JEFFREY KILBURN AGENT(S): JAMES MILLER, RLA OWNER(S): SAME ZONING SFR-1A LOCATION NORTH SIDE FOX HOLLOW LANE, BETWEEN #22 & #24 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3,177 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND IMPROVEMENTS TO AN EXISTING LOG ROAD. PORTIONS OF THE FILLING ASSOCIATED WITH THE DRIVEWAY OCCUR WITHIN 50’ OF THE SHORELINE OF A DEC WETLAND. CROSS REF. SP 64-05, SUB WESTLAND SECT. 15 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 11/9/05 LOT SIZE 12.9 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.15-1-30 SECTION CHAPTER 94 SITE PLAN NO. 64-2005 SEQR TYPE II JEFFREY KILBURN AGENT(S): JAMES MILLER, RLA OWNER(S): SAME ZONING SFR-1A LOCATION NORTH SIDE FOX HOLLOW LANE, BETWEEN #22 & #24 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3,177 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND IMPROVEMENTS TO AN EXISTING LOG ROAD. PORTIONS OF THE FILLING ASSOCIATED WITH THE DRIVEWAY OCCUR WITHIN 50’ OF THE SHORELINE OF A DEC WETLAND. FILLING WITHIN 50 FEET OF A WETLAND REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. FWW/ SUB WESTLAND SECT. 15 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 11/9/05 LOT SIZE 12.9 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.15-1-30 SECTION 179-6-60 MR. VOLLARO-Second we have a tabling motion tonight which I’ll get rid of right up front here. The tabling motion is for Mr. Kilburn, and I’ll make the motion to table Site Plan No. 64-2005 for Jeff and Candy Kilburn to February 28, based on receipt of modified application th by the close of business on January 17, 2006, which is tonight. I understand from Staff that it’s been received. Is that correct? MRS. BARDEN-Actually, I can’t confirm that. I’m not sure that it has. They had until 4:30 this afternoon. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I realize what date they had. I won’t be able to table until February 28 until I know if the application modification has been received this evening before the th close of business. MR. SEGULJIC-Can we do this next week? Can we do this tabling motion next week? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think I’ll have to. If I don’t know what it is, then I’d have to assume that their next, the next date that they can put material in would be February 15, th and then we would set them up for March 21 or March 28. stth MRS. BARDEN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-So if they’ve got it in tonight, I’d like to table it to the 28, if possible. th MR. HUNSINGER-Was the public hearing held open until this evening? Is that the issue here? MR. VOLLARO-The public hearing was, if you remember what happened on that night, we took 62 days on that evening to make a motion. The 62 days are up as of tomorrow. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if we don’t take action, then this will automatically be approved. MR. SEGULJIC-No, the 62 days are up in February. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s only true of subdivisions, the 62 days. MRS. BARDEN-That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think we’re safe here on doing this. MRS. BARDEN-You want to just hold this and you can table this next week? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ve had conversations with Craig, and Craig thought it was in, at the desk. I know the desk was piled high at 4:30, and people didn’t know what was exactly coming in, but he thought that they made the cut for tonight. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. VOLLARO-So I’ll tell you what, I’d like to let the tabling motion stand. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-And if they haven’t had it in, then we’ll have to make a correction to it. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. So the February 28 meeting? th MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Is that satisfactory to all the Board members? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. METIVIER-That’s fine. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-This evening we also have election of the Vice Chair and the Secretary per our policy. This is the policy of the Queensbury Planning Board Policies and Procedures. MR. GOETZ-I’d like to nominate Chris Hunsinger to be our Vice Chair and Gretchen Steffan to be our Secretary. MR. VOLLARO-Do we have a second to that? MR. FORD-I’ll second that. MR. METIVIER-I’ll second it. MOTION TO NOMINATE CHRIS HUNSINGER TO BE VICE CHAIR AND GRETCHEN STEFFAN TO BE THE SECRETARY OF THE QUEENSBURY PLANNNG BOARD, Introduced by George Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 17 day of January, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Ford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. VOLLARO-And with that, I’d like to open the first application for Jeffrey Schwartz. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 67-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JEFFREY SCHWARTZ AGENT(S): PETER BROWN OWNER(S): SAME ZONING LI LOCATION 53 CAREY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 30,294 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 30,851 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE BUILDING. EXPANSIONS OF SITE PLAN REVIEW USES REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. SP 69-00, SP 23-99, SUB 6-87 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 4.7 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.20-1-2 SECTION 179-4-020 PETER BROWN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-The public hearing on this application is still open. It’s a Short Form SEQRA. The SEQRA Type is Unlisted. MR. BROWN-My name is Peter Brown, and I’m representing Jeff Schwartz tonight who couldn’t make the meeting and also Bill Montgomery who is in another meeting and can’t make it either. Basically this building is being built, it’s an addition to an existing building, okay, and it’s in Carey Industrial Park, which has been in existence since originally approved by this Board I believe in 1989. Jeff began his building, I think, in 1999, Phase I, which was only 100 foot by 100 foot. Phase I was constructed in 2001. It was a 10,000 square foot 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) addition which is basically the same, 100 by 100, and Phase III which was completed this last summer, in 2004, or 2005, and that was a 50 foot by 200 foot addition. So the existing buildings over there now basically are at 30,000 square feet, a little bit more, 30,351 to be exact, okay. Now what they want to do is complete the entire project as originally planned back in 1999, 2000, and so they’re calling it Phase IV, and what they’d like to do is make another big box, it’s an industrial warehouse. It’s basically 200 feet by 150 feet for 30,000 square feet, and we have complied, I believe, with everything as far as the existing Codes go, and the plans, I believe, are in front of you. I have extra plans if somebody doesn’t have theirs. These were resubmitted about, I think about three weeks ago, two weeks ago maybe. MR. VOLLARO-What’s the date of your update on your plans? MR. BROWN-It should show revisions on the fire access road, grades and drainage, 1/5/06. MR. VOLLARO-Correct. Thank you. MR. BROWN-Basically, I don’t know what you’re looking for as far as questions from me or whatever else, but we’ve been in contact, of course, with the Planning Board and with the Staff and also building inspector, fire code inspector, fire inspector or Fire Marshal, also, the consultants to the Board, and I think we have complied with everything that they desired in a recent letter that was sent to you people, I believe, and I have four copies of that, if somebody didn’t get their copy of it, okay. That was dated January 12, 2006. MR. VOLLARO-Which letter are you referring to? MR. BROWN-This is a letter that was sent to, I believe it was sent by mail, it was dated January 12, 2006. So maybe some of you haven’t received it. MR. FORD-We have one January 11, at least I do. th MRS. BARDEN-Right, the cover letter is. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that from Peter Brown? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we have that. MR. BROWN-And that was signed by myself, Jeff Schwartz and Bill Montgomery, the project engineer. Okay, and I believe that handled most of the concerns of the Staff and C.T. Male, and C.T. Male was also sent this. So I don’t know what questions you have regarding this right now at this point but it’s pretty straight forward. It’s an industrial park, as I said before, and it’s nothing but a, basically a great big warehouse with a lot of racks in it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The public hearing’s still open. If that’s the extent of your presentation, and if there’s anybody here from the public that would like to speak to this application, I’d like to have them come forward. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. VOLLARO-Anybody want to talk to this application? With that, I will close the public hearing on this application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to start with the Board itself and see if they’ve got any questions and what we can do, this is a site plan criteria. I know that you all have received copies of this site plan review criteria, and you probably want to use that this evening, and I’ll go through it, and we’ll start off with design standards. Conformance with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, conformance with design corridor standards and building design layout and signage. Has anybody got any questions on those at all? Site development design, site conditions soils, geology hydrology, slopes, vehicle access, traffic patterns, pedestrian access and parking field design and emergency access? All right. I have a question on parking field design. If anybody else has anything, I’ll go last. I think the classification of this business should be either a distribution center or light manufacturing. If you take a look at our Code, 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) 179-4-040, has to do with defining parking spaces, and the parking in these two categories would equal eight spaces plus one for each company automobile, plus one handicapped, and we would allow to be able to increase that by 20%. So it’s roughly twelve spaces, as opposed to 20. MR. BROWN-I believe we have, if you look at the plan, we have 21. So there’s really no, we meet your criteria. MR. VOLLARO-No, you don’t. MR. BROWN-What are your criteria? MR. VOLLARO-The criteria is on 179-4-040. Do you have your copy of the Code? MR. BROWN-No, I don’t have it in front of me, but did you figure up how many cars that you would like to see, or how many parking spaces? MR. VOLLARO-It’s not what I would like. It’s what the Code says. MR. BROWN-Okay. What does the Code says? MR. VOLLARO-Parking would be eight spaces. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Plus one for each company vehicle. MR. BROWN-Which there are none. MR. VOLLARO-Which there are none. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Plus one handicap space. MR. BROWN-So we’ve got that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and then we’re allowed to go up to 20% over that. So it’s one eight so we can give you ten spaces. MR. BROWN-Yes, and we have 21 plus two handicap parking spaces. MR. VOLLARO-No, that does not fit the Code. We’re allowed to give you 20% over the top of the Code. I guess the big thing is the classification of your business. I looked at it and classified it in my mind at least as a distribution center or a light manufacturing organization. MR. BROWN-There’s no manufacturing there. It is probably. MR. VOLLARO-Is it a distribution center? MR. BROWN-Probably a distribution center would be proper. MR. VOLLARO-So in the Code the distribution center and light manufacturing are exactly the same for parking. MR. BROWN-Okay, and I think that when I went to the Staff, okay, I asked them about this particularly, and what we did, we tried to come to some kind of a reasonable agreement. We can fit a lot more parking in that area if we need to. I don’t think it’s necessary. MR. VOLLARO-I realize that. MR. BROWN-And I think we asked for relief on that particular item. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. VOLLARO-Well, we can give you relief up to 20% of the Code. We can add, if you need more, we can give you 20% more. That would be 1.8 or 2 spaces, in my mind. Does anybody on the Board want to get into this discussion at all? MR. METIVIER-No, I’m just curious as to where we’re going with it. I understand where you’re going with the Code, but is it relevant for this particular action, I mean, in an industrial park? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ll get to the Code itself, Tony, and talk about it, and it talks to light manufacturing, for one, and then it talks to a distribution center. MR. HUNSINGER-How many spaces are there now? MR. BROWN-Well, right now, I would say there’s at least 12, okay. We’re going to take and put a gravel parking area beside it, okay, and it’s going to expand it to 21, plus two handicap, and there’s only sixteen employees, and there’s no sales on the site at all. It’s a warehouse. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s how you get one space per two employees, and that’s how you come up with eight spaces. I’m just following the Code. I can give you 20% relief on this. MR. BROWN-Yes, but one space per two employees. Sixteen employees maximum is what this facility is going to, it doesn’t have sixteen now, okay. There’s eight employees now. If they double that, which I doubt they’ll do, okay. If I’m seeing this right, one space per employee. Let’s say they end up with 16 employees on site, okay. One space per two would mean you’d need eight spaces. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what the Code says, yes. MR. BROWN-Okay. We have shown on here 21. MR. METIVIER-You know what the problem is, you’re showing too many parking spaces. You can’t have that per the Code. MR. BROWN-Well, this is an agreement with came up with with the Staff. They said, if you want to go back, we could certainly cut it right back down. It doesn’t matter. We’re willing to cut back because it’s not necessary. MR. VOLLARO-Susan, what was our position on this Staff wise? How did he come up with the fact that Staff approved this? MRS. BARDEN-Well, it wasn’t identified that they needed a variance for the amount of parking that they were requesting. MR. VOLLARO-Well, when I look at the Code, it looks like they’re over to me. I mean, I don’t know. MR. HUNSINGER-The reality of the situation is, what you see is what you get, and it’s a question of how you label it on this site plan. Because you’re not going to eliminate the existing gravel that’s already there. So whether you show 20 spaces on your site plan or 12, you’re still going to have the same amount of spaces. It’s gravel. Am I right? Because you need that area to turn around. MR. BROWN-Well, we were going to propose the additional gravel parking area, okay, because basically what we could fit in there comfortably, what we felt comfortably was we could fit 12 on the existing pavement. Okay, and let’s say that meets the Code, okay, but we know every employee drives there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BROWN-So that’s 16 cars that are going to be there every day, being realistic about it, and there’s no bus service there. Carpooling in this area is not a big favorite of anybody’s. So that would mean you’d have to add four more people to the parking lot. Then let’s say you decide to go there for some reason to look over the project. I went there to meet you there or whatever else, that’s two more employees, okay, or two more people parking. So we felt that 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) 21 was reasonable, and it would not detract from the site. It would not detract from anything, and we’re just trying to take and make it so that it wasn’t a mess. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the question is, are you expanding the area that’s already gravel, or are you proposing to? MR. BROWN-No, we’re expanding, the existing parking is all on the pavement. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BROWN-Okay, and what we’re doing is trying to move the parking, it’s parking in front of the building, okay, which is not really a major problem at this point. We’re trying to get the employees away, okay, and we’re trying to get the parking away from the building a little ways. If you want that gravel parking area eliminated and going back to just 16 spaces on the pavement, or 12 spaces on the pavement, glad to do it, not a problem. Just stipulate that in your resolution. MR. VOLLARO-We’ll do. MR. BROWN-We have no objection to it. MR. VOLLARO-My colleague here has said that he thinks the Code is kind of ridiculous for this day and age. I also don’t agree with the way the Code reads for this day and age. Usually what happens is they’ll ask you to come in for a waiver. You go to the ZBA, they waive this and give you a variance and we’re okay. You can’t do that tonight because there is no variance. So, we’ll stick with the 12 spaces that are on the paved area. MR. BROWN-Right. That’s fine. That’s certainly reasonable. As you know where the pavement is, we can actually get a lot more out on the pavement if we divided it up. I have an as built drawing. Would that help? I have an as built drawing of what we have right now. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’ll be one condition that we’re going to be putting on this application. Getting back now to stormwater and sewage design. Anybody have any questions with that? MR. METIVIER-Well, certainly apparently we have an issue with the septic system as it stands right now, based on the number of employees that could potentially be working there. MR. BROWN-In the latest letter that we sent you, okay, I tried to get this together, I don’t know if you guys got a chance to read it or not, but the existing septic tank is 1,000 gallons. MR. METIVIER-Right. MR. BROWN-Okay, and the field is, I don’t know how many feet, but anyway, it’s designed for 1,000 gallons per day, okay. If you had 16 people in there and everybody generated, okay, six five gallon pails of effluent, okay, whether they’re washing their hands or using the toilet or whatever. Okay. That’s a lot of water. That would be less than half the capacity. It would be 480 gallons. So the answer is, to the question, it’s no problem, but it’s a good question. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not the capacity of the tank itself. It’s the capacity of the leach field. MR. BROWN-And that’s designed for it. That was designed and that was approved previously. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it was approved previously for the previous building. I don’t know what the story is now. MR. BROWN-The question is, will it meet the demands as it’s going to operate, and, yes, it will, and it’s got at least 50% capacity more. MR. METIVIER-So that would work if it has 50% capacity more, up to the potential of 16 employees. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. BROWN-It would work at 32 employees, and then some. Okay. Stop and think about it. Line up six, five gallon buckets, okay. Say each employee generates that in one day. There’s no showers in this building. There’s no bath tubs. That’s a lot of effluent. MR. VOLLARO-I tend to agree with that. I don’t think there’s a problem with the septic on the site, myself, personally. MR. BROWN-I mean, that’s pretty crude to set it up that way, but. MR. METIVIER-That’s what the system will hold, is what you’re saying? MR. BROWN-It’ll hold double that. You take sixteen employees and they each generate six, five gallon buckets or thirty gallons, hot water tanks full of effluent a day, okay, between washing their hands and using the toilet. Okay, because the capacity, it would not use 50% of the system. MR. VOLLARO-What are you calling the system, the size of the 1,000 gallon tank? Is that what you’re calling the system? MR. BROWN-Septic systems, as you are probably aware, are designed around the size of the tank which slows the volume. MR. VOLLARO-I know how they work, but that’s not the limiting factor. The limiting factor is the field. MR. BROWN-The field is designed based on the soil conditions. Okay, and that was based, according to the Town of Queensbury standards at the time, and still, the standards haven’t changed. That’s according to the Code, and that was previously designed by an engineer and it was previously approved and it’s been in use and there’s no, you know, no need for. MR. VOLLARO-Was that the Rist-Frost plan that that appeared on some years ago? MR. BROWN-It appeared on the Rist-Frost plan. It was actually upgraded to the Town of Queensbury Code. You’ve got to remember, the Rist-Frost plan was 10 years old at the time that this building was started, and nothing against the Rist-Frost plans. They were very, very good. MR. VOLLARO-You gave those to us in eight and a half by eleven sheets, which I wasn’t able to put together so that it made sense, by the way. So I didn’t even look at them. MR. BROWN-I don’t understand what you’re talking about. MR. VOLLARO-You sent some drawings in that were from Rist-Frost, they were eight and a half by eleven. MR. BROWN-I’m sorry, well, it covered those particular individual details. They were just sections, but I can take and furnish the whole plans to you if you need them. MR. VOLLARO-That won’t be necessary now. MR. BROWN-Okay. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Let me continue to go through. The lighting design. Does anybody have a question on lighting design? MR. FORD-What is the nature of those exterior lights, please? MR. BROWN-The exterior lights are basically to light up the front of the building. MR. FORD-I know the purpose of them. MR. BROWN-Kind of like headlights on a car. So you can see where you’re going. It’s a security lighting, yes, it is, but it’s not a bank security lighting. It’s just enough to light the area so people can see where they’re going. We have a lot of vandalism in the area over there. We have a lot of garbage dumping, and a lot of other things that go on. So we want it lit, you 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) know, so we can see people and movement. There’s nobody to see them move. So, you know, it’s almost valueless. MR. FORD-So the only exterior lighting will be above exit doors? MR. BROWN-Above the exit doors, and that was at the request, we don’t have to have that. It’s not a State Building Code requirement, but C.T. Male suggested it and we said, yes, okay, it’s not a problem. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I hate to keep throwing the Code at you, because that’s the way I work, to be honest with you, okay. Now the requirements of 179-6-020, we need one foot candle is required for illumination on industrial parking lots. What level of lighting is supplied by your 180 watt wall packs on the existing Phase I and Phase II buildings? MR. BROWN-Phase I and Phase II buildings? We have never tested it. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the requirement is one foot candle. MR. BROWN-I’m sure there’s at least one foot candle there. I can take a meter over there and get back to you tomorrow. We’ll put that as a stipulation of it that we’ll make sure that that meets the Code. I was unaware of this. MR. VOLLARO-Do you folks look at our Code when you prepare these things? MR. BROWN-Well, we don’t read them in great detail, but I mean, you do this professionally, basically as a profession. MR. VOLLARO-I hope this is not a profession for me. MR. BROWN-Well, I’m sorry, but we look at it as a warehouse, and our thing is to make sure that the product that moves through there as efficiently as possible. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. MR. BROWN-I mean, this is a profit generated thing. MR. VOLLARO-I understand all of that. I think you’ve got a good project. I just have to make sure that it’s in conformance with our Codes. That’s all. MR. BROWN-Add that as a stipulation to it. We’ll make sure that it happens. MR. VOLLARO-We’ll put that on, yes. MR. BROWN-We sell lights, if it has to be increased. It’s not a major detail. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We refer to C.T. Male’s Number Five, with respect to safety lighting of the two proposed exits. I think Mr. Ford has already talked about that. We recommend the same 185 watt wall packs over these two exits as well. MR. BROWN-It doesn’t matter. Just put that as a stipulation. Fine, and if the other ones have to be increased, we’ll increase those. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think it’s in there for employee safety, really. MR. BROWN-Fine. It’s not an issue. We’re not even concerned about it. We’re concerned about pleasing you people and getting the project moving. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Landscape design, planting schedule, buffering, screening, commercial, industrial buffer setbacks. Any comments on that? MR. METIVIER-I have no comments on that. MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to get into asking a question here. There is a letter here dated August 5, 2005 by Mr. Bruce Frank, who goes out and does inspections of sites, and it says, “During a site plan inspection of your project on July 27, 2005, and August 4, 2005, the 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) following deficiencies were discovered”, and there’s a whole laundry list of them. I guess my question is simply this. What is the status of Bruce Frank’s report of August 5 and how does your Phase IV address or correct those deficiencies? MR. BROWN-I have to say that I’ve never seen that memo. MR. VOLLARO-Staff, does this go to, these memos usually go to the applicant? MRS. BARDEN-Did that memo come from me? MR. VOLLARO-No, it came from Bruce Frank, the name is Jeffrey Schwartz, and it went to Dear Mr. Schwartz. I think they sent it directly to Jeffrey Schwartz. MRS. BARDEN-What’s the date on that, Mr. Vollaro? MR. VOLLARO-It’s August 5, 2005. MRS. BARDEN-Does anybody else on the Board have that? I do not, but if it was part of Staff notes, the applicant would have received it. I shouldn’t say that, I knew that he had this letter, but I don’t believe that I circulated this. MR. BROWN-If I could see the letter, perhaps I could address it, if that would be fine? MR. VOLLARO-Sure. It’s addressed to Mr. Schwartz. MR. BROWN-I’ve never seen it. It’s unfortunate we don’t have copies of this, but do you want me to address them? MR. HUNSINGER-We got them with the December submission. MR. VOLLARO-We have another Board member who has them here. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they came with the December package. MR. VOLLARO-Right. So there was a distribution. MRS. BARDEN-It was just the previous month. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it was the previous Staff notes. MR. BROWN-The only thing that I was aware of from Bruce Frank, okay, was the fact that he needed a copy of the as built plan by a certain date, and I got that to him, and then I also got the new set of plans to him at the same time, I believe, the Staff delivered them to him. I’m not sure if I gave them to him or not. I see Bruce quite frequently, and I’m not exactly sure what transpired when, but I know his only concern was, the day that he approved it, was, all I knew, the only thing I thought I was concerned with was the fact that we didn’t install a drainage structure, which was in question because of the fact that there’s some New York State laws that now change that whole concept of putting water underground and not filtering it first. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you have his. MR. BROWN-I have his report right in front of me now, and I was totally unaware of all this. I’m certainly aware of the fact that the tree clearing limits. I didn’t realize it was a violation, because I thought you could log off your property over there, as was done with all the rest of the stuff. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t know what I can say to you, except that I need some kind of a resolution on that letter. Maybe in the Phase IV you can make all the corrections that he talks about. MR. BROWN-Yes. They’re all going to be basically handled. You’ve got to realize that the fire road around the building at that time is just temporary until this Phase IV goes, and then that has to come out and be re-established around the entire parcel, the entire building. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. VOLLARO-I just talked to Bruce Frank about this and he’s going to come out and probably during your Phase IV construction going to be taking a look at things like we talked about here, lights, okay. He’s going to take his August 8 letter, and see what kind of th corrections can be made to your site. MR. BROWN-When’s he going to do this now? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know. I don’t know when he’s coming. MR. BROWN-But it’ll be before we start the project. Is that correct? MR. VOLLARO-Well, before you start the project, that letter shows you have violations on your existing site. MR. BROWN-Yes, I understand that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, before you start Phase IV, and we’re trying to look whether Phase IV can work in any way to correct those deficiencies. That’s what we’re trying to find out. MR. BROWN-Okay. We don’t have a problem with this. I haven’t looked it over very carefully, obviously. We don’t have a major problem because we’re trying to, it is in phases, and therefore some things were done temporarily. Laws have changed during the duration of the construction of this project, okay, and we’re going to update it to the current situation. Now we have to take and go through the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, okay, and fill out the form, and they are responsible for inspecting all of the drainage on the site, okay, and we have to fill out everything to that form, and that is addressed in the January 12 memo to you people, okay, where that will actually, we have to th take and submit a permit to them before we can start construction. They have to come and inspect it during construction. We have to submit an application to them when the construction is completed. They come out and inspect it. MR. VOLLARO-We know how this is done. MR. BROWN-Okay. I didn’t know if you did. Some of this stuff is outdated now. MR. VOLLARO-It might be outdated, but I just can’t put memos like that aside and say, well, we’re not going to address those. MR. BROWN-Understandable. What I’m saying is, we will take and address this along with the entire site under current laws or the Codes, whether your codes or their codes, we’ll address those under this final phase. MR. VOLLARO-Normally when DEC permits are required, we usually see the permit application, so that we know that you’ve applied for a DEC permit, and I don’t see one here. MR. BROWN-No, we have not submitted that yet, because we didn’t know what was going to happen, and the thing is you can’t send the permit in until you’re going to start construction. The permit is issued in like nine days or something like that, the way we’re doing it. Not the 60 day process. Okay. We’re doing it according to the latest standards, and we are going to go for the routine easiest way to do it, okay, and then as soon as the construction is completed, we’re going to give them notification that it’s completed. They will come up and inspect it, and all their information does come back to the Town Planning Board or the Town Building Inspector. That’s a part of their process. MR. VOLLARO-I want to ask Staff a question here. Susan, I have a copy of a completion, you know, when you go into a pre-application conference, and I have a blank one. Did you sit, or did anybody sit with this gentleman in pre-application and talk about all of these type of things that we’re talking about here? MRS. BARDEN-Yes, it’s signed, is it not? MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got Mr. Brown’s signature and your signature, but I have nothing in comments. Just blank. All of this is blank. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MRS. BARDEN-Well, I think it’s the new form, which, you know, things are checked off rather than written at the bottom, where it says, you know, was a detailed project description submitted? Is there a site plan? Is there an Environmental Assessment Form? Those kinds of things. Is it an allowable use? So I think it’s the new form. We did meet, though, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and you made circles and said N/A. It was filled out. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I just didn’t see it on mine. I only got one sheet. MR. HUNSINGER-You didn’t get Page Seven, along with Page Eight? MR. VOLLARO-No, I didn’t. I got Page Eight. I didn’t get Page Seven along with it. MRS. BARDEN-You don’t have that first page? Sorry about that. MR. VOLLARO-So the landscaping and buffering wasn’t checked off, and that’s the thing that Mr. Frank was talking about. I don’t know, let me ask the Board. How do you feel with respect to what Bruce Frank has written? Have you all seen that letter? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. It would seem to me that he should, looking at these plans, it doesn’t seem as if they’ve incorporated those. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. SEGULJIC-So I would think we need the applicant to incorporate those deficient design features into the plan. One would think so, yes. That’s why I’ve asked this gentleman whether or not Phase IV would go towards correcting some of those deficiencies, and I think his problem is he doesn’t know what the deficiencies are in detail because he hasn’t seen this memo yet. MR. BROWN-This is exactly right. I have never been presented this form at all, and I’m not faulting anybody, but I’m saying this is a basic lack of communication, when these people know that I’m in charge of the project and I should be the first one informed, if not the second, and it shouldn’t be presented to me at a meeting like this. It’s very embarrassing for me to see this stuff and I would like to address it right now and get it over with. MR. VOLLARO-We won’t be able to do that, unless your drawing, as one of the members said, the drawing would have to reflect the changes. MR. BROWN-I think we can add these right to the stipulations of what has to be handled now, and if you disagree with me when I go down the list, I’d be glad to say this is. MR. VOLLARO-Let me poll the Board and ask the Board what they think. What does the Board think here? We obviously have a discrepancy report from Bruce, Bruce Frank, that’s fairly detailed. The applicant hasn’t really had an opportunity to see those until tonight, and I don’t know why, because it was addressed not to you. MR. BROWN-August the 5, and Bruce knows that I was in charge, and, you know, the th thing was this was obviously not even carbon copied to me at all. It was sent to one person. It was not copied to anybody else. MR. VOLLARO-Normally they send it to the applicant, and the applicant in this case is Mr. Jeffrey Schwartz. MR. BROWN-I deal with these people all the time, okay, and they know who takes and reads these things and who doesn’t read these things. I would address this, all I was aware that he wanted an existing as built plan, and that was furnished to him within his specification. I was told of one thing on here that we did not take and put the stormwater thing in. I told him that was because of the State, and we were going to take and comply with that on Phase IV. He said as long as I see that in writing, I will take and waive that. It’s not a problem. Okay. I was not told about these other things. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Mr. Brown, let me just ask the Board how each member feels about this at this particular point? MR. GOETZ-If I were the applicant, and it’s my building, I would expect the Town of Queensbury is sending information to me, and I would take that information and I would go to you, if you’re my representative, and I would present it to you, and I’d say how are we going to go about taking care of this? So, that’s the way it should be done. The Town of Queensbury shouldn’t have to say, well, gee, this is Peter Brown, he’s representing him, but this really belongs to Jeffrey Schwartz or whoever. I don’t think they can take all that into consideration. I think it’s the responsibility of the applicant. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Ford? MR. FORD-Lack of communication on the part of the applicant does not constitute an emergency for us, the Planning Board. There are too many unanswered questions, too many concerns. MR. VOLLARO-Tony? MR. METIVIER-Well, I’m just curious if Mr. Brown’s listed as the agent on this application anywhere? MR. BROWN-Yes, I am. MR. METIVIER-You are? MR. BROWN-I was, and I have worked for this family since 1967. MR. METIVIER-I just honestly don’t recall seeing your name. So I do apologize, but I’m just curious. Usually we notify agents. MRS. BARDEN-But this letter went out before this application came in, Tony. This letter would have gone out before the application was made. MR. METIVIER-That’s why. So that’s why you weren’t notified, but typically the agent. MR. BROWN-Yes, but I was on the other. All phases I’ve been on as the applicant, okay. They’ve all been done under me, okay, basically. MR. VOLLARO-The only place that I see where, to answer your question, Tony, the only thing that I see, on the drawings it says, drawing by PJB, and I know that’s Peter J. Brown. So other than that, I have to agree, I haven’t seen him as an agent for the applicant anyway. MR. BROWN-Well, the plans also have William Montgomery’s and this was not addressed to him, okay. He is my boss in this case, and they were not addressed to him. He would turn this over to me immediately and we would discuss it. It’s never been copied to him whatsoever, in any way, shape or form, that I know of. Now, it’s just sad when this man deals with me and fails to take and send a copy of this letter. This is an embarrassment to everybody. MR. METIVIER-I guess in defense of the Town, Bruce Frank or whomever, I just don’t see. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll take a copy of that. MR. BROWN-You can have this copy. Please, would somebody give me a copy of this letter. MR. VOLLARO-I need that for my records. MR. BROWN-I’m sorry for taking up your time. As I said before, these will all be addressed on this thing if you want to include that in your, that these questions are all answered, and that the Codes are all followed, current Codes are all followed. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Hunsinger, what do you think we ought to do with this? Have you, do you have an opinion on this one? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, if we’re sort of looking at this August 5 letter, I mean, th some of the deficiencies I think are, obviously would be corrected with Phase IV. I mean, approved tree cutting, clearing limits have been violated, approximately 30,000 square feet to the east of what was approved. Well, obviously that was done in anticipation of Phase IV. So, I mean, to me that’s a non issue, but we’re sitting here and we’re trying to understand some of the stormwater comments that are in that letter, and I can’t relate them from the site plan inspection report to this drawing, and maybe I’m not supposed to be able to, because maybe they were only part of the approved Phase III expansion, and now, you know, the building is covering, you know, the proposed building for Phase IV is covering that. That’s what I don’t know. So, I mean, certainly I’m a little confused at how some of these comments relate to the current site plan. really, personally, I don’t see anything that’s a deal killer, though. I mean, obviously if there’s any existing deficiencies, those would have to be corrected before a building permit would be issued, and we can make that a condition of any approval tonight. So, so far, I don’t see anything that’s a deal killer for me, but certainly I respect the other comments from my fellow Board members. MR. SEGULJIC-I agree with Chris, but I would go one step further. I think we need to see those deficiencies put on the plan so we can get a clean set of plans. MR. BROWN-They are on the plans, okay. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess what we have to do is get those plans, and next meeting we have it should be real easy. MR. BROWN-They’re on the plans, okay. What happens, this is a good example, okay, he sits in there and says, there seems to be an excessive amount of silt in the gravel that’s used for the fire road. Okay. On the plans, if you look at the plans, the gravel is coming out of West Fort Ann out of a pit up there that’s been in existence, been approved by the State of New York, which has a percolation rate of somewhere less than one minute. I can’t remember exactly whether it was 50 or 55 seconds, okay. That does not indicate there’s an excessive amount of clay or silt. Now I don’t even know where he’s talking about. If he discussed this with me, we could have come out and said, hey, show me where you found this quote deal failing project. That’s wrong the way it was written. It’s wrong the way it’s presented to me tonight, okay. I will answer those questions if you want me to answer them, individually, starting with one to whatever it is. I understand your plight. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s just that when we approve plans, it’s what’s to be constructed, and these features are not on the plans. MR. BROWN-Okay. Number Three on the plan, if you take your plan out right now, (lost words) gravel fire access roads and gravel parking areas are to be installed after the site has been cleaned up and fine graded. A one and a half inch deep by twenty foot wide approved (lost words) gravel will be spread and compacted. The center line grade will be according to the plan. The grade will be a crowned off the road at a 10% slope to each side. That’s 20 feet wide, okay, 10% slope each side. So the water runs off it. MR. VOLLARO-One of the things that Mr. Frank does, when he goes on the site, is has those drawings and does the deficiencies against the drawing. What’s on the plan he looks for, and if he doesn’t see it, he writes it up. MR. BROWN-Why didn’t he point this out when he was there? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know the answer to that. MR. BROWN-Okay. Well, I’m asking you this, okay, it’s on the plan corrected, okay. The existing roads are going to be altered. They’re going to be changed to the new plan, okay, and they’re going to follow this particular specification. So when Mr. Frank comes out, that he does his inspection, he goes over with me, and there’s no confusion on this thing. Those roads will be put in there at the last step, so there is no silt or, I don’t even know where you come up with clay particles, but anyway, okay, they’re designed for an H-20 road, and the (lost words) gravel will have a percolation rate of less than one minute in its natural state at the pit, or as compacted at the site. Okay. Now that’s pretty specific. MR. VOLLARO-It’s specific on that drawing. Apparently he didn’t see what’s on that drawing. That’s how he does his inspection report. I’m looking at the clock. We’re almost 50 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) minutes into this application, and I don’t want it to run too much longer. I’d like to get a position from the Board. I know, Chris, you think we ought to go forward on this. Is that how you feel on this? Are you willing to go forward with it? Because I think the rest of the Board is not. I’m just trying to get a position here as to how we go. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, no, I was. I mean, there might be some additional questions that need to be addressed, but I don’t see anything that’s a deal killer, at this point. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, if we go forward with this, we’re essentially ignoring what, really what Bruce had to say, unless what you said, Chris, makes some sense, that Phase IV is going to cover up a lot of what these deficiencies are describing, but I can’t tell that. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I think we need clarification. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not ignoring what Mr. Frank said in his letter. All I’m saying is that it would have to be a condition of approval that these deficiencies have to be corrected, prior to any building permit being issued. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, you know I talked to this Board before about my feeling on conditions of approval. I would very much like to see a drawing that reflects what’s going to be done, as opposed to conditioning things. Conditions are, the drawing speaks volumes to me. It always has, and I’d like to see a drawing that reflects what’s really going to be there, and I can’t tell that from the set of drawings that you gave me. MR. BROWN-You cannot tell these things. These things become finite, okay. A good example, one of his points in here okay. A drywell had been covered that actually wasn’t covered, a silt fabric, okay, was placed below the grade to catch any silt so it would not plug the drywell below, okay, or infiltrate into the drywell below and plug or lessen its capability. That was there during construction for a purpose, okay, to catch anything because it wasn’t stable, or it’s much more stable now than it was then, obviously, if the grass has begun to grow. Now in the wintertime there’s no stability because the ground is frozen, okay, and his concern is that the water won’t reach the catch basin. So we cut that out, you know, that’s normal. We can’t cut those out until the State comes through and approves it, and then they’ll approve it after they know the ground is stable and these things can’t all be put on the plans. You have to use a certain amount of experience in these matters and that’s all this letter is basically saying, you know. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. When do you plan on starting construction? MR. BROWN-I don’t know, when we get approval. It’s not going to be until the frost is out of the ground. We’re certainly not going to go into any detailed plans until we get approval, and I’m talking about detailed building plans. MR. SEGULJIC-So if we tabled this application until the first meeting in February. MR. BROWN-But how are we going to put all this stuff on the plan? We followed the Codes and rules and regulations. It says that in the drawings. We’re not going to spell out everything in his thing that, yes, this didn’t look right. I don’t see where he went out and took a soil sample and can sit there and verify anything in his memo. I’m not questioning his ability or his eyesight. I’m just sitting there saying, you know, for us, we’ve already written it out in the new thing. He can take the new plan when it’s all done, when the fire road’s in its final location and say, okay, this doesn’t meet the requirements and we’ll have to take care of it. It’s a stipulation before you get your building permit, or before you get your Certificate of Occupancy. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m inclined to table this application and have the applicant come back with a set of drawings that reflects exactly what’s going to be done and how Phase IV, and I think Mr. Hunsinger might have a point. Phase IV may be able to correct a lot of the deficiencies that show up on that, and if it does, then we can come back with a drawing that shows how Phase IV takes care of all of this. That was pretty much in line with what you thought, Chris, wasn’t it? MR. BROWN-Right on the plans, okay, there is a note on there, New York State notice of intent and all that stuff will be there, okay, and all that stuff is addressed under New York State current DEC laws. Everything is. The rest of the stuff has been handled. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. VOLLARO-Not to the satisfaction of this Board or to me, either. MR. BROWN-Well, then give me some specific questions. Don’t sit there and ask me to re- draw the plans. I don’t think that’s a fair statement. MR. VOLLARO-The plans do not reflect, in my mind, what Mr. Frank had to say. They don’t. MR. BROWN-I didn’t even see that, but I can address those right now if you want me to. MR. VOLLARO-That is not my fault, Mr. Brown. That’s not the fault of this Board. MR. BROWN-You’re Chairman of the Board. Can’t you talk to Mr. Frank and ask him what happened? MR. VOLLARO-I certainly can. MR. BROWN-I think that would be a good start. I don’t know why he doesn’t come and talk to me about it. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Brown, could I ask you a question? MR. BROWN-Yes, please. MR. SEGULJIC-The approved stormwater swale has not been constructed. The swale should begin at the southeast corner of the new addition and extend around the east side and across the new gravel driveway and end at the approved drainage structure which was not installed. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t see the swale on the plans. MR. BROWN-No, because there is a building sitting in those plans. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that has to be clarified for us. MR. BROWN-Hold it. He’s saying that the original approved swale is not in there. What happened was, we realized we were going to take and go to the new DEC standards, okay. So we’re going to keep the water going around the entire building now and into the new swale. Okay, and so that shows on the plans. Yes, Mr. Frank was right. I wasn’t there, because the land was cleared and the land was done, but there was no harm. You had no complaints. There was nothing from anybody else other than he observed that the swale was not there, because at the time we were already planning this thing, and that’s why we didn’t put the drywell structure in. That’s why the swale, where the swale is now, there’s a fire road there. That fire road is coming out. The swale was coming around through Phase V, right down that line, basically, where the 201 feet shows. MR. SEGULJIC-Two hundred and one feet? MR. BROWN-On the plan, if you look just to, on Phase IV, okay, on the right hand side of Phase IV is a long, perpendicular line. It goes from north to south, and it says 201 feet. That was originally intended to be the swale. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BROWN-Okay, but then, after Phase III was under construction, it was decided to go on to Phase IV, okay. So it wasn’t put in there correctly. The drainage structure wasn’t put in there because of the new laws in the State and therefore that’s why this plan shows correctly where the swale goes and where the storage area is going to be to filter the water into the ground so you don’t have to have a drywell structure, and I am one for a drywell structure. The State of New York isn’t. MR. VOLLARO-All right . Have you got a comment on C.T. Male’s letter of January 11 th and the 15? th 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. BROWN-I believe that was addressed. MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking for a signoff letter by C.T. Male. MRS. BARDEN-We don’t have a signoff letter from C.T. Male. MR. VOLLARO-Either for the letter of January 11 or December 15? thth MRS. BARDEN-No. MR. BROWN-We basically addressed all his concerns. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we don’t have a signoff letter from C.T. Male engineering. I’m looking at two specific letters, one dated January 11, which is his recent letter, and one dated th December 15, which precedes that letter, and we don’t have any comment, in terms of th signoff by C.T. Male on those two letters. MR. BROWN-Well, we addressed most of those concerns. MR. VOLLARO-You addressed them with C.T. Male? MR. BROWN-Yes, they were given a copy of this. MR. VOLLARO-No, no, no. Did you actually talk to Mr. Edwards or Mr. Houston? MR. BROWN-I talked to Jim Houston. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. BROWN-Bill Montgomery, also, I believe, talked to him, and that’s why this letter was sent out with the three signatures on it, okay. It was all agreed upon, and, you know, they know that basically the drainage is controlled by the State of New York now, the site drainage. They’re absolutely correct in their comments on that first letter, and I can’t recall exactly what the second letter is, but there are some concerns in there that were all addressed. I think they had the question about the water line. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it says we are not clear whether this is an extension of the modifications. Note were added to the plans which pertained to complying with DEC stormwater quality volume and erosion control. We are not clear whether this is an extension of the modifications. There’s a lot of questions in here. MR. BROWN-There’s a lot of questions in there, and the basic problem comes down that they were never given an as built plan. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Look, normally when C.T. Male reviews an application, in my view, it’s probably 99 out of 100 times they respond eventually with a signoff, and we don’t have even a glimmer of one here. MR. BROWN-Well, they apparently didn’t have a chance to do it since January 12, or th whenever this letter was received by them, but I faxed it to them. MR. METIVIER-I think what we need to do at this point is, you stated that you’re not going to do anything until the frost is gone. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. METIVIER-So let’s get a laundry list together and clear up everything that we want, need, and desire and move along, because we’re not getting anywhere. We’re running around in circles. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. METIVIER-So let’s take five minutes. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think five is enough. MR. METIVIER-Well, it’s a start. It’s eight o’clock, it’s the first application, and we’re not getting anywhere. We’re running around in circles here. So let’s take some time and figure out what we need. MR. VOLLARO-True. We’ve got 30 days to come up with a response on the site plan. MR. METIVIER-That’s fine. If you want to do that. MR. VOLLARO-We can do it in that time or before, and get you a definitive list of things that have to be done. MR. METIVIER-And get Staff and Bruce Frank and everybody. MR. BROWN-Please do, and I’d like a copy of that memo that I was presented with tonight. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’ll get you that. MR. BROWN-And I’d also like to be able to sit down with C.T. Male, at their convenience, we’re paying for the bill anyway, and go over and make sure that we get all this stuff certified by them, so you people are comfortable with it. We’re not going to put the application in until we begin, get ready to send it to the State of New York, okay. MR. VOLLARO-You keep talking about the State of New York. Actually, you’ve really got to satisfy the Town of Queensbury, and this Board. MR. BROWN-The State supersedes this Board. MR. METIVIER-Not necessarily, because we always meet the State’s requirements, always, and we have Town requirements that we require you to do. You have to comply with us, but we will always meet or exceed the State’s requirements. So, you have to be careful in this case. You need lighting. You need lighting, you need landscaping, you need, you know, things that Bruce Frank wants from you. You need it all on your plan that you present to us, regardless of what the State wants. You have to come back to us. We’re the definitive. MR. BROWN-I’m talking about the environmental issues. MR. METIVIER-That’s fine, but we’re going to meet and exceed those as well. So you keep coming back and saying, the State, the State, the State. We want specific things from you and the applicant. MR. BROWN-We cannot get a building permit until we get their approval. MR. METIVIER-You can’t get a building permit until you get our approval. MR. BROWN-I know, but what we’re asking for is the planning approval to say that, okay, the concept is fine, and we meet all the requirements of the Building Code. MR. VOLLARO-This is just not conceptual. This is a site plan. It’s a site plan. It’s not just a conceptual plan. MR. BROWN-Okay. Please give me a list of exactly what you want, and it will be presented to you whenever you schedule the next meeting. MR. VOLLARO-And I think what you have to do is get a hold of C.T. Male themselves. MR. BROWN-I will get a hold of, after I get your stuff and. MR. VOLLARO-No, you’ve got a separate issue with C.T. Male. You’ve got to answer their questions in their letter. MR. BROWN-That’s not a problem. I want yours so, because they. MR. VOLLARO-Sir, we’ll get you ours. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. BROWN-Okay. Why should we go and pay double, or three times, for we or you people to find out what your requirements are and then go to C.T. Male. MR. VOLLARO-We know what our requirements are. We’re not waiting to find out what our requirements are. I’m giving you a whole bunch of requirements tonight. I’ve got them all written down. MR. BROWN-Okay. Good. So that’s what I’m looking for. Okay, and then we’ll take those to C.T. Male and then they can decide whether it’s worthy to sign off or not. That’s fine with me, and also make sure include the other letter, August 5. th MR. VOLLARO-I know which one it is. Can I get a motion for this, that we can table this for a period of 30 days? MRS. BARDEN-I’m sorry, why are you tabling for a period of up to 30 days? MR. METIVIER-Because that’s how long we have. MR. VOLLARO-We’ve got 30 days on a site plan, I believe. I think the Code says we have 30 days to reply on site plan, and 62 days to reply on subdivisions. I believe that’s correct. MRS. BARDEN-I guess I thought you were just going to tell him what you wanted him to come back with. MR. METIVIER-We don’t know yet . We have to get together what we need, and there’s no way we can do it tonight. MRS. BARDEN-I’ve got you. MR. VOLLARO-We’ve got to put a list together, and I don’t want to do it tonight. MRS. BARDEN-I understand. MR. HUNSINGER-If you don’t specify a date, then they have to re-warn the public hearing. MRS. BARDEN-Yes, the public hearing’s still open. MR. METIVIER-Well, actually, the public hearing has been closed. MR. FORD-That’s been closed. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. Okay. MR. METIVIER-So we don’t really have to do anything. We can table this until whenever, if we want. I mean, within the specified period of time, because the public hearing is closed. MR. VOLLARO-No, the public hearing is still open. MR. METIVIER-No, it’s not. MR. HUNSINGER-You closed it, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry, that’s correct. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 67-2005 JEFFREY SCHWARTZ, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: For 30 days, so we can put together a list of items that are required of this applicant. Duly adopted this 17 day of January, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2005 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED J. MICHAEL BLACKBURN AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S): SAME ZONING RR-5 & LC-10 LOCATION EAST SIDE RIDGE RD. NORTH OF DUNHAMS BAY GUN CLUB APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3 LOT SUBDIVISION RESULTING IN LOTS OF 5.17 AC., 5.18 AC., 22.10 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. AV 80-2005 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 32.45 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 253.-1-18 SECTION A-183 MATT STEVES & JIM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STEVES-Good evening. MR. VOLLARO-For the record, you are? MR. STEVES-My name is Matt Steves, with Van Dusen and Steves, and with me is Tom Hutchins of Hutchins Engineering, representing J. Michael Blackburn on this application. This is a three lot residential subdivision located on the east side of Route 9L, just north of the Dunham’s Bay Rod and Gun Club. It’s been in front of you a few times. Mr. Hutchins has appeared in front of this Board last month, when I was not in the area, and there was a few comments that were brought up, and I’ll let Tom discuss those, as far as the changes that were made from the meeting that was back in December. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering. At the meeting of December 27, as I recall, we left the meeting with three issues, the first of which th was a current set of plans, and I hope you have a current set of plans. These were submitted December 30, and they should be dated last revised December 29. th MR. VOLLARO-They are, two are, S-1 and then S-2, and then D-1 is 12/21, and I believe those are the correct dates. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, they are correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-The second issue was clarify, or the second item that the Board had asked for was to clarify the maintenance provision proposed for the shared driveway access, and we have included a notation on there with sharing percentages and some draft language for the easement, and the third item was to indicate the precise area of clearing for each lot, and that’s on there. MR. VOLLARO-I found the drawings to be exactly what we asked for, those three things. I don’t have any questions at all on this. There’s only one question that I have, and it’s not really for you. C.T. Male, now I think maybe we’ve gotten those today. I think C.T. Male signed off. The revision dates are incorrect on his letter. It should be December 29 for S-1 th and December 29 for S-2, and December 21 for D-1, and I think we might have gotten thst something like that from C.T. Male. I saw an e-mail today to that effect. MRS. BARDEN-Yes. We got a letter dated January 13 from C.T. Male, on Subdivision 1- th 2005. “We have received and reviewed a revised subdivision plan for the referenced project, which addressed Planning Board comments from December. Based on our review of the information provided, we have no further comments.” This is from Jim Edwards. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That satisfies me. Now the public hearing was closed on this. MRS. BARDEN-I’m not sure that it was. No, I don’t believe it was. MR. VOLLARO-I saw the public hearing closed. I might be wrong, because I’m looking at 11/22’s. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MRS. BARDEN-On the agenda it says public hearing tabled to January 17. th MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. BARDEN-So it must still be open. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The public hearing was re-opened. I see it on Page 29 of the minutes of 11/22. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, but it was on 12/27, and I don’t recall if it was closed or not. MRS. BARDEN-Well, I mean, it was advertised that the public hearing is still open. MR. METIVIER-The public hearing was closed. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I suggest, under the circumstances, that you re-open the public hearing. The project has taken on, if you look at the approval resolution, an entirely different light. I suggest you open the public hearing. I have comments. MR. VOLLARO-The public hearing was closed. I don’t think so. I think the public hearing is closed. It will remain closed. I don’t see anything on these drawings that. MR. METIVIER-This is not a change. It’s only clarified from what we had last month. MR. VOLLARO-Right. I don’t see a substantial change in drawings here, except for some notations. MR. SALVADOR-Have you read your approval resolution? MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Salvador, I don’t know exactly what the problem is. MR. SALVADOR-If I can be heard, I’ll be glad to explain. MR. VOLLARO-How does the Board feel about that? If the public hearing is closed, there’s a participant that wants to discuss something in the application. Do you want to open this public hearing, to hear this new information? MR. HUNSINGER-You always have the ability to give the floor. MR. METIVIER-Yes, let him do it. MR. FORD-I would like to hear from him. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, if you’ll step back for just a minute, we’ll let Mr. Salvador come up. It looks like the will of the Board is to have the hearing. We’re going to give you five minutes, John. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. At the last meeting, I brought up the issue of the maintenance agreement for the road. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct, and it was talked about and the requirement was that they furnish a maintenance agreement, and you received advice from your Counsel that this could be incorporated in the deed and that that would be sufficient. I don’t think it, I agree with Counsel, it can be incorporated in the deed. However, it is not sufficient. I refer, and I read from the General Business Law of the State of New York, and the reason I do this is because as these people enter into this subdivision with a shared interest in this road, they are in a category, in the General Business Law, referring to a Real Estate Syndication, and I’ll read a short paragraph here. It shall be illegal and prohibitive for any person, partnership, 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) corporation, company, trust or association or any agent or employee thereof to make or take part in a public offering or sale, in or from the State of New York of securities constituting a participation interest or investment in real estate, and that is exactly what this is. These people will be engaging in a Real Estate Syndication selling a participation interest. These parcel owners, these lot owners, are going to be required to maintain this road, if not build it, if it’s not built to standards, to standards required. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Salvador, let me ask you a question. Have you read the note on that drawing that pertains to this subject? MR. SALVADOR-I have, but I’m saying it’s not sufficient. Okay. The same General Business Law has authorized the Attorney General to promulgate regulations, and these regulations have been promulgated under 13 NYCRR Part 22, and it talks about the need for an Offering Statement is required by Section 352 E, that’s the Section I just read, of the General Business Law. Now, these are the regulations for a Homeowners Association and the preparation of an Offering Plan. It is well founded that what these people are doing should not require a full blown Offering Plan called an Association document. However, there is a requirement in these regulations for the application of No Action Letter, and it is a statement that you get the Attorney General’s approval for relief from preparation of an Offering Plan. However, you must meet certain criteria. Now, as it pertains to roads, this particular Section speaks specifically to roads. An HOA may qualify for a No Action Letter if the total annual charge assessed for membership can be demonstrated by documentation satisfactory to the Department of Law to be minimal. That’s the first criteria. Whatever these people have to pay for maintenance of the road, it must be minimal, whatever that is, and that’s for them to determine. However, if the HOA property includes private roads, the Department of Law will not issue a No Action Letter, regardless of the annual charge assessed for membership, unless the number of homes or lots which use such private roads is four or fewer. They fall into that category. The fact remains, they must make application. Now, in your approval resolution, I think you had had, in a left-handed manner, addressed my concerns. Number Six says, all necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant with a copy sent to and received by the Planning Board Staff within 180 days. You know why you put 180 days in there? Because that’s what it takes to do this. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Salvador, your five minutes are up, and I would ask you to yield your seat. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. I will conclude. I would suggest that Number Six be amended to state including but not limited to the New York State Department of Law, and my concern would be addressed. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t know whether I can do that or not, because I look at the note on the drawing and I’ve read it, and they say the shared driveway shall be maintained by all users over length shared. Each must be cost of said maintenance, be it plowing or repairing as follows, and they give you a percentage for Lot One, Two, and Three. The lot owners shall not obstruct, impede, or interfere with other lot owners’ reasonable use of such easement area for the purpose of an ingress and egress to and from respective lots. Each owner shall have the right to enforce, by law or in equity, all restrictions, conditions, covenants and charges now imposed, in the event legal action to compel enforcement is made by any owner. So I think that’s enough. MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Vollaro, that subdivision plat gets filed at the County, okay. As soon as it gets filed at the County, and they cut deeds, these parcels of land are going to be sold. This 180 days is going to go, and you’ll never know that they have met all the other agency requirements. You don’t deny that the New York State Department of Law has jurisdiction in this matter, and should give their letter of No Action, but that doesn’t preclude them moving ahead with the sale of the lots. In any case. MR. VOLLARO-Actually, what we did here, John, has you know, we acted on advice of our Counsel when this was written. MR. SALVADOR-I understand. MR. VOLLARO-And if our Counsel gave us that kind of direction, I’d just as soon stick with that, unless our Counsel’s been wrong. I don’t know. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, our Counsel was referring to Section 179-19-10, Item Five, which talks about shared driveways specifically in our Zoning Code, and it says, and I’ll just read it because it’s very brief. “Driveways may be required to be located so as to provide shared driveways and/or cross-access driveways with an abutting property or properties.” Item A, “Shared driveways and/or cross access driveways shall be of sufficient width (minimum 20 feet, 6.0 meters) to accommodate two-way travel for automobiles and service loading vehicles. Wider driveways may be required to serve traffic to major generators and/or large vehicles.” And then, B, “Shared driveways, cross-access driveways, interconnected parking, and private roads constructed to provide access to properties internal to a subdivision shall be recorded as an easement and shall constitute a covenant running with the land. Operating and maintenance agreements for these facilities shall be recorded with the deed.” And that’s what we had asked the applicant to provide. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. The maintenance agreement is the key. There’s nothing wrong with that text. Absolutely nothing wrong with that text, and there’s nothing wrong with the advice your Counsel gave you. It’s just not sufficient. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, it wasn’t complete. MR. SALVADOR-They have to get a letter, a no action letter, from the AG’s office. It’s required, and that protects the property owner. That protects them. That’s all. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Chairman, there is a public comment. Would you like me to read it? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. BARDEN-This was faxed to the office today, January 17, from Chris Navitsky, Lake th George Water Keeper. “Dear Mr. Vollaro: I have reviewed the application and re-submitted information for the above referenced subdivision application. I am unable to attend the meeting this evening due to a conflict with another Town and would like to offer the following comments for the record. 1. Despite the information submitted and recommendation of approval from Mr. Houston, the collection and conveyance of stormwater for the proposed driveways remains unclear. A driveway detail was provided with a swale to collect runoff shown for only half of the driveway. How would the other half of the driveway be collected and where would it be routed? 2. It is unclear if the driveways would be installed for the marketing of Lots 1 and 3. If the driveways are to be installed to market the lots, then stormwater management should be shown for the sections to be installed into the lots. 3. A note should be added to the plans stating Lots 1 and 3 will require a major stormwater plan to be designed for each lot. I look forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Planning Board in defending the natural resources of Lake George and its basin. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky, PE Lake George Waterkeeper” MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think since we got a signoff from our consulting engineer, C.T. Male, it should be satisfactory. It is to me. I didn’t see anything in their letter that referred to that. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels about that, but you got a signoff letter from C.T. Male, I think that should be sufficient. MR. FORD-I agree. MR. METIVIER-I think that we promised this applicant the last time that if they brought the three things that we required, that we would move ahead with this, and I think it’s time we do that. MR. VOLLARO-I do, too. So with that, I think we ought to enter into a SEQRA. We have a Long Form SEQRA to do. MRS. BARDEN-Do you want to close the public hearing? MR. METIVIER-Yes, close it. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, at this time I will, again, close the public hearing. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION NO. 1-2005, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: J. MICHAEL BLACKBURN, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non- significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 17 day of January, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess we can get a motion on the floor for approval of this. MR. METIVIER-Do we have to do anything with that one resolution? MR. HUNSINGER-Not for Preliminary. MR. VOLLARO-No, we have to go to Preliminary first. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2005 J. MICHAEL BLACKBURN, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Applicant(s): J. Michael Blackburn Subdivision SUB 1-2005 [P & F] Owner(s): Same SEQR Type Unlisted Agent(s): Van Dusen & Steves Lot size 32.45 acres Location East side Ridge Rd. Zoning RR-5 & LC-10 north of Dunhams Bay Gun Club Tax Id No. 253.-1-18 Section A-183 Cross Ref. AV 80-2005 Warren County Planning N/A Public Hearing 11/22/05, 12/27/05, 1/17/06 Adirondack Park Agency Yes 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) Project Description: Applicant proposes a 3 lot subdivision resulting in lots of 5.17 ac., 5.18 ac., 22.10 acres. Subdivision of land requires review by the Planning Board. WHEREAS, the application was received; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 11/22/05, 12/27/05, 1/17/06; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and Preliminary [ A183-10 F(2) ( 3) ( 4) ]] WHEREAS, the modifications to the preliminary plat are or are not acceptable; and [A - 183-10 F (2) ] WHEREAS, the character and extent of any required improvement for which waivers may have been requested and which, in its opinion, may be waived without jeopardy to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare; and [ A183-10 F (2) ] WHEREAS, approval of this preliminary plat shall not constitute approval of the subdivision plat but rather, it shall be deemed an expression of approval of the design submitted on the preliminary plat and as a guide to the preparation of the subdivision plat. [ A183-10 F (3) ] WHEREAS, the developer shall sign and date a copy of the Planning Board's findings sheet, and such approval shall be deemed to have occurred upon the return of such signed findings sheet to the Planning Board. [ A183-10 F (4) ] NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Preliminary Stage is hereby Approved as per the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. VOLLARO-Okay. On the Final I think all we need to note is that we do have a letter from C.T. Male that approves S-1, S-2, and D-1 drawings, for the right dates. I don’t see anything else to put in on Final on this. MR. METIVIER-Do we have C.T. Male signoff? MR. VOLLARO-We have C.T. Male signoff. Yes, she just read it. They’ve already given us the signoff. Now they’ve signed off on S-1, the new drawing, December 29, S-2, December 29, and D-1, December 21. They’ve given a signoff. 25 res. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, their signoff had typos on drawing dates. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-So they clarified that with the signoff that they sent today, and it’s already incorporated into the resolution. MR. METIVIER-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2005 J. MICHAEL BLACKBURN, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Applicant(s): J. Michael Blackburn Subdivision SUB 1-2005 [P & F] Owner(s): Same SEQR Type Unlisted Agent(s): Van Dusen & Steves Lot size 32.45 acres Location East side Ridge Rd. Zoning RR-5 & LC-10 north of Dunhams Bay Gun Club Tax Id No. 253.-1-18 Section A-183 Cross Ref. AV 80-2005 Warren County Planning N/A Public Hearing 11/22/05, 12/27/05, 1/17/06 Adirondack Park Agency Yes Project Description: Applicant proposes a 3 lot subdivision resulting in lots of 5.17 ac., 5.18 ac., 22.10 ac Subdivision of land requires review by the Planning Board. WHEREAS, the application was received; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 11/22/05, 12/27/05, 1/17/06; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and Final [ A183-13 E (2) (3) (4) ] WHEREAS, upon granting conditional approval of the final plat, the Planning Board shall empower a duly designated officer to sign the plat upon compliance with such conditions and requirements as may be stated in its resolution of conditional approval. Within five days of such resolution, the plat shall be certified by the Chairman of the Planning Board as conditionally approved and a copy filed in the Planning Office and a certified copy mailed to the subdivider. The copy mailed to the subdivider shall include two findings sheets, one of which shall be signed by the applicant and returned to the Planning Board. Such requirements which, when completed, will authorize the signing of the conditionally approved final plat. Upon completion of such requirements to the satisfaction of the duly designated office of the Planning Board, the plat shall be deemed to have received final approval, and such officer shall sign the plat accordingly. Conditional approval of a final plat shall expire 180 days after the date of the resolution granting such approval unless the requirements have been certified as completed within that time. The Planning Board may, however, extend the 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) time within which a conditionally approved plat may be submitted for signature if, in its opinion, such extension is warranted in the circumstances, for one or two additional periods of 90 days each. [Amended 6-3-1991] [ A-183-13 E (2) ] WHEREAS, the final plat shows exact location and depth of sewer and water service. It has also set forth the exact layout and dimensions of proposed streets with the street names and house numbers. [ A183-13 E (3) ] WHEREAS, final approval of the subdivision plat plan shall be limited to that phase of the development currently pending before the Planning Board. [ A183-13 E (4) ] NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Final Stage is hereby Approved as per the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plat submitted for Planning Board Chairman’s signature and filing: 1. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 2. Recreation fees in the amount of $ 500.00 per lot are applicable to this subdivision modification. 3. C.T. Male Associates engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman signature on mylar. 4. Waiver request(s) are granted / denied [Sketch plan, Stormwater, Grading and Landscaping Plan]. 5. No-Cut Buffer areas shall be field located by surveyor and flagged in a color that is different from boundary markers. 6. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 7. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. 8. Final, approved plans in compliance with this subdivision must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt 9. All site related improvements, such as but not limited to landscaping and lighting, shown on plans shall be complete within one year of obtaining a building permit, and no later than 6 months after receiving a building and codes certificate of occupancy. Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. STEVES-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 70-2005 SEQR TYPE II ELLEN WINCH AGENT(S): BRIAN ROSS OWNER(S): SAME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION COUNTY LINE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1960 +/- SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AS WELL AS THE PLACEMENT OF FILL FOR A 2600 SQ. FT. DRIVEWAY. APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF 9,000 SQ. FT. OF FILL WITHIN 50 FEET OF ACOE WETLANDS. CROSS REF. AD SUB 4-2002 [WM. TAFT] WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 1/11/06 LOT SIZE 4.26 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.-1-9.2 SECTION 179-6-060 BRIAN ROSS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. VOLLARO-It’s a SEQR Type II. So there’s no SEQRA on this. Would you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. ROSS-My name’s Brian Ross. I believe I am the agent, yes. MR. VOLLARO-The agent for the applicant. MR. ROSS-I guess that’s how you read that. Yes, I’m the agent, Brian Ross. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Would you tell us a little bit about your project and what you plan to do? MR. ROSS-Yes. Okay. We’ve got a site plan map available for you. Basically what we’re looking for is approval to place a driveway, utility lines and fill within 50 feet of wetlands, and the driveway would be on the wetlands. MR. VOLLARO-I see you have a general permit from Army Corps Permit No. 12 & 14? MR. ROSS-Yes. We’ve applied with the Army Corps of Engineers and received a permit, after a couple of site visits from their office. MR. VOLLARO-I saw that. Tom Seguljic, you had a comment on site visits, when we went out Saturday, about could the drive be brought in on the old farm pathway, where the wetlands would not be impacted by the road. Did you want to discuss that at all? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I guess if you could respond to that. MR. ROSS-Okay. Yes. That’s a common question. That old farm pathway is, would have to be widened to make a suitable driveway, to allow, you know, emergency vehicles, construction equipment, etc., to get in. It would have to be moved south, maybe six feet, to allow enough room for clearing because it’s directly adjacent to a stone wall. If you want to plow it, you need some room to put the snow. To do that, we would be required to remove several, by a dozen or more, old growth hard woods, and you would still be impacting the wetlands because the wetlands are adjacent to that. It is the wettest part of the property down in that front corner. The rest of the wetlands are, I don’t know the technical term for it, but it’s more of a meadow than a wetland. It’s walkable. There’s no frogs living there, and there’s a special grass growing there that I guess grows only in wet environments. MR. FORD-Is it a designated wetland? MR. ROSS-It is an Army Corps of Engineers designated wetland. MR. HUNSINGER-A lot of that area meets the Army Corps definition of a wetland, but, you know, eight months out of the year you can walk across without your feet being wet, and then the rest of the time you might get a little wet. MR. ROSS-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s like spongy more than wet. MR. ROSS-Yes. I mean, if you were to go up there at the last rain we had, you wouldn’t see standing water, except in that front corner where the old farm pathway is. MR. VOLLARO-Apparently, according to the Army Corps letter, you had a visit by the Army Corps? MR. ROSS-Twice. Actually the person who approved it is over in Iraq, and we were talking to someone else. They came up. They looked at it, and the other guy came back and he came up and looked at it also approved it. The only reason we’re interested in putting the driveway where we designate it is it gets it out of the trees, and during the winter it helps keep the driveway clear. This house is for my mother who’s 62 years old. So, you know, icy conditions are going to be hard for her to handle. It’s also, if you’re familiar with the area, that pathway comes right out at the bottom of the hill, on a road where people tend to go at the speed limit or more. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. VOLLARO-The sight distance from that is not good, I noticed that. MR. ROSS-The sight distance is horrible. I mean, you might see 250 feet, but it’s coming downhill and they’re moving, you know, traffic on that road is pretty fast. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any questions at all. How about the rest of the Board, any questions on this from Board members at all? I think it’s pretty straightforward to me. MR. ROSS-That was across from the wetland. The other thing is fill in the front, within 50 feet. MR. SEGULJIC-It looks like where your proposed driveway is, someone started to construct a driveway there already. MR. ROSS-That was done by the previous land owner. MR. METIVIER-That’s been there for a while. That’s been there for a long time. As a matter of fact, I’m just looking at probably the cross reference, William Taft. We had him a couple of years ago, going back to, what, 2002. MR. VOLLARO-To that site. MR. METIVIER-Yes. So that has been there for quite some time. MR. ROSS-Yes, when my mother purchased that property, she had no knowledge, no prior knowledge of what William Taft was doing or anything like that. I would actually like not to be thought of in those lights. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. There are some test pits, I noticed, on the drawing itself. MR. ROSS-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And there’s test pit information, and those test pits were done by Charles Maine. This is a single lot, so we don’t need any DOH confirmation on a single lot. DOH needs to confirm anything five or over. So we’re okay. So I don’t have anything on this. I wanted to discuss briefly with Staff a couple of areas in their prepared resolution. “Whereas the use is in conformance with Chapter 136 of sewage and sewage disposal”. We haven’t really checked on anything on that, but I suspect on a single lot like this, this is going to be done by the building inspector, to approve the installation of the septic system before a CO is issued? MRS. BARDEN-That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-So we would not have used Chapter 136, which is the on-site wastewater regulations for the Town of Queensbury. We would not have referenced those. So I think that ought to be removed as an area from this resolution. MRS. BARDEN-I’m sorry, where is it in the prepared resolution? I’m sorry. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It says, “Whereas the use is in conformance with Chapter 136 of sewage and sewage disposal, and Chapter 174, stormwater management, and other applicable local laws.” For a single lot like this, I think the fact that. MRS. BARDEN-Well, it still needs to be in conformance with Chapter 136. MR. METIVIER-Right. Regardless of whether or not we act on it, it still has to be in conformance, right? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it does, but we haven’t taken a look at that septic system, in any kind of depth, other than, for example, we don’t know how deep it is. We don’t know enough about it to actually say we’ve gone through all of the, it looks like it meets the separation distances reasonably well, particularly from the well. It’s over 100 feet from the well. MR. ROSS-Yes, we meet all the setback requirements. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and he shows mottling here in some areas at 17 inches, at Test Pit Number Three, which is right on the edge of the wetland itself. So, TP Four, which is probably the most, he showed mottling there at 19 inches. MR. ROSS-Actually, do we have TP Five, that’s five eight on the bottom there. MR. VOLLARO-It’s five eight, but it’s probably TP. MR. ROSS-That’s five. MR. VOLLARO-And there the mottling is 29 inches. MR. ROSS-That’s 29 inches. MR. VOLLARO-And he’s got the perc numbers on it of five minutes. MR. ROSS-And I believe we also have TP 1, which is mottling at 25 inches, and that’s kind of right in line with the topo lines, between the two. MR. VOLLARO-That’s not something that we went into in any depth. MR. METIVIER-No, but I’m saying that they have to meet all the requirements of the site plan. My feeling is we’re leaving ourselves widen open if we remove that. MR. VOLLARO-All right. We can leave it in, if it’s the will of the Board. I just noticed that we weren’t paying much attention to 136 on this. MR. METIVIER-Well, we typically don’t, on single subdivisions, rely on septic. MR. VOLLARO-For singles we don’t. That was my view on taking it out because it’s just a single review. You don’t get into Chapter 136. MR. METIVIER-Right. If we remove it, does that leave us vulnerable, as a Town, to not have to require them. MR. VOLLARO-We can leave it in. I’m not stuck one way or the other on that. We can leave it. I just had a note for myself that perhaps it should be removed. MR. SEGULJIC-Susan, if I could ask you a question. Why is this not a Freshwater Permit? MRS. BARDEN-It’s not a DEC wetland. It’s an Army Corps. MR. ROSS-Yes, this is not DEC wetlands. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know if anybody here that wants to talk to this application for a public hearing. Is there anyone here wanting to speak to the application for Ellen Winch? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-The public hearing is closed and there’s no SEQRA involved. It’s a Type II. So I think we can get a motion for approval. MR. METIVIER-I’ll make a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 70-2005 ELLEN WINCH, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Goetz: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) Applicant proposes construction of a 1960 +/- sq. ft. single family dwelling as well as the placement of fill for a 2600 sq. ft. driveway. Applicant proposes placement of 9,000 sq. ft. of fill within 50 feet of ACOE wetlands. WHEREAS, the application was received on 12/15/2005; and WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 1/17/2006; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and WHEREAS, the use complies with all other requirements of this chapter, including the site plan review standards as set forth in Subsection F of this section, the dimensional, bulk, and density regulations of the zoning district in which it is proposed to be located (Table 4),EN the applicable requirements of Article 4, Schedule of Regulations, the applicable requirements of Article 5, Supplementary Regulations, the applicable standards and requirements of Article 6, Environmental and Performance Standards, the standards/guidelines in Article 7, Design Guidelines, and the requirements of Article 8, Landscaping and Buffering Standards. WHEREAS, the use is in conformance with Chapter 136, Sewers and Sewage Disposal, Chapter 147, Stormwater Management, and other applicable local laws. WHEREAS, the use is in harmony with the general purpose or intent of this chapter, specifically taking into account the location, character and size of the proposed use and the description and purpose of the district in which such use is proposed, the nature and intensity of the activities to be involved in or conducted in connection with the proposed use and the nature and rate of any increase in the burden on supporting public services and facilities which will follow the approval of the proposed use. WHEREAS, the establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed use will not create public hazards from traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the Town. In the review of such projects the Planning Board considered and will make a finding that traffic access and circulation, road intersections, road and driveway widths, and traffic controls are adequate. Additionally, the Board finds that the off-street parking and loading facilities are appropriately located and arranged and sufficient to meet traffic anticipated to be generated by the new use. In the review of commercial and industrial development, where internal roadways are not provided, the Planning Board has determined it is feasible to link parking areas to allow for an internal flow of traffic. Where it is feasible, a twenty-foot connection way must be provided. If the adjacent property is undeveloped, then a connection way shall be identified on the site plan for future linkage. The Planning Board shall also consider interconnection of commercial use areas or other properties to allow for pedestrian access and circulation. WHEREAS, the project will not have an undue adverse impact upon the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resources of the Town or the Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project, taking into account the commercial, industrial, residential, recreational or other benefits that might be derived from the project. In making the determination hereunder, the Planning Board has considered those factors pertinent to the project contained in the development considerations set forth herein under this § 179-9-080 of this chapter, and in so doing, the Planning Board has made a net overall evaluation of the project in relation to the development objectives and general guidelines set forth in this § 179- 9-080 of this article. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that WE FIND THE FOLLOWING, The application is hereby Approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. All site related improvements, such as but not limited to landscaping and lighting, shown on plans shall be complete within one year of obtaining a building permit, and no later than 6 months after receiving a building and codes certificate of occupancy. 2. Final, approved plans in compliance with this site plan must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt. Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan SUBDIVISION NO. 27-2005 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED SHIRLEY HARVEY AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S): SAME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION WEST MT. RD. & CLENDON BROOK APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 2.46 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF 1.15 & 1.31 ACRES, ONE WITH EXISTING HOME AND ONE TO BE BUILT. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. NONE FOUND WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 2.46 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.17-1-3 SECTION A-183 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves, again, representing Shirley Harvey on this application. This is a two lot subdivision on the corner of Clendon Brook Road and West Mountain Road. Clendon Brook Road is the extension of Sherman Avenue. It’s also shown on our map. Both lots with the front, the existing home on the northerly lot fronts on West Mountain Road and the new proposed house on the southerly lot would face West Mountain Road as well. They would share a common drive. There was an old structure, years ago, on the southerly lot that has subsequently been torn down, and now we’re just in, like I say, for a two lot subdivision. I had met with Craig Brown on this application, for a pre-submission conference, and actually was under his review for a two lot administrative and he was ready to sign the mylar I brought over when we both looked at the map and said, oh, oh, we’re within the bounds of the Adirondack Park Agency, it kind of goes right down the middle of our lot. So, therefore, it cannot be a two lot administrative, but must come in front of this Board. You do have an approved plan within the Adirondack Park, but that falls out of the purview of a two lot administrative if it was within the bounds of the Adirondack Park. So that’s why we’re here in front of you. The property is all good, sandy soils in this area. It’s before the drop. The drop is to the west, toward Clendon Brook in the back of our lot, on the side of the Maille property. Like I said, the existing house won’t be affected by the construction of one new single family home on the southerly lot. There was also a change that Susan Barden had brought up. I know it was about two months ago we did a two lot subdivision. I believe we used the Short Form. Typically on major subdivisions we use the Long Form. Like I said, when this was originally a two lot administrative, we submitted the Short Form, but I did submit a Long Form to Susan tonight for your review during the subdivision application, and I do apologize for that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ll ask, are you finished for now, Matt? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to open the public hearing. Is there anybody here wanting to talk to the application for Shirley Harvey? Anybody at all? 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-I will close the public hearing and take questions from the Board on this application. MR. FORD-Could we hear Staff notes, please, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I think there are Staff. We have a minimal amount of Staff notes, but would you like them read? MR. FORD-Yes, please. MR. VOLLARO-Susan, do you want to read the Staff notes concerning this application? MRS. BARDEN-Sure. Mr. Ford, just under Staff Comments? MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. BARDEN-Lot “B” has an existing house, the driveway to that residence will be abandoned and a new shared driveway with Lot “A” will be constructed. On the site plan “drives to be removed” should be more specific. A note that the driveway surfaces are to be removed, seeded and mulched would provide assurance that the result of this subdivision will not be three driveways. It should also be specified when this work will be completed, perhaps when a building permit is issued for the proposed construction on Lot “A”. The location of the existing septic system servicing the existing house should be shown on the map. In addition, test pit information for the proposed septic should be noted on the map. It appears that the proposed house will meet the area and dimensional requirements of the SR Zone. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-I think they’re all pertinent pieces of information as well. I’ve got all of that noted on my map as well. MR. STEVES-Yes, and we have no concerns with any of those, and no problems. As far as the driveways to be removed, we can add the note to be mulched and seeded, however the Board would like that. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I have on mine, drive to be removed and seeded for grass cover. MR. STEVES-That’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I had put on mine. MR. STEVES-The existing septic system, to the best of our ability, is just to the west and to the north of the existing house, kind of in between the house and the barn. I can depict that on there, because this is Town water here. It won’t be the separation distance with the existing well that was on the southerly lot. That, like I say, was there from the previous building that was there years ago. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So I had a question on that. My question was, this is public water in this area. What will this lot, what will the well be used for? It’s pre-existing? MR. STEVES-It’s pre-existing, yes. If anything, the Town water is definitely going to be hooked up to the new structure. If anything that well would just be used for like an irrigation system or something. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STEVES-It’s not going to be used for supplying the house with its primary water. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. VOLLARO-All right. I understand that. MR. FORD-The existing houses uses what for water? MR. STEVES-Town water. MR. FORD-Town? Okay. Thank you. MR. STEVES-There was an old structure on this property, on the south. It was actually at one time two residences on this parcel, and that has been torn down in years past, and that’s where that well is from. MR. VOLLARO-How about the requirement for test pit and perc data on that proposed septic system? Are you going to do something with that? MR. STEVES-I, you know, we can perform one if it’s the liking of this Board. This area is predominantly sands. We have done percs in lots across the street, directly across the street, and directly to the north on the other side of Sherman Avenue in the last year and a half, and I’ve had test pits done that saw fine sands to course sands at about seven feet. If you want one done prior to the issuance of a building permit, I have no objections to that whatsoever. Typically, like I said, when we reviewed this with Craig as far as a two lot administrative, that wasn’t even required, and I’m not using that as an excuse, I’m just saying that that’s why this has transformed to coming in front of this Board, because of the fact it’s within the Adirondack Park, but I know you do not like conditions of approval, Bob, but if that’s the only hang up here, I have no problem with stipulating that a perc test be performed in the area of the proposed septic system, and that would be sign off on by Dave Hatin, which is required on single lots in the Town of Queensbury anyway. MR. VOLLARO-I know that for a single lot like this that he’s going to have to issue a CO based on a satisfactory septic system. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. I mean, single lots are required to have that data provided to the Building Inspector anyway. MR. VOLLARO-First of all, I know how sandy it is up in the pines, because I live around the corner from this, and I know that it’s all sand. I’ve dug in the back, and it’s just, it goes down and down and down, it’s nothing but sand. So I don’t think we even need that. I’ll take questions from the Board as to whether they think we need test pit and perc data for that proposed septic leachfield or not. MR. METIVIER-I mean, in this particular case, this honestly probably shouldn’t have even been in front of us. I mean, I understand why it is, but I don’t think it’s required, I really don’t. The guys at the Town do a great job at that. MR. VOLLARO-I think so. MR. FORD-I concur with that. MR. VOLLARO-We’re going to have a shared driveway because both of these houses are going to be using that one drive, and we’re into this shared driveway thing again, that Mr. Salvador had addressed a little bit ago. In keeping with what we did on the previous application, probably there should be some sort of an agreement. MR. STEVES-How about the exact same wording on the mylar for this application that was on the previous application? MR. VOLLARO-That would do it for me, because I’m now really going back to directions that we got from our Counsel. MR. STEVES-And this is a shared driveway for two lots that is a requirement of your Code as well. We’re not into the three and four, when you get into four lots it would require a Homeowners Associations, or a separate entity, being a separate taxable entity, as far as a private road. This is a shared driveway access off the road. MR. VOLLARO-It’s anything over three that’s required for a Homeowners Association. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. STEVES-That’s correct. So I have no problem with that same note on the map, if that was suitable in the last application. MR. VOLLARO-I think it was. MR. HUNSINGER-Would that still be filed with the deeds on the properties, though? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-He’s going to use the same language we used with Blackburn. MR. HUNSINGER-I just wanted to make sure. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think that’s the only stipulation that we would have, or two of them really. We want the driveways to be removed, seeded, and grass covered, that’s one. Two, there will be a maintenance agreement reading identically to what the reading was on the Blackburn application. MR. STEVES-I agree. MR. VOLLARO-And I don’t see anything else in here. MR. SEGULJIC-Maybe I missed it, but the location of the septic system. MR. STEVES-I will place that on. MR. VOLLARO-The location for the septic system for Lot One. That’s probably a pre- existing septic location, I would think. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Do you know where it is? MR. STEVES-It’s approximately to the northwest of the home, between there and the park. MR. VOLLARO-There’s only one way to find out where it is, you know. Really. Since that’s pre-existing, I don’t now whether or not we really need to know where that septic location is, because that house has been functioning now. It’s occupied. MR. STEVES-Correct. MRS. BARDEN-I think an approximate location is fine, just to clarify this, but, I mean, you’re approving a second lot. You have to make sure that the existing house and the existing septic system are on the existing lot. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Say that again? MRS. BARDEN-You have to verify that the existing septic system is on that lot. So that there’s no question that it might be on. MR. VOLLARO-And not on a lot in question. MRS. BARDEN-Exactly. MR. STEVES-Or straddling the property line, splitting the septic in half. MRS. BARDEN-Right. MR. STEVES-And I have no problem denoting that as approximate septic location. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that’s another one. So the septic location has got to be one. Two, we’re going to have a maintenance agreement. Three, we’re going to have seeded and grass cover for the removal of the two drives. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-That’s three conditions that I see. MR. STEVES-And no problem with any of those. MR. VOLLARO-And say probably Number Four is that the existing well is pre-existing and not to be used for water, because we’re in a public water area. MR. STEVES-That’s fine. They’re required to. MR. SEGULJIC-They can still use it. MR. VOLLARO-Well, for watering things. MR. STEVES-As far as, if you’re within the water district, you have to hook up to the water. MR. METIVIER-Right, but you could still use your well, if you so desire, I mean, for watering or whatever. MR. VOLLARO-All right. Does somebody want to make a motion? MR. METIVIER-Do we have to do a SEQRA? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we have to do a SEQRA. MR. VOLLARO-We have a Long Form to go. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 27-2005, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: SHIRLEY HARVEY, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non- significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 17 day of January, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Do we have a motion for approval of the Preliminary Stage? Before we get to the approval, I just want to ask a question of Staff. There’s a comment in the Preliminary application, where it says, Whereas the developer shall sign and date a copy of the Planning Board’s finding’s sheet, approval shall be deemed to have occurred upon the return of such findings sheet to the Planning Board, and it references 183-10 F(4). I’ve never seen that in any one of our Preliminary’s before. Has anybody seen that? I don’t know, I’ve never seen a findings sheet, since I’ve been on this Board, seven years or so. MR. STEVES-That’s a new one for me. MR. METIVIER-So do we strike that? If so, I do apologize. MR. VOLLARO-I would prefer to get it out of there. I’m not expecting a Planning Board findings sheet. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 27-2005 SHIRLEY HARVEY, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Applicant proposes a subdivision of a 2.46 acre parcel into two residential lots of 1.15 & 1.31 acres, one with existing home and one to be built. Subdivisions of land require review by the Planning Board. WHEREAS, the application was received on 12/15/2005; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 1/17/06; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and Preliminary [ A183-10 F(2) ( 3) ( 4) ]] WHEREAS, the modifications to the preliminary plat are or are not acceptable; and [A - 183-10 F (2) ] WHEREAS, the character and extent of any required improvement for which waivers may have been requested and which, in its opinion, may be waived without jeopardy to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare; and [ A183-10 F (2) ] 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) WHEREAS, approval of this preliminary plat shall not constitute approval of the subdivision plat but rather, it shall be deemed an expression of approval of the design submitted on the preliminary plat and as a guide to the preparation of the subdivision plat. [ A183-10 F (3) ] WHEREAS, the developer shall sign and date a copy of the Planning Board's findings sheet, and such approval shall be deemed to have occurred upon the return of such signed findings sheet to the Planning Board. [ A183-10 F (4) ] NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Preliminary Stage is hereby Approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff but removing in the resolution Duly adopted this 17th day of January 2006 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Ford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. VOLLARO-Again, on the Final, we have another similar thing on the Final. It says, whereas the final plan shows the exact location and depth of sewer and water services. It has also set forth the exact layout and dimensions of the proposed streets with the street names and house numbers. We don’t know what the exact location and the exact depth of sewer and water service is. MR. STEVES-That almost sounds like a motion for another application. Because it says streets. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think this is applicable to this particular, see, a lot of this looks like boilerplate, to me, that’s just been cast upon, and sometimes if it’s our motion, I think we ought to be careful as to how we prepare them. So I would make a recommendation to whoever’s going to make the motion to talk about striking that whereas. MR. STEVES-It’s not like you’re crossing through an entire lot to get to a house on another lot like you were on the other one. This application, the shared portion of it, is just the throat off the road and then you instantly branch onto your own lot. In the other instance, the driveway goes through the middle of a lot to get to two other lots. In this instance, the property line’s right down the middle of the driveway. So your major shared portion is the throat just on the road, and then you just branch right off. So the 50/50 rule would be exact because you’re only sharing the throat off West Mountain Road. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 27-2005 SHIRLEY HARVEY, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Applicant proposes a subdivision of a 2.46 acre parcel into two residential lots of 1.15 & 1.31 acres, one with existing home and one to be built. Subdivisions of land require review by the Planning Board. WHEREAS, the application was received 12/15/05; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 1/17/06; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and Final [ A183-13 E (2) (3) (4) ] WHEREAS, upon granting conditional approval of the final plat, the Planning Board shall empower a duly designated officer to sign the plat upon compliance with such conditions and requirements as may be stated in its resolution of conditional approval. Within five days of such resolution, the plat shall be certified by the Chairman of the Planning Board as conditionally approved and a copy filed in the Planning Office and a certified copy mailed to the subdivider. The copy mailed to the subdivider shall include two findings sheets, one of which shall be signed by the applicant and returned to the Planning Board. Such requirements which, when completed, will authorize the signing of the conditionally approved final plat. Upon completion of such requirements to the satisfaction of the duly designated office of the Planning Board, the plat shall be deemed to have received final approval, and such officer shall sign the plat accordingly. Conditional approval of a final plat shall expire 180 days after the date of the resolution granting such approval unless the requirements have been certified as completed within that time. The Planning Board may, however, extend the time within which a conditionally approved plat may be submitted for signature if, in its opinion, such extension is warranted in the circumstances, for one or two additional periods of 90 days each. [Amended 6-3-1991] [ A-183-13 E (2) ] WHEREAS, the final plat shows exact location and depth of sewer and water service. It has also set forth the exact layout and dimensions of proposed streets with the street names and house numbers. [ A183-13 E (3) ] WHEREAS, final approval of the subdivision plat plan shall be limited to that phase of the development currently pending before the Planning Board. [ A183-13 E (4) ] NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Final Stage is hereby Approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plat submitted for Planning Board Chairman’s signature and filing: 1. The driveways that are noted to be removed must be seeded and covered with mulch and grass seed. 2. Identify the location of the septic system on Lot B and note that on the plat, noting that this is an approximate location for the septic system. 3. A maintenance agreement for the shared driveways be noted on the plat indicating that the shared driveways shall be maintained by all users over length shared. Each must pay cost of said maintenance be it plowing or repairing as follows: Lot A is one half and Lot B one half. The owner shall not obstruct, impede, or interfere with other lot owner’s reasonable use of such easement area for the purpose of ingress and egress to and from the perspective lots. Each owner shall have the right to enforce by at law or in equity all restrictions, conditions, covenants and charges now imposed in the event legal action to compel enforcement is made by any owner, he shall be entitled to recover court costs and the reasonable attorney’s fees incurred from violating owner or owners. 4. Recreation fees in the amount of $ 500.00 per lot are applicable to this subdivision according to the requirements of Chapter 124. 5. Waiver request(s) are granted: Sketch plan, Stormwater, Grading and Landscaping Plan. 6. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) 4. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. 5. Final, approved plans in compliance with this subdivision must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt 6. All site related improvements, such as but not limited to landscaping and lighting, shown on plans shall be complete within one year of obtaining a building permit, and no later than 6 months after receiving a building and codes certificate of occupancy. Duly adopted this 17 day of January, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Ford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. STEVES-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 21-2005 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 21-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MICHAELS GROUP AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S): ROLAND AKINS, ROBIN BREWER ZONING SR-1A LOCATION SOUTH SIDE CORINTH RD. PROPOSED 20-LOT CLUSTER SUBDIVISION, RESULTING IN 18 RESIDENTIAL LOTS [LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.41 ACRES TO 2.97 ACRES] AND 2 (TWO) AREAS OF OPEN SPACE TOTALING 11-ACRES. APPLICANT PROPOSES APPROXIMATELY 860 LINEAR FEET OF PRIVATE DRIVES SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. SKETCH PLAN 11/22/05 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE: 27.24 AC., 2.02 AC. TAX MAP NO. 308.19-1-67, 68 SECTION A-183 MATT STEVES & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STEVES-Good evening again. Matt Steves, of Van Dusen and Steves. Tom Nace of Nace Engineering, representing The Michaels Group for the application located on the south side of Corinth Road, directly opposite Van Dusen Road, Subdivision named Sutton Place. Back in front of this Board, we were here a few months ago for conceptual review, discussed it with the Board, as far as having a subdivision of 18 lots, 18 new lots, one existing house lot, and the transfer of property basically will horseshoe around this property to the Queensbury Land Conservancy. I’ve incorporated that into these plans. The full engineering plans have been submitted. Any questions of that you can address to Tom Nace. We did get a sign off, as we had discussed before, I had sent this to Kathy O’Brien from DEC regarding the endangered species. She had the one comment on the east side to incorporate a 20 foot strip to the Queensbury Land Conservancy against the National Grid, the former Niagara Mohawk power line. We have incorporated that. MR. VOLLARO-I think I’m missing something. I didn’t see a DEC letter. MR. NACE-It’s coming. We just got it. MR. STEVES-She faxed it to me this afternoon, or e-mailed it, I should say, to me this afternoon. So we’re handing that out. So that came in today, Bob, as I was getting to, and Tom’s passing that out. MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to take a minute to read it. MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. STEVES-And by the way, I’m Mr. Steves, not Mr. Van Dusen. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ve got you. Do you want to go forward with it? 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. NACE-Sure. For the record, Tom Nace, Nace Engineering. You probably have all received Jim Houston’s C.T. Male comment letter, dated, I believe, the 12 of January. We th responded to that January 13, and addressed his comments. We have back, as of this th morning, an e-mail response from Jim Edwards in which he says we have addressed many of his comments from the January 12 comment letter with the following exceptions. The first th is Item Number Four. He says additional test pits will be dug at a deeper depth to confirm adequate separation to groundwater. The results will be forthcoming. That’s separation between the bottom of our stormwater drywells. MR. VOLLARO-Talking about 12 feet, I think. MR. NACE-And we dug those this morning, and we did have 12 feet of depth, and no sign of any mottling or seasonal high groundwater. So those were done at three different locations where the drywells will be located, and those test results will be put on the final drawings. MR. METIVIER-You dug those this morning? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. METIVIER-Do you realize it was eight below this morning? It was 45° two days ago? MR. NACE-I sent Tom Center out to do it. The second item in his e-mail was Number Eleven, temporary sediment basin details. He says, he agrees that infiltration will occur during the summer months, details would be warranted for winter/spring construction or a note should be added limiting the disturbance activities to summer and fall. We will add that note limiting the construction to summer/fall, and in all practical parameters they won’t start construction until frost is out of the ground this spring, and third is Number Eighteen, it says reasonable not to show location of gas and electric. They had wanted to know where gas and electric would be connected out at Corinth Road. We have no control over that. NiMo or National Grid puts it where they want, and that was my response to him. He just says in his note that a note should be added indicating distance to those existing utilities on Corinth Road. There on Corinth Road we’ll add a note, something to that effect. I’m not quite sure what. MR. STEVES-They’re directly in front. They’re not, you know, east or west on the road that you’d have to run a significant distance to tie into. The mains run right through, whether it’s on the north or south side of the road. MR. NACE-And his last item was a copy of the signoff letter from DEC regarding, he says New Karner butterfly, but you have that in front of you, the e-mail. MR. VOLLARO-I think the last sentence in Kathy O’Brien’s letter said I conclude the project will not negatively effect the Karner blue or Frosted Elfin. I think that says it all as far as she’s concerned. MR. NACE-We will provide this final drawing to her for her records, but we have done exactly what she had requested. MR. VOLLARO-The drawing that you have, that I looked at, looks like it satisfies her requirement. MR. NACE-It does. MR. STEVES-She got this e-mail, a mail has come in, I believe, subsequent to that. I did mail her a copy of this. She does have this exact plan. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I have a couple of questions. What I would like to do, if you’re finished with your presentation. MR. NACE-I’m done. MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to open the public hearing and see if there’s any folks here that would like to speak to this application. There are some people here I can see that they must want to talk about this. So let’s give up the table for a few minutes and see what they’ve got. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) Anybody who would like to speak to this application of Subdivision No. 21-2005 for Sutton Place? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JEFF LA MAY MR. LA MAY-Hello. My name is Jeff LaMay. I live approximately 500 feet from where the construction will be taking place, and my only concern is, in construction of an area that size, 17 or so residential lots, there’s going to be a lot of racket being made during the course of the day. There’s no way to get around it. I would like to propose to the Board that we set up a timeframe of a workday, possibly. I was thinking, you know, no earlier than 7 a.m., and then to close out at 7 p.m. I mean, that’s a 12 hour workday. Of course you know with the spring and summer, the extended daylight time, I think it would only be fair to the folks in the surrounding neighborhoods not to wake up and go to bed listening to excavation and construction. That’s all I had. MR. VOLLARO-So you’re asking for seven to seven? MR. LA MAY-Seven to seven. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. METIVIER-Seven days a week? MR. LA MAY-No. I mean, if you’re asking me, I’m saying, you know, I mean, I’m not trying to get in the way of progress here. MR. VOLLARO-When work is taking place, it will start at seven and stop at seven. MR. LA MAY-I mean, I think that would be reasonable. I mean, you know, there’s daylight between five and five thirty in the summer time, and until eight thirty, almost nine o’clock at night, and we’re all working people, and when we come home at the end of our day, we’d like a little peace and quiet. MR. VOLLARO-Sure, not a problem. I don’t think there’d be a problem with the applicant for seven to seven, but we’ll certainly discuss that with him when he comes back up. Thank you. MR. LA MAY-You’re welcome. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Salvador. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Yes. My name is John Salvador. I notice here on the project description that the applicant proposes about 860 lineal feet of private drives. I presume that this is a private drive that’ll have to be paid for and the care and maintenance of it. MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking about the driveways from the house to road? MR. STEVES-I think it was advertised in the Staff notes that it’s actually a Town road we’re proposing to develop to convey to the Town. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I would think so. That’s what I thought. I thought it was a conveyed road, when I read it. MR. SALVADOR-Well, I read here approximately 860 lineal feet of private drives. MR. SALVADOR-That’s incorrect. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. In any case, whatever’s going to be done eventually with a private drive, the building has to meet certain standards. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but this is not going to be private. This is going to be turned over to the Town. Is that correct? MR. SALVADOR-If the Town will take it, if the Town will take it. The Town doesn’t have to take it. MR. VOLLARO-That’s true, John. MR. SALVADOR-So we have to do it as though the Town is not going to take it. If they do, well then, good, then providing they’ve built it according to certain standards, the Town can take it. In the meantime, though, we have to assume that it’s a private drive. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think so. MR. SALVADOR-Until the Town takes it, it is a private drive. MR. VOLLARO-I think unless it’s stated in the applications that they intend to keep it as a private drive, that’s fine, but I think they’ve stated in the application they intend to turn it over to the Town when it’s built to Town standards. MR. SALVADOR-If that’s their intent, that’s fine, and providing they do it in a certain way and meet certain standards, it can happen, but the Town reserves the right not to take it. That’s all. MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine. MR. SALVADOR-Now, I’ll touch a little bit on the previous applications where they have private drives. I would suggest that these maintenance agreements be recorded at the County Clerk’s Office, that the deeds refer to the location of these maintenance agreements in the record, that the subdivision plats be referenced either as included in the deeds or their location referenced in the deed. This is also true for a project like this, should be, and that protects everyone then. Everyone’s on notice, anyone that searches the title for one of these properties can see what the encumbrances are for the owner. So that should be a requirement I think. MR. VOLLARO-When I go to the County and pull a plat, like, for example, the Blackburn plat, or the plat that’s going to be done on the Harvey’s, the note is on the plat, a note is right there that talks to the deed and once I see it, in other words, I’m going to look at that and I see that, I know that I’m going to be, if I want to get on to this subdivision, that I’m going to be responsible for. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, providing you know that the plot of ground you’re looking at was the subject of a subdivision approval. Then you will go look for a subdivision plat. The maintenance agreement, that should also be filed at the County and its location referenced in the deed. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. Anybody else want to speak to this application? With that, I will close the public hearing. I’m going to leave the public hearing open for a little bit, for a reason. I will get to that in a little bit. I’ve got some questions, but I’ll reserve those and let the Board discuss what they’d like to discuss on this application. MR. GOETZ-I have a couple of questions. I go by there every day. At the end of Van Dusen Road, that’s a very, very busy road. Corinth Road at that point, the traffic moves very rapidly. I have some sorts of concern of the people being able to have enough visibility to be able to get in and out without any injury, and I can’t tell by your plan here, how that addresses it. MR. NACE-The sight distance is given on the plans, and of course to the east the sight distance is pretty unlimited, over 3,000 feet. To the west, which is your concern I’m sure, the sight distance is a little over 500 feet. For access purposes, DOT sets a minimum required sight distance to be equal to the stopping distance of the traveling speed on that thru way, or on that main road, and in this case I believe, if I’m not mistaken, the actual stopping distance is just over 400 feet. So we are in excess of that. One of the things, of course you could always request that the County, and they may do this on their own, is to post an advisory speed, an advisory signs of the intersection to the west, so that people are forewarned of it. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) There’s already the Van Dusen Road intersection, but that would certainly be one thing the Board could request the County, or the Town could request that the County post signs advising. MR. STEVES-Four way intersection. MR. NACE-Right. MR. STEVES-And that’s another reason you would try to align the roads is for better visibility in all directions and not offset the road so you don’t know what’s coming in from the road opposite you, but not directly opposite. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That, coming from east to west on that road, just before you get to Van Dusen, there is a sign that shows that Van Dusen’s going to be coming out. That could be changed. MR. NACE-That would be changed, and I think there is an advisory sign that they could actually put below that symbol sign that, you know, says take extra caution. I can’t tell you exact what it looks like. MR. STEVES-Put one to the west of the intersection as well, for people traveling east bound. MR. VOLLARO-And that was something that I think the Town has to check with the County on. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-That would be up in Warrensburg, since it’s a County road. MR. NACE-That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-That’s Mr. Remington up there? Is that Mr. Bill Remington? MR. NACE-No, the Bill Remington, actually the person that would really do that would probably be George Van Dusen. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Have you got any pull with him at all? MR. STEVES-Yes. Do you want me to talk to George about that? MR. NACE-We have to obviously, or the contractor will have to get a permit from the County. MR. GOETZ-I’d like to see something done, because particularly when you’re going from east to west, you know, at sunset, you’re blinded. My second question is about the QLC. They said they want to take over that part of the property. MR. STEVES-If this is approved, they will be taking that property over, correct. MR. GOETZ-Do we have anything in writing that says if it’s approved they will be taking it over? MR. STEVES-I can get it in writing for you. I can guarantee you that the meeting of the QLC took place, and they had said that they definitely, if this approval is granted, they will be taking ownership of that property. Mr. Akins is in the audience as well, and he has talked to them, at length, and he can reiterate that. My father was the President of that particular organization, is in California. Lucky him, but I can get a letter if you would like, but I’d state that I know for a fact that that is what’s going to happen. MR. VOLLARO-I have a comment of the same kind on my sheet, and when we did this Sketch Plan, we did a Sketch, obviously, before this. In the minutes of the Sketch Plan it was stated that a copy of the QLC agreement to accept the 11.25 acres as open space for passive recreation, the QLC letter should also address maintenance, access and parking, but basically it was said when we did Sketch that we would have that here. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. STEVES-They did do that, and I don’t know if Mr. Akins has a copy of that. I don’t have a copy. I can get a copy. MR. VOLLARO-That was kind of a condition we put in at Sketch, and you said, I remember your words, we’ve got it here, that said, yes, I will provide that. So I think we really need that to know that their intent is to do so, if the project is approved. MR. STEVES-Absolutely it is their intent, and we’ll get the letter. MR. GOETZ-That was a good point, Bob. Where I noticed on your plan that the access to get into that land, where would the parking be? Where do you propose that people would park? MR. NACE-That’s really just for foot access. Their intention is to string the whole corridor of Clendon Brook together with public access and as you know there’s a parking, a public access point that’s fairly well developed in Hudson Pointe subdivision, and I think this is just over the hill from that section of Hudson Pointe. MR. GOETZ-Excuse me? Right over the hill? That’s quite a walk from where that parking is at Hudson Pointe to get to this location. MR. STEVES-That’s the intent. They’re trying to tie that together with the property that’s immediately to the south of this, and then the Niagara Mohawk power line that is there, there’s paths across it, and they’re working on tying that together into the trail system in Hudson Pointe. That’s exactly what they’re proposing to do. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think when the Land Conservancy takes this on to allow passive recreation in this area, they’re going to have to, because I notice there’s, right off the road on the corner of the lot there’s an access point there and it goes up as a foot path it looks like. MR. NACE-Correct, as a foot path. MR. VOLLARO-All the way up, but in other words, for somebody to be able to use that would have to walk to that spot, get on the foot path and get up it to the recreation area. MR. NACE-The idea that this would give access to future procurements across the road is really the issue that they’re thinking of. MR. VOLLARO-But people won’t be able to get to this for passive recreation if they have an automobile. I don’t know how they’re going to do that. MR. STEVES-The main reason for the 40 foot access is that in your Code it says any parcel of land must have at least 40 foot of frontage on a Town road. MR. VOLLARO-I saw that. I saw that’s why you had 40 feet there. I see that, but I think when the QLC letter comes out, they also ought to address the maintenance, the access and the parking and the allowed type of passive recreation that they’re going to allow. I mean, passive recreation to me could be shooting, for example, that’s passive recreation. I’m sure they don’t want that. MR. STEVES-No motorized vehicles, foot traffic only. That’s exactly what it’s going to be. MR. VOLLARO-Now that letter, I think, should probably also be incorporated into the deed granting ownership of this property to the QLC. There should be a deed, when I get the deed, when I buy a house at Sutton Place, I see that the QLC owns and has been deeded that lot. In other words, it shows on my deed that the QLC now owns that lot for passive recreation. MR. STEVES-I don’t know if that can be done. MR. METIVIER-I don’t think that can be done, Bob. MR. STEVES-That’s just referencing who your neighbor is, per se. It’s going to be filed as such. The filed subdivision, your deed can reference the filed subdivision again, which is typical, and then on the filed subdivision the note can say this land is being transferred to the Queensbury Land Conservancy. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. VOLLARO-Or is owned by. Essentially the Queensbury Land Conservancy will have a deed to this property. MR. STEVES-They’ll have a deed to that prior to the sale of any of the other lots, correct. They will own that prior to any of the other lots being sold to individual homeowners. MR. VOLLARO-Right, but they will have a deed for that. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-And I, as an owner of one of those properties, ought to know that the QLC is a deeded neighbor, in effect. MR. METIVIER-What would that accomplish, though? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I just want to make sure that the QLC, that they have a deed to the property. That’s the point. MR. METIVIER-Yes. I’m sorry, but why would you reference everybody else, that they would have that? MR. STEVES-Just say that that lot must be transferred before any of the other ones can be transferred to individual owners. That’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-They have to own it before the other individual owners take. MR. STEVES-Before the developer sells the individual lot. Yes, that’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I’m really driving at. The QLC owns that piece, so that there’s no question that it’s intended to be conveyed or that was the purpose or the thought, but that it is actually done and we agree. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I have a note on the additional testing for drywells. That also came up on C.T. Male’s. They talked about an effluent pump for Lot 10. Was that cleared up? MR. NACE-Yes. We responded to that. There is a pump. There is a detail for it now. MR. VOLLARO-There wasn’t before, but there will be, or is there? MR. NACE-The pump was shown schematically on the layout plan, but there were no details provided. Now we have provided the details. MR. VOLLARO-All right, and that would be on what drawing S-1? MR. NACE-That’s on S-7. Your drawing on S-7, Bob, in the lower left corner shows a septic tank and a distribution box. The new details show there’s a septic tank and effluent pump station, if required. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that would be a new drawing that we would get at Final? MR. NACE-This is what has been sent to C.T. Male for their review. MR. VOLLARO-During the last meeting, I guess it was 27, I believe, Mrs. Steffan made a comment concerning Lot Two and Three being real small lots, like a half acre I believe, something like that. She talked about affordable housing. MR. STEVES-We talked to the developer about those, and as he said those two would be the most, quote unquote, you can’t consider it an affordable housing project without incorporating the entire property, but as far as those two lots would be the lower end of the price range within that subdivision. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STEVES-That was the request. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. VOLLARO-You talked to Mr. Michaels about that. MR. SEGULJIC-Back to stormwater. The 12 inch pipe, is that coming from the cul de sac? MR. NACE-The emergency overflows? Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s an emergency overflow? MR. NACE-It’s simply an emergency, okay. The systems are designed so that even at a 100 year storm the drywells handle everything, okay, but since there is an opportunity to have a place where any excess water can be dissipated, it’s only prudent to incorporate that. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, my concern would be, if it’s an emergency, then it would be a bigger flush, would it not? MR. NACE-No. In an emergency situation, or in a, say 500 year storm, okay, the drywells are going to still take the 100 year storm. It’s just that peak above there that’s going to end up going down the pipe, so to speak, and in that situation we’re all going to be wading. MR. SEGULJIC-Once again, my concern would be right above the brook. Any flush go directly into the brook and bring all the sediment and salt. MR. NACE-Well, no, it spreads out. There’s a riprap spreader detail shown on the plans, and that would dissipate it and it has a little ways before it actually gets to the brook. I don’t remember, 30, 40 feet of ground to cover before it gets there. MR. SEGULJIC-So you don’t expect this ever to be used? MR. NACE-I don’t expect, you know, unless we’re all flooded out, I don’t expect this to ever be used. MR. SEGULJIC-So why do we have it there? MR. NACE-Like I said, it’s always prudent, in fact, a lot of communities require that if there is an outlet available for stormwater that you incorporate that into your design, and it’s good for the design. MR. SEGULJIC-So why not just oversize the drywells? MR. NACE-We already have, okay. We’ve sized it so that even in a 100 year storm there’s still some (lost words) left, okay, but just in the odd event. For instance, I know of one place where, because of the construction of house lots, a couple of drywells plugged up, and there was nowhere that that could be outleted, okay, for that emergency. I mean, the drywells were replaced, but during that one period it would have been nice to have somewhere to relieve the stormwater in that emergency situation. It was just one of those dumb situations where the contractor didn’t watch what he was doing. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, why are you bringing it out so far, though? Why not bring it closer? I’m just concerned that in that situation, you’d bring a lot of silt into the brook. MR. NACE-We’ve brought it down here simply because of what you’ve pointed out. We don’t want it eroding, we don’t want it out letting on the top of this steep bank. If there were any flow coming out of it, we’d want to outlet it down here where it’s flat where it can dissipate before it reaches the brook. If you outlet it up here (lost words) dig a trench down that steep bank (lost words) brook. MR. SEGULJIC-And C.T. Male signed off on this I guess? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-This is the first time I’ve ever seen that. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. NACE-We try to do it wherever, you know, in a lot of Queensbury it’s flat and there’s really no opportunity to do it, but where there is an opportunity, it’s just good sound design to do it. MR. SEGULJIC-And I guess going along with that, why couldn’t you put two, a couple of parking spaces right where the emergency overflow is, to allow public access there. You already have the easement there. MR. STEVES-At the end of the cul de sac? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. STEVES-We have an easement for the Town for maintenance of the stormwater structure, not for individual, you know, private residents to just come in and park. MR. NACE-It would be like somebody parking in your front yard. MR. SEGULJIC-The reality is, aren’t people going to park on the road in front of people’s houses anyway? MR. NACE-This public access is really intended simply for, and I think we discussed that at the last meeting, was primarily for people in this subdivision on the other side of the road to be able to get access to that land. The people that don’t have lots that back up to that QLC land, to be able to get access to it. MR. VOLLARO-I think that was the understanding when we did Sketch Plan, I think we talked about it that way. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. METIVIER-That easement that you have there, that’s strictly for drainage only? MR. STEVES-Underground stormwater. MR. METIVIER-Now the only people that really have access to that would be the Town of Queensbury? MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. STEVES-That would be an easement that would be given to the Highway Department at the time that the road was dedicated to the Town. There would be an easement for the stormwater area that is requirement of any Town road that any stormwater or detention areas or outfalls be given an easement to the Highway Department for maintenance of those. MR. METIVIER-And normally they would never even bother that area. I’m just curious, because I have an easement going right through my yard, and it’s the same thing. So I never even really knew what it meant or what it was, but know that there’s, all the storm basins collect and then they run back through my backyard into a collection area even, not even, and that’s all it is, so they can come in at any point and do what they need to do if they had to. MR. STEVES-If for some reason that pipe collapsed, and it backs up the system, they would have the right to come in and just dig up your yard, cut that section of pipe out and replace that section of pipe, backfill it and get out of there. That’s all it’s for. MR. HUNSINGER-I had questions about that, and this is primarily coming from the C.T. Male comment letter, saying that DEC was willing to sign off on the stormwater management, provided that the Town Highway Department owns and maintains the drywells, and I guess my question is, and I think we have heard comment from the Town Highway Department on this on other subdivisions, but how does the Town keep track of that? I mean, aren’t we, I mean, maybe along the lines of Mr. Salvador’s comments, aren’t we assuming that, you know, presuming that the Town will accept it, and then the maintenance of the drywells. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. NACE-The ultimate control is that there’s only one building permit allowed on this whole parcel until the Town accepts the road, because until the Town accepts the road, those other lots don’t have any frontage on a Town road. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Well, I guess I’m just thinking of what is the Town signing on to in terms of maintenance requirements and also liability and how is that kept track of, and what’s the assurance that it will be properly maintained? MR. STEVES-How is it kept track of? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. STEVES-Every Town that is dedicated to the municipality I or another surveyor has to locate and do a complete as built of all the structures, valves, hydrants, edge of pavement outfalls, certified to Rick Missita with bearings and distances a description. We write the description that the Town Counsel uses to create a deed for that road with all the drainage easements or whatever that may be in place, and certified to them and to a title insurance corporation. So that they know exactly where everything is and exactly what they’re getting before they take acceptance of that road. MR. VOLLARO-Chris, what you’re really trying to get at is a good point. How does the Town provide maintenance, when do they know to maintain something? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, that’s part of the question. MR. NACE-Talk to Rick, obviously, he’s the ultimate authority, but as far as I understand, he has a schedule of the drainage structures, catch basins, drywells that need to be maintained, and he runs those through periodically. I think catch basins and drywells are vacuumed out, I think, once a year. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’ve seen them pump them out. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s a big one near where I live, and, I mean, and I’ve walked over the grate. It’s got to be eight feet deep, maybe, and it’s huge, and, you know, I mean, you get leaves. You get pine needles. Snow and ice that cover it. MR. STEVES-And that’s why we show every one that’s on the road to be accepted, that way he has a record of where they are and when he accepted the road, and he can put it on his schedule of maintenance. MR. HUNSINGER-And I guess the other reason why I raised the question is, obviously, the assumptions in the stormwater management report are that that will be properly maintained. Because otherwise the stormwater management won’t properly work. MR. NACE-Well, actually, there is, if I’m correct, and I’m pretty sure I am, there’s an agreement between DEC and the Town that they will be maintained, because with this new stormwater regulation, they require pre-treatment for any stormwater that is filtered in or allowed to percolate into the ground. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. NACE-And that would, in an instance like the Town roads, that would require an extra set of structures, a catch basin out at the road that would have a large sump and the ability to collect debris, and then a separate drywell off the road for the infiltration. The Town says we don’t want that many structures to maintain. We do a good job maintaining the drywells, and they sat down with DEC and hammered out an agreement that it was okay with DEC not to have the catch basins, just to use the drywells as long as the Town maintained them on a regular basis. MR. HUNSINGER-So that’s the other reason, part of where that comment came from. MR. FORD-So there will not be easements conveying the road water out onto the property between or behind the homes? 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. NACE-There’s only the easement for that one pipe that goes down the hill that, you know, the Town needs to be able to get access to maintain. MR. STEVES-All the rest of it is within the 50 foot right of way of that road that will be dedicated to the Town. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. STEVES-So they would be within their ownership. The only thing they would be outside of their ownership is the easement for that outfall pipe, emergency outfall pipe, and they would still have maintenance over that via an easement. MR. FORD-Would there be an alternative to that kind of outfall pipe? MR. NACE-The only alternative would be just to not have it. Okay. Again, it’s an emergency type of thing. MR. FORD-Because we had one on our street, a very similar setup, it appears at any rate, and that caused such a problem with excessive water in the back yards of a couple of the town homes that eventually it was plugged and prevented the water from draining out there. MR. STEVES-That was an actual drainage flow. This is an emergency. This isn’t going to be flowing, only in a 500 year storm basically you’re going to see water coming out of that. If you went to Rick Missita, your Highway Superintendent, and said, I want to take an easement that I’m going to give you for an emergency access, for an emergency overflow, and I’m going to put it just in your drywells, and then, 15, 20 years from now, they actually need, because of a storm, they would like to put one in, now they have to come back to private homeowners and try to obtain an easement to do so. So your Highway Superintendent would like preventative maintenance now and have that in place prior to any need for it in the future, then it’s more problematic. MR. NACE-I think what you’re talking to, though, Tom, is an outfall that actually takes drainage every time it rains. Okay. It’s just a catch basin. MR. FORD-If the basin got high enough, it would take the excess out. MR. NACE-This is just an emergency. It will probably, you know, in the next 10 years, probably never see a drop of water. MR. FORD-Thank you. I have some additional questions. MR. VOLLARO-Sure, go right ahead. MR. FORD-How about addressing the construction noise issue. MR. STEVES-We have no objection to the seven to seven at all. MR. FORD-Five days a week? MR. STEVES-I would say six days a week. MR. FORD-Six days a week. MR. STEVES-Yes. Typically in the summer season, as everybody knows up here, isn’t the longest season in the world. This isn’t a huge subdivision as far as heavy equipment for the road construction, but, you know, you are limited from like April until November. So the opportunity for most of these construction companies to work six day weeks is typical here. So I would say seven to seven, Monday through Saturday. No work on Sundays. MR. FORD-Okay, and what assurances do we have that the Essex Court is going to be constructed in such a way that it would be pretty well assured that the Town would accept it? MR. NACE-Well, I inspect it when it’s constructed, and sign off to the Town, and, obviously, as I said before, if the Town doesn’t accept it, there are no lots here, other than one house. So 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) there’s a strong incentive for the contractor and the owner to comply with the Town requirements. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Anybody else? MR. FORD-I have a few more points. MR. VOLLARO-Go right ahead, Tom. MR. FORD-And if you’ve covered these before, just refresh my memory, okay. There appears to be a discrepancy between the project acreage to remain undeveloped. MR. NACE-Staff is correct. I didn’t add, there are two parcels, and I only looked at the acreage on one of them and didn’t add the other. There’s 11, a total. MR. FORD-It actually is 11.25? MR. NACE-It’s 11.25, correct. That’s my mistake. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. STEVES-The four acre piece on the opposite side of the power lines is included in that. MR. FORD-And how about the issue of excessive clearing and grading proposed for Lots 9 and 10? MR. NACE-Well, that’s where there’s an old borrow pit. I think at one time there was a trolley that ran through the back of this property as part of the Sherman Island dam construction, and there’s a borrow pit right in the back of Lots Nine and Ten, and all we’re doing is filling that in to, to make it, to restore more original conditions, and in fact that was one of the comments originally was that we needed to do some grading back there to make it more usable, and that’s what we’re doing. MR. FORD-And how about the next item, the proposed location of the septic system on Lot 10 should be reconsidered, sharing a system with Lot 8 or 9 could be a possibility? MR. NACE-We can’t share, okay. This is with a DOH realty subdivision, each lot has to have their own sanitary facilities. MR. FORD-How about the stormwater management report indicates rear roofs will drain to the back yard, where septic tanks will be located. MR. NACE-We’ve put a note on the drawings requiring that any roof leaders or downspouts be directed away from the septic field areas, and that’s acceptable to C.T. Male. MR. FORD-And the perforated pipe at the road has been addressed? MR. NACE-The detail was incorrect. It wasn’t supposed to be a perforated pipe on the detail. It was supposed to be showing the overflow lines, those 12 inch emergency overflows that we discussed previously. That has been corrected. MR. FORD-Thank you, and the minimum finished garage floor elevation of the homes should be listed on the grading plan? MR. NACE-That has been, just to show that the floor elevations are above the road. MR. FORD-And the labeling will be consistent? MR. NACE-Yes. I goofed. It’s been corrected. MR. FORD-And the connection to gas and electric utilities on Corinth Road should be shown. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. NACE-That was one of the remaining issues that C.T. Male had and they wanted us to simply state that they’re available and that they’re within the road corridor. MR. VOLLARO-Well, what they asked was a note should be added indicating the distance to these utilities. That’s what they required. MR. NACE-Yes, and that’s not on the drawings yet, but it will be put on. MR. FORD-And Item Twenty-one, would you address that again, please. On Sheet S-4 the proposed tree line is shown for each lot. This line should also be labeled as the work limit line. MR. NACE-I’m not sure where the comment came from or why the comment was in C.T. Male’s comments. We show, on the individual lots, show a proposed clearing line. We don’t know what the house on that lot’s going to exactly look like, whether it’s going to have a garage entry on the left or the right. So we don’t really know exactly what the clearing limits should be, okay. So we try to show, so that we’re not pulling the wool over anybody’s eyes, we try to show that there’s going to be clearing on the lot, but then we try to show what might be a typical clearing or possible clearing limits, but we don’t want to show that as an absolute clearing limit that somebody’s going to come back in the future and say, well, you showed clearing limits here 30 feet away from the property line, and you’re clearing 20 feet away from the property line. That’s really an individual house, building permit plan that’s submitted with the building permit that shows how the house is going to be set on the lot and where those clearing limits are actually going to be, depending on the house and depending on how the person that owns, or that is going to own the house once it’s situated. MR. VOLLARO-So long as they meet the setbacks, they can pretty much spin it around the way they want. MR. FORD-As long as the setbacks are maintained. MR. NACE-Sure, exactly. MR. STEVES-And you also have restrictive no cut zones on the back of the lots that have to be adhered to. MR. FORD-They must be adhered to. MR. NACE-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-And also along Corinth Road. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-They have pretty much got no cut zones around the perimeter. MR. NACE-All around. MR. METIVIER-Can you just remind them to adhere to those? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. FORD-That was my point. MR. VOLLARO-That’s incumbent upon the owner, I would imagine, what’s in their deed. MR. METIVIER-Well, no, their developer. MR. HUNSINGER-And also, I mean, the point’s well taken. I mean, Haviland Road is a classic example. There was some great natural buffers along the south side of Haviland Road, and the homeowners took them out a couple of years ago, and, you know, now it’s just lawn, and it really has detracted from that neighborhood. MR. FORD-Some are re-planting. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. STEVES-We agree, and we will make that note. The one thing you have here is you have horseshoed around by an entity of the Queensbury Land Conservancy which is going to ensure that the 11 acres of it is not cleared, and then the additional buffer on the back of the lots against the Conservancy, and you have another group there, instead of just being a landowner, that is a group that is an absentee landowner, whether they will have some oversight of this to make sure that it is adhered to as well. MR. VOLLARO-One of the things we’ve got here, this is probably the first time I’ve seen a, almost a conservation type development, it’s close now. It’s attractive. On this, I would like to get, as part of the Final on this, a letter from Jim Meachem confirming the test pit data on drawing S-3, the data taken by Charlie Maine on 11/03, just a letter from DOH saying, yes, I was there. By the way, Tom, when DOH goes to look at a test pit, they take their own data, I’m sure. They have to walk away with logs. MR. NACE-Actually what happens is that Charlie and Jim. MR. VOLLARO-Charlie calls the numbers out and Jim writes them down? MR. NACE-Exactly. They both look at it. They kind of agree where the interfaces are, and Charlie measures it and calls out the classification and Jim writes it down, and Charlie takes it and types it up. MR. VOLLARO-When we get test pit data and perc data on our drawings, it means that that data resides at DOH, essentially, not just with Charlie Maine, but if the DOH guy has to go away with a set of logs and say I was at such and such a subdivision. I looked at this and these are the logs. That data must reside in DOH somewhere. So somebody like Jim Meachem can say, yes, I was there, yes, we have the data. MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. STEVES-The log that Charlie develops that is placed on the map is one that is concurred with Jim Meachem on site. They’re the ones that, they establish it. MR. NACE-He gets a copy of that. MR. VOLLARO-Meachem does? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So now the data resides both in Charlie Maine’s domain and Meachem’s domain. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So all I really want is a letter from DOH confirming that. MR. NACE-I will request it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. A couple of questions I have is on your Long Form submission Part I. I just want to get some comment here. On Page Three, Number Five, the addition of the slopes comes out to be about 40%. Now that 40% was used in calculating the density, right? MR. NACE-You’re talking about Item Number Five? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Page Three, Number Five. MR. NACE-Yes, it’s 60 plus 19, plus 21. MR. STEVES-That’s 100%. Zero to ten is 60% of the property. Ten to fifteen is nineteen percent, and greater than fifteen is twenty-one percent. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but the greater than fifteen, there’s nineteen percent that’s, and twenty-one is forty, and that forty percent over fifteen percent slope was used in the calculation for density. That’s what I’m asking. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. STEVES-Greater than fifteen percent was used. MR. NACE-Greater than fifteen percent was used. MR. VOLLARO-All of these are greater than fifteen, or not? MR. STEVES-No, fifteen percent slopes or greater is only twenty-one percent of the property. MR. VOLLARO-Fifteen or greater is only twenty-one percent. This is ten TO fifteen, fifteen not included? MR. NACE-Correct. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Then I’ll ask my question in a different way. The twenty-one percent. MR. STEVES-The calculation is based on twenty-one percent, that’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s all I wanted to know. Now, on Five, on Page Five, let’s go to Five of your Part I, and I think there’s a, on 17B, it says, is the site serviced by public utilities, yes. If yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connections, and that’s blank, yes or no. It should be filled in, probably yes. MR. NACE-Yes. Correct. MR. STEVES-We will have to tap into the existing line. MR. VOLLARO-I know that’s just an oversight, Tom. I just want to get this form, make sure that it’s right. MR. NACE-Sure. While you’re on that same page, we ought to correct, in yours, on B-1-b., project acreage to be developed. MR. VOLLARO-B-1-b, yes 19. MR. NACE-It should be 16.25. MR. VOLLARO-Ultimately. MR. NACE-Both initially and ultimately. It should be 16.25, and C should be 11.25. MR. VOLLARO-Project acreage to remain undeveloped should be 11.25. MR. NACE-Correct, which is the Land Conservancy. MR. VOLLARO-Which is the Land Conservancy piece. MR. STEVES-We forgot to include that piece east of the power lines. MR. VOLLARO-So are you going to resubmit Part I? MR. NACE-I can if you want to, or you can just correct the one that you’re using for the EAF. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. As long as we’re correcting it, I’m happy with it. I just wanted to make sure. Page Eight. I just had a question on that. I’m not sure what the answer is, but you might be able to lead me to it. On Page Eight, under zoning and planning information, does the proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision, the answer is, yes. If yes, indicate the decision required, you’ve got subdivision. What about this resource management plan? Does the QLC have a role in that, in the resource management plan? Do they have to prepare anything that you know of? 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. NACE-Not that I’m aware of. MR. VOLLARO-I just had a question mark for myself as to whether or not, being that they were going to take over the property. MR. STEVES-To be like a logging operation or something along those lines, if you got involved with a large piece of wooded property, but no, my understanding is they’re not required. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t know. I had a question, I put a question mark and I wanted to ask you that question. I understand what you’re saying. Okay. Okay. We have a number of points here. I’d like to take a few minutes. We’re just doing Preliminary tonight, much like when we did Schermerhorn’s property up on, he came back for about 10 minutes. MR. NACE-That’s fine by me. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s what I’d like to do here. Have a plan that reflects all of which we spoke here, the plan is up to date. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, can I just ask one quick question? MR. VOLLARO-Of course. MR. SEGULJIC-There’s no lighting shown on the plan. I assume there’s no lighting on the street there? MR. NACE-That is correct. MR. VOLLARO-Right. We said, when we did the Sketch Plan, we talked about this being very, very similar to Quincy Lane, and I think you asked the question. MR. SEGULJIC-I missed that meeting. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We asked that question, and they said this would be just the same as Quincy Lane is, and there was no lighting at Quincy, and they said there would be no lighting here. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-So there’s no lighting, other than house lights. MR. STEVES-You have post lights and stuff on the driveway, but if you drive down Quincy Lane, we have almost a mirror image of this. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I had a question on Lots 10 through 13. Those are the ones that back up to the NiMo right of way, come closest to the NiMo right of way. In the past, on other subdivisions, we have required them to post signs or to have an easement or a deed restriction that they cannot dump clippings or yard waste specifically into the NiMo right of way. MR. STEVES-Right. In this case they don’t own to the NiMo. There’s a 20 foot strip owned by the QLC, but you’re wondering whether or not we should let them know that they’re also close to the NiMo right of way? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, my thought being, if I’m out doing my yard work, you know, I bag up some, human nature being what it is, I don’t know specifically where my property line ends and the Queensbury Land Conservancy Property begins. MR. STEVES-We can put signs up. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. NACE-The same thing we did on Schermerhorn’s out on Sherman Avenue. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, exactly, and it’s really just Lots 10 through 13. MR. STEVES-And I agree. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STEVES-Good point. MR. FORD-I have a question, if I may. This is for Chris. As the Chair of the PORC Committee, I want to back up to this issue of street lights. Has that been considered in any of the meetings, about what we as, or what our citizens are calling for or would like to see as far as appropriate lighting of streets? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think it’s come up in any discussions. Maybe in some public comments, but certainly not in any comprehensive way yet. MR. FORD-I hope that it will be addressed, because this would be an appropriate time to be taking, being proactive about it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, absolutely. MR. GOETZ-I think I asked the question last time about the lighting. MR. VOLLARO-Was that you? MR. GOETZ-Yes, and the reason why is for safety. People who live in these cul de sacs, like I happen to live in Hudson Pointe, and we’re able to do a lot of walking, bike riding. A lot of children in there, and the children aren’t out late, but they’re out until eight, nine o’clock, and at dusk in the summer or early fall. I think there’s a real safety problem if there isn’t any kind of lighting. MR. NACE-We’ve heard both sides of the coin, and you get people who vehemently argue against it in a rural setting or a subdivision setting like this, that they don’t want that extra light. They want the dark skies, so to speak. MR. GOETZ-Well, from a business aspect, what’s the reason why you don’t want to put lights in? I mean, you’re saying some people don’t like them. I can’t even conceive of that. MR. NACE-That’s what we hear from talking to, some of the comments. MR. STEVES-I don’t know if there’s specific lighting districts, too, within the Town that would allow somebody to maintain or take over. MR. NACE-Well, if you were doing that here, you would have to form a lighting district that would get taxed for the lights, as you would in any residential subdivision, but, you know, generally what we’ve heard is that people really don’t, in this kind of a setting, don’t want that extra light. MR. SEGULJIC-I would think if they want lights they’d put. MR. VOLLARO-Post lights, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I think that’s the way to do it. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the way we light up my little subdivision is post lights. MR. SEGULJIC-I think it’s a good idea not having any street lighting. MR. STEVES-I think if you look down through, we keep using Quincy Lane because this is very similar except a little shorter road, is that I think every lot in there has a post light out on the side of their driveway, too. I don’t think, there’s maybe one lot that does not have a post light. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. If there are no other questions from the Board, maybe we ought to enter, here, into a SEQRA, or should we do that just before Final, so that we’re happy with that or do we know enough about this project now to feel comfortable with going into a SEQRA? How do we feel about that? MR. METIVIER-I think we could move forward. MR. SEGULJIC-I just have to read the Kathy O’Brien letter. MR. VOLLARO-Her letter? I think the last, I think the drawings as they presently exist, the ones that we have, Tom, reflect what she’s asking for in terms of buffers around the property, and then she ends up, in her last paragraph, saying that she didn’t think there’d be an impact if it was done that way. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t have a problem with doing SEQRA. MR. VOLLARO-I certainly don’t. Are you guys all ready for it? MR. METIVIER-Sure. MR. VOLLARO-Let’s do a Long Form, Tony. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 21-2005, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: MICHAELS GROUP, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non- significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 17 day of January, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think we want to do a Preliminary here with all the conditions on the Preliminary that go with the Final. So I’ve gotten some down, and I’ll go down mine and if anybody else has some, we’ll have to put them in. One, we want to get a letter from the Queensbury Land Conservancy indicating that their intent is to acquire this property. The second one I have is a letter from Jim Meachem of the Department of Health , confirming test pit data appearing on Drawing S-3, the data taken by C. Maine on 11/03/05. Drawing S-7 will show the effluent pump detail MR. NACE-It already does, yes. MR. VOLLARO-It already does. Okay. MR. NACE-On what C.T. Male has reviewed. MR. VOLLARO-It does on what C.T. Male has reviewed. Okay, and we will see that the next time around? MR. NACE-Absolutely. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. There’ll be, maybe this drawing carries it, maybe it doesn’t, but additional test pits will be dug to a deeper depth to confirm adequate separation to groundwater. MR. NACE-They will be added. They’re not on the drawing yet. They will be added. MR. VOLLARO-They will be added to the drawing. Okay. I guess it’s all of C.T. Male’s Number Four, Number Eleven, Number Eighteen. Number Nineteen is out because we have a letter from DEC on the New Karner butterfly. So it would be responding to C.T. Male’s original letter dated January 12, Item Four, Item Eleven, and Item Eighteen. th MR. NACE-Correct. MR. STEVES-Hours of operation, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-The hours of operation would be from seven to seven, six days a week, and I don’t have anything else. MR. HUNSINGER-Posting of the yard clippings on Lots 10 through 13. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you mention that the land must be transferred to the QLC prior to the sale of any lot? MR. VOLLARO-I had that in a copy of the QLC agreement, but that’s a good point, yes. We should put that in, Chris. MR. GOETZ-Is the QLC agreement going to mention also that their responsibility for the maintenance? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I have it here, maintenance, access, and I have parking, but it looks like parking is not something that, I think I’d like to hear from them in their posture of what they think they’d want to do with this property when they do acquire it. Parking should be addressed, but maybe what the answer is there will be no parking, I don’t know. MR. STEVES-I believe that’s what the intent is, but I’ll find out from them in their letter. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-So I guess the revised plans would address all of the comments from C.T. Male? Has that already been established? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, they would address Four, Eleven, and Eighteen are not yet on those plans. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. NACE-In essence the plans that you get submitted will address all of C.T. Male’s comments. MR. VOLLARO-All of C.T. Male’s comments. MR. HUNSINGER-It was kind of obvious, but I wanted to make sure that it was obvious to everybody. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have anything else. Does any other Board member have something they want to put into this Preliminary so that when these folks come back, it’s almost a stamp for us? MR. GOETZ-I don’t think you can put it in the Preliminary, but I would like to see some sort of attempt to contact Warren County about adjusting the sign out towards the road. MR. STEVES-I’ll send a copy of the map and a letter and the minutes of this meeting, once we have those. MR. VOLLARO-To Bill Remington? MR. STEVES-Actually it’ll be to George Van Dusen. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STEVES-He’s the one that would actually take care of these. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Just make a note of that. Now I’ve left the public hearing open, but I think that if there’s nobody else that wants to discuss anything in the public hearing, I think we’re going to close it, because I think we’re in pretty good shape at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-How could we do SEQRA with the public hearing still open? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know. MR. NACE-You can simply close the public hearing and have a motion to reconfirm your SEQRA. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll do that. I’ll close the public hearing and make a motion to reconfirm SEQRA. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think that’s it. Does somebody want to make a motion? MR. METIVIER-Why don’t you do it, since you have the items in front of you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 21-2005 MICHAELS GROUP, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Proposed 20-lot cluster subdivision, resulting in 18 residential lots [lots ranging in size from 0.41 acres to 2.97 acres] and 2 (two) areas of open space totaling 11-acres. Applicant proposes approximately 860 linear feet of private drives. Subdivisions of land require review by the Planning Board. WHEREAS, the application was received 12/15/05; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 1/17/06; and 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and Preliminary [ A183-10 F(2) ( 3) ( 4) ]] WHEREAS, the modifications to the preliminary plat are or are not acceptable; and [A - 183-10 F (2) ] WHEREAS, the character and extent of any required improvement for which waivers may have been requested and which, in its opinion, may be waived without jeopardy to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare; and [ A183-10 F (2) ] WHEREAS, approval of this preliminary plat shall not constitute approval of the subdivision plat but rather, it shall be deemed an expression of approval of the design submitted on the preliminary plat and as a guide to the preparation of the subdivision plat. [ A183-10 F (3) ] WHEREAS, the developer shall sign and date a copy of the Planning Board's findings sheet, and such approval shall be deemed to have occurred upon the return of such signed findings sheet to the Planning Board. [ A183-10 F (4) ] NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Preliminary Stage is hereby Approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff with the following conditions: 1. A statement of agreement from the QLC that they are willing to accept or plan to accept the 11.25 acres as open space for passive recreation. The QLC letter should also address maintenance, access and parking, and to determine the allowed type of passive recreation. 2. A letter from Mr. Jim Meachem of DOH confirming test pit data appearing on Drawing S-3, data taken by Charles Maine on 11/3/05. 3. In accordance with C.T. Male Associates comments, the effluent pump for Lot 10 detail would be a new detail. 4. There should be a sign or signs indicating there be no dumping of garden material or trash to the back of the no cut zone facing the Queensbury Land Conservancy property, from Lots 10 to 13. 5. The hours of operation during construction will be six days a week, from Monday through Saturday, times of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. 6. Note on the plat that the property must be transferred to the Queensbury Land Conservancy prior to the transfer of lots to future owners. 7. Also, C.T. Male Associates outstanding comments of their letter of January 12, th Items 4, 11 & 18 and to be on the new map. All issues will be addressed. 8. There will be a letter sent to Mr. George Van Dusen at Warren County DPW, with a copy of the minutes of this meeting and a request that an intersection sign be placed to the west of the intersection between Van Dusen and Corinth Roads. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ford, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. NACE-Procedurally, how soon do you want us back? MR. VOLLARO-With Final? MR. NACE-Yes. Most of this stuff we can get back to you within a couple of days. MR. VOLLARO-Well, our next meeting is 1/24. I mean, we’ve got seven that night, on the 24. th MRS. BARDEN-This is a pretty long list. I would say have them get it in for the deadline, February’s deadline is what we’re trying to do. MR. NACE-The February deadline was today. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. BARDEN-March deadline. MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking 2/15, to get into March. MR. NACE-Could you put us on the first February meeting if we get stuff to you two weeks ahead of time? MR. VOLLARO-The first February meeting. MR. METIVIER-March meeting. Right? MR. NACE-February. MR. VOLLARO-No, he’s talking February 21. MR. NACE-This is, we’ve already submitted Final. This is just a clean up. MR. VOLLARO-Why don’t we do it on February 21. Okay st MR. STEVES-And we’ll have everything to you two weeks prior to that. MR. VOLLARO-That’s going to be a fast, we should be able to almost stamp this if everything is correct, and hardly any conditions at all. I don’t think there will be any. MRS. BARDEN-And when will those be in? MR. NACE-Two weeks ahead of the meeting. Is that satisfactory? MR. FORD-Make it the 10. th MRS. BARDEN-The 10 of February? th MR. NACE-The 10, sure. th MRS. BARDEN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-That basically will be coming in as just a new drawing, and some minor notes. 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. STEVES-And some letters. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. MR. NACE-Do you need 15 sets of something like that? MR. VOLLARO-If we’re going to have all new drawings, I think you’ve got to do it. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-They become THE drawings that. You need 15 sets. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. NACE-Just trying to save a few trees. MR. VOLLARO-I think we have to discuss a draft letter, and let me tell you first of all, have you all read the draft that was prepared for The Great Escape? I know Chris Hunsinger has read it for sure. MR. METIVIER-Yes, I have read it. MR. FORD-Yes, I have. MR. VOLLARO-Really, first, I was asked to write this letter by Craig Brown and Marilyn Ryba, and it was in response to Mr. Lemery asking for a discussion concerning the fact that he wanted to talk about getting a CO for the bridge, for the pedestrian bridge. MR. METIVIER-No, CO for the water park. MR. VOLLARO-CO for the water park. MR. HUNSINGER-For the hotel, yes. MR. VOLLARO-And so I felt it was our responsibility to follow up in order to meet that requirement of the Planning Board Findings Statement that was done in 2004, and I have that statement with me. There are members of this Board who have never read that, or weren’t here when these Findings Statements were made. So if the people who haven’t read it, want it, I’ll read just one paragraph from the Findings Statement. Do you folks want to hear that? MR. FORD-Sure, go ahead. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The meat of it is this, that we were talking about, the pedestrian bridge, this is a set of Findings from the Planning Board. It says The Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency for SEQRA review of the Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Great Escape Hotel and Water Park, and these Findings were adopted on May 20, 2004, and the operative paragraph here, I feel, concerning this letter was, it says therefore, the Planning Board findings that The Great Escape shall use its best efforts to complete construction of the pedestrian bridge prior to or concurrently with opening of the Hotel Water Park resort. Best efforts shall mean that The Great Escape must pursue construction of the pedestrian bridge vigorously, and provide the Planning Board with clear evidence, on an ongoing basis, including written, quarterly reports, that the bridge approval and construction process are proceeding with all appropriate speed, taking into consideration any factors or development outside of The Great Escape’s control. So long as The Great Escape has provided evidence to the Planning Board that it has met its obligation to use its best efforts in pursuit of the timely completion of the pedestrian bridge, there will be no delay in opening of the Hotel Water Park resort. If the Planning Board finds, after consultation with Board, Staff, engineering consultants, and counsel, that Great Escape has failed to use its best efforts in pursuit thereof, the Planning Board may suspend or withhold the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the hotel waterpark until the Planning 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) Board is satisfied that Great Escape has indeed used its best efforts to remove any remaining obstacles to the completion of the pedestrian bridge. Now, when Mr. Lemery came in to talk to Staff, he wanted a discussion item to talk about getting the CO, and Marilyn called me and sent me an e-mail, as a matter of fact, and then called me on the phone and said, could you pen a draft that goes back to Mr. Lemery concerning the subject, and what you’ve read is what I penned as a draft, and it’s just that, it’s a draft. It can be changed. I have an e-mail from Mr. Hunsinger who thinks that it should be changed, and I won’t go into what’s in the e-mail, because I don’t think it’s appropriate, but what my intention was here, in order to try to determine what their best efforts were, to talk to people that they’ve had to work with, and I’ve checked this out. This is not just my idea, but I’ve checked it out like people like the Department of Transportation, people like National Grid, Time Warner, Adelphia, and Verizon do, indeed, put information like this out. This is not something I dreamed up. They have a method of replying to these types of questions, and we’ve asked The Great Escape to please go back and get information of that type from those five entities. I’ve gotten information from one Board member, namely Thomas Ford, that says what he would like to do, rather than have The Great Escape do that, he would rather have our Planning Staff do that on behalf of the Planning Board, and he has reasons for that, and I’ll let him describe those reasons, if he will. MR. FORD-My feeling is if we’re going to try to make that determination of best effort, we should be the ones making the contact rather than putting the onus on the one being evaluated for best effort by these five entities. MR. HUNSINGER-The Chairman commented earlier that I had provided a written comment, and maybe my e-mail did come across a bit harsh, and when I read this letter, I read it as if, how would I like to be the recipient of this letter, and in the Findings Statement that you just read, one of the measures of best effort was to provide the Planning Board with a quarterly report, which they have done, and at every quarterly report they give us a pretty accurate description of where they are in the process, what the hurdles have been, what the delays have been, and what they have attempted to do to resolve those, and I guess, you know, my feeling was if there was any indication by anyone on this Board that there was any reason to withhold a Certificate of Occupancy that it should have been brought up some time ago. I mean, the last quarterly report until the most recent correspondence was in October. It was distributed to the Planning Board in October. Nobody mentioned any concerns or, you know, mentioned any thoughts that The Great Escape was acting in anything but their best effort. So to have gone through this for literally two years and to now come back and say, geez, Great Escape, we don’t think you did use best effort, even though you gave us an accurate description of where you were every quarter, and not only do we not believe you, but, you know, we want you to prove to us that you did, by going to these other agencies and getting letters from them, I mean, I can only imagine, I’m not trying to be argumentative to the Chairman, but one of the things I did mention in my e-mail, I have a couple of projects at work that have been delayed by DOT by literally three years, you know, projects that were on DOT’s list to be funded, and then when those projects, when the schedule was supposed to begin, DOT said, well, we don’t have the money now and we’re going to delay this until the next construction season. I mean, the agencies listed as being those that we would try to get these letters from are the ones that have been responsible for the delays, and traditionally are ones that are difficult to work with and cause delays in projects. It’s just my opinion, but I just don’t see, I understand your intent in trying to document and prove that best effort was made, but again, I think if there was a concern about that, it should have been raised before the time when they want to open the Hotel. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the only reason that Staff requested this letter is the fact that Lemery was bringing up the issue of the CO now, and in order for us to say yes to the CO, to his request, because they are getting a Temporary CO that’s being issued by Mr. Hatin, and of course I’ve never understood the value of a Temporary CO. Dave Hatin tells me that the reason they’re issuing this Temporary CO is to allow The Great Escape to perform training on the Hotel site, and I said to him, you have a Temporary CO issued to the Quality Inn that is on Aviation Road that’s owned by Mr. Bhatti and yet that’s functioning as a full, operating hotel and motel, with people in it. So if we give The Great Escape a Temporary, it seems to me that it kind of negates the whole idea of when we say you can get a CO or agree that they made their best efforts on the CO. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I don’t want to dominate the discussion here. MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s okay, Chris. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. HUNSINGER-There was very lengthy discussion on several occasions about how this project would be phased and when the bridge is needed, and it was made very clear by this Board that the Hotel could, construction on the Hotel could commence and the Hotel could even open. The concern was that the pedestrian bridge be completed prior to the opening of the Park in May, and according to the letter, the most recent letter from Lemery Greisler, they’re still on schedule for that to occur. So I guess I’m confused as to why we’re going through this exercise when all indication is that the bridge will be in place when the Park opens in May, and really that should be the focus of our discussion in my mind. Not whether or not a, I mean, maybe they’ve asked for a permanent CO. I think that’s a pretty easy answer, no. Because they haven’t met the requirement to have the pedestrian bridge installed. Is a Temporary CO reasonable? I think it’s reasonable, and then the permanent one just not be issued until the bridge is completed. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think that’s the case. I think they’re saying so long as they’ve demonstrated that they have made a best effort, and the Hotel opens in May, they want a CO for that, even if the bridge is not completed. If they’ve strived and made a best effort to put that bridge on schedule, I mean, I have a schedule home dated March 30, 2004 which shows the coincident completion of the bridge and the Hotel in June of 2005. MR. HUNSINGER-I remember that. I remember that well. MR. VOLLARO-Now, from the little I know, we’re sitting here and it’s January, February, March, April, May, I don’t see how that pedestrian bridge is going to be done in that time. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe they’ll make May, but if they don’t, they’re still saying, hey, wait a second, we made our best efforts, we missed, but our best efforts said, we’re entitled to the CO, and I think they are, if they can demonstrate to me and to the rest of the Board that they’ve made a best effort. This particular piece of paper is just put out as a draft, in my way of trying to determine that. I’ve read all, each and every one of their quarterlies, and most of their quarterlies are very self-serving. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, of course they are. MR. VOLLARO-We’re doing very well and we’re working very hard, you know, and I understand why they would do that, but I don’t have any way to confirm that, and I guess I’m frustrated because I don’t. I have no way to ascertain best efforts, other than talking to people who work with The Great Escape in terms of getting the bridge going, and giving me the comfort feeling that says, yes, they did the best they could, and that’s the whole basis of this letter, and the fact that it’s a draft, it hasn’t gone out to John Lemery or his law firm at all. It’s here as a straw man, basically, for this Board to think about and maybe somebody else to write a letter, because I was asked to write this. I mean, this isn’t just come out one day and Bob sat down and decided to write this letter. I got a call from Marilyn that said we want you to pen something to him. MR. SEGULJIC-Maybe I’m missing something, but when I look on the schedule on the last page of Lemery’s letter, the only two utilities they’re waiting on are National Grid, which is supposed to start work January, begin raising the services January 23, and Verizon which is rd beginning conduit installation. MR. VOLLARO-That’s on his last quarterly report. MR. SEGULJIC-So all of that should be occurring very soon, right? The others are all taken care of, as I read it. MR. VOLLARO-Well, yes, but see all I’m trying to do here, I’m not trying to, Tom, to institute a schedule, but I’m trying to get this Board, in accordance with the Findings Statement, to have the comfort feeling, every member, that they’ve made their best effort, and this is all I want to do, but I don’t know how to do that. How do you know? How can you tell me, without even talking to somebody that they work with, that they’ve made a best effort? I don’t know how to do that, and that was in our Findings Statement. That’s what we asked. So, if somebody’s got a better idea. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess one of the things, it says National Grid to begin raising its services on January 23. Is that going to happen that week? Does that happen that week. rd 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but that’s a scheduling issue, Tom. That’s really an issue that says, if it doesn’t happen that week, I’ll happen the week after or the week after or the week after. This may not have anything to do with The Great Escape’s best effort at all. The Vice Chairman has a point that some of these organizations can drag their feet and cause chaos, but I just want to know, in their view, and maybe this is very hard to extract from an organization like that, but in their view, has The Great Escape done their best effort to get this bridge done on time, and I can’t say it any more than that. If somebody has a better way of determining that, well, let them speak now. I’ll try to perhaps, in deference here to the Vice Chairman, here, I would rather, I might try to soften this some, but if he’s got a better idea as to how we do this best effort analysis, I’d certainly listen. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, again, the Findings Statement defines part of the definition of best effort is by providing the Planning Board with clear evidence on an ongoing basis including written, quarterly progress reports, which they have done. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but I’ve read them all, you know, Chris, and they’re very self-serving documents. They really are. MR. HUNSINGER-I realize and appreciate that. MR. FORD-Perhaps the time to have challenged that would have been when they were presented, rather than trying to retroact and retrofit it. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s what I was sort of arguing. MR. VOLLARO-That’s absolutely true. MR. FORD-But I know you were asked to write a letter. So you wrote a letter. MR. VOLLARO-I wrote a letter. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I understand your concern. The concern is, was to prohibit the lodge from getting their Certificate of Occupancy, the Park from opening, without the bridge being completed. MR. VOLLARO-Because there’s a big safety issue there. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s huge, and we have all gone on record saying that that was our primary concern is that the Park not open before the bridge is constructed, and I think if, you know, if we were to draft a letter back saying that is our primary concern and to that end we don’t feel comfortable with a permanent Certificate of Occupancy until the bridge is constructed, you know, maybe that’s the direction we take with the letter. MR. VOLLARO-See, I like that approach, except that I know Lemery will pick that apart based on this Paragraph Six. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, then let’s have Counsel draft the letter, if the concern is that it would be a legal challenge. MR. VOLLARO-I can get back to Marilyn. Marilyn won’t be in this week, I don’t believe. MRS. BARDEN-I think she’s in tomorrow. MR. VOLLARO-She’s in tomorrow? Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Has Counsel seen this letter? MRS. BARDEN-I don’t know, Chris. MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t think so. I think that Craig took it and put his little cover on it said, let the Planning Board take a look at the draft. MR. HUNSINGER-It is copied to Town Counsel. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see that. 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. HUNSINGER-On Craig’s memo, or I’m sorry, Marilyn’s memo. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got Craig Brown, attached herewith. MR. HUNSINGER-I think this was included in our Board package, perhaps, or it came in a separate mailing. There’s a memo from Marilyn to the Planning Board and Town Counsel, Great Escape Pedestrian Bridge Quarterly Status Report dated January 10. th MR. VOLLARO-That’s the latest one. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-We just got. MRS. BARDEN-Yes, I just gave you that tonight. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that went to Counsel. A copy of this letter that I drafted. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, no, that’s not what I was asking. I was asking if the letter from Mr. Lemery was shared with Counsel. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know the answer to that. I don’t know whether Marilyn sent that to him or not. MR. FORD-May I just address this? You’ve given me an interesting and very helpful historical perspective that I wasn’t privy to prior to tonight, because I didn’t sit in on all of those quarterly reports. It seems to me that the issue, the focus of the issue has been sharpened. We do not want that permanent CO to be issued until that bridge is completed. I think that’s where we should focus our effort, rather than trying to determine the value of their efforts over the last X number of years. MR. VOLLARO-Let me go back in history a little. That was this Board’s opinion, and I have my draft to Chris Round, as to how I wanted the words to read in this paragraph, and what I wrote at that time, and I have it home, is exactly what you said, that a Certificate of Occupancy would not be issued for the Hotel Water Park until such time as the pedestrian bridge was in place and operating. Those are my words, and in discussions back and forth, we got to this best effort thing, but when Chris asked for comments on, Chris Round, that is, asked for comments on the Findings Statement as they were being prepared, my comment, and this Board I think all agreed at that time, the members that were on it, all agreed with what Chris Hunsinger is now saying, that we would not issue a CO to the Water Park until such time as the bridge was in place and operating for safety reasons. We always talked about the safety issue, people jumping across Route 9 in a hurry. There’ll be no lights there because the lights are being moved to the Glen Lake Road, but I think that what we gravitated down to was this best effort thing as a negotiation with Lemery and company. That’s my analysis of what happened. Now, we never had, for example, these quarterly reports just come from Marilyn to us. We never sat in. There was no, there’s no sitting in on the quarterly reports. They come as a piece of paper. They come in an envelope. I get tons of mail. I’ve got stacks of paper, and I stand accused, I guess, for not commenting as a Board member on each and every one of them as to the validity of that particular one, and I didn’t do that, but, you know, I didn’t know that, I read it and I said, well, okay, I’ve got them home, every one of them, and this will be the last one, but I said to myself, none of these things prove to me that they’ve given a best effort. So, that’s where I am. MR. METIVIER-I’m just going to go on the record and just say one thing. In the last five or so years, we’ve really made things difficult for The Great Escape, and I don’t think at this point we should start playing hardball with them. I understand your point and the safety issues, but you have to understand, too, that The Great Escape isn’t going to open up this Spring and not have lights or traffic, you know, they have a lot at stake, too. MR. VOLLARO-Sure they do. MR. METIVIER-So let’s, for once, I truly feel they’ve done what they’ve needed to do. They’ve cooperated with us. They’ve given us the quarterly reports, and however you want to read it or look into it or say, all right, this is self-gratifying to them, so be it, but at the 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) same time, they’ve done what we asked them to do. The project is moving forward. They want to open this Park. Let’s, for once, give them the benefit of the doubt. Not to say that, you know, we have to just embrace it with open arms, and say, you know what, you didn’t get the bridge up, but that’s okay, but at the same time, don’t make it difficult for them. They’ve really done everything we’ve asked them to do. You have to figure there’s a new guy in there. John Collins is gone. You don’t know what the hell is going on with him and he doesn’t know what’s going on with us. They’re still on target. They might be delayed a few weeks. So be it. You’ve got to realize, that this new guy is in place. So just let’s for once show them that we, too, can work with them. MR. VOLLARO-Tony, that’s an approach. My problem is I have a Findings Statement that keeps standing in my way. I would love to be able to say, look, when you get done, you get done. MR. METIVIER-And I’m not saying that, but you have to understand, I mean, they are scheduled to open up this Park next week. They have parties planned, and they have events planned. MR. VOLLARO-They’re going to open it up, without us. They have a Temporary CO to do it. MR. SALVADOR-May I, sir? MR. VOLLARO-John, you want to approach? You can if you want. MR. SALVADOR-Not too long, please. It’s getting late. There is no provision in the law to issue a Temporary CO, period. MR. VOLLARO-I checked with Dave Hatin on that, and that’s all I can do. MR. SALVADOR-I’m sure. MR. VOLLARO-And Dave Hatin is telling me there is a provision in the law for Temporary CO’s. MR. SALVADOR-Well, then, have you seen it? MR. VOLLARO-No, I have not, sir. MR. SALVADOR-The Water Park is a temporary residence with a little recreation pool on the side. I used to run one of these, okay. I know the procedure for getting a permit from the New York State Department of Health, to modify, build, whatever, a temporary residence, okay. It requires filing the drawings, getting them approved, and completing the project as designed and then getting a CO or a permit to operate the residence from the Health Department. No provision for a temporary permit, absolutely none. Now, Mr. Hatin, and I went through this with the Quality Inn. It took me three months to get to the bottom of the story, okay. The Health Department defers, providing this Town enforces the Health Department regulations, with regard to the construction of that temporary residence, okay, they defer to Mr. Hatin. I would ask Mr. Hatin to show you where in the law there is a provision for him to issue a Temporary CO. I never heard of such a thing. What’s the definition of temporary? How much has to be complete or not complete? The Quality Inn, the stairways didn’t have the railings on them, and he issued a Temporary CO in a lodging facility. That’s incredible. That’s incredible. That’s the problem. The project has to be completed, as designed, or authorized changes on the table, okay, certified, and then the CO can be issued. That gives them the privilege to operate a temporary residence. That’s what they are under New York State law. It goes to taxation. It goes to health, it goes to everything they do. Their employees, handicapped accessible, everything. Now we have taken on a tremendous burden from the Health Department, okay, I mean, to inspect these facilities, I know what’s involved in getting a temporary residence permit. It’s the water, it’s the laundry, it’s the toilets, it’s everything, including your employees, okay, including the employees. Now let me just say a few words about the bridge. Do we understand the scope of a pedestrian bridge that they’re building? Do we have the scope of the project in hand? MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t. I mean, I couldn’t take the test and give you answers on that. 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. SALVADOR-I asked Mr. Hatin a couple of weeks ago when I saw them working over the on a project, I said have we issued a building permit for the pedestrian bridge? He said, we don’t permit bridges. That’s absolutely right. We don’t. The Town does not permit bridges, as defined in Highway law, a bridge across a road, okay. This is not a roadway bridge. This is a pedestrian bridge. It’s not to be likened to a DOT bridge which they, DOT issues permits, does the inspection, everything on bridges, highway bridges, no question about it. We’re not involved. Okay. This is a different animal. This is a pedestrian bridge. I have no idea. I’m waiting to see how are they going to handle handicap access. It’s got to be barrier free. Don’t we want that in our Town. Isn’t that a part of the scope? I don’t know how they’re going to do it. I have no idea how they’re going to do it. Has anybody seen drawings that they’re going to do that? Now we haven’t permitted it. Who’s going to issue the CO for it? MR. VOLLARO-Well, you know, as far as this Board is concerned, we’re trying to, for me, what I need to know, as a Board member, is that a CO has been issued. How it got issued, just somebody has got to tell me, yes, there is a Certificate of Occupancy for this Hotel. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, but they’re telling you a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. Are you going to accept that? I mean, a Temporary, maybe they’re just allowed to use the foyer. I don’t know. MR. VOLLARO-Dave told me so long as the lights, the electricity, lighting, plumbing, right down to whether or not there was a laundry facility running and all of that. So long as he was satisfied that the building was safe to operate, in terms of all the things, water, that he could issue a Temporary CO. Hey, you know, I wasn’t going to argue with him because I don’t know enough about the subject, I really don’t. MR. SALVADOR-Well, it’s not to be likened to a residential dwelling, okay. A hotel, a complex situation like that, involves water treatment, all of that stuff. Those are the things that the Health Department regulates. Okay. Those are the things you have to demonstrate are working. I don’t think we care anything about a swimming pool in somebody’s back yard that the disinfectant is working right, when it comes to residential, and we don’t do commercial. The Health Department does. The Health Department does that, on an annual basis. MR. VOLLARO-This is almost like a seminar’s worth of stuff. MR. SALVADOR-It’s complex, I understand. It’s complex, but we have to begin to recognize that that Hotel, first and foremost, is within, under New York State law, a temporary residence, and there’s a specification for what you have to do to qualify to get a permit to operate. MR. VOLLARO-John, I understand all that. I think I understand all that. I’m not sure. What our concern was, as a Planning Board, when we did the Findings Statement and when Chris Round did these statements, our fundamental concern here was safety. MR. SALVADOR-I understand. It’s a valid concern. MR. VOLLARO-And we said, without the bridge, we didn’t want to give a CO to the Water Park or the Hotel. The Great Escape negotiated with us via Lemery and company, and it got watered down to the thing that’s called best efforts. I know, what I wrote to Chris Round was exactly what Mr. Hunsinger has said he would like, and I think Tony as well, that the bridge should be completed coincident with the operation of the Hotel. Then they get a full CO and everything would be fine, but I think what Lemery is saying he asked Marilyn Ryba for a discussion with this Board talking about the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy now. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, even if we were to do that, I’m not sure how accurate this is, but in the October 25 memo that Marilyn sent to us with the quarterly report, she says, and I th quote, the Planning Board does have the discretion to suspend or withhold a Certificate of Occupancy for the Hotel and Water Park if it decides efforts have not been made in good faith, and I guess I’m emphasizing suspend or withhold. So what that’s telling me is, this Temporary CO, which apparently is not really legal. MR. SALVADOR-No foundation for it, I would say. 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s really a Certificate of Occupancy. Let’s just assume that it is a real Certificate of Occupancy. We, as the Planning Board, could decide to suspend that if we felt that they didn’t make best efforts. MR. SALVADOR-That’s putting a hell of a burden on you. MR. HUNSINGER-It is, but the record has also been very clear that, you know, our concern is the Park opening, well, not just the Park opening, but the Hotel opening and the Park being open at the same time, without the pedestrian bridge. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s not an either/or. It’s both at the same time. So, you know, when it comes time for the Park to open in May, and that bridge isn’t built, I think there’s certainly plenty of ground for us to say, suspend the Certificate of Occupancy for the Hotel. MR. SALVADOR-Well, I can tell you from my experience in this field. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not saying it will be easy. MR. SALVADOR-I would see no problem in completing that bridge, and I don’t care what the scope is, it may take all the horses and all the king’s men, but it would not be impossible to complete a bridge across that road by May, absolutely not. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think so, either. Look how fast the bridge went up on Quaker Road, the bike trail bridge. MR. SALVADOR-But you’ve got to see this, as Mr. Vollaro says, you’ve got to see this in a plan. What are the elements? What’s the scope, who’s doing what when? What if they’re faced with a strike? I don’t know. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that would be beyond their control. The difference in the bridge going across Quaker was that was a pre-constructed three piece bridge, if you remember. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it was, yes, they brought it in by crane, and just lowered it down into place. MR. VOLLARO-My understanding is that this bridge is going to be built on site, steel by steel. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-So fabricated. MR. VOLLARO-It’s going to be fabricated here. MR. SALVADOR-And then lifted in place. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-Not unusual. MR. VOLLARO-Not unusual. MR. FORD-And not impossible. MR. VOLLARO-Not impossible. MR. SALVADOR-It’s not unusual. MR. METIVIER-Well, Bob, I think you need to take the approach, it’s now the middle of January, that you have a letter drafted to Lemery indicating that we understand that they’re currently operating under a Temporary CO, all fine and dandy, but they have to understand that by the opening of the Park in May, that bridge needs to be completed or, you know, you have the authority, as Planning Board or Planning Department or whatever to withdraw 69 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) that Temporary CO if you so choose, or we so choose, or something, and get that out to him now so he knows that he has February, March, April, you know, and May to get this stuff done. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ll only make a draft, because I need a draft approved by members of the Board. I won’t send anything to anybody unless this Board approves. MR. METIVIER-Well, you have to also send it to Counsel for them to verify before it goes out. MR. VOLLARO-So far it’s just a draft. We’ve picked up a lot of information tonight. I think if we send that letter, and I think you’re right because I think it’s what we want, we’ll get repercussions back from them saying that, wait a second, we made our best efforts. Our best efforts weren’t good enough. The bridge isn’t ready. You owe us a CO. MR. METIVIER-We don’t owe them anything, but we can work with them. MR. HUNSINGER-They aren’t saying in their latest letter that they can’t meet that. They’re saying that they can. I think we take them at their face value and we call their bluff and say, hey, you haven’t given us any indication in your latest correspondence that you can’t meet that requirement and we expect you to meet that requirement. MR. VOLLARO-And, you know what, from my past experience in my past life, when I got that schedule in March 30, 2004, the letters that come to us, these completion reports or these progress reports ought to have a scheduled tied to them that shows where they’re delinquent and why. Words don’t cut it. They really don’t. What I’d like to see, you’re probably right. This is the schedule as we see it now. Tell us what it is, and tell us when you’re going to be, the same schedule you gave us before, exactly the same, elongate it out to the present months, tell us when the bridge is going to be built. Do it, the people that write those schedules are basically the LA Group. That’s who’s projecting this operation. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-And I will FOIL from Mr. Hatin his authority to issue a Temporary CO for anything. I would like to see where that’s authorized. MR. VOLLARO-I think you’re entitled to do whatever you want to do. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, I can do that. MR. VOLLARO-That’s strictly between you and Mr. Hatin. MR. SALVADOR-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, they’re saying in this most recent quarterly report that in May of 2006, construction of bridge, decking and ramps. MR. VOLLARO-Will be complete. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So we’re saying, okay, you say you’re going to do it in May. We’re just saying you’ve got to do it by May 13 or whatever the date is that they’re going to open. th MR. VOLLARO-In March of 2004 they said we’ll be done in June. That’s the validity of the schedule. I’ve got to tell you, Chris, in my past life, if I was this late, I’d be on the street. That’s just the way it is. MR. GOETZ-I understand your concerns, Bob, but I also understand where Chris and Tony are coming from, and essentially what they’re doing is they’re saying, okay, you’ve got this Temporary whatever, but it’s not going to happen when it comes for a permanent thing if you aren’t ready as you say. It’s putting the pressure on them to perform, and it’s reminding them that we’re looking, and I think that’s, will do it in a very efficient way. MR. SALVADOR-You could exercise your right to nullify, withdraw, whatever you do, the Temporary CO in May if you’re not satisfied that the bridge is open. That’s a right you have. 70 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think so, in the way the Findings Statement is written. MR. HUNSINGER-Marilyn’s memo said that. That’s why I said, I don’t know how accurate that is, but she did say that in her memo. MR. SALVADOR-Fall back on that. MR. VOLLARO-I’m not sure that she was reading the Findings Statement when she wrote that letter. I don’t know. MR. FORD-As an accompanying issue here, based upon what someone had indicated earlier, relative to the plan, is it not in the purview of this Board to review the plan for that pedestrian bridge? MR. HUNSINGER-I think we did. MR. METIVIER-We did actually do that. MR. HUNSINGER-They came before us for site plan review. MR. METIVIER-Right down to the color, to the sign on it, lighting, everything, and it’s unfortunate. You made the comment, has anybody seen the bridge, and, yes, we have seen the bridge. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we saw the plans. MR. METIVIER-We just can’t recall what the ramps are, and you’re absolutely right, what’s the handicapped access. Obviously there has to be some, but I don’t know if it’s elevated or if it’s ramped. I just don’t remember. MR. HUNSINGER-I think there was a switch back of ramps. MR. METIVIER-I wish it was more helpful and we could tell you what the hell is going on with it, but we just can’t. MR. FORD-Can’t commit everything to memory. MR. METIVIER-Well, I try. MR. VOLLARO-So in order to wrap this up at a reasonable hour, you want me to try to draft a second piece here. Well, Chris, do you want to take a crack at it? MR. HUNSINGER-That’ll teach me for speaking. MR. VOLLARO-And you have a copy of the Findings Statement home? MR. HUNSINGER-I do, I have one right here. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Just read that first and then write your piece. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-So that it fits this, because this is what we said we wanted. I don’t know if we can back away from that or not. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think we can either. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. John, you said you wanted to have something else? MR. SALVADOR-Yes, a couple of things. You opened the meeting tonight with giving some ground rules. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’m trying to limit the amount of public input when it’s just rambling on. Five minutes is what I’m giving people here. 71 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. SALVADOR-Yes. I would like to suggest a couple of things. Number One, that the public hearing be left open until you’re ready to vote. Until you’re ready to vote, leave the public hearing open. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s what I tried to do tonight, and Chris pointed out, did we do a SEQRA when the public hearing was closed. MR. SALVADOR-Well, my point is this. During your deliberations and the give and take back and forth, and the questions you ask, the project can take on an altogether different light. Concessions by the applicant, input by Staff, questions that you have. All of a sudden, whoa, what have we got here? You’ve got something else, and if the public is cut off from coming back in to address what they think is a concern that has come as a result of your deliberations, they’re cut off. There’s no rebuttal, is what I’m saying, okay. You allow the applicant to come back and rebut, but you don’t allow the public to. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I did say there’d be a follow-up if the public came back with a piece of information that was different than what they already said. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, all right. MR. VOLLARO-But I tend to agree with you. I’d like to keep the public hearing open until we go to vote, and then close it and then vote. Is there a prohibition to that? MR. METIVIER-Just the SEQRA. We can’t do SEQRA until you close the public hearing. MR. SALVADOR-Then do the SEQRA just before you vote. MR. METIVIER-That is typically what we do in most of those instances. MR. FORD-Close the public hearing, go to SEQRA, and vote. MR. METIVIER-Okay, and we typically have done that. I think tonight in one aspect we did jump ahead to do a SEQRA. MR. SALVADOR-Good. That’s that. MR. VOLLARO-I find this book very good. I’ve used it a lot. I’m going to look and check that out when I get home. MR. HUNSINGER-Usually you get a feel for the Board if they want to move forward before you close the public hearing, and if you suspect that the Board wants to table it, we leave the public hearing open. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. The other thing, the other point I’d like to make is that before you open the public hearing, you have to understand, the public doesn’t have the benefit of the project packet that you have. Unless they take the trouble to come here and FOIL everything, that sort of thing, not to say that the Staff is not cooperative in that respect, but it does take time, it does cost money, that sort of thing. So they tend not, they come here and they’re listening, what is this project, and so you open it up and the applicant makes a few comments, and I think maybe you should deliberate with the applicant to frame the project so the public hears what is this project all about, and then they can more intelligently present their comments. The other thing that would facilitate the whole process is that the written comments be read before the public comments. This way, if someone has very professionally put forth an argument, okay, why should we waste our time trying to come up and articulate the same argument? We could just come to the phone quickly and say, I second the motion. It’s over with, but all too often that comes at the end and maybe it’s diffused by what’s been going on ahead of time, and these comments that are written, okay, are coming from people who, you know who they are, they’re working in the industry. They know their business. They know the Codes, this sort of thing, and I think they carry a lot of weight, and it would be good to hear those first before the public comments. I try to prepare for the meeting. I try to prepare for it. A lot of people don’t, but if you want to have a public hearing meaningful, then it’s got to be laid out, otherwise people are going to go away. 72 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/06) MR. VOLLARO-Well, you notice tonight, I don’t very often call for the notes, Staff notes to be read. My assumption there is that all Planning Board members have read the notes. So when you read them to us, I say to myself, I’ve already read this. I know what it says. MRS. BARDEN-I think it’s mostly for the benefit of the public. MR. VOLLARO-It is, but the public isn’t able to connect to easily to those Staff notes, because they’re very specific, and you have to have looked at drawings to understand what your Staff notes are saying. They’re pretty much detached from those Staff notes. What John is saying here is that we’ve got to try to deliberate in a fashion that brings them in to what we’re talking about. Not an easy thing to do. MR. SALVADOR-The ZBA does read Staff notes in the project. MR. VOLLARO-The Secretary reads them in in the ZBA meeting. I noticed that. He doesn’t have you read them, Susan. MRS. BARDEN-No, the Secretary does, and all public comment. MR. FORD-I don’t think the public will be disenfranchised if we get their input early on before our deliberations, but not close the public hearing until we go to SEQRA. It will still be open, so they can rejoin, rebut, add to, whatever, just not close it off. MR. SALVADOR-I don’t want to abuse the privilege. Thank you very much. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. We’ll adjourn the meeting. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Vollaro, Chairman 73