Loading...
2006-04-18 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 18, 2006 INDEX Site Plan No. 16-2005 BMI 1. EXTENSION Site Plan No. 67-2005 Jeffrey Schwartz 1. Tax Map No. 308.20-1-2 Site Plan No. 61-2004 Great Escape Pedestrian Bridge 2. DISCUSSION Freshwater Wetlands Permit No. FWW 5-2005 Jeffrey Kilburn 23. Tax Map No. 295.15-1-30 Site Plan No. 64-2005 Jeffrey Kilburn 24. Tax Map No. 295.15-1-30 Subdivision No. 9-2003 Michaels Group 28. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 278.20-1-5.1, 5.2, 5.3 Site Plan No. 11-2006 Paul Lotters 35. Tax Map No. 226.15-1-9 Subdivision No. 4-1993 Guido Passarelli 39. MODIFICATION Tax Map No.296.5-1-17, 18 Subdivision No. 5-2006 Scott Spellburg 43. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 265.-1-2 Site Plan No. 12-2006 Quaker Electric Supply 51. Tax Map No. 296.17-1-44 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 04/18/06) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 18, 2006 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT VOLLARO, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY CHRIS HUNSINGER THOMAS SEGULJIC DONALD SIPP, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT ANTHONY METIVIER THOMAS FORD LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. VOLLARO-We have a little housekeeping to do this evening, so I’ll just get on with it. We were supposed to do a motion to extend an application for the Hayes and Hayes brothers. That’s been put off until April 25. So we won’t be doing that tonight, even though I think I th sent a message out to that effect. We do have two, one for BMI Supply, and I’ll read that off. RESOLUTIONS: SP 16-2005 BMI: REQUESTING EXTENSION 4/19/07 [APPROVED 4/18/05] MR. VOLLARO-This site plan was approved on April 18, 2005 and the applicant has requested an extension for purposes of construction of a 3,000 square foot extension to an existing warehouse and office building. MOTION TO EXTEND THE APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN NO. 16-2005 BMI UNTIL APRIL 18, 2007, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: Duly adopted this 18 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ford MR. VOLLARO-The next one is for Jeffrey Schwartz. SP 67-2005 J. SCHWARTZ: TABLED TO 4/18/06 [TABLE TO JUNE 2006] MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 67-2005 JEFFREY SCHWARTZ, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: Until June 27, 2006. A previous tabling motion, dated February 21, 2006 tabled this site plan to an unspecified date. That tabling motion contained seven specific questions which were given to the applicant’s agent, Mr. Peter J. Brown, for resolution prior to proceeding with Site Plan No. 67-2005. These seven questions were discussed with Mr. Schwartz and Mr. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) Brown, at a special meeting with Staff on February 1, 2006. Since our last meeting with the applicant on February 21, 2006, Staff has received no information on this application. If no information is received by May 15, 2006, the applicant will be denied without prejudice. Duly adopted this 18 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ford MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Is our attorney supposed to be here tonight? MRS. BARDEN-He is. He phoned and said he’d be a few minutes late, but you can start. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. We’re going to begin tonight’s meeting with a discussion with The Great Escape. DISCUSSION: SP 61-2004: GREAT ESCAPE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DISCUSSION MR. VOLLARO-Now we don’t have an application in front of us for this, and I think the people from The Great Escape, as I see, are sitting right up front here. So, Mr. Lemery, if you wish to approach the Board, we can commence. JOHN LEMERY MR. LEMERY-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m John Lemery, Counsel to The Great Escape Theme Park and also to HWP Development, the owner of the Hotel. With me is Scott Mauphin, Vice President and General Manager of The Great Escape Theme Park and also Vice President, Senior, of the Hotel, and Dan Williams, the General Manager of the Hotel, is here. Ed Lawson from Creighton Manning Engineers is here to answer any traffic questions you might have tonight and our bridge contractor is here, Todd Cochran, from Kubricky Construction Company. Todd is managing the bridge construction. The purpose of tonight’s meeting, we asked to be put on the agenda is to request that you, in accordance with the Findings, going back to 2004, that the Planning Board consent to the issuance of the CO for the Park, or for the Hotel, rather. The Findings, the Planning Board Findings, required that The Great Escape use its best efforts to complete construction of the pedestrian bridge prior to or concurrently with the opening of the Hotel, and I’m quoting now, so long as The Great Escape has provided evidence to the Planning Board that it’s 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 the hotel water park resort. I want to cite, too, the fact that in accordance with your direction, the Planning Board’s direction, The Great Escape Theme Park provided quarterly reports going all the way back to when the issue was originally addressed when we came in in December of 2003 with the hotel water park plan. I have here, I have brought with me all of the reports, the quarterly reports that we provided to the Planning Board. Last June we came in to your Board, June of ’05, and asked to modify the site plan because we had to move the bridge. Where it was positioned by the engineers didn’t work. It took some serious engineer that it had to be moved 100 feet to the north to get it out of the peak. There were also some issues with the sewer line that was put in by the Town. So we had to move it. We were here before the Board at that time, and since then, I think we’ve provided our quarterly reports, and I think we’ve moved the bridge forward as best we could, given the fact that there are, as I said in my response letter to you, many indisparite entities which are involved in this project. So I have, as I said, the people from Kubricky here tonight. The steel supports are going to be here at the end of April. They will not be here sooner. Part of our problem has been the size of the girders have created a problem for the steel manufacturer. Another part of the problem is that we’re competing with all of the steel going south, as a result of the hurricanes, and so getting into the queue and getting our steel ready has been, it’s not determined to have been a priority by the steel company. So we finally now are in the queue, and the steel is supposed to be here by the end of April, and as soon as it gets here, it will be placed on the span and things will get moving. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Then it is a pre-engineered, pre-constructed steel bridge, is that correct, in other words, very similar to what was done on Quaker Road, it would be dropped onto the piers? MR. LEMERY-No. It’s not a typical. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It’s got to be constructed on the site, pretty much? TODD COCHRAN MR. COCHRAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you. MR. LEMERY-So that’s our situation. As far as the hotel, water park is concerned, let me just give you a few statistics, because I think it’s quite a bit of good news. The hotel water park employs 194 full time people and 97 part time employees at this time. Sixty-two of the employees at the Park are Queensbury residents. 154 are Warren County residents. 45 of those employees are youngsters, under 18 years of age. We have the Bed Tax Report for February and the Sales Tax Report for February, and the estimates for March. The Bed Tax in February was $24,004 dollars. The Bed Tax for March is estimated at $42,000 for the month. The sales tax for February was $65,000. The sales taxes estimated for March $100,000. So, the hotel is really jamming and it’s been full for the last 14 days. The March occupancy rates were way up. April occupancy rates are way up. So it’s been a success, and we’re hopeful that you’ll agree that the bridge is being constructed and that we’re doing our best to get it up within a reasonable timeframe, and we’re here to answer any questions you might have. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you, Mr. Lemery. I’d ask the Board if the Board wants to have any questions. Any member of the Board that would like to address a question or talk to these folks about something you may have on your mind as a Board member, I think we can proceed with that. Mr. Hunsinger, would you like to start that off? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I only have one question, and that is, you know, we certainly have received the quarterly reports that you’ve provided. The only question I really have is, today, what is your best guess for when the bridge would be completed? MR. LEMERY-I’m going to defer that to our contractor, if you don’t mind. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. COCHRAN-It’s going to probably be the end of June, right now, the way the schedule goes, because the steel isn’t coming until about May 1, and then according to DOT specs we st have to wait a certain amount of time before we can put loads on the concrete as we’re pouring it. It’s a concrete deck. The parapets are concrete. You have a waiting time of 14 days after you pour the deck. You have to cure it. So, I mean, that’s two weeks. So, again, if you get it May 1, it’s going to be the end of May before we’ll have everything really close to st be putting the finishing touches on. MR. HUNSINGER-So, actually the last two reports were very consistent in saying May 2006, construction of bridge, decking and ramps. So has that changed? MR. COCHRAN-No. The ramps are still going on. The ramps probably would be poured out by the end of this week, I would hope, and the decking we’ve had delays with getting the steel again, about two weeks. That’s pushing everything back about two weeks. The original schedule was June 20, I think, for finishing up, and we were of course delayed 10 days there, th with getting the steel late. So now we’re pushed back to closer to the end of the month. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. COCHRAN-We’re making every effort to get it done earlier. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll start with the other end. Tom, how about yourself? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. SEGULJIC-Just one question. So the bridge abutments will be ready when the steel arrives? MR. COCHRAN-The bridge abutments are ready. MR. SEGULJIC-They are ready. MR. COCHRAN-Yes, they’ve been done for months now. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So the only thing holding you up now is the steel itself? MR. COCHRAN-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-And that’s beyond your control. MR. COCHRAN-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Gretchen, have you got anything? MRS. STEFFAN-So the letter, I’m looking at a letter from the Department of Transportation. This is dated March 13, and it says that we understood that the signalized th intersection of Route 9 and Glen Lake Road would be complete and operational by mid-May and the new ring road would serve as the sole vehicular access. No, I’m sorry. I’m referring to the wrong thing. It says mid-May. So your best guess is the end of June, and what else could happen, you know, I know that there are always unforeseen things, and what kind of contingency plans might you have in place? MR. LEMERY-Well, before we’d speak to that, though, you mentioned the intersection. Our traffic consultant, I think, can speak to that. We’re expecting the intersection to be done and signaled by the end of May. So that’s all set to go, and the signals should be there, I’ll refer to Ed Lawson for a moment, if he could speak to that. MR. VOLLARO-This is the signal at Glen Lake Road? ED LAWSON MR. LAWSON-Yes. The Glen Lake Road intersection scheduled completion date is May 31. st The light will be on three color at that time. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. LAWSON-The intersection is on schedule. I know we had a letter from the DOT, and we had a utility concern, but that’s all been taken care of and the schedule’s accelerated, and we’re back on the original schedule and the completion date for the County contract. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I have a note here from CME, Mark Kennedy, to that effect. This is the putting up of the utility, something about being ready by I guess today, April 18, 2006. MR. LAWSON-Yes. The utilities are actually completed, very early from what they originally projected. MR. LEMERY-I think the only issue would be the steel, if the steel for the bridge doesn’t arrive. In the meantime, the traffic signal will not be moved down where the Theme Park is, and the light will remain in there for pedestrian crossings until that bridge is completed. So that’s, DOT’s in line with that. So that will be how that’s handled until that is completed, then that light will be removed. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-One of the questions I have is how will, you know, we have a lot of parking lots to deal with, and if the bridge is not done, how will we direct patrons across the road? I mean, how will we ensure that folks aren’t crossing in all different places? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. LAWSON-Prior to the completion of the bridge, which it’s been the plan all along to wait on the southern most signal to be removed, and the elimination of that crosswalk until the bridge is fully operational. We coordinated that with the DOT. So what we’ll do is we’ll cross the patrons at that same crosswalk that we’ve crossed them at for decades now, until such time that the bridge is complete. We will manage that. It will have an intersection, sorry, a signal there. We will manage that also with our own internal Staff, but it’ll be business as usual essentially until that bridge is complete. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m just thinking with that second access, where there used to be a traffic light, that’s obviously where folks turn into the parking lot. MR. LAWSON-Actually, it’s not. The parking that’s on the Park side is generally going to be overflow parking, which it’s been all along for years and years. Handicap parking’s been moved to the west side of the street. So on the Park side of the street where it’s been handicap parking, that will be a pick up, drop off area. That will be where deliveries are made, people can drop their children off there without having to go through the toll plaza. You will enter the parking lot to The Great Escape, even prior to the bridge being completed, up at the intersection that’s being completed at Glen Lake. MRS. STEFFAN-On the ring road. MR. LAWSON-Correct. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. SIPP-I have a question. What’s to keep people parking close to the restaurant from walking right across Route 9? MR. MAUPHIN-It’ll be fenced. MR. SIPP-It will be fenced? MR. MAUPHIN-Yes. If you’ve noticed, if you’ve been up there recently, on the Park side, we’ve replaced the chain link fence along the Park, just south of the intersection, or the pedestrian crosswalk, the steel fencing. That same steel fencing will fence the Route 9 side of all of that parking area. MR. SIPP-Will that be in place? MR. MAUPHIN-Yes, it will be in place. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s a very attractive fence. MR. MAUPHIN-Very expensive, by the way. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m sure. MR. SIPP-The light at the Glen Lake intersection will be in place the day you open the Park? MR. LAWSON-Yes. It will be flashing seven days prior to Memorial Day, which is the 31 of st May. So we’re on schedule for that to be fully completed in time. MR. SIPP-Several people have asked me about the steel pylons, rails that are presently being stored in the gravel pit. Are they to remain there? MR. MAUPHIN-Yes. They will remain. We’re storing them there right now. MRS. STEFFAN-How does that fit within the DEC permit that you have for that particular spot? Is that, I know that you have a mining permit for that particular location, and I was wondering, because I’ve been concerned about that. I drive by it three or four times a day, and it is an eyesore, for lots of reasons, because of the material that’s being dumped there, because of the material that’s being mined out of there, and then the ride that’s stored in pieces of parts there. So I’m wondering how that fits in with the DEC plan. You have had a 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) permit. You’ve renewed that permit, but I’m not sure how your current use meets the requirements of that permit. MR. MAUPHIN-I’m not aware of anything with that permit that would disallow us from storing anything there. The piles of rubble that you see are just temporary during the construction phase of all of our parking areas. That stuff will be flattened back out and made usable for overflow parking. MRS. STEFFAN-Down in that area? MR. MAUPHIN-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I think I would like our Community Development Department or someone to follow up with the DEC on that permit for that. MR. LEMERY-Let me speak to that. It’s a mining permit. DEC doesn’t get involved in what you store on the property. It’s a mining permit to mine, which has been there for 20 years or longer. Charlie Wood had that mining permit. MRS. STEFFAN-But it never looked like that. MR. LEMERY-Well, this is their property. They’re entitled to store what they need to store on their property. Like anybody else in the Town, it’s zoned for it, and it’s temporary. It’s not going to be remaining there, but they had to put it somewhere out of the way of the patrons and the Theme Park while they prepare it. So I don’t think anybody plans any changes for that. MR. VOLLARO-Is there any chance of screening that in some way? Because actually it really doesn’t look good. To be perfectly honest with you, it doesn’t look good at all. MR. MAUPHIN-Well, I’ll answer that. That has nothing to do with the bridge that we’re here to talk about. Believe me, I don’t like that it’s sitting there either. It just has to be there temporarily until we move forward on either putting it in the Park or shipping it to another park. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you know, typically when somebody comes before the Board to discuss anything to do with their project, it sort of opens up the aperture a little bit, so that we can almost discuss just about anything with you. The bridge was the opening discussion, but I think while we’re here in open discussion, some of the things that Board members may want to at least discuss with you, we should be able to communicate in that way. MR. MAUPHIN-And we have. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SIPP-I am concerned about that hillside below the old Kinney house, which right now has no vegetation at all, and is showing signs of sheet erosion which will transform into real erosion which will transform into gully erosion, if nothing is done. It’s a steep slope which was seeded but obviously didn’t take because there’s nothing there now to hold that soil in place. Now, do you have any plans for mitigating that situation? MR. COCHRAN-It’s going to be re-seeded, as far as I know right now. You mean the slope that’s near the Northway? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. COCHRAN-Yes. That’s going to be re-seeded. MR. SIPP-Well we, luckily, have not had a great amount of snowfall or rainfall since January. If we do get some torrential rains, you’re going to have half of that hillside washed down onto the road. MR. VOLLARO-Don, is that the one that’s adjacent to the ring road, is that the one you’re talking about? When you go up the ring road, heading north toward the Glen Lake Road exit, is that that hillside that you’re talking about? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. SIPP-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ve got you. MR. SIPP-Bette, Barry, and LeDuke presently have their office in that house, and that slope below it. MR. LEMERY-Are you speaking to the slope that goes down to the Hotel parking lot? MR. SIPP-Right. MR. LEMERY-Yes, that’s all part of the planting plan, and that’s all part of the Spring work that has to be done to seed that and to put the plants up there. MR. VOLLARO-Well, there are plants and seed, and there is some vegetation in there now. I think what Mr. Sipp is talking about is the erosion factor, in the event you get some heavy rains. There’s nothing really in there now to hold that. So I don’t know how that’s going to work out. You can, there’s a way to do that. Rather than seeding it, you can put these blankets in. I’m sure your construction contractor knows how to do that, but these are blankets that are full of seed, essentially, and if you put those blankets down, you can be pretty sure you’ll be able to get some vegetation in there. That will hold. MR. COCHRAN-By the end of the month it’s supposed to be hydro-seeded. It’s been like that for over a year now, and we’ve had some pretty good rains, but right now there’s not much growing. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Will that house be staying there? I thought that’s going? MR. MAUPHIN-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Any idea when? MR. MAUPHIN-Any day. Any time. MR. LEMERY-Yes, very soon. MR. COCHRAN-In about a month. MR. MAUPHIN-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I guess, from the very beginning, so long as we’re talking about the bridge, what I’d like to do is to read a letter, not from me but from the Supervisor that goes to Mark Kennedy who’s the acting Regional Traffic Director for the Department of Transportation, and the Supervisor says, and the letter is dated October 25, 2005, and he says, I’m writing in reference to your letter of October 11 to Miss Kelly Curcher of Creighton Manning th Engineering, specifically Paragraph One under section entitled Steps Necessary to Access the Hotel and Water Park. I won’t bother reading the whole thing, but it says the Town Board has no objections to the DOT issuing a temporary permit. This is when we were looking for the temporary permit back in October, to allow access to the Hotel/Water Park prior to its completion of off site improvements, and then he says providing the said permit is terminated by Memorial Day. Issuance of a temporary permit is not inconsistent with prior approvals from the Town, and it’s not, but from the very beginning when the Findings Statements were being done by this Board, on the EIS in 2004, the primary concern at that time was safety, and I think Mr. Lemery will agree that that’s probably the pivotal portion of that discussion was on the safety, the pedestrian bridge was going to allow people to cross without having to worry. Now we’re not worrying about the folks that’ll get into the queue and do what they’re supposed to do and behave like rational people. We’re worried about the young 16 year old who comes running across Route 9, you know, from either the Hotel Water Park or the Hotel itself, or from Trappers, one of those three facilities, and we’re concerned a little bit about that. We were concerned then. I’m concerned now, because now we say the bridge won’t be 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) operational until possibly the end of June. What I would like to have is some sort of a small bar chart put together, nothing elaborate now, it doesn’t have to be a per chart or anything like that, just a bar chart showing probably on, probably twice a month at least, between now and June, how the progress is progressing for the bridge, because I know you’re going to have some problems. MR. LEMERY-Let’s be reasonable here, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-I’m trying to be reasonable. MR. LEMERY-First of all, we were criticized for providing quarterly reports and one of your members said they’re all self-serving. So, let me just finish. MR. VOLLARO-Just a minute, Mr. Lemery. I researched that self-serving comment. MR. LEMERY-I know it was said because I got the minutes of the Planning Board meeting. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fine. MR. LEMERY-All right. Now you want something every two weeks to let you know what’s going on. There has never been anyone hurt on Route 9 at The Great Escape. Never. They’ve got all kinds of people who are going to be watching this. To require, now, the company, in the middle of trying to get started with its operations, to come in here every two weeks and provide you with some bar chart. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t say come in here. MR. LEMERY-I don’t think we’re inclined to do that. I think we’re inclined to ask you to simply consent to the issuance of the CO so we can get on with our business. They’re building the bridge, as best it can be built. It’s a $1.7 million infrastructure being built here. So, I don’t know what else you want from this company. I have to tell you, I see, I get the minutes and I look around at all the other companies in Queensbury, and I see all the other things that are going on in Queensbury, and all the other things that you’re addressing as a Planning Board, and it’s very interesting to me that this company, in some ways, gets singled out. They store some steel on property they own, while they get it ready to do something with, and all of a sudden it becomes an aesthetic issue, and I could drive around the Town with you and look at all kinds of things going on that should have been addressed and were never addressed. So I’m wondering, what is it about this Theme Park, this company that’s doing everything that it can to meet its requirements and to be a good corporate citizen. So, unless Mr. Mauphin says, you know, I’ll give you some bar charts and spend the money that he needs to do to do that, I think it’s time to say, you know what, we have a really good company here. They’re doing their best. They’re building this bridge. They’re watching out for the traffic. They’re watching out for their guests. They’re acutely aware, this company has got a huge safety record. They’re acutely aware of people crossing Route 9. Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt, and let’s, you know, to the extent the bridge is a problem, we’ll come tell you if the bridge is a problem because we still have to give you quarterly reports. MR. VOLLARO-I think you’ve told us tonight that the bridge will be a problem. I’m just trying to make sure. MR. LEMERY-We’ve told you that the steel isn’t here, and I’ve told you that the steel isn’t here because we can’t control it. Listen to me, we’re not going to get into arguments with you about the consent to the CO. You wrote me a letter, and what you wanted in that letter was you wanted us to get independent engineers and go talk to NiMo and go talk to DOT and all these things, which was absolutely uncalled for by the Planning Board minutes. What the Findings Statement says is your Staff, your engineers, and your Counsel. Those are the people you wanted to rely on. It had nothing to do with these extraneous entities that you wrote me in your letter you wanted to look at this. So we’re trying to be as cooperative as we can and as diligent as possible to get this bridge up in a timely way. In the meantime, I don’t know what other stone can be overturned down there at the steel mill, other than what we’ve tried to do. MR. VOLLARO-I understand your position. I’ve got to get back, I guess, probably, to the Supervisor to see what his letter of October 25 when he says. th 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. LEMERY-It’s no longer relevant because there was no longer a Temporary CO, temporary permit. The permanent permit was issued. So there’s no longer any issue about by May 31. Is that correct? MR. COCHRAN-That’s correct. Originally we had a temporary permit issued so we could get the ring road constructed and DOT right of way. That permit is closed, because we have the permanent permit which is the bridge and the intersection work all together. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess what I want to ask the Board, and I’ll start off with Mr. Hunsinger here, is do you, let’s make it real simple. Do you want to issue this CO based on what we’ve heard tonight, or would you rather hold off? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think at least amongst this Board, my feelings are pretty well known. Mr. Lemery commented that he read our minutes from our meeting, everything that you’ve said in your letter to us, are the same things that I predicted you would say back at that meeting. I think, in reality, your letter showed great restraint. You warned us back in October that the bridge might not be done by the time the Park opened the season, and we didn’t do anything about it. They have been very honest with every quarterly report, telling us exactly where they stood. I brought this issue to the Board back in November, and everyone acknowledged that they received the reports. I asked if there was any discussion about it or if there were any concerns, and there weren’t any, and now here at the eleventh hour, you know, we threaten to pull their Certificate of Occupancy when they’re getting ready to open the Park. I agree with both parties. Our major concern here is safety, but I think The Great Escape has shown us, you know, all along that they have done everything that could have been expected of them and I think that we would be negligent if we didn’t go forward. That’s how I feel, and actually, I’m sorry, I had one more comment to add. You also need to know that the letter that went out was not authorized by the Board. The draft itself, and the actual issuance of the letter from our Chairman was not reviewed or approved by this Board. So in my mind, I question whether or not the authority was even there to issue the letter. MR. VOLLARO-I can give you the authority if you want me to, and so long as you’re bringing it up, I’ll tell you what it is. It was a request by Staff to me to write that letter, and it was a request by the Zoning Administrator to do that, and I have a copy of that in here, if you want. I’m surprised you would bring that up tonight, Mr. Hunsinger. I really am, but that’s how you feel. That’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-I was probably as surprised as Mr. Lemery to received that letter, to be honest with you, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Just bear with me a minute. MR. HUNSINGER-In my mind it was at least implicit in the meaning minutes when we discussed this item that a draft letter would be provided to the Board for review and comment before any letter went out. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you had actually written a letter and I had actually written a letter. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-And both of those letters were supplied to our Counsel. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-And our Counsel drafted the letter that I sent. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I know how the sequence occurred. MR. VOLLARO-How it went, okay. Now I’m going to read an e-mail that I got a copy of, was sent to Marilyn Ryba from the Executive Director. It says, I forwarded Lynn Schwartz’s e-mail to Bob today, Bob being me, and I followed up with a telephone conversation. I suggested that he pen a response to Lemery regarding his request to appear before the Planning Board on the 17. He indicated that Dave Hatin had stated that he would be th issuing a Temporary CO and that he, Dave Hatin, understands that no final CO can be issued without Planning Board finding that the GE has made its best efforts on the bridge. I 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) suggested that the letter to Mr. Lemery include any requests for additional information, i.e. reports from Mark Kennedy, DOT, agreements and permits, and that the burden to provide this information be placed on The Great Escape and that neither Board nor Staff be obligated to gather such info. Further this info. would be submitted prior to Planning Board schedule and hearing matter some time in the future. Bob Vollaro will draft a letter to go out, hopefully by the end of the week. This should be acceptable to Mr. Lemery, as Dave will be granting a Temporary CO which will allow them to open on February 1 as they desire. The st Final CO for the hotel, as you could guess, is likely to be tied into a performance schedule between GE and its contractors and hopefully the bridge construction, as a similar schedule, might motivate them to finish the bridge on time. Maybe, Bob, you should ask them to provide such info. for an updated bridge completion schedule as part of the information for the Board. That was the authority that I thought I had to draft that letter. That wasn’t a letter that was drafted because I thought it was a good idea to draft a letter. Okay. So now you know what the authority was to draft the letter. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. MRS. STEFFAN-Susan, The Great Escape is scheduled to come back in front of us next month for parking lot revisions and some other things? MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-You didn’t ask me, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-No, I’m going up and down the Board. I just asked Mr. Hunsinger, and I think I had to answer that. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s okay. I am feeling like I would like to wait a month, from my point of view, for my position, of the Certificate of Occupancy, and there’s a couple of reasons for that. I know, Mr. Lemery, one of the things that you talked about is that The Great Escape has done lots of things is that The Great Escape has done lots of things and they’ve jumped through lots of. MR. LEMERY-You know what this is about? Let me make it clear to you. That they’re making their best effort to build the bridge. That’s all that you’re dealing with here, not what’s going on with the rest of The Great Escape, not whether you have an issue, Gretchen, with something else going on with some things that’s stored there, nothing that’s going on, the whole issue before this Board, is this Theme Park making its best effort to build the bridge? That’s the one question that you have before you as a result of the Findings. So if you’re tabling it, you’re finding that so far they’re not making their best effort. Now, this Temporary Certificate is going to run. Do you want us to close the Hotel? Would you like us to do that, close it down? MRS. STEFFAN-That would not be popular. MR. LEMERY-That’s right, and there’s no reason for it, and the reason there isn’t any reason for it is this company is doing everything it can to meet the obligations that have been imposed by this Board and by their own management, which is to get the bridge up, and every single quarter you’ve got these reports telling you every single thing we’re doing, in a forthright manner, to get this bridge up. That’s the question before the Board. Is it best efforts? Is there anybody sitting around here saying, ah, you know, let’s not worry about it. Let’s see if we can get it delayed until the Fall of ’06. Let’s see if we can do something else. Don’t worry about the steel, Todd. Forget it. When it gets here, it gets here. We’ve been on the phone with our contractor every single day, can you push this company faster? No, you’re in the queue. We’ve had four or five hurricanes hit the southern United States in the last two years, and guess where the steel’s going, guess where the concrete’s going. That’s what we’re told. Well, what can you do for us? So let’s be fair about this. That’s the only question in front of you. MRS. STEFFAN-This is a project, and there are many facets to the project. MR. LEMERY-No, that’s the question in front of you. The project is the bridge. If you don’t find we’re making our best efforts, then you say, they’re not making their best effort. On the other hand, if you think we are making our best effort, doing everything that you can think of that we’re trying to get this bridge built, then we’re entitled to our CO. That’s what 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) the Planning Board minutes say. That’s what the Findings say. It’s not about anything else up here, nothing else is before you, except whether we’re making the best effort to build the bridge. We’re here tonight to ask you, notify the Building Department that the Planning Board has no issue with our being able to get a permanent CO when the contractors say we can. Our Temporary CO is going to run out. MR. VOLLARO-When does that run out, Mr. Lemery, the Temporary CO? MR. LEMERY-May 2. That’s what we face, and it wouldn’t be popular because it’s nd ridiculous, and why is it ridiculous? Because everybody can see the bridge is getting built. So unless you have some personal objection against whatever they’re doing to build the bridge, then the issue’s not before you, in any other fashion. I hate to put it that way, but that’s the simple fact. That’s the narrow issue you’re supposed to be looking at tonight, nothing else. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’d like to ask Counsel a question, if I may. One of the basic, as I’ve said before here, one of the basic things we’re always looking for is safety, back in 2004 when the Findings Statement was done, as well as today. It hasn’t changed, at least in my mind. MR. SCHACHNER-When you say safety issue, pedestrian safety and the like, traffic safety, pedestrian safety? MR. VOLLARO-An interface between a person and an automobile. That’s what I’m concerned about. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. I understand what you mean by that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-I haven’t heard it called an interface before, but I still understand. MR. VOLLARO-You still understand, okay, good, so we understand one another. I’m just worried about, in your opinion, as our legal counsel, is there anything that the Town would be liable to in the event an accident took place as I just described, and we did not do our best, due diligence, to make sure that that didn’t happen. In other words, the pedestrian bridge not being there, and people crossing as they did before, with a minimal amount of lights there, there’d only be one, and that light only controls one section of the crossing. If somebody, if an impetuous young 16 year old were to run out and get hit, are we liable if we didn’t, in some way, talk about the bridge being up and working properly, the whole bridge system? MR. SCHACHNER-Right. What does the current approval condition say about the timing of the bridge being up and functional, versus the enterprise being open, if anything? MR. VOLLARO-What was said in the Findings Statement, the words, and I’ll construction them out of memory, one of the words in the Findings Statement talked about the Water Park and the bridge being done concurrently, and that concurrence was really based on the safety issue. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I think I have the Findings Statement here, and there’s a sub paragraph C called Pedestrian Bridge. It’s two pages, single spaced, I can take a moment and read it if you’d like. My answer to your question depends upon what this approval condition language says. Do you want me to take a minute and review this? MR. VOLLARO-I would appreciate it if you would. In the meanwhile, while Counsel is reading that, just a couple of things. MR. LEMERY-That’s not the issue before you. MR. SCHACHNER-Can I offer you one other bit of advice, Mr. Vollaro? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m going to suggest that the Planning Board make it a point not to feel intimidated by the tone, the tenor and the volume and the threats coming from the applicant’s counsel. I think that’s causing some disruption of this meeting. I think you’re 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) having difficulty focusing on the issues that are before you, because of the behavior of the applicant’s counsel, and I’m going to provide you with the advice that that not be tolerated. It’s up to you whether you want to tolerate that or not, but that’s my advice to you, because I think it’s throwing us off from the standpoint of accomplishing our goal. So that’s my advice to you. The interruptions, the finger pointing and all the rest of it I think is detracting from your ability to objectively and fairly review the issues before you. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it does. MR. SCHACHNER-So that’s my advice to you. MR. VOLLARO-And I didn’t want to get into that. I was trying to keep this in a civil manner. MR. SCHACHNER-You’re more patient than I am. That’s my advice to you. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you, Counsel. The other thing I wanted to discuss really quickly with you is, while Counsel is reading that particular paragraph, is the Verizon issue. I guess the new estimate, I’m talking from Mark Kennedy’s letter, the new estimate completion date supersedes any prior estimate which Verizon had provided at its March 7 meeting, and it th looks to me like that’s working up there. I’ve been up there. It looks like that intersection is going to get completed and going to be done. MR. LEMERY-They’re complete. Verizon is complete. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So I don’t have a problem with that. The other one, I think, was a letter that came in from Chazen Engineering, concerning the annual monitoring report for stormwater. I believe that what they said was, and I know what it says in here, that they’re going to wait for everything to stabilize before they do that and I think that’s also correct. I wouldn’t want to see any stormwater work being done until the stabilization is done. I just wanted to get those two things off. MR. LEMERY-I think the LA Group is doing weekly monitoring, I believe they’re still doing it. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but at the end of the letter, I think they suggest, it says in my opinion, TCC agrees with the opinion presented that the effectiveness of permanent stormwater management cannot be fully organized at this time, recognized at this time. Considering that the annual monitoring report occurred while construction activities were still under way, the Town may consider requesting an intermittent sampling event to be completed some time after the site is stabilized, and I agree with that, with those two things. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m ready whenever you are, Mr. Vollaro. MR. VOLLARO-I’m ready now. MR. SCHACHNER-I believe I’m reading from the Findings Statement and a sub paragraph C which is entitled Pedestrian Bridge, and as I said, if you sort of add it up, it’s a page single spaced. So it goes on some, but it seems to me that the two relevant provisions are, or several relevant provisions. One is the Planning Board finds that construction of the pedestrian bridge should be completed as expeditiously as possible. It also says, somewhere it says that they should do that prior to or at the same time as opening of the Park. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It’s in the front of that. It leads right off in the front of that paragraph, where it talks about. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s not the first thing. MR. LEMERY-Paragraph Number Six of C, is where that language is. MR. SCHACHNER-They’re not literally numbered. Are you saying numbered? Is your copy numbered? MR. LEMERY-Yes. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. SCHACHNER-Then, can I see that? MR. LEMERY-Sure. MR. SCHACHNER-Because we’re not reading the same thing, because mine’s not numbered. Do you mind if I review this briefly? MR. LEMERY-No, sure, go ahead. MR. SCHACHNER-I think what Staff has given me look like the minutes in which the Findings Statement was adopted. What I believe the applicant’s counsel has, just if I can take a minute to review, is the actual Findings Statement. I’d prefer to look at the actual Findings Statement. MR. VOLLARO-All right. MR. SCHACHNER-All right, and they’re not inconsistent. The minutes have a longer version, but the Findings Statement is more succinct and it seems to have, really, just a couple of relevant provisions. It says The Great Escape shall use, what I said, shall use its best efforts to complete construction of the pedestrian bridge prior to or concurrently with the opening of the Hotel Waterpark resort, and if we left it at that and it didn’t go on any further, you could responsibly take the position that, you might be able to responsibly take the position that that’s even a requirement that they complete that. However, the Findings Statement goes on to say two things of relevance. I think one is what best efforts means, and I don’t think we need to talk about that but we can if you like, but it then says, so long as Great Escape has provided evidence to the Planning Board that it’s met its obligation to use its best efforts in pursuit of the timely completion of the pedestrian bridge, there will be no delay in the opening of the Hotel Water Park resort. If the Planning Board finds, after consultation with the Board’s Staff, engineering consultant, and Counsel, and this is not a legal issue, frankly, so don’t bother consulting with us about it, that Great Escape has failed to use its best efforts, and then there’s some other language, the Planning Board may suspend or withhold the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. So to that extent, although I did provide you with advice about the manner in which the information is being presented, I think the substance of the information that the applicant’s counsel is presenting seems largely accurate to me. MR. VOLLARO-It is accurate. It’s accurate to me, as well. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and that being the case, I don’t think it’s inappropriate to suggest that your principle obligation here is to decide whether, in fact, in your opinion, as a Planning Board, and obviously this would be a majority decision, whether in your opinion, as the Planning Board, The Great Escape has or has not provided evidence of meeting its obligation to use its best efforts to pursue timely completion of the pedestrian bridge. Apparently, and I think I was at this meeting, so I vaguely recall this, but I go to a lot of meetings, but I believe, and I think Mr. Hunsinger mentioned this, I think there was some candid disclosure of the fact that, and in fact the minutes reflect that some of this is beyond the applicant’s control and beyond the Town’s control, by “this” I mean timing of completion of the pedestrian bridge, and recall now, and the more I read the more I’m recalling, there was substantial discussion about this quote unquote best efforts issue. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, there was. MR. SCHACHNER-And I think that that was manifest in the language in the Findings, and I think that you have the discretion to make that decision as to whether those best efforts have or have not been made. Thank you for this. MR. VOLLARO-I guess there was a time at which I, when I tried to decide, in my own mind, and I think other Planning Board, Mr. Hunsinger has raised an issue that this was never cleared with the rest of the Board. MR. SCHACHNER-The this he’s talking about isn’t the SEQRA Findings Statement. It’s the correspondence. MR. VOLLARO-No. This is my letter of February 17 that was essentially drafted by th Counsel for me. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. SCHACHNER-Well, some yes, some no, but anyway, go ahead. MR. VOLLARO-Well, there were two letters submitted. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-And those two letters were amalgamated in some way. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-And what came out of those two letters in the amalgamation was this. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-And having, at that time anyway, trying to look at how to, in my own mind, to be able to say that the best efforts was used, what we did was to ask them to provide, and I was asked to make that statement by our own Staff, was to ask them to provide, we suggested a minimum you provide documentation from New York State Department of Transportation from National Grid, formerly Niagara Mohawk, attesting to their experiences to the efforts put forth by The Great Escape. I think Mr. Lemery took exception to that, and, you know. MR. HUNSINGER-Bob, why are you surprised? I took exception to it when I read your first draft back in January. I mean, I found it offensive, too, why shouldn’t they. I mean, anyone who’s ever worked with DOT knows that they’re one of the biggest offenders of delaying projects. So to expect them to send you a letter saying someone else made best effort, I mean, it’s ludicrous. MR. VOLLARO-I also saw your letter. Your letter also talked about that. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t say anything about getting letters from other third party entities. I mean, we talked about it at the meeting, and the comment I made then was, well, what if they don’t provide them? What if they’re the ones that caused the delay, and in this case they are. I mean, it didn’t make sense then. It doesn’t make sense now. I mean, you can define best efforts however you want, in your own mind, but I think the Findings Statement is pretty clear in saying that they shall provide us with quarterly reports, and they have, and even in the October report, so we’re talking almost a year ago, they had in there, I mean, you even read from it yourself, from the letter from the Supervisor to DOT. In there is a statement, a comment talking about mitigation of building the bridge during the season, and I can read it quickly. It’s just one sentence. Should the steel be erected while the Park is open, temporary traffic signals will be installed at the driveways to mitigate the non-standard sight distance. I mean, this was an attachment to a letter dated September 12, 2005. So I mean, that’s almost a year ago. They were already saying how they may mitigate such a scenario. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Well, in some sense it’s too bad that I’m looking at something that, and this is probably not germane, but I’m looking at something that I wrote back in May 19, 2004 when we were putting the Findings Statement together, and I knew then that the words best efforts were going to be extremely difficult. I knew then, as I know now, and I had said there, the Planning Board may suspend or withhold the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, these are words that I had proposed. They’re not in anything, for the Hotel Water Park resort until the Planning Board’s designate engineering firm is satisfied that The Great Escape has used its best efforts. That was stricken, and I said to then Mr. Round, who was then the Executive Director, that that was a mistake to take that out of there, because best efforts was going to be very hard to prove, very hard to do anything with, whatsoever, and now looking back at my own letter, I’ll say that probably I might have been in error there, in writing, asking for confirmation from other people. I still have a question, however, of safety. We need some assurance from The Great Escape that every effort, and, you know, again, I’m going through every best effort will be made to protect the health and safety of people that are involved in the interaction between the Water Park and the amusement park, that is crossing Route 9. Now, it’s on the record. I have a safety issue. I feel that safety issue personally. There may be other members of this Board that don’t agree with me, but I’m stating my case, and now I want to go through and continually ask the Board how they feel about this issuing of a CO under the current conditions. I’ll start with you, now, Tom. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t have a problem with it. I mean, it’s in their best interest to build the bridge. They have the abutments up. It’s ready. As I understand it, it’s ready for the steel. The only question is when the steel’s going to get there. They say be the end of May, I think it was. The bridge is going to be completed by the end of June. The steel will be there at the end of May, May 1. Part of the delay is DOT specification which I guess is a good st thing. They’re doing everything they can. They have the fence to control the crowds. MR. VOLLARO-That’s one of the things I want to make sure of, the crowd control is. MR. SEGULJIC-I think they’re the last people that want to have an accident up there. MR. VOLLARO-I agree with you. Certainly they wouldn’t want to, but I think I had asked Counsel, and I still will ask Counsel the question, based on the deliberations of this Board this evening, if we grant this CO, and the Water Park is now operating under a permanent CO along with the Hotel, and something does happen, and I hope to God it never does, you know, but if it does, is this Town in any way held liable for that? I think I need to know that. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, you’re not going to know that, because I can’t give you an unequivocal response that to, because the nature of liability litigation is not so cut and dried and black and white. However, what I will say is that, based on a fair amount of experience I have in this area, I think that if an accident occurs, and what I’m about to say I doubt will shock or surprise anybody, if, you know, a horrible accident occurs that none of us wish, then it’s possible that the Town could be one of the parties named as a defendant in some litigation. When those sorts of things happen, the defendants are numerous because plaintiffs and their attorneys try to find as many defendants as possible, and they might be the car manufacturer. They might be the builders of the traffic signal, whoever paved the road, if it’s a County road, the County. So the County, the Town, the State of New York, etc., etc., but the applicant as well. Without knowing, you know, the context of the hypothetical accident, it’s hard to say, but I will say that it’s very common for municipalities to be worried about their liability in the event of some failure of performance of something by the applicant, and the general rule is that the applicant bears what we call primary responsibility. So if somebody determines that there’s been some negligence or something done inappropriately by an applicant, I’m speaking generically now, not about this particular applicant. MR. VOLLARO-I understand. MR. SCHACHNER-The same question comes up all the time when asked about stormwater controls, for example, and wastewater controls. If the Town approves a wastewater system and the system fails, is the Town liable, and the answer is somebody may seek to assert liability against the Town, but the primarily liable party is whoever put in the wastewater system. Similarly, here, if there’s an accident that’s a result of something that the applicant either doesn’t do properly or does improperly, however you want to look at it, then the applicant would bear what the law calls primary responsibility, but I can’t sit here and say the Town could never under any circumstances bear any liability responsibility. It would depend on the nature of the accident and what somebody decides is the cause of the accident. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. MR. COCHRAN-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman? I’d just like to read a note that’s in the actual highway plans. There’s a note in the plans that were prepared by my firm, Creighton Manning Engineering, and I’d just like to read that to the Board. If the steel for the pedestrian bridge is erected during The Great Escape’s season, the northern existing traffic signal shall be removed, which that has been done, and the southern signal shall remain in operation for Route 9 pedestrian crossings, and these are the in accepted plans by DOT. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the light that’s currently up now. MR. COCHRAN-That’s correct. That’s the southerly signal, and DOT is on board with that, as is evident by the plans, and we’ve had obviously a lot of conversations concerning not having the bridge and using the southerly signal to cross pedestrians. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Mr. Sipp, have you got a position on this? 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. SIPP-I have two things that I’d like to say. I agree with you, Bob, that it’s a safety issue, and I would like to know when the steel for this bridge was ordered. MR. COCHRAN-It was ordered back in November, right after we got (lost words), and it was ordered back then. The steel you only can get in certain rollings for certain sizes. If you call High Steel or any of those guys that roll the actual eye beams, you get certain rollings in. This is not a normal size girder. So, it doesn’t get made every so often. So we got into the rolling that we could get into, and then after it got rolled, right now it’s sitting down Schenectady and it’s being cambered, and it’s got to go through certain tests for DOT before it can go up, and putting the camber in it is, you know, putting the arch, so when the concrete goes on it, pedestrians go on it, then it settles back down. That’s the process it’s going through right now, and right now our tentative schedule for delivery is May 1. st MR. MAUPHIN-Mr. Sipp, if I could just make a comment. We actually authorized the ordering of that steel prior to even having a temporary permit to build the bridge in November. We took a chance and knew that it was going to have a lead time. We went ahead and authorized the ordering of the steel at that time. MR. SIPP-Well, if we’re talking about best efforts, I assume, where did the steel originally come from? MR. MAUPHIN-Where did the steel come from? MR. SIPP-Yes, what plant. MR. COCHRAN-High Steel, I think is where we ordered the steel from, but it goes to STS Steel is where we ordered it from. MR. SIPP-What State was that in? MR. COCHRAN-High Steel’s in Pennsylvania. MR. SIPP-Pennsylvania. MR. COCHRAN-STS Steel is the manufacturer of the bridge. They will do all the fabrication for it. MR. SIPP-Prior to this meeting, Mr. Lemery asked me to recuse myself because in the past I have been not a fan of The Great Escape, and whether he thought I would be a swing vote here tonight or not, I don’t know, but let me say to you, Mr. Lemery, and I’m glad that the Town Counsel, Board Counsel made the point that in an attempt to intimidate anybody, you don’t intimidate me. I taught school for 30 years, and no student ever intimidated me, and you’re not going to. Now I will be fair in my judgment of what I’m doing, but I don’t need you to tell me how to do it. MR. LEMERY-Well, let me speak to that, because I represent a client here who’s, which is a company which is before the Planning Board, it has been before the Planning Board for years. Will likely be before the Planning Board for years to come, and at every single instance where this company has come in for a permit or a site plan application or some other nature that required us to be here, you have, as is your right as a member of the audience, you’re a member of the community, you have spoken out against The Great Escape and the Hotel Water Park. When we were in here with the sign application, you stood up and you spoke, you had a comment that the Hotel was a monstrosity, which is your right. MR. SIPP-I said it was the ugliest building between New York City and Montreal. MR. LEMERY-Which is your right. Which is your right. MR. SIPP-That’s what I said. MR. LEMERY-But now you have a different place. Now you’re on a Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, and we’re an applicant before the Planning Board. Applicants before the Planning Board have a right to assume that those people who are on the Planning Board have a fair and unbiased approach and opinion as to the content of the application and what’s involved. I went to you on the side. I wasn’t trying to intimidate you, and in fact I left the 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) question by saying to you, do you think you could be fair and impartial, and you said yes, and I said okay. So I appreciate your grandstanding, but that’s not what it was about. It was not about your grandstanding. What it was about was how you, and I asked you would like to be treated, Mr. Sipp, if you were here on your own behalf as an applicant and someone who had consistently over the years opposed any application you had now found himself on the Planning Board reviewing your matters, would you think that that would be a fair thing to do, or would you think the fair thing to do would be to say, you know what, going back to 2000, I’m in the record consistently with opposing every single application that The Great Escape has had, so I think to be fair to them, as a taxpayer, and as an applicant, and the way I would want to be treated, I will respectfully recuse myself from matters which come before this Board which involve The Great Escape and/or the Hotel. You’ve seen fit not to do that. I had pointed out to you, I did it quietly, and I believe I did it respectfully. I spoke to your Chairman. He said that’s between you and Mr. Sipp. I went over and spoke to you quietly. You’ll have to make the judgment as to whether or not you think it’s fair, whether you think it’s fair to Scott Mauphin and the 1,000 employees who work there, and the 250 employees who work at the Hotel Water Park, or whether it’s something that the Queensbury Ethics or Town Board should look at. That’s all I’ll say about it. MR. SIPP-Wait a minute, Bob, let me finish here. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. MR. SIPP-You talk about grandstanding. I can remember one evening when the Splashwater Kingdom was before the Planning Board and Mr. MacEwan said they will table this, and who stood up not, I don’t think you stood up at that meeting, but you started, well, we’ll have to close down. That’s the end. We’re going to close down. MR. LEMERY-That was probably Charlie Wood who told me to say that, and I was his lawyer, so that’s the way Charlie acted. MR. SIPP-Charlie Wood told you to say that? MR. LEMERY-Well, Charlie Wood probably. I know he threatened this Town many times to close the Theme Park. I never said close the Theme Park. MR. SIPP-No, you said we’d have to close our doors because, if we can’t get the Splashwater Kingdom in there, we’re just going to have to shut it down. MR. LEMERY-Well, you didn’t want it there. You didn’t want it. You didn’t want the Splashwater Kingdom there. So that’s a perfect example. MR. SIPP-I never said. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, we seem to be straying. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think, look, the dialogue between the two, I think we ought to. MR. SIPP-Let me say this, I can be fair, Mr. Lemery, just as fair as you want me to be. I represent 72 households bordering The Great Escape. I get a lot of comments from them on noise, on traffic, and I’m obliged, I think, as their representative to present them before the Planning Board. MR. LEMERY-I agree with you, but I don’t think you should be a member of the Planning Board if you’re going to be a representative of an advocacy group. You have a right to be a representative. MR. SIPP-I don’t think they’re an advocacy group. MR. LEMERY-That’s what you just said. MR. SIPP-They’re homeowners. That’s not an advocacy group. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Lemery, I’d like to stop the dialogue now. MR. LEMERY-I think I’m right, Mr. Vollaro. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. VOLLARO-I think we’ve been through that. MR. LEMERY-Point made. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t want to continue that any further. I guess I’m just going to call for an up or down vote, really, from Board members now. Just say yes or no concerning the granting of the Certificate of Occupancy to The Great Escape. MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, I’m sorry to interrupt, but I don’t follow that. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t, either. MR. SCHACHNER-First of all, I don’t think it’s fair for you, as Chairman, to impose on the Board members that they can only say yes or no. I think you have to allow them to speak their peace. Second of all, was that a motion? MR. VOLLARO-No, it’s not a motion. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I’m sorry, but I’m confused. MR. VOLLARO-I just want to poll the Board. I want to find out how they feel about this, on a yes or no basis. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. They can only say yes or no. MR. VOLLARO-Well, they can say anything they want, really. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I think everybody’s expressed an opinion, though. I’ve given every Board member a chance to express his or her opinion. I think I’ve got all the opinions now. MRS. STEFFAN-I have a question on a matter of procedure. I mean, this is supposed to be a discussion, and so do we make a recommendation? Do we make a motion? I’m not really sure. MR. HUNSINGER-I have the same questions, what exactly we’re expected to do. MR. SCHACHNER-By which you mean that this is listed on the agenda as a discussion item only? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-In other words, there’s not an action contemplated by our agenda, or was not an action contemplated? MRS. STEFFAN-It says Great Escape. MR. VOLLARO-We don’t have an application before us from The Great Escape. MR. SCHACHNER-When you say an application, I don’t think The Great Escape is looking for a new approval or anything. I’m not sure, and I’m certainly not speaking on behalf of the applicant, as should be abundantly obvious, but I think what the applicant is asking is whether the Planning Board intends to, actually, the way the Findings Statement was read, as I recall, and I might have to ask the applicant’s counsel to give it back to me, was that the Planning Board could withhold or restrain, I can’t remember the word, somehow impede the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy if The Great Escape didn’t meet the best efforts requirement, if The Great Escape didn’t meet the requirement of best efforts in pursuit of timely completion of the pedestrian bridge. So, when you say you don’t have an application before you, I’m not aware the applicant, that the applicant would be filing an application. MR. VOLLARO-The agenda was characterized in words as The Great Escape Pedestrian Bridge Discussion. That’s how it’s been characterized in the agenda. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and we don’t have to get too wrapped up in what’s written on an agenda, and pardon my ignorance, but the way this is phrased is the Planning Board may suspend or withhold of a Certificate of Occupancy. The Planning Board is not the entity that issues Certificates of Occupancy. MR. VOLLARO-That’s right. MR. SCHACHNER-And absent this language, I would be sitting here as your Counsel and telling you you don’t have the authority to control the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy except that this was part of your SEQRA Findings Statement, and that’s fine. So you do have that authority. So I guess this is the part I’m asking you to pardon my ignorance on. The current status is there is not a Certificate of Occupancy issued, I take it? MR. VOLLARO-There’s a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy issued. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct, and that’s due to expire, someone said, on May 2. So it would nd seem appropriate that some time between now and May 2 the Town has to decide whether nd to issue the permanent Certificate of Occupancy. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. SCHACHNER-You don’t have an action item pending before you, as I see it, and to that extent, that’s probably why it’s listed as a discussion item, but I think the applicant is trying to find out whether you intend to exercise your discretion here in suspending or withholding the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Is that a fair statement? MR. LEMERY-Yes. When I came up in January, when I wanted to come in in January, I asked to be able to speak to the Board in January about whether we’d met our obligation, and to the extent, if the Board found that we had met our obligation, that there would be no objection to the Staff issuing the CO, and that’s when you wrote me, so then I said we’d come back on the 18 of April and the purpose of tonight’s meeting, as far as we’re concerned, is to th put this in front of you and ask you to consent to the issuance of the CO by the Planning Staff, and ask you to find that we’ve met our obligation on a best efforts basis. MR. SCHACHNER-And if I can add, from my standpoint, as your Counsel, I don’t think you have to do that. I don’t think have to do anything, because the SEQRA Findings Statement does not require some affirmative consent by this Board, as I understand it. The SEQRA Findings Statement merely allows this Board, I shouldn’t say merely, it’s important. The SEQRA Findings Statement allows this Board to suspend or withhold the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. So I think the applicants here. That’s fine. I don’t think the applicant has an obligation to be here, but the applicant is seeking, as I see it, sort of your non-binding advisory, and that’s why it would be listed as a discussion item, a feeling from the Board, I think the applicant is looking for a feeling from the Board as to whether the Board intends to exercise his authority to suspend or withhold a Certificate of Occupancy, and what I’m saying is, as your Counsel, if you want to give some pronouncement, by way of resolution, on this issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy issue, you have the right to do so, but not the obligation to do so, because this doesn’t require any affirmative action by this Board. In fairness to the applicant, I think the applicant doesn’t want to find out on May 1, st I’m guessing, the applicant would prefer not to find out on May 1 that the Board in fact st intends to exercise this authority, and I don’t think that’s an unreasonable question, but from the legal standpoint, you don’t have an obligation to make any decision at all. MR. LEMERY-I think as a practical matter, the Planning Staff would not issue the CO, permanent CO, without coming back and asking for your opinion, and I think that’s what happened the last time when I went in and wanted to come to the meeting and said would you please let them know that you have no objection to the issuance of the CO, and so I think that’s the issue. I think Mr. Schachner’s totally 100% correct, but I think the Planning Staff would say, well, we’re not going to run afoul of the Planning Board. We need them to tell us it’s okay, and I think that’s, as a practical matter, what they’ll do. MR. VOLLARO-This is what I’m trying to establish now in trying to get the opinion of each Board member. If I get my Counsel correctly, I would ask each Board member, if I understand my Counsel correctly, I would ask each Board member, do you intend, in any way, to withhold the granting of a CO, because obviously we can’t give it, as I understand. Am I correct with that? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. SCHACHNER-You’re very much so, on the last part of that. This Board doesn’t have the authority to grant or issue the Certificate of Occupancy. You only have the authority by virtue of these Findings to cause it to be withheld. MR. VOLLARO-Withheld. MR. SCHACHNER-But I’m concerned about this straw poll thing, because the truth of the matter is, there’s only five of you here. It’s a seven member Board, and if some number of you say, no, I’m not inclined on April 18 to withhold this thing, that’s not a binding act of th the Planning Board. Other members can come streaming in some time at one of the meetings before May 2 and in theory there could be a motion made to withhold, and it could be acted nd on and it could pass. So I’m pretty concerned, and it’s nobody’s fault that there’s only five members here, but I’m concerned about this informal poll business, because it could give the applicant an erroneous impression. MR. LEMERY-I think we’d like a vote. I’m assuming you have a quorum. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-We do have a quorum. MR. LEMERY-And then you have a vote, members present, that the vote of the Planning Board is to direct the Planning Staff to the effect that The Great Escape has met its best efforts, and would not object to the issuance of the CO. I think that’s what we’re looking for. MR. SCHACHNER-And as your Counsel, I would be more comfortable, I mean, obviously they’re looking for a vote in that direction, I would be more comfortable, if you want to provide the message, I would be more comfortable doing it by resolution, either yes, it’s made its best efforts, or, no, it’s not. Now remember that despite the fact that there are only five. MR. VOLLARO-I would rather not use the word’s best efforts now. I would rather say, does the Board have any inclination at all for withholding the issuance of a CO based on the performance of The Great Escape. That’s all. Best efforts, I have a real problem with best efforts. I’ve always had that problem. I don’t know whether the rest of the Board members do or not. MR. SCHACHNER-I think that ship has sailed. I think that ship has sailed. The Findings Statement uses the term best efforts, and it doesn’t just use the term once or twice. It actually tries to define best efforts, and you went through quite a laborious exercise to try to do that. I don’t think you can back away from that now, even if you don’t like it. MR. VOLLARO-Fine. All I want to know from the Board is do they have any objections or are they inclined to withhold the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, based on the efforts provided by The Great Escape. Now we can do it as a motion, I have no problem with that. MR. SCHACHNER-I’d be more comfortable. MR. VOLLARO-Because I didn’t want to make a motion based on the fact that we only had a discussion going. If the discussion has provided the root for a motion, that’s fine. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. So, with that, does anybody here want to make a motion? I would call for some one of the Board members to make a motion. You’ve heard the discussion and you know what the motion should be. Does anybody want to do it? MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll make a motion. MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD FINDS THAT THE GREAT ESCAPE HAS MET BEST EFFORTS, AS DEFINED IN THE SEQRA FINDINGS STATEMENT, AND FURTHER FINDS NO OBJECTION TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE WATER PARK BY THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: Duly adopted this 18 day of April 2006 by the following vote: th 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro ABSENT: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-So it doesn’t pass. MR. VOLLARO-We have a vote. MR. SCHACHNER-No, you don’t. You need four votes to carry the Board. I counted three to two. MR. VOLLARO-It is three to two. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. You don’t have a vote. That’s not an action by the Board. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-And that’s why, anticipating that possibility, I mean, it may be that you’re not going to have an action of the Board tonight simply for lack of people. MR. LEMERY-Well, we’re not before the Board until the 23 of May. So I’m assuming you rd find that The Great Escape, you’re finding, then, is The Great Escape has not made its best efforts to get the bridge built. Is that your finding? MR. SCHACHNER-That’s absolutely false. MR. LEMERY-I’d like you to take that vote. I’d like you to have a vote, please, that The Great Escape has not met its best efforts. MR. SCHACHNER-And, Mr. Chairman, I’m going to say to you, you all decide whether you’re going to make motions or not, not an applicant. MR. VOLLARO-I realize that. Thank you. MR. LEMERY-You’ve left us with no place to go here. We don’t even know what you’re doing, in terms of, what is it you’re trying to accomplish? We need to know, if we haven’t made our best effort, you need to tell us we haven’t made a best effort. That is something you uniquely have to do. You can’t farm that out to somebody else. MR. VOLLARO-No, I realize that. MR. LEMERY-The Planning Board has to do that. If you think that we haven’t done it, say so. If we have done it, then you should tell the Planning Staff to issue the permit. It’s as simple as that. MR. VOLLARO-We took a vote here, and the vote is a matter of record. Now that doesn’t mean that between now and is it May 2. nd MR. SCHACHNER-That’s what the applicant says. MR. LEMERY-I asked to come before this Board in January. I was told it wasn’t necessary. Now, as of May 2, the Temporary CO is gone, and unless the Town issues an additional nd Temporary CO, we close the Hotel Water Park. MR. VOLLARO-We’re not going to close the Hotel Water Park. MR. SCHACHNER-Hang on. Excuse me. That’s not correct, because the Town may issue a permanent Certificate of Occupancy, and it doesn’t require this Board’s vote to do that. MR. LEMERY-Well, as a practical matter, what I said before, and I think I’m right, is because it happened the last time, I asked them for the CO and they said, we’re not going to give you a CO until we get Mr. Vollaro and the Board’s consent that you’ve made a best effort. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. SCHACHNER-The Staff you’re talking about. MR. LEMERY-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. Well, that’s certainly not. MR. LEMERY-That’s the problem. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I understand that, but that’s not reflected in the Findings Statement. So I wouldn’t take that as cast in stone. MR. LEMERY-I know that, but how do you get around that? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I wouldn’t take it as cast in stone is all I’m saying. MR. LEMERY-Do we end up up in Supreme Court about it? MR. SCHACHNER-That’s probably your choice. MR. LEMERY-What a wonderful thing to say for the business community in the Town of Queensbury. Congratulations. MR. HUNSINGER-With all due respect, Mr. Lemery, what I wanted to say before our Chairman asked for a resolution is for in order for your Certificate to be withheld, it takes an action of the Board. So no action of this Board is defacto approval, in my opinion. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and that’s what I’ve been trying to say, but the applicant’s counsel feels, and I don’t know what the basis. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I respect his position. I understand that they need to make business decisions. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. He’s saying that our Staff won’t act without some affirmative approval by this Planning Board, and I don’t have a basis for saying if that’s a factually correct statement or not. All I can say is that’s not a requirement of any of the documentation that I’ve seen, which why I’m suggesting, keeping in mind that I’m not just counsel to this Board, but counsel to the Town in general, I don’t think the applicant should leave here assuming that it’s cast in stone that necessarily the Staff needs a signoff by the Planning Board in order to issue a CO. MR. LEMERY-I respect and I understand that, but that’s what happened, because when I went there, they said, we have to have your, we have to have you tell us, meaning the Planning Board, what we should be doing. So right now we can’t plan. Right now I can’t, you know, Craig Brown says we’re not going to issue a CO because we don’t know what the Planning Board, the Planning Board by this vote tonight basically has found that we haven’t met our best effort. That what you’ve basically found. We can all talk about it, but the reason you’re voting no, and the only issue before you, as I tried to explain to you, at the risk of sounding like I’m berating you, which I’m not, but all I’m simply trying to do is make you understand what’s in your own Findings, which sometimes is difficult, is that you have to find, you have to find, whether we’ve made a best effort or not. That’s what you have to find. So this idea that you can’t deal with that, that’s great, but now you leave a $50 million hotel water park sitting out there not knowing what it should do. Now 275 employees, do you want them all here at the next meeting? What do you want us to do? You tell us. You’re the Planning Board. You tell us what to do next, when I go downstairs, or Scott Mauphin or our contractor goes downstairs and says may we have our permanent CO, and he says, the Planning Board voted no, or they voted that they, I don’t know what you did. I don’t know that you know what you did. MR. SCHACHNER-I can answer that. A majority of the members here voted in favor of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. There simply wasn’t enough of a majority to act formally as a Board. The histrionics aside, you can’t fairly ascribe to this Board that it just voted no on the motion, because in fact the majority of the members present voted yes on the motion. Just New York State law says that that majority wasn’t enough to be a formal action of the Board, but you cannot fairly characterize that as this Board having voted no. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. LEMERY-Well, I can. I can. I mean, you don’t have to agree with me, but I can, because, in effect, it’s not a resolution. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. So it’s not a no vote. By law it’s not a no vote. MR. LEMERY-Isn’t this an appropriate way to act up here in the Town of Queensbury. Isn’t this a smart thing to do. Is there any reason why that this bridge, that you can’t find that this bridge is proceeding as best it can? Do you have other issues besides this bridge that you think are germane to this discussion? You do? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. LEMERY-So on that basis you’re going to withhold your vote. MRS. STEFFAN-I voted no, and I didn’t know whether I should elaborate or not, because I felt like I was stifled a little earlier. So let me talk about why I voted no. I feel pretty strongly that a vote for providing you with a Certificate of Occupancy, a permanent Certificate of Occupancy, is a reward, and in my experience on the Planning Board over the last two years, we have had situations where we have awarded Temporary Certificate of Occupancy when we didn’t always have the information that we needed, and then folks were rewarded with Certificate of Occupancies without our knowledge when conditions of their approval had not been met, and so when I mentioned a little earlier that I look at this as a project, when this was on the agenda tonight as the pedestrian bridge discussion, I wasn’t here in January. I did read the minutes. I understood what my other Planning Board members were thinking during that time. This is a project, and there are lots of component parts to this project, and I understand that you’ve made the position that we should be voting just on the pedestrian bridge, but this is a project, and if The Great Escape Water Park gets its Certificate of Occupancy, then it is a reward for all the conditions being met, all the project conditions being met. In our discussions a little bit earlier, we talked about safety, and I believe that Mr. Mauphin said that fencing would be put along Route 9. I’m not sure exactly when that will be done. There’s been a promise made, but I don’t know when it’ll be delivered, and if a Certificate of Occupancy on the Water Park is a motivator to make sure things happen. MR. LEMERY-Well, no, it’ll close, it’ll close May 2. How do you like that one, Gretchen? nd MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Lemery, you know that there’ll be an extension granted. MR. LEMERY-I don’t. MRS. STEFFAN-It would be unlikely that the Park would close, but in my opinion awarding a Certificate of Occupancy would say that all conditions have been met, and I don’t feel all conditions have been met. We talked about that some of the landscaping plans have to be done. There are buildings that have to be taken down. We talked about other. MR. LEMERY-That’s not before you, but I understand your position, but it’s not before you. MRS. STEFFAN-But it is, in my opinion, as one Planning Board member of many, this is a project, and I believe very strongly that when a Certificate of Occupancy is awarded, it is a reward. It’s a logic consequence for all the behavior that’s happened before, and there are some questions that I still have and I know that you’re coming back before us next month regarding parking. I know that there are some stormwater issues, and we talked about the mining situation across the street, and the new management at The Great Escape is different than the folks that we knew before that were part of our community, and so I don’t. MR. LEMERY-I beg your pardon? So now we’re going to get into the management that was part of your community, and these are new folks that are new here? MRS. STEFFAN-No. The point that I was trying to make is that when I talked about, a little earlier, when I talked about the mining, there was no discussion or debate. It was no, that’s not going to change. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. LEMERY-Because it’s not before you, under any circumstances. A mining permit is not the subject of anything before this, you know, one thing this Planning Board, you need to stick to your knitting as Planning Board. MRS. STEFFAN-But, Mr. Lemery, it is part of the project. MR. LEMERY-It isn’t part of the project. None of this is part. The mining permit, unless I’m mistaken, the mining permit is not part of any project that I have been familiar with in the 15 years I’ve represented The Great Escape and this Park. The mining permit is issued as a matter of course every year. Now if you want, as a member of the Planning Board, to write DEC, you have that right, and do what you want, but to sit here and talk about the mining permit being part of the project, and storing some things that they own down there on their property, just as you could on your property, as part of the project, you’re off the reservation. You know it and I know it, and part of what has to happen here, as a Planning Board, is you have to start realizing, with the businesses that come before this Planning Board, that you have to stick to the issues that you’re supposed to be adjudicating, and the only issue before you tonight was whether we made a best effort, not whether we have parts stored over on a piece of land. Now, if you don’t want to give any business in the Town, including this one, the benefit of the doubt, if Scott Mauphin says the fencing is going up, if you say, well, we’re not going to do anything until we see it, then assuming you’re going to impose that standard on every single business in the Town, it’s going to be a long, hard road in this community, when you can’t take somebody’s word for it, who’s the General Manager, and a company that’s been totally responsible throughout its entire corporate life here, and gone upside down, created huge economic opportunity for everybody, met every single issue, as Mr. Vollaro will tell you, every single issue that he’s asked of this company they’ve met, and then you sit here and talk about, well, you’ve got new management. We don’t know that they’re part of the community. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, that’s not quite the way I said it. I understand. MR. LEMERY-Scott, tell her you’re part of the community. MRS. STEFFAN-In the minutes from January, The Great Escape asked for a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, according to what’s in the minutes, for training purposes. They were given a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for training purposes, and that weekend they had their Grand Opening in the newspaper. From my point of view, as a Planning Board member, was that an honest representation of why The Great Escape needed the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy? Was that for training or was that opening for business? MR. LEMERY-We weren’t even before the Planning Board. We didn’t even prepare that Certificate. We weren’t even before the Planning Board. I asked to be heard, and I was told that I shouldn’t come, that there was going to be a TCO issued. Let me just tell you what I did. I called Marilyn Ryba and I asked her if I could come up here and speak to you about the CO, and she said, no, you’re not on the agenda. It’s not necessary. I then called the next day and I got a call from Craig Brown back to me saying, you don’t have to be there. There’s going to be a Temporary Certificate issued, and I said, well, what does that mean, well, you’re going to get a TCO. You can open the Hotel, but you’re not going to get the permanent CO until, you’re going to get a letter from Bob Vollaro about the things he needs to see. I said, okay, fine. Then I got the minutes of the Planning Board, and not only did you discuss the issuance of the CO, you allowed a member of the audience to come up and address your Board, Mr. Salvador, and start telling you about what he knows about CO’s, Temporary CO’s and permanent CO’s, and we weren’t even here, we weren’t even on the agenda. It wasn’t a public meeting. MRS. STEFFAN-I read that. MR. LEMERY-And I had to read about it the next day when I asked for a copy of the minutes, and I called Bob Vollaro, what are you doing? How can you possibly treat an applicant like that? How can that possibly happen, that you allow comment from the audience when there’s no public hearing, there’s no public comment, and we weren’t even in attendance. Now that’s what’s going on with this company. Everybody’s invested in it, everybody in the Town, well, the 15 or 20 people who show up here at every meeting about this company are invested in what happens to it. We’ve done our level best to meet all your obligations, and to do this tonight is an unfair comment, and let me tell you, when it gets reported in the press, it’s just another anti business, anti, you know, this thing is completely 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) booked. Now what are people going to think? That’s your responsibility. If you don’t like to here it, I’m speaking, and believe you me, about every businessman in the Town of Queensbury thinks the same way, and is very annoyed at the way things are going. Like it or not. Get in your car and drive to Amsterdam, Herkimer, Little Falls, head west on I-90 and look at what’s happening to those communities. The State’s being de-populated, de- populated. We’re going to lose two or three more congressional seats next time. Why? People are leaving New York State in droves. So you have a company that’s willing to come in here and make a huge investment in a tourist economy and do the right thing, and this is the way they’re treated. This is crazy. I’m telling you, you need to get in your automobile and head west, and look around at what’s happening in the State of New York. You’d be amazed at what’s going on. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m very well aware. MR. LEMERY-Well, hopefully it won’t happen here. Anything further from you, Scott? MR. VOLLARO-Did you want to say something, Mr. Mauphin? MR. MAUPHIN-Without going into a bunch of detail why I’m somewhat offended by Mrs. Steffan’s comments that I’m not a member of this community, I live here, I pay taxes. I have children here that go to schools. I’m a member of the community. To address your comment about safety, I’ve been in this business for 15 years and I can promise you that there’s not a person in this company, there’s not a person in this community, there’s not a person sitting at that table across from you right now that’s more concerned about people’s safety. It’s what I do for a living. If we have safety problems, our business goes away. That’s what it’s built on. So I’m very concerned about it. We haven’t had fencing, you know, of our parking lot areas for I don’t know how many years people have been walking across the State highway to get to the Theme Park. Our mission here is to improve the conditions. I’m spending six million dollars this year on infrastructure items that will not bring one extra person to our park. Not a single person. I can’t market a bridge. I can’t market a parking lot. I can’t market lights in the parking lot. I can’t market fencing. We’re doing that because we know it’s necessary and we know that it will improve the visit that our guests experience. When it comes to the safety comment, I can’t control every single person’s behavior. I wish I could sometimes, honestly, but I can’t. If someone wants to come across the State highway, I cannot do anything about that. I can provide access for them. I can put signs up saying when they’re supposed to cross, which we will do. We will provide a crosswalk until the bridge is completed. We’ll have the light still functional. We’ve covered that with the DOT, Creighton Manning, who is a traffic engineer. We’ve all discussed this. I’m very concerned about it, personally, too, Mr. Vollaro, I can promise you that. MR. VOLLARO-I’m sure you are, Mr. Mauphin. MR. MAUPHIN-And we will do everything. Can you trust me as a member of the community? I guess that’s up to your discretion, but my goal here is to do the right thing. I know that some of you have the opinion that in the past we haven’t done the right thing, and that’s fine, but moving forward, that’s my goal. I have to listen to people’s comments in the community that approach me, know what I do. I don’t work at the smallest company in Town, and I want to do the right thing. I want to be seen as a company who cares about the community, who cares about the environment, cares about the business, and is seen as doing the right thing. So I don’t know that that means anything to any of you up there. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it means something to me. MR. MAUPHIN-Yes. It’s very relevant to me and it’s very high on my priority list. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you very much. MR. MAUPHIN-Yes. 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. APPLICANTS HAVE PROVIDED 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO 2/21/06 TABLING. 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-Before we continue on, I just want to state that the application for Jeffrey Kilburn, Mr. Kilburn has asked to have his application moved until April 25, because Mr. th Lapper will not be in Town. Also for Planning Board members, notice that in the Freshwater Wetlands area and in the Site Plan area the SEQRA type has now been changed to Unlisted, and when we’re looking into a CEA, we’re going to be looking into a Long Form SEQRA application, just so every Board member knows that. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, could you repeat that again? MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, Bob, when will we hear that application? MR. VOLLARO-The applicant has asked to be tabled to the 25. I’ll be in the Town th tomorrow to look at the board, the basic board that’s down in the Conference Room. MR. HUNSINGER-The 25 of June? th MR. VOLLARO-Of April. MR. HUNSINGER-April, next week. MR. VOLLARO-This is our next meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-We’re not sure, I’m not sure yet, until we look at the board, that we can fit them in there, neither is Craig Brown. The possibilities are there because a couple of people have fallen off the April 25 schedule. So we may be able to put them on April 25, but I’m thth not sure. I won’t be sure until tomorrow, and the second thing that I said was that the SEQRA has been changed from a Type II to Unlisted, because we’re working in a CEA. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, that means all CEA’s now? MR. VOLLARO-No, it does not. It means that this application has been characterized in the minds, I think, of the Staff who’ve changed this from a Type II to an Unlisted. MR. SEGULJIC-Why would this one be singled out in a CEA? Because what I’m getting at is the next application, Lotters, would be in a CEA also. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but I think the difference between the Lotters and this is this is 12.9 acres that we’re talking about here. MR. SEGULJIC-How can that be? I mean, a CEA is a CEA. I don’t understand that. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m having trouble myself. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I know that when I got the application or the Planning Board agenda, I noticed it myself, I highlighted it in yellow, that was changed to Unlisted, and I talked to Craig Brown and he said it was a decision of the Staff that it be changed to Unlisted. MRS. BARDEN-Well, it was my understanding that it was by the direction of the Board at their February 22 meeting. nd 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. VOLLARO-I looked for the motion of that. We never made a motion to change this. MRS. BARDEN-I don’t think there was a motion. It’s ultimately the Board’s decision on the classification of SEQRA. I think Staff originally had it listed as a Type II. MR. VOLLARO-They did. MRS. BARDEN-And because the discussion in February, and the concerns regarding the work in the Critical Environmental Area, that we changed it to Unlisted. MR. SCHACHNER-Wait, wait. I’m sorry, I haven’t been asked about this issue, but I feel compelled to give you competent advice to throw in my two cents. This classification issue, and ironically this came up, to some extent, at the Town Board meeting also. The classification is not something that you exercise judgment about. Classification issue is in strict accordance with the SEQRA regulations. The SEQRA regulations define what are Type I actions and define what are Type II actions, and if an action is a Type I action, you don’t have the authority or discretion to say, no, let’s down grade it to an Unlisted, and if an action is a Type II Action, you don’t have the discretionary authority to upgrade it to an Unlisted Action. MR. VOLLARO-You’re correct. MR. SCHACHNER-Thank you. I actually know a little tiny bit about this, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-No, you do, and that’s why I say you’re correct. MR. SCHACHNER-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-That’s just a comment, and don’t take it any other way, Mark, please, okay. What we did, we discussed this as a Board and there were some concerns about why was something like this classified as Type II? There were no motions by this Board. There was no direction by this Board to change that to an Unlisted. The Board did not vary the classification of this from Type II to Unlisted. It just happened that it came up on the agenda that way, and I questioned it, and it said it was Staff’s decision to do that. MR. SCHACHNER-And what I’m trying to say, I’m not criticizing the Board. I’m just speaking as to the validity of anyone. The comments I made about the Board, and if you felt they were directed to you. MR. VOLLARO-I did. MR. SCHACHNER-They’re generic comments. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Then please accept an apology. I don’t just mean this Board doesn’t have the authority I talked about. I mean, nobody has the authority. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right. MR. SCHACHNER-The SEQRA regulations set out in fair level of detail the criteria, the thresholds for what’s a Type I action and what’s a Type II action, and if an action meets one of those criteria on either of those, not one of, but all the criteria, for either of those lists, if it’s a Type I action, it’s a Type I action, and neither you nor Staff nor I nor anyone else has the lawful authority to change the classification. That’s what I’m saying. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t know anything about this particular application and which it is. MR. VOLLARO-I’m not sure how Staff arrived, whether they did that analysis or not, that you just mentioned, that was done, and based on that analysis they said this should be really an Unlisted. I have no idea how that worked out. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-So long as we’re talking about that, I didn’t know what Chapter 94 meant either, in the Freshwater Wetlands Permit. It lists the Section, normally the Section is listed as either 183 or 179. This is Chapter 94, and I didn’t know what that meant. I had no idea. Have you come up with anything at all on that? MR. SCHACHNER-Who are you looking to? MR. VOLLARO-Yourself. MR. SCHACHNER-About some Chapter 94 thing? I have no idea what that issue is. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. Can we put this in abeyance, since the application is not going to come, the public meeting was opened and it’s still open. MR. SEGULJIC-My only comment would be, I think it’s, having a project go to Unlisted, I think, is a positive thing because it’s in a CEA. My concern is we have all the other projects that area in CEA’s, that how can we treat them different? MR. VOLLARO-It says right in the regulations, and I’ve read this. Let Counsel correct me if I’m wrong. It says that because, essentially it says because something is in a CEA, for example, if something has been classified as a Type II. MR. SCHACHNER-Is or is not, I’m sorry. MR. VOLLARO-Is classified as a Type II but happens to be in a CEA, the CEA is not the driving factor that moves it to something else. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. Correct characterization. MR. SCHACHNER-Nor is there anything else that’s the driving factor that moves it to something else. If it’s Type II, it’s Type II. MR. VOLLARO-If it’s Type II, it’s Type II. Right, and I think this is what Tom is driving at here. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I’m not sure. I thought Tom said he’s in favor of upgrading if it’s consistent. MR. SEGULJIC-CEA’s are just CEA’s. There’s nothing in the regulations that deals with CEA’s. They changed that in, what, ’96? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-They changed the classification. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s exactly right. Until 1996, an Unlisted Action occurring in a Critical Environmental Area was by regulation upgraded to a Type I Action. That’s what Tom’s referring to. That was changed in 1996. So that’s no longer true. So now the SEQRA significance, bad use of term. The SEQRA relevance of designation as a Critical Environmental Area is much less important, and it really only comes into effect when you go through the EAF evaluation. You’ll recall that in the EAF evaluation there’s a question about whether something is in a CEA and whether it has significant impact as a result of being in a CEA. So there’s no longer no relevance to that designation, but it’s a lot less important. That’s where, when you say it’s not in the regulations at all anymore, where it is is in the EAF. MR. SEGULJIC-But my concern is that now we’re saying we have a project in a CEA that has been turned to Unlisted. MR. VOLLARO-Not because it’s in a CEA. There must be some other reason why it’s been transformed from Type II to Unlisted, a reason I don’t know. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-It must be in a book there somewhere that classifies, this is how you classify a Type I, a Type II, and an Unlisted. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s in the SEQRA Regulations. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-I can read you the choices if you want. We don’t know, nobody here knows why these changes occurred. Remember there’s another possibility which is it may just be a mistake. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it might be a mistake. Yes. Although, it could very well be a mistake. I’m not sure. I know that the members of this Board, when we review this particular application, some members of this Board, I can’t speak for everybody because not everybody’s here, and I can’t even speak for the people that are here. I know that there has been discussion on this Board. Isn’t it strange that something so environmentally sensitive as we’re doing on that 12.9 acres is a Type II, and it’s a Type II because they’re building a house. That’s why it’s a Type II. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct, exactly so. MR. VOLLARO-So I don’t think we can get away from the Type II, unless there’s something in the regulations that says, by the way, here’s an exception to how Type II is defined. MR. SEGULJIC-So we’re not sure why it became Unlisted? MR. VOLLARO-No, we are not. I am not. I don’t think Staff is and I don’t think Counsel is, either. MR. SCHACHNER-I haven’t the faintest idea. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s news to me. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So with that, let’s try and get forward with this agenda tonight. MRS. BARDEN-Do you want to table that to next week? MR. VOLLARO-We don’t know that we can table it to next week, because when I talked to Craig this morning at about a quarter to nine, he said that the applicant has requested that it be moved to the April 25 date. The applicant doesn’t control the agendas, and we don’t th know whether the agenda will be modulated severely by putting them in on the 25 or not. I th will be in tomorrow morning to determine whether or not they do go or not go. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if we can’t table it to a specific date, then they have to re-issue the public notice, and is there even time to issue a public notice between now and next, that’s what I thought. MR. SCHACHNER-Between now and when, the 25? Well, no, but if you’re going to do it th on the 25, just leave the public hearing open until the 25. thth MR. VOLLARO-It is open, and it’s staying open. MR. SCHACHNER-Chris’ point is you need to pick a date. MR. HUNSINGER-My point is, in our tabling motion, we need to say that it’s tabled to April 25, and then if it doesn’t fit on the agenda, we have to re-open the public hearing and th table it again to the other date that we will actually hear it. MRS. BARDEN-I think it’s fine. I think we’ve lost a couple of items next week. So I think it’s safe. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. VOLLARO-You think it’s safe to fit? All right. Then we would move it to that, and we’ll make a motion. I’ll entertain a motion to move the application for Jeffrey Kilburn, Freshwater Permit, and Jeffrey Kilburn, Site Plan to April 25, 2006. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we need two separate motions? MR. VOLLARO-I think we do, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. MOTION TO TABLE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 5-2005 JEFFREY KILBURN, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: To our regular meeting on April 25 at the applicant’s request. th Duly adopted this 18 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ford MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 64-2005 JEFFREY KILBURN, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: To our regular meeting on April 25 at the applicant’s request. th Duly adopted this 18 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ford MR. VOLLARO-And it is on the understanding with those two motions that the public hearing is still open. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-And now with that we’ll have the Michaels Group. We’ve moved this around a little bit because Counsel is here and there’s some discussion that we’ve been having on this, having to do with a legal issue, possibly. SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2003 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MICHAELS GROUP OWNER(S): SAME ZONING RR-3A LOCATION MOON HILL RD. & BAY RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO THE APPROVED SUBDIVISION. SPECIFICALLY PLANNING BOARD CONSIDERATION OF A REVISED TREE CLEARING AND LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR LOT 1. CROSS REF. SP 40-01 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 10.38 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 278.20-1-5.1, 5.2, 5.3 SECTION A-183 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-You are, for the record? MR. MILLER-My name is Jim Miller, Landscape Architect, representing the Michaels Group. John Michaels couldn’t be here tonight. He’s away on business. Dave Michaels is here, representing the Michaels Group, if you have any questions of him. Last meeting we were at, the Board issued a resolution with a variety of items, and to respond to those, we’ve re-submitted a revised landscape plan. This is for Lot One. We went back out, the surveyors went back out, located the existing tree lines towards the front of the home, down towards 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) Moon Hill Road, and also when we did that, you can see on the plan that was submitted, we added an additional group of five white pine in the front where there was a bit of a gap in the clearing that didn’t show on the original subdivision. So at this point the site plan shows a total planting of 43 trees. We’ve also, at this point, there’s a purchaser for the house. It’s under contract. As a matter of fact, it’s my understanding that the Michaels Group has picked up a couple of months mortgage while this has been going on and so we’re, we have contractors lined up to do this landscaping. Now is the perfect time to do it. So we’re very close to implementing everything we have on the plan. The deed was being drafted for this, which made a reference to this landscaping plan for Lot One. Also on that plan you’ll see we’ve added the maintenance agreement, which spelled out all of the items that were identified in the resolution, and I think those were the items. It’s been agreed by the Michaels Group that this plan as it has been revised will be filed with the County and will be referenced in the deed. So there’ll be an official document that will go with the property. So with that I believe we’ve addressed the resolution items. We’re willing to respond to any questions. MR. SEGULJIC-It looks good to me. MR. VOLLARO-Was there, refresh my memory, now. Did we speak or did we discuss at the time that we did this motion, and I don’t see it in the motion, that Staff would be authorized to inspect the operation? I think we did say something to that effect. MR. MILLER-No, I think that was Kilburn. MR. VOLLARO-Was that Kilburn? MR. MILLER-That was Kilburn. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MILLER-No, but I mean, obviously Staff has the legal right to conduct an inspection, just as they would any other approved site plan. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any problem with this, in looking at it. I just, for my perspective, I said I would recommend the approval, writing to myself now, not for the Board. These are my notes, that I would recommend approval of Final subdivision based on the landscape plan provided March 2, 2006 for Lot One, and further supported by a letter from Mr. Miller, from Miller Associates dated March 10, that’s your letter, and I, as one th Board member, have no objections here. I’d like to hear from the rest of the Board. I’ll start with you, Don. MR. SIPP-None. MR. SEGULJIC-It looks good to me. MRS. STEFFAN-They satisfied all the requirements. The only thing that we talked about last time was an accurate survey on Lot Two, because there was clearing that was done and the site location for the house was changed. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MILLER-I wasn’t involved in this project early on. First of all, what I’d like to say is what we’d like to do is, you know, we’ve been before you a couple of times. We’d like to get an approval on Lot One. If there’s something else for Lot Two, because we have some people that are ready to move in. We’ve got contractors that I don’t, I’d hate to delay this for two months. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think what’s in front of us here is Subdivision No. 9-2003 a modification to that, and we ought to get our motion up on that. MR. MILLER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I haven’t asked Mr. Hunsinger his opinion on it yet. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I wasn’t here at the last meeting when this was discussed. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s okay. You can do due diligence without it. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely, Bob. I mean, it certainly looked okay to me. I didn’t know the details, exactly, of what was requested by the Board, but I had the same questions for Lot Two, and I assume that’s why we asked Counsel to be here for that. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-I understand that Lot Two is a separate owner, and that’s not what’s before us this evening. So in asking that question, I’m in no way implying that we would withhold any approval. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. The same here. Lot One looks fine. MR. VOLLARO-In order to save time, if the Board permits, I would make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2003 MICHAELS GROUP, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: Based on the Landscape Plan LA-1, revision dated March 2, 2006, for Lot Number One, and further supported by a letter from Miller Associates dated March 10, 2006, containing five specific conditions pertaining to the modification of Subdivision No. 9-2003 for Lot One. Duly adopted this 18 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ford MR. VOLLARO-Now I think we can proceed to a discussion of Lot Two, which is why we had Counsel here to begin with. I would like to put something forward if the Board would permit. MRS. STEFFAN-Jim had some comments. Do we want to hear from him first? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, sure. I thought maybe I could short circuit some of that with this comment, but, Mr. Miller, you go right ahead. MR. MILLER-Well, what I was going to do is just kind of review the history of Lot Two, would that be helpful? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, sure. It certainly would. MR. MILLER-Okay. I wasn’t involved, and so I had to do a little bit of research with the surveyors, and basically this was the original approved subdivision. We show Lot One with the house where it is, and as we’ve been discussing, it shows Lot Two with the house located near the rear, and then Lot Three with the house located near Bay Road. Now what happened on Lot Two is when this lot was, actually John Michaels was considering building a home here. So what happened, when this was approved, they cleared for this road and they cleared this site in this area as it’s shown on the site plan. Somewhere along the line the plans changed and another buyer came forward to buy that lot and John, you know, didn’t go ahead with it. When that happened, and the new buyer, he preferred to put the house on this knoll here, rather than the back where it was cleared. So at that time, when that happened, because of the existing property lines, this plan came back before the Planning Board, and when, it came back for a modification to allow that to happen, and this modification, here’s the modified plan, and you can see, this house was moved from the back of the lot to the top of the knoll, and then to accommodate that, this lot line on Lot Three was adjusted. So my understanding is all of this was before the Planning Board and this modification, moving the house from this area to this area, was approved, and as you can see, this is an official approved map. So it’s my understanding that this was looked at previously. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and I agree with that. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. MILLER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Now, let me put down what I would like to just propose, and see what the Board thinks about it, if they’ll allow me to do that. The question is, does the deed for Lot Two contain the following statements. Now see the highlighted section of the April 3 Staff Notes. Now, the highlighted section of the Staff Notes says lot clearing limits shall conform to the areas shown on this plan. No trees over two caliper shall be moved outside of the clearing limits unless dead or diseased, present danger to health or property. Preliminary and Final approvals were granted on October 28 with the condition that all deed restrictions th noted in the applicant’s submitted plans included in the actual deeds. If that’s a fact, if they do appear in the deeds, it would be my position that the present owner of Lot Two be required to incorporate Lot Three. He is the owner of Lot Three, by the way. He owns Lot Two. He also owns the adjoining Lot Three. He’s the current owner of both, and the proposal is that the present owner of Lot Two be required to incorporate Lot Three, which he currently owns, and Lot Two into one single lot, with a deed restriction that no further subdivision of this lot consisting of X acres. I’m not sure what it is, I haven’t added them up, and if not agreed to, then the owner would be financially responsible for the re-forestation program to Lot Number Two, very similar to what we just went through on Lot Number One. So all I’m saying is we’d be trading off all of, what trees were taken, what trees were not taken, what trees need to be put back. Merely by having the present owner amalgamate Lot Two and Lot Three into one deed and having a deed restriction put on there for no further subdivision. That was my simple-minded, if you will, look at how this could be solved. MR. MILLER-Could I respond to that? The Michaels Group has no control over these lots. They’re both owned. We have a taxpayer there who has bought a lot and built a house and then built a second lot, and this is a filed legal subdivision. It’s a filed subdivision. So essentially this gentleman, he owns two lots, and like anyone who would own a double lot, he has the right to develop it or he has the right to maintain it as additional open space and at this point The Michaels Group can’t go back to him and say you need to combine the lots. So, you know, I don’t think that’s really an option. I think The Michaels Group could probably do some planting if he agreed for that to happen, but the thing I contend is what’s happened here is The Michaels Group came back, I mean, the clearing and the re-vegetation we’re looking at on Lot One, that was in error, and that’s why we’re here. I mean, it’s a different thing. MR. VOLLARO-That’s already been approved. MR. MILLER-But here, when this happened and the house was being moved, The Michaels Group, represented by Van Dusen and Steves, they came back in and presented to this Board, they said this area was cleared, but the new owner doesn’t want to build the house there. He wants to build it here, and it was presented to this Board, and at the time the Board reviewed it and then granted that modification, and then that was the window of opportunity, if there was a clearing issue, and I think unfortunately what’s happened, because we’ve sort of gotten into this clearing issue here, now it’s kind of spilling back and we’re reopening something here. The Michaels Group wants to set things right, but I think we have kind of two different issues here, an now these are lots that are really outside of their control, other than the fact that people purchased them, and I also think that this area we’re talking about, the clearing, it’s a little bit different in nature than what was done on Lot One. I mean, Lot One was done down the side of the hill, and, you know, exposed a lot of view. The clearing that was done in the back of Lot Two was done in the area where the house was going to be. It’s not a big, long vista, and quite honestly I don’t know if it’s maintained as a cleared area. MR. VOLLARO-What is the photograph that’s up on there? MR. MILLER-That’s Lot One. That’s Lot Two. I stand corrected. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s the position that was cleared for, originally, on Lot Two, and then the house moved to a different location and that’s what’s left of the clearing for Lot Two? MRS. BARDEN-That is indicated in the last paragraph in Staff notes, that that’s beyond the clearing for either house site. That’s the 60 to 90 feet down slope. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s what is presently there, 60 to 90 feet down slope. I saw Bruce Frank’s inspection report on that, and that’s where that 60 to 90 feet down slope comes from. Okay. So that’s what’s there currently. MR. MILLER-I have not inspected that. I mean, I’m only looking at the drawings. I’m only familiar with the history as it’s come back for the modification. MRS. BARDEN-March 14 inspection. th MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t know. The question is both properties are currently owned under deed right now by one owner. There was either a, when we did this, I believe that came before us as a modification, for Lot Two? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And at that time I didn’t know, did we know, at that time, you might have to refresh my memory, because it might not be right on target here. When we came, did we know that the current, the potential buyer for Lot Two was going to move the house to another location? MR. MILLER-Yes, that’s why the modification was done, because the lot line had to be adjusted, as you can see in that plan, the modified plan right there, that sign, that shows the house as it is. That’s why they were here for the modification, and I think at that time this area had already been cleared because that was the original. MR. VOLLARO-The original site. MR. MILLER-Original site. MR. VOLLARO-This is a discussion. We’re not up here, it’s not before us as a Lot Two requirement. It just came as a follow on to the approval of what we did on Lot Number One. Is there a remedy here for this at all? DAVE MICHAELS MR. MICHAELS-I can interject maybe an idea. Like I said, Dave Michaels. John couldn’t be here, which was unfortunate, because he was, as far as our company was, that was his project, and we divide things up. Although we keep each one privy to certain things that are going on, we divide responsibility. Anyway, my understanding was that he truly was going to be building his home there and for whatever reason changed his mind, whatever, decided to sit tight, and another buyer came along, and I guess that prompted they wanted a different location, and then a revised plot plan and those kind of things, and talking to John, as far as this particular lot, what he suggested was, you know, maybe the best idea here, instead of everybody trying to really understand what’s out there and what’s the real situation, is possibly, you know, set up something informally with maybe Staff and if one of the Planning Board members would like to attend, he said he would like to go and involve the homeowner also on that lot, go out there and really understand what, visually, what’s there, what were the clearing limits. Where the house ended up. It’s very hard just to look at the photo and understand the impact, and then, talking out loud, look at it as a group and maybe come up with, hey, I think, here’s what really happened, here’s what the impact is or not an impact, and maybe talk it out with the homeowner there, too, and where our standpoint would be is, you know, we’re there as not just putting our foot down. We’re there to try to work something through. Hopefully the homeowner will feel the same way and Staff and, you know, somehow we got here. We’ve got these people in. They own the lots, but we’re willing to at least go in on an afterward basis, with someone from Staff, and maybe one of the Board members, I think it might be a good method. MR. VOLLARO-Supposing we arrive at a position, through a meeting like that, for one of the Board members and so on to get together, who would be financially responsible? I mean, you’d have to figure out, would The Michaels Group be willing to sort of mitigate that circumstance? MR. MICHAELS-I think if there was an issue that was brought up and everybody clearly felt that there was something that wasn’t really done right, even though it was ill-intentioned, I think we would be open, if it clearly points our way instead of our homeowner that’s now in 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) the home and has a sold house, I think we’d be more than willing to do at least something. It may be a situation that it may be appropriate, too, if it’s agreed something should be done where the homeowner feels that what they were given and what t hey were represented was real, and this will be above and beyond, and they may feel comfortable to contribute, but I can’t say for them. I think a group meeting, though, is a way to get some dialogue, commonality. MR. VOLLARO-That might be an approach. MR. SEGULJIC-Could you just clarify for me, I’m a little confused. We had originally the house plan on the northern end of the site, and that was cleared, and then an owner came, a potential owner came along and said, I’d rather have my house further to the south. MR. MILLER-On the knoll, right. MR. SEGULJIC-On the knoll. So that meant, the northern area was already cleared. MR. MILLER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-The new owner came in, potential owner, and cleared where the new house and they got the site plan approval for that. MR. MICHAELS-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-And then that leads me to Bruce Frank’s letter, where he talks about this other clearing, most notably the steep slope at the northern end of the lot, shown as undisturbed on the site plan, has cleared area approximately 60 by 90 feet. Is that another area? MR. MILLER-I don’t know. Is Bruce saying it was cleared beyond what was originally shown on the other plan? I mean, we would almost have to do the same thing we did here on Lot One, and then we would have to locate the existing tree line, because I would have no way to look at it and tell. MR. VOLLARO-What Bruce says, he says additionally the configuration of the cleared areas appears to be different from that that was submitted. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s what I’d be interested in finding out. MR. MILLER-And the only way we could do that would be to, like we did on Lot One, is to survey the limit and overlay it on the map, and say yes or no. MR. SEGULJIC-Where I’m coming from is that if that area to the north was originally cleared and the house was moved, we approved it, shame on us, but if this other area comes in, shame on whoever. MR. MILLER-Well, I think you’re right. I think Dave’s offered a good solution to this. I mean, we could locate that tree line, and you confirm where it is, I’ve been doing this for a long time, but I have a tough time going out there and eyeballing it and saying the wood lines are 50 feet different than on the map. I’ve never been good at that. So I rely on the surveyors. MR. MICHAELS-We’d be willing to, as long as the homeowner lets us come in to the property, we’d be willing to get that roughed out to just verify that. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. Has he made complaints at all about his property looking like that at the present time, or he just hasn’t said anything about it? I don’t know. MR. MICHAELS-From my knowledge of this, not that I know of at all. I think if it was an issue, we would have known about it. MR. VOLLARO-He hasn’t submitted anything. You would have known about it. MR. MILLER-He purchased it like that. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. SEGULJIC-So can we schedule this for a Saturday morning site visit? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m just wondering. Here I have a buyer who comes and buys a house and says I want to have, and knows that there’s been a clearing. He must have known that, and he said, no, I don’t want my house there. I want it on the knoll. That required some additional clearing, obviously, for the knoll, and he was willing to purchase it that way, and then he said, by the way, I’m going to purchase Lot Number Three and I understand kind of use that as a buffer, or an insulator from the road or whatever you want to call it, and the buyer bought the property as he saw it. Now, based on that, I don’t know whether we’re involved at all. I’d like to ask Counsel that. Here’s a buyer who bought property knowing what he was buying, obviously knew what he was buying, he moved it and bought another lot, and hasn’t complained to anybody, including the people that he purchased it from, namely The Michaels Group, and why are we concerned about it at all at this particular point? MR. SCHACHNER-I’m thrilled that you’re asking me this question, because what I’ve been confused about is why this is before the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I don’t see this as a Planning Board issue, either. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s exactly what’s mystified me for the last twenty something minutes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So we’re all on the same page on that. MR. SCHACHNER-Great. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t see that the Planning Board is involved, myself, personally. If the buyer starts to approach you for it, I think it’s between you and the buyer to come to some mutual agreement to maybe even just clean it up, but I don’t know that we’re involved. MRS. STEFFAN-No, I don’t think we’re involved, but I think, I don’t think it’s that simple. I think Code Enforcement just needs to work with The Michaels Group to identify that cleared area, and if it’s over cleared, then. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the contention there is that the original area that was cleared for the house looks like it may have been over cleared for the original location. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the only thing I see, but then the buyer has agreed, you see, with that, to buy it in that configuration, and I don’t know how we get on private property, now, to do this. I don’t know. MR. MILLER-Well, you would have to do it with their consent, unless it’s an enforcement action. MR. VOLLARO-I just, I happen to agree with, strangely enough, the two of us seem to agree on something here, but that’s a good thing. I happen to agree with Mr. Hunsinger, that I don’t think this is a Board issue. I really don’t. I thought about, when I wrote this, I said, well, maybe one way to do it is this way, but in effect I don’t think that it’s an issue. MR. MILLER-In a way, I agree with you after discussion. I think Staff could certainly have some discussions with The Michaels Group, if there’s concern, and still I think they’d be willing to work with Staff on any concerns they’ve got. MR. MICHAELS-Yes, even if it’s Code Enforcement with John and the homeowner up to the site, and they’re looking at it and say they, you know, I’m fine with this, but, you know, we all agree that there’s a few trees, you know, dead trees that are knocked down that are knocked out of the way, we’ll get it chipped up, cleaned up, and so it looks good. We’re willing to do anything that way. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. VOLLARO-It may be an issue between yourself, the homeowner, and I don’t even know whether Code Enforcement ought to be involved in this yet. I mean, we’re talking about Code Enforcement being a part and parcel of an observation group that goes on the site and says, what do you think. I think maybe The Michaels Group and the buyer go out there and resolve a problem, if they feel it’s. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s certainly fine, but it’s not up to this Board to decide whether a Code Enforcement action is taken or not, but I’m also going to have to tell you that I’m going to highly discourage this Board from participating in some sort of out of public meeting about some Code Enforcement action. MR. VOLLARO-I agree. I think this is not an issue for the Planning Board. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Bottom line kind of. So I would like to just dismiss this, essentially. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, not a Planning Board issue. There’s no application pending before the Planning Board. MR. VOLLARO-No, there is not. MR. SCHACHNER-No one has applied to modify any previous application? MR. VOLLARO-No, they haven’t. MRS. STEFFAN-The only reason it came up is because when we were looking at the Lot One situation, we had a plan, we had a subdivision plan, and we were looking at Lot One and Lot Two. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-And we identified that. MR. SCHACHNER-There was trouble in Lot Two. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-And so if there’s trouble in Lot Two, then the two most obvious possible ways to solve the trouble, three most obvious ways to solve the trouble in Lot Two are, Number One, whoever owns Lot Two fixes the problem and does whatever the plan required, problem solved. Number Two, Code Enforcement takes some sort of Code Enforcement action, either formally or informally, Number Three, the owner of the property seeks modification of whatever approval was previously granted by this Board establishing whatever these limits were, and then it’s up to this Board whether to grant that modification. You’re certainly under no obligation to do so, but it’s my understanding none of those three things have happened yet. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct, in my mind, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s the end of that issue. MR. MILLER-So I can go now. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got your approval on Lot One. MR. MILLER-Thank you. MR. MICHAELS-All right. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. EXPEDITED REVIEW: 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) SITE PLAN NO. 11-2006 SEQR TYPE II PAUL F. LOTTERS AGENT(S): FRANK DE NARDO, ELITE DOCK CO. OWNER(S): SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 140 LAKE PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES A 1,280 SQ. FT. OPEN-SIDED BOATHOUSE/SUNDECK ON AN EXISTING 656 SQ. FT. U-SHAPED WHARF. SP 5-2004 APPROVED 2/24/04 HAS EXPIRED. BOATHOUSE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. SP 5-04 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/12/06 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.42 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-9 SECTION 179-4-020 FRANK DE NARDO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. DE NARDO-Frank DeNardo for Paul Lotters. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Do you have anything you would like to address to the Board? MR. DE NARDO-Other than the project was previously approved back in 2004, the permit’s expired, due to my scheduling. We started the project, not knowing that the permit’s were expired. I did not originally get the permits. The permits were gotten by another contractor, and I took over that contractor’s position, and as soon as we found out they were expired, we ceased our work and came in front of you folks. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. DE NARDO-The only changes that are on the thing are the height and the 128 feet of square feet, if you see what we did there. MR. VOLLARO-You changed the square footage somewhat. MR. DE NARDO-Yes. There was mistake of 128 square feet on the layout. I tried to do my homework on this stuff and the plan that was already out there to the size of the dock would not have fit without the 128 square feet. MR. VOLLARO-I think the only things here, let me ask my fellow Board members to go through this. I have a position, but I’d like to ask, I’m opening discussion to the Board, I think the applicant has said if we have any questions. There’s only really one in my mind. MR. DE NARDO-We also have the Lake George Park Commission permit that will be issued immediately, as soon as we get your approval. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re saying that the discrepancy of the increase from 1,152 feet from 1280 was a miscalculation? MR. DE NARDO-Miscalculation. MR. SEGULJIC-Due to? MR. DE NARDO-Well, when they put the covering over the top of the dock, they didn’t add in the back section, and that was supposed to be added in. You see that’s the full coverage there now. That’s where we stopped. That’s exactly where we stopped. MR. SEGULJIC-So you extended it out over the dock, is that what happened? MR. DE NARDO-No, actually it stops right at the back part of the dock, towards the shoreline. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. So it got extended out past? MR. DE NARDO-It covers the back walking area. The other one didn’t cover the back walking area. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. DE NARDO-Mr. Lotters has an 1896 Laos boat, the oldest one on Lake George, and he wants as much protection from the sun as possible. So that was supposed to be in the plan. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. SEGULJIC-And then the. MR. DE NARDO-And then the height. The original height they have 12 feet. The gentleman that drew up the original drawings, if you do 12 feet off the mean high water mark, you wouldn’t be able to walk underneath the boathouse, when everything is all said and done. So we brought the railings up to the 14 foot mark. MR. SEGULJIC-So the railings are at 14 foot, not the deck. MR. DE NARDO-Fourteen foot, correct, not the deck. MR. SEGULJIC-And the other issue is the land bridge. MR. DE NARDO-And the definition of a land bridge. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess the last time. MR. HUNSINGER-The stairs coming off the land that lead up to the dock. MR. DE NARDO-Right. The stairs come down to a platform in the back. I wish we had a picture of the house next door, because it’s almost identical to the Margolis’ project over there, and they step down in two tiers down to the dock, and then to the land. MR. VOLLARO-The drawing that I saw looked different than that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The drawing looks different than that. The drawing makes it appears as though the stairs go from the land to the top of the platform. MR. DE NARDO-They actually go down off the side. They go down this way. MR. SEGULJIC-Onto the land, or onto the deck, the dock? MR. DE NARDO-Onto the back, there’s a back deck area in the back, where that, if I could point this out to you. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. DeNardo, this is the drawing I’m referring to, and I think maybe the same drawing that Mr. Hunsinger’s referring to. MR. DE NARDO-It comes back to the deck in the back there. MR. VOLLARO-Right. What I had assumed, you get into the dock from here. MR. DE NARDO-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-And then your stair is internal. MR. DE NARDO-No, those are the stairs right there. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but they go from land to the top. This is the land. This is the top. MR. DE NARDO-Correct, stairs. MR. VOLLARO-Right, but that’s considered a land bridge. MR. SEGULJIC-And what happened last time with the approval, if I’m correct, it said the applicant was to check with Warren County Planning Board requirement, no land bridge shall be applicable to this application. Did you check with Warren County? MR. DE NARDO-Yes, I was there and they approved the same drawings you have right in front of you. MR. SEGULJIC-With the land bridge? 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. DE NARDO-It goes to a platform in the back on land, but it’s a set of stairs. I mean, every dock I’ve done up there with the same thing goes through with them, just like that. They don’t want a bridge going from, a bridge going down, from what I was told, but I think we went over this in the minutes, last year or the year before, and there was a big discussion on this. MR. HUNSINGER-So what you’re saying is, because it’s stairs, it’s different. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it’s a fine line. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m confused. MR. VOLLARO-I’m just surprised that Warren County. MR. SEGULJIC-Because you appear to understand, what exactly is going on? Do you understand? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. DE NARDO-I mean, we could use the Americans with Disabilities Act on this, too, and put a ramp in, and it would still be a land bridge. MR. HUNSINGER-No, that’s been tried. We don’t care. MR. DE NARDO-Understandable. MR. SEGULJIC-We don’t know why the County does not. MR. DE NARDO-I don’t understand it, either. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, my personal position on all of these, I hate every single one of them. If it were up to me, I would never approve a single one, and I’ve said that many, many times before. I think they’re not worth the time that we spend on them, but everybody has to have their Taj Mahal of boat docks to store their boats. I mean, if people want to wreck the view of the lake, who am I to stand in the way? Because, you know, your next door neighbor has one, now you have to have one, and that’s just the way it is. MR. DE NARDO-I understand that. MR. HUNSINGER-But there’s no compelling reason to say no to this guy when we said yes to the 157 others, you know, right down the lake. So that’s my position. It hasn’t changed since the very first one we looked at. MR. VOLLARO-Hopefully, when you are looking at this section in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, there will be some discussion, possibly, about this. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Because it’s unclear. It’s somewhat contentious when we do it on the Board. Some people agree, some people don’t. If it was clearly specified, you know, maybe, for things that are happening, as I understand them, that are going on, there may be some reason, some very valid reason, why we, as a Board, don’t have jurisdiction of docks over the waters, the navigable waters of the State of New York. It’s starting to surface. We may not have to deal with this at some time in the future. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, the only compelling reason, and the only time we’ve ever denied one, is when neighbors showed up and said you’re going to wreck my view of the lake. So, absent that, it’s almost a rubber stamp. You meet all the requirements. MR. DE NARDO-I always work with the neighbors. Before I start any project, make sure the neighbors, they’re all my potential customers, and I have a very good rapport with everybody up in that area. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. HUNSINGER-And you say, look at this beautiful boat dock, I can build you one, too. MR. DE NARDO-No, that’s not exactly, sometimes it works like that, but. The work speaks for itself. We make them aesthetically pleasing, what we have to do for the customers. We don’t make the Taj Mahals, as some of the docks. MR. HUNSINGER-I was exaggerating, but some are. MR. DE NARDO-Some, in my personal opinion, are way out of line. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DE NARDO-And they tend to stretch (lost words) we keep everything right to whatever the plans are. We build that. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Exactly, you meet the 14 foot high water mark. You meet the size requirements. MR. DE NARDO-And I have all the Roger’s Rock readings if you need them. I know that’s always an issue. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve been before us before. I know you know how to do that calculation, because you and I have been through that loop. MR. DE NARDO-At least once. MR. SEGULJIC-My only concern, once again, is the land bridge, and when I look at the application for the Lake George Park Commission, at the bottom under, Four, project description, I really can’t read what it’s saying, but I can see the second line off to the right, in parentheses, it has land bridge. MR. VOLLARO-Are you looking at the Lake George Park Commission? MR. SEGULJIC-Application for permit for docks. MR. VOLLARO-This is March 1st? MR. SEGULJIC-No, it’s February 10, 2004. MR. VOLLARO-I have a March 1 here. st MR. DE NARDO-The newest one. MR. VOLLARO-This is in accordance with attached plans. This is March 10. You have th one that’s later than March? MR. SEGULJIC-No, it’s earlier. MR. VOLLARO-It’s earlier. MR. SIPP-There’s two February’s, 10 and the 17. thth MR. SEGULJIC-Stamped February 10, 2004 in the corner. MR. DE NARDO-Was that the public comment one? MR. VOLLARO-No, this is project description, and it just has land bridge in parentheses, but it doesn’t say or it doesn’t say no. It doesn’t say no land bridge. It just has, for some reason or another it has land bridge in parenthesis, and there’s no statement in there under the project that this is to be denied because of a land bridge, it doesn’t even state that. The latest application that I have is dated March 1. Notice of Complete application, and the land st bridge is evidenced twice there, once in a computer generated drawing and another one in a hand drawing. Is there a Lake George Park Commission permit that was issued against the application of March 1? I guess that’s what I need to know. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. DE NARDO-They had an application back on March 1. That expired, and I renewed it. MR. VOLLARO-With this one. MR. DE NARDO-With the current one. With the new drawings. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. DE NARDO-And it was all agreed on, but they will not issue it to me until you give me the final on it. It’s ready to run. It’s ready. It went out to public notice on both sides of the property from them, too. MR. VOLLARO-What did Warren County say about this? MRS. BARDEN-No County Impact. MR. VOLLARO-No County Impact. They didn’t mention the land bridge? MRS. BARDEN-They did not. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I guess looking at this other drawing, though, there’s a drawing, and you can’t read the year, but it’s dated March 8, it’s a computer drawing. th MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I see it. MR. HUNSINGER-And right in the middle it says six by six walkway from land to dock, and the stairs take off from there. So I guess that would lead me to believe that it really isn’t a land bridge, as the applicant is saying. I’d hang my head on that. MR. VOLLARO-Does somebody want to make a motion for this? There’s a public hearing on this tonight. Does anybody want to comment on this application? Hearing none, I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-This is a SEQRA Type II. There’ll be no SEQRA. If somebody wants to put a motion up, I’d be interested in hearing it. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 11-2006 PAUL F. LOTTERS, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: In accordance with the application submitted and reviewed by the Planning Board. Duly adopted this 18 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ford MR. DE NARDO-Thank you very much. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, Mr. DeNardo. MR. DE NARDO-Have a good evening. SUBDIVISION [MODIFICATION] SUB 4-1993 SEQR TYPE RE-AFFIRMED SEQRA GUIDO PASSARELLI AGENT(S): HOWARD KRANTZ OWNER(S): MR. & MRS. RUSSELL THOMAS; GUIDO PASSARELLI ZONING RC-15 LOCATION 23 HIGHPOINTE DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN LOTS 10 AND 11 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) IN THE ROUND POND/BIRDSALL ROAD SUBDIVISION. MODIFICATIONS TO APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. BP FOR SFD, DECK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/ALOT SIZE 1.11 AC., 1.15 AC. TAX MAP NO. 296.5-1-17, 18 SECTION A-183 MIKE LA MOTT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. LA MOTT-I’m a last minute stand-in for Howard Krantz. He’s been home suffering from a bad back due to an exercise accident. So I got the phone call late today. I’m not really sure what was mailed to the Planning Board. MR. VOLLARO-Actually, it’s interesting. This was the map that was provided by Mr. Krantz. MR. LA MOTT-I can give you this one. This is a stamped surveyor’s drawing of the same thing. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. We don’t have the same thing. That was not submitted. What was submitted is what we have here. MR. LA MOTT-I think he took an older map, reduced it. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we don’t have this. MR. LA MOTT-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I’m saying this is not something that’s before the Board this evening. We don’t have it in our. Do you have it? MRS. STEFFAN-No, but it looks like we got a segment of it. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it’s the same thing. The only thing that’s missing is that. MR. LA MOTT-Yes, that has the seal. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the key right there. We have what you have there. It’s just we don’t have the whole thing. Okay. Members of the Board have looked at this. Susan, would you like to read the Staff notes on this one? MRS. BARDEN-Sure. This is a modification of a previously approved subdivision. It’s located at 23 and 27 High Pointe Drive, Lots 10 and 11 of the Passarelli, Round Pond subdivision. Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment between lots 10 and 11, locating the existing driveway servicing lots 10 and 9 on lot 10. Staff Comments. The final survey for the new construction on lot 11 indicates that the house meets the setback requirements with the new lot configuration. On the original subdivision plat lot 10 is 1.11-acres and lot 11 is 1.15- acres, the new configuration shows lot 10 at +/- 1.17-acres and lot 11 at +/- 1.11-acres. The property lines for lot 11 proposed and existing seem to be consistent, therefore the difference and the area proposed to be transferred from lot 10 to 11 is approximately 1,742 sq. ft. However, the applicant should verify this number. The original subdivision was approved with a plat notation stating, “Common access drives for lots 9 and 10 have a minimum 12’ wide travel area, room to pass two vehicles along access at approx. point, and room for a turn-around area near the houses.” A subdivision modification was approved for modifications to the grading plan, specifically for lots 8 and 9, on September 16, 2003. Conditions of approval included, 1. “The applicant will plant 35 white pine of either three inch caliper or six foot in height, dispersed evenly over the sloped graded area of lots 8 and 9.” 2. “All slopes to be grass seeded.” And the resolution is attached. It does not appear that these conditions have been met. With this modification request, the Board should require that all previous conditions be met within a definite period of time and request that Town staff monitor and enforce the site for compliance. Most recently a building permit was issued, Building Permit 2006-039, issued February 25, 2006 for a single family dwelling on Lot 11. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The building permit has been issued for Lot 11? MRS. BARDEN-Yes. The house is there. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. VOLLARO-When Staff said that, however, the applicant should verify this number, this number would have to be computer verified, I think, based on this drawing, but I did what I call the sum of right angle squares, and I come out with a little different number. I come out with that that area is really 2312 square feet, based on right triangle squares, the summation of those, and that’s just my construction, but he would have to verify that by survey. There’s no other way to really come up with the actual number unless he surveys that. I view this as a rather minor lot line adjustment. I don’t know how other Planning Board members feel about it, but I’ll certainly open the Board to comment on this one. Don, how about you taking a crack at a comment. MR. SIPP-I would request that these 35 white pine of six foot in height of three inch caliper be done before we, in the process of approving this. MR. VOLLARO-You want to make it a condition of approval? MR. SIPP-That’s right, and seeded. MR. LA MOTT-Can I make a comment? Lot Eight is topsoiled and will be seeded shortly. Lot Nine we’re still working on. It’s up on the hill. I’ve got to get a road into it, which is the road indicated on here. We’ll still be working on that, and, yes, I was the guy that came here a year or so ago and said I would plant the trees, but I’m still working on that lot, but Lot Eight has been addressed, and I’m sure that they took pictures and saw the topsoil, but what they see on the bank is Lot Nine, but I think Bruce said there’s no runoff or anything like that, which was the concern the last time. MR. SIPP-Any slope to this at all? MR. LA MOTT-It slopes, but there’s no runoff. We had silt fences up. We’ve taken those down because we no longer have the runoff off that lot, which was, I don’t know, I’m saying a year ago. I’m not sure when was the last time I was in there. You caught me off guard today. MR. SIPP-That’s all glacial till anyway. That’s well drained. MR. LA MOTT-Well, that’s what Bruce said, that everything’s going down into the ground. It’s not going down the hill. MR. SIPP-Still and all, when you get a heavy rainstorm. MR. LA MOTT-We’ve had a few heavy rainstorms since that bank has been there. MR. SIPP-But even if nothing else, it should be seeded, and that can be done. MR. LA MOTT-Well, we’re still working on it. It would be, we think, a waste of money, at this point. Nothing is running off. MR. SEGULJIC-When you say you’re still working on it. MR. LA MOTT-The original subdivision, when it was originally filed, Lot Nine showed a house, without the original map, out towards the Lot Ten easement for the driveway. However, that’s a steep bank like this. We cleared closer to Birdsall Road, but we had to take the hill down because the original drawing showed the house eight feet below the septic tank, and that was the approved drawing. Obviously we couldn’t live with that. So we took it down. Some of that fill we moved over onto the cul de sac and Round Pond. There was a deep gully, couldn’t build on it. So we filled in that gully with the fill off Lot Nine. We’re still working on Lot Nine because we still have to get a road in there from this easement to that lot. There’s no access off the end of that road right now, or that easement. It’s strictly downhill to the nines. So we’ve got to fill that in, too. MR. SIPP-No access from Birdsall Road at all? MR. LA MOTT-Birdsall Road, if you’ve ever been up there, is probably 25 feet straight up. MR. SEGULJIC-So when are you going to plant the 35 white pine trees? 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. LA MOTT-When somebody buys that lot, I’ll put all kinds of trees in there, but right now, you know, the bank is stable. Nothing has runoff in the last year or so. The silt fence that was around Lot Eight is gone because that’s stabilized, topsoil. MR. VOLLARO-This subdivision was approved on September 16, 2003? This entire subdivision? MR. SEGULJIC-No, Bob, it was modified. MR. LA MOTT-It was before that. MRS. BARDEN-1993. MR. VOLLARO-It was 1993. MR. LA MOTT-1993. MR. VOLLARO-So we’re really talking a subdivision that’s been ongoing for approximately 13 years. MR. LA MOTT-We never did much with it, for the first seven years. MR. VOLLARO-This is before us primarily for a lot line adjustment as shown on this map. Is that correct? This is what’s before us, a modification of a previously approved subdivision, in terms of probably something like 2,000 square foot movement of a lot line. Until Lot Eight and Nine are purchased and getting ready for development. MR. LA MOTT-Lot Eight has a house on it. MR. VOLLARO-Lot Eight has a house. MR. LA MOTT-It has a spec house on it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Where is Lot Eight relative? MR. VOLLARO-We don’t have it. We don’t have Lot Eight. We have a Lot Nine but we don’t have a Lot Eight. MR. LA MOTT-Lot Eight is on Birdsall Road. That does have a driveway going on to Birdsall Road, but it’s at the bottom of the hill from Nine. MR. VOLLARO-See, one of the problems we’re having here as a Board is we don’t have an entire plot plan. We have part of it, and part of the Staff notes refer to a lot that we don’t have vision on. It’s off that drawing. It’s not listed, and that’s why I said when we first got here, we don’t have. MR. LA MOTT-It’s on my map. MR. VOLLARO-I know that, but this Board doesn’t have that as an official portion of this application, and not having that, we weren’t able to sit down and really take the Staff notes and go into where is Lot Eight, where is Lot Nine, and so on. So we were at somewhat of a disadvantage in our review by not having the full drawing. Does Staff have that drawing that this gentleman is talking about? MRS. BARDEN-I haven’t seen the drawing that he has. No. I’m sure that I have the same one that you have. I did have the benefit of going into the original file, however, which is where I found most recently the modification in 2003 that had that condition. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and that’s what you have there. Okay. It would have been helpful if we had that, I think. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels about this. I guess my personal opinion is when Lot Eight gets developed, you put in the trees. MR. LA MOTT-Lot Nine. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. VOLLARO-It’s been 13 years ago that this was really, and then there was a modification in 2003, but a subdivision was approved. Conditions of approval then were the applicant will plant 35 white pine of six foot, dispersed evenly, and graded for Lots Eight and Nine. So we really wanted Lots Eight and Nine to be graded with those white pines, and that hasn’t been done, is what’s been said, and that was a condition placed. MR. LA MOTT-Lot Eight has changed since that condition was imposed. It’s not the same lot. I’m assuming your people went out and looked at it and saw that it’s not the same lot. They took pictures. They were out there a week ago. They took all the pictures. His recommendation, he said, was going to be that nothing had changed. The bank was stabilized. Lot Eight was complete. Silt fence was down. There’s no problem there. He took a lot of pictures. MR. HUNSINGER-I still see it as a simple lot line adjustment. MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to go with that. That’s what they’re in front of us for is a lot line adjustment. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, even if it’s 2,000 square feet, it’s four hundredths of an acre. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right, it’s so small. I agree. I think that we ought to be looking at, somebody at Staff ought to be looking at the conditions that were imposed in the modification of 2003. MR. SEGULJIC-I think one of the problems we had, we put no time limit on it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-There’s no time limit on the conditions. MR. LA MOTT-Well, I put a time limit on it, and I’ve exceeded that. At the time I said, it was in the winter, I believe, or in late Fall or something, and I said, as soon as weather permits, we were in there that winter still grading the lot. So if somebody could go out there sometime I’d show them what we’re trying to do eventually, but it’s difficult to explain without people standing here. I can’t plant trees up on the top, because that’s still going to be graded more. MR. VOLLARO-I’m for granting the lot line adjustment, and let’s see what happens with it later on. We ought to, certainly, keep this subdivision in focus, as far as Staff is concerned, and maybe I’d like to probably get a little more input from Bruce, but right now I see this as a lot line adjustment as what’s before us, and I would propose that we approve it as such. So if somebody would like to make a motion to approve the lot line adjustment, let’s get it done. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1993 GUIDO PASSARELLI AND MR. & MRS. THOMAS, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: The lot line adjustment in accordance with a map presented to Mr. David Hatin, and a letter presented to David Hatin dated February 27, 2006. Duly adopted this 18 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ford MR. LA MOTT-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got it. By the way, is anybody here for Quaker Electric? I know they had a fire down there. I don’t know whether they’ve come here tonight. I don’t think they have. There is a public hearing. It’s a Type II. There’s no SEQRA involved, but I 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) don’t know whether we’ll hear it tonight or not. We could hear it without the applicant, I suppose. MRS. STEFFAN-No need. Let’s go on to the people who are here. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s what I would agree to as well. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION [SKETCH] SUB 5-2006 SEQR TYPE N/A SCOTT SPELLBURG AGENT(S): ROBERT J. MULLER, ESQ. OWNER(S): SAME ZONING RR-3A, LC-10 LOCATION 45 ELLSWORTH LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 92.13 ACRE INTO 2 RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF 52.24 AND 39.89 ACRES. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. CROSS REF. NONE FOUND ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 92.13 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265.-1-2 SECTION A-183 DAN MANNIX, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; SCOTT SPELLBURG, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-There’s no public hearing and no SEQRA on this. We’re just here to talk. MR. MANNIX-Thank goodness. Good evening. I’m Dan Mannix, an attorney with Muller and Muller. Mr. Spellburg’s counsel, Robert Muller, couldn’t be here. He is out of town this week. My apologies in advance. I was handed the letter that was forwarded to Mr. Spellburg with some inquiry and some cursory knowledge regarding the history of the property and the current proposal. Mr. Spellburg, I’m sure, can fill in the rest. It was my understanding that it was an administrative subdivision request to split the parcel into two. That it historically it had always been two parcels, with an ancient Town road dividing it into somewhat the same configuration that he’s proposing now, that for one reason or another the Town combined the parcels, and he’s asking for the subdivision into two lots. It was referred or discussed that he was in the Adirondack Park Agency so that he needed to come in front of the Planning Board. Mr. Muller has had discussions with the Park Agency and there are no wetlands. There are no concerns with the property, on behalf of the Park Agency, it is my understanding. So they have no opinion. MR. VOLLARO-Is there a letter of non-jurisdictional interest from? MR. MANNIX-Not to my knowledge, but I know he did have discussions with them. They said, are there any wetlands. He said, no, they said then there’s no need to go any further with us. MR. VOLLARO-Usually what they do is they issue a letter of non-jurisdictional interest. When they say no interest, they document it in some way. MR. MANNIX-I’m just wondering how long it takes to get that. So I don’t think one exists currently, to answer your question. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MANNIX-But there were some comments from Staff, regarding some concerns that they indicated. I’m not sure if you have a copy of what I’m referring to. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do. MR. MANNIX-And to answer the first concern, the access to the existing home will remain unchanged with this subdivision, because as the applicant has no plans for the subdivided vacant lot, and there is no answer as to what the future owner might plan to do there. MR. VOLLARO-The road, however, traverses the new lot that’s to be conveyed to Lisa Pushor, and the road going to the existing house, unless there’s an easement given over that, the road is shown that it goes over the access to Lot. MR. SPELLBURG-I guess I’m confused on what you’ve got in front of you. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the Chairman said road, I think he meant driveway. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. SPELLBURG-You mentioned a name. That’s why I’m curious which map. May I step up and just see what you’ve got in front of you? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, sure. MR. SPELLBURG-As of yet, I haven’t sold the property to anyone. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it says area proposed to be conveyed to Lisa Pushor. MR. SPELLBURG-She’s one of three contracts standing waiting for. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So this is in error. It’s not really proposed to be conveyed? Is that the idea? MR. SPELLBURG-Exactly. Nothing’s been conveyed yet. MR. VOLLARO-Not even proposed to be conveyed to Lisa Pushor either. MR. SPELLBURG-Not yet, no. I just wanted to make sure you didn’t have a different map than what I’m using. MRS. STEFFAN-In the paperwork it said subdivider, it used the word subdivider, and that was a question that I put on, because the language was different because there’s a notation that it’s going to be conveyed to this person, but in the documentation, it says conveyed to a residential purchaser. So that’s what the documents says. MR. SPELLBURG-There is really just some kind of mistake because the whole object was to get an administrative subdivision so I can actually put it for sale, because I have people that are interested in buying it. MR. VOLLARO-This is just a Sketch now. MR. SPELLBURG-Absolutely. MR. VOLLARO-You’d have to come back before us with a Preliminary subdivision request. MR. SPELLBURG-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-All I’m saying is that the driveway that presently goes to the house on what looks like Lot One to me has a driveway that goes over what would be a portion of Lot Two once it’s conveyed. Do you see what I’m driving at here? MR. SPELLBURG-I will as soon as I come back up there. Okay. To answer your question in all fairness, when I tried to take this lot apart, found out I’m in the APA, had to go through the whole rigmarole, get it surveyed and everything else, even though I had a survey, but it’s ancient, still the same survey that this one ended up being. I had to make a now conforming lot. Even though there’s an ancient roadway there, I have to make this lot now conforming, whether it’s to a private drive or a Town highway, I had to make this lot conforming with the Town of Queensbury because it doesn’t have road frontage. Okay. So in order to do that, what I did is I drew one picture of many aspects that could take place. So I only picked one way that this could take place. If I sell it to a person who wants to do something totally different, that’s what he’s going to have to discuss with you. I’m just trying to make it a conforming lot, to get to the point where I can sell my property. MR. VOLLARO-The conformance would be that you’ve got road frontage on both lots now, 42 feet, 42.41, and 40 foot on the other. MR. SPELLBURG-Right. To somehow meet the Town requirements to show that you do have at least access for a right of way for one, a right for both, Town highway to go through and fill the void for both. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So what happens, if and when you convey to whoever you convey to, if you leave your driveway in its present condition, present place, there’d have to be an easement in the deed. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. SPELLBURG-Absolutely. MR. VOLLARO-Allowing you to go across the property you conveyed to somebody else. MR. SPELLBURG-Best case scenario that I hope for, and that’s what you’re doing is really just, I’m guessing, on what’s going to take place, is someone’s going to come in and want to subdivide it into more than one parcel, and if that’s the case, I would really demand a highway, a Town highway. So would the Town. They’re not really going to jump in here and say, gee, I’m going to let you put in six homes with one driveway. It’s not something you would really do in the Town of Queensbury. So I’m hoping for somebody to come in and say, okay, I’m going to going to put in a Town highway. There’s more than enough road frontage for the two, and we’ll get the access that we need. All of us will end up on a road, instead of just being two private drives. MR. VOLLARO-But that’s in the future. What you would come back to us with is this exact kind of, this exact drawing, probably, as a Preliminary subdivision. Following this Sketch. MR. SPELLBURG-Absolutely. That’s why for me, like I said, we were trying to get it to the point of an administrative subdivision but the fact that I’m in the Park means I can’t, even though the Park doesn’t want anything to do with me, I can’t get the administrative subdivision. MR. VOLLARO-Listen, when the history of this whole thing is written, a couple of hundred years from now, people will wonder what the hell we were doing here, but anyway. MR. SEGULJIC-One question I would have is the slope of this land. MR. SPELLBURG-The slope. MR. SEGULJIC-It seems actually steep. MR. SPELLBURG-No. In actuality it’s on the topographical. One end of it, of the 37 acres that’s for sale, is really the only one that raises 600 feet over a short period of time. The rest of it’s really pretty flat, and how accurate this really is, granted I have a surveyed, but most of my property is fairly flat. Yes, it does have a ridge. Don’t get me wrong, but it’s at the end of the property and that would be up to the person, the slope, the people that are building the Town of Queensbury to regulate what they build on. Where I come into my property, it’s flatter than the highway’s. My property is flat. There is an ancient roadway there with two cattle crossings and the old cattle gates and everything else there. As you look, you’ll see you’ve outlined a little road in blue. The surveyor put the road in black. The original roadway is much better shape than what we would put in in black. The surveyor did it because in order for him to put in the correct sweep, to come around the corner, this is where a Town would recommend a highway. The actual roadway that’s there and has been there for a hundred years is in blue. Somebody put it in crayon. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I highlighted it. MR. SPELLBURG-Yes. That’s actually the original roadway. MR. VOLLARO-If you bring a roadway down, the distance across where the two lots come closest together, I don’t know where you’re going to get a Town highway to three rods, which is the Town requirement, 50 feet, to get between that. MRS. STEFFAN-That was my comment. You’ve got a strange triangle. MR. VOLLARO-You see this area in here. I’m looking at the scale. This has got to be somewhere around 40 to 50. MR. SPELLBURG-This line is imaginary. This is an open line. I own both parcels. Yes. This is just the surveyor’s way of putting in a roadway. This line and this rod have no bearing on anything. This is an open line. MRS. STEFFAN-So what you’re saying, it could be anything. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. SPELLBURG-It could be 75 feet up, 100 yards up, or right down to the line. It’s really not a line that has a measurement. He just drew that in there, and this is the dividing line of the 37 acres. MR. VOLLARO-He’s got the lines very prominently shown, though. He’s got his markers, his compass bearings and all are on here. MR. SPELLBURG-Absolutely, but I own from here all the way up to there. For me to give it an easement, I could do it anyway. I guess the question I still don’t understand completely. MR. VOLLARO-Well, see, what’s in front of us now doesn’t talk anything about a Town road. MR. SPELLBURG-Absolutely. I don’t know that it could be. MR. VOLLARO-But so long as we’re in Sketch Plan, this is the time for us to talk to you, the applicant, and you, the applicant, to talk to us about what’s happening here. MR. SPELLBURG-Understood. MR. VOLLARO-So when you come in with the Preliminary, we understand what you’re doing. MR. SPELLBURG-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the whole idea of a Sketch Plan. MR. SPELLBURG-I guess when I come in with the Preliminary, it’s going to be the same thing. I have no idea what’s going to take place after the sale of my property. I have room for both, a private drive and a Town highway. MR. VOLLARO-Well, if you come in with this plan in a Preliminary subdivision, I’m going to have to wonder how you’re going to get, unless you give easements to other people for, the Town’s got to get the easement if they put a road in. If this is a Town road. MR. SPELLBURG-Absolutely. MR. VOLLARO-And that road’s going to be maintained by the Town, plowed by the Town, it’s going to become a Town road, they’re going to want to know a lot about, if they’re crossing somebody else’s land, they’re going to have to get easements from those people to put in that road. MR. SPELLBURG-Like I guess I stated in the thing, and my attorney’s really not here. So I’m missing part of these little loopholes that I’m not catching on to. I’m granting an easement across the 55 acres to the 37 acres of more than enough room for a private drive or a Town highway. So when you buy the 37 acres. MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking about 39.89. MR. SPELLBURG-It ends up as 39. The deed of the second lot is only 37. That’s where the 39 comes up, the space given across is 2. some odd acres, across the first lot, which is 55 now and it’ll be down to 52. something. MR. VOLLARO-So this line, you’re saying, is really an imaginary line. MR. SPELLBURG-It’s an imaginary line. MR. VOLLARO-You know, but it’s very, very prominently put in as a survey’s map line. MRS. STEFFAN-I think since this is a Sketch, I mean, you may want to talk, if you’ve got a couple of potential buyers who are looking at buying this, they may have some ideas on what they want to do with the property, and so that may factor into your lot lines and what you want to do with your Town road. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. SPELLBURG-It very well could. I have three people out there. I can’t say to one which one they were going to do it. All I wanted to do at this point, like I said, we thought, at first, we could put an administrative subdivision. All I wanted to do was take the original two parcels apart again. Where they melted together and how they melted together, I don’t know. They were purchased from two different people, and then I realized we were in the Park, we realized we were in the Park, so we’ve got to go through the rigmarole of all three stages. I don’t mean offense by rigmarole by any means, but the APA doesn’t want anything to do with me, and now I’ve got to sit here and try to explain what’s going to take place down the road, and I can’t because I don’t know who’s going to end up with it. All I’m saying is there’s enough room, and I’m granting an easement or a right of way across the 55 to the 37. MR. VOLLARO-See, one of the things that would happen here, if you come in with a Preliminary and then we get a Final, and the Final plat is drawn, and the plat’s approved. When I sign the plat, it goes to the County, and now you’ve got an approved subdivision plat that looks like this. That’s what it’s going to look like. MR. SPELLBURG-Yes, absolutely. MR. VOLLARO-And so when you sell that, what you’re selling is actually this lot and it’s going to have, the buyer is going to own all of what you have here, including this. MR. SPELLBURG-He’s going to own the right of way across there. MR. VOLLARO-When you say right of way, to me it’s not a right of way, he or she is going to own this. It’s not a right of way. Because when this gets platted, and an attorney like you have comes before you, they’re going to say that person owns this property. MR. SPELLBURG-This was the roadway that the surveyor intended to be the right of way into the 37 acres. This dark line was his roadway in. MR. VOLLARO-What it looks like to me is a division of the first property and becomes a lot line. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s a lot line. MR. SPELLBURG-Then shame on him, then, because he sent me a lot line. I’ve got a lot of money invested in this, and this is what I end up with. MR. VOLLARO-So, when we look at this, we don’t see this as a right of way. We see this as a lot line, and that’s what this is, in my view anyway. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SPELLBURG-Yes, and really it should have just been a little roadway, just like (lost words). MR. VOLLARO-He should have identified it as something like. MR. SPELLBURG-And it wasn’t identified in writing? MR. HUNSINGER-But in order for it to be a legal subdivision, he needed to provide road access to 37 acres. MR. SPELLBURG-That’s all I was trying to do. MR. VOLLARO-That’s right, and I don’t think he would get road access through these, through this (lost word) here, because he needs a 50 foot road. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SPELLBURG-Right. What I’m trying to say is if this is the right of way to the 37 acres, this black line is the right of way, why do you keep trying to go through this whole? 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. VOLLARO-Because these are lot lines. This shows, if I was going to approach you and say, sir, I want to buy this, how much do you want for it, give you the money, I’m out of there. Okay. I own this, period, I own it now. Now, and I’ve got 40 foot on the front here, and I say to whoever, you know, I’m going to make a private road. I don’t want the Town road. I’m going to bring a private road right down through here, and I’m going to put my house here. That’s the end of the story. Because this is what I bought. I bought this piece, 39.89 acres belongs to me. MR. SPELLBURG-Right. MR. VOLLARO-And if you want something other than that, then you’ve got to come back with a plan that. MR. SPELLBURG-So I’ve got to make sure that this road has its width. MR. VOLLARO-Three rods, or 50 feet, that’s correct. MR. SPELLBURG-Yes. So, I guess nowhere in this writing that my lawyer has not really shown up, he never described the width of this road, or this right of way. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it’s described here as a line, but it is a lot line, not a road bed. MR. SPELLBURG-Right, and I understand what you’re saying, it looks like a lot line. MR. VOLLARO-No, it is. I’m saying it is a lot line. MR. SPELLBURG-It is not a lot line. That’s what I’m trying to say. That’s not a lot line. MR. VOLLARO-You’re saying your interpretation of this line is not a lot line. If this drawing as filed as a plat at the County, this becomes a lot line. Trust me. That’s what’s going to happen. MR. SPELLBURG-Why would Van Dusen and Steves sit down with me, tell me that this is a road, this is what I’m going to do, here’s the right, correct sweep into your property, put these pins in, mark it, and say you can go to the Town with this and they should understand. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you made two buildable lots, is what you’ve done. MR. SPELLBURG-Absolutely, that’s what I’m doing. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s the goal. I mean, if you change that triangular piece of property, the way it’s drawn, you’re not going to have access to Ellsworth Road on one or the other lot. So you’re not going to have a buildable lot. MR. SPELLBURG-The 37 and the 55, the 39 and 52 is where you see it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SPELLBURG-They’re not two buildable lots from what you see? MR. HUNSINGER-They are. MR. VOLLARO-They are now. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why they drew that line the way they drew it, so that each would be a buildable lot. MR. VOLLARO-That’s why they gave you the 42.41, and the 40 foot access, because the requirement is 40 foot on a road. MR. SPELLBURG-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-So that’s how they surveyed that in. MR. SPELLBURG-Right. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. VOLLARO-All they did, as Mr. Hunsinger said, is they to give you access to a road. MRS. STEFFAN-The one thing that you need to know is that you need to look through our regulations and the Community Development Department can help you with that, the kind of road you want to bring in to that second lot. I mean, if you are intending to sell it to somebody else and somebody else is going to buy it, you need to look at what that person has to do to get access management to that area. A driveway’s different than a dedicated road, or a cul de sac. MR. SPELLBURG-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-I mean, all those things have different requirements, and so you’ll need to consider those, you know, as you move forward. MR. SPELLBURG-Right. I guess my only question is, all I’m looking to do is make a saleable lot. MR. HUNSINGER-This map does that. MRS. STEFFAN-They’ve made the requirements for you to do that. MR. SPELLBURG-So if I’m looking to have two saleable lots, what else do I need from this point? Because I’m going to go back and yell at the surveyor, right after I yell at my attorney for not getting it right. No offense. MR. VOLLARO-Well, what you’ve got to do, I think, perhaps, is go back to Staff with this and tell them what you really want to do. MR. HUNSINGER-If the intention is to put in a new Town road. MR. SPELLBURG-No, no. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, let me finish. Let me finish. If the buyer of the 39 acres wants to put in a Town road, you’re going to need to change the proposed subdivision to give them more access onto Ellsworth Road, because right now you don’t have enough, and that’s what Mr. Vollaro was saying before. MR. SPELLBURG-What do you mean I don’t have enough on Ellsworth Lane? MR. HUNSINGER-You need at least 50 feet to have a road built to Town standards, and you don’t have that, the way this is drawn, but let me finish. You could come back with this plan. This is an approvable two lot subdivision. I’m not saying we will. I’m saying it meets requirements. If the buyer of the 39 acres then wants to put in a Town road, he’s going to have to go back to you and you’re going to have to do a lot line adjustment. MR. SPELLBURG-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SPELLBURG-But then I’ve accomplished what I set out to do, is make two saleable lots. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SPELLBURG-That’s what I was looking to do. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did I explain that well? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, but it’ll be saleable with a driveway. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-And it will not be saleable with a Town road, because you don’t have enough frontage for a Town road. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. VOLLARO-Right. See, what’s going to happen, Mr. Hunsinger is correct. One of these lots is now not going to have its 40 feet. MR. SPELLBURG-Gotcha. MR. VOLLARO-Because you’ve only got a sum total in there of 82.41, between the both of those. So when you put a 50 foot road in, one of you is not going to be compliant. MR. SPELLBURG-Right. MR. VOLLARO-It’s probably going to wind up being you, if the buyer wants to put a Town road in. MR. HUNSINGER-So you’d have to get your driveway off the new road. MR. SPELLBURG-Absolutely. If we go to that point, I guess my question is, if they build a Town road, why would I need frontage on Ellsworth when I would have 775 feet of road frontage (lost words) road was built. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, exactly. MR. SPELLBURG-So would that be still feasible? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SPELLBURG-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-But not the way this is drawn. When you bring this back to us like this as a Preliminary and we were to approve it as a Preliminary, it gets platted at the County as a Preliminary. MR. SPELLBURG-Understood. MR. VOLLARO-This is what you’ve got. You’ve got two lots, conforming lots, that’s it. MR. SPELLBURG-Absolutely, right. MR. VOLLARO-That’s all you’ve accomplished. MR. SPELLBURG-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Now, to further amplify that, to bring a road in and so on, now you’ve got to go to Step Two, modify this, okay. MR. SPELLBURG-Absolutely, but the same person that’s willing to come in and buy this, just bear with me for a second, and you mentioned a name, and I have three people that are interested, and they really are not interested in it for themselves. They’re not putting one $350,000 or three quarters of a million house up on a view someplace else. What they’re really interested in doing is coming in and using the RR-3 to its advantage and putting in nice houses in a wooded area. So they’re going to be coming back to you and they’re going to be saying I need six lots or seven lots or whatever it is they’re going to be thinking of, and I want to build a Town road, and they’re going to have to go through all this stuff, from Day One, and I see it coming. MR. VOLLARO-If you can convince them to buy it on this subdivision, that’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, one of the things that you need to be aware of is that Town Code does not allow a dead end road of more than 1,000 feet long. MR. SPELLBURG-Absolutely. I’m aware that I’m not the one buying the lot. All I’m trying to do is make two saleable lots. I have two parties that are interested, three parties that are interested, and they’re looking somehow for me to get a title to this lot, and go ahead and purchase it, but I’m just trying to get to that point. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine. If they’re willing to purchase it on a plat that’s registered at the County, that looks exactly like this, and they buy it from you, you’re out. They’re in. They’ve got to come back and try to figure out what they’re going to do with 39.89 acres now, and we’ll contend with that when they come back, and want to modify an approved plat MR. SPELLBURG-Absolutely, yes. Absolutely, and when they come back, just so, you’ve made it almost clear to me. When they come back and they want to put in a Town roadway, is there anything wrong with my house, my property, my 55 acres, being off that roadway instead of Ellsworth Lane? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. SPELLBURG-So instead of needing 50 feet or 40 feet for mine, because it’s a residential lot, and 50 feet for the Town highway, which makes 90, and I have 80 some odd feet, I’d be okay to use the next roadway, whether it’s named Bob’s Road, Fred’s Road, whatever it is. MRS. STEFFAN-You’d have to have a legal easement, which would be done by attorneys. MR. SPELLBURG-Absolutely, and I would be the one giving that up. Correct? MRS. STEFFAN-It may come with the purchase. You guys have to figure that part out. That’s not what we do. We’re just looking to make sure that the Subdivision Regulations and the Zoning Codes are met, and so I think we’ve tried to describe the difference between a driveway and a dedicated Town road, and as you look at subdivision and this, you’re going to have to make sure that the requirements are met. So that whatever your future goals are can be met. MR. SPELLBURG-They were described by the surveyor, 40 and 50. MR. VOLLARO-I would recommend, based on what you know, what you want to do it and how you want to do it, what you think you want to do, I’d go back to Craig Brown, now, with this drawing, and tell him you’ve been before this Board with this Sketch and the consensus of this Board is they could approve it just the way you’ve done it, going into the next stage, which is the Preliminary. Then we look at it again, and we give it a Final, and then it gets platted, but you should go to him and say, look, they’ve given me some advice, and that’s what this Sketch Plan is all about, the free exchange of information, and the Planning Board has made some recommendations here to you that they’re not sure that this is exactly in line with what you’ve got in mind for the future. MR. SPELLBURG-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Because if it’s done like this, he’ll understand platted, and going to the County. He’ll understand that, and he’ll say, well, what do you want to do with this? Well, this is what I really want to do with this, and then he may tell you, well, based on what you submitted as a Sketch, you’d better take another look at this. MR. SPELLBURG-I appreciate it. MR. VOLLARO-I would go back to Craig Brown. As a matter of fact, I’m going to be there tomorrow morning. I’ll talk to him about it. MR. SPELLBURG-Yes. I’ve actually stopped and talked to Craig and that’s how I know at least as little as I know now. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, okay. That’s it on Sketch, we’re done. MR. SPELLBURG-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Thanks for your patience and waiting. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve had a request, I want the Board to know, I’ve had a request by Mr. Salvador before this meeting started. He’d like to come up and talk to us. It’s not about an 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) application. It’s not about a party or a particular party, but he’d like to come up and just talk to us. John, I’m going to give you five, because we want to get out of here. SITE PLAN NO. 12-2006 SEQR TYPE II QUAKER ELECTRIC SUPPLY AGENT(S): MARK DICKINSON OWNER(S): QE, LLC D/B/A U-RENT ALL ZONING HC-MOD LOCATION 20 SWEET ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF A 25’ X 60’ CHAIN LINK FENCE [1500 SQ. FT. FENCED AREA – 6 FT. HIGH] ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE EXISTING BUILDING. FENCES IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. CROSS REF. SP 63-2004 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/12/06 LOT SIZE 0.94 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-44 SECTION 179-5-060 MR. HUNSINGER-Before we do that, Mr. Chairman, what are we going to do with Quaker Electric? We have a public hearing scheduled. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, we’ll leave the public hearing open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. VOLLARO-And I’ll have to go back and see where it’ll fit. Craig is not happy with us fitting things in to other areas on that on that board. What did you get, 22 applications? MRS. BARDEN-We did get quite a few. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, 22 applications just came in. So the board is rapidly filling up until July. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess, well, we need to at least open the public hearing. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. BARDEN-And the suggestion was, Bruce Frank was on site today, and they indicated that they intended to table this application. However, they didn’t do it formally, so Craig Brown’s suggestion was to open the public hearing, and then table this to next week’s meeting, the 25. Hopefully they’ll get a letter in, giving you some guidance. th MR. VOLLARO-That’s two 25’s, that’s Kilburn and this now. So watch the way we’re th loading up the 25. th MRS. BARDEN-I don’t believe that they’ll be coming back because of the fire. I think that just to kind of tidy things up, give them a week to get something in to the Board that will say, table us to some time in the future, and then you can pass a resolution to that effect next week. MR. HUNSINGER-That seems reasonable to me. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It’s okay. I would have preferred to, if we’re doing this for adjustment purposes to allow them to come in on any date, move this out a little bit further, other than to the 25. I’ll make the motion to open the public hearing and leave the public hearing. It’s th a Type II, so there’s no SEQRA. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 12-2006 QUAKER ELECTRIC SUPPLY/U RENT ALL, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: To April 25, 2006, between now and April 25, 2006, they will supply us with written information for tabling to a future date. Duly adopted this 18 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ford MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Salvador. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/18/06) JOHN SALVADOR, JR. MR. SALVADOR-Before I get to my five minutes, I have a couple of other comments that have come up during your hearing. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t want to discuss that tonight on anything. MR. SALVADOR-It’s generic. It’s extremely generic. MR. VOLLARO-No, it wouldn’t be. Don’t do it, because whatever applicant you’re going to be even thinking about is not here to talk. MR. SALVADOR-All right. Fine. Well, Mr. Lemery took the liberty to take a whack at me tonight, and you allowed him to take a whack at me, and I didn’t have an opportunity to say anything, okay. We’ll let it go at that. During your discussion tonight, there was a question about Chapter 94. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-Nobody seemed to know what the hell Chapter 94 is. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t. MR. SALVADOR-Including the Town Attorney. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t, either. MR. SALVADOR-I don’t think anybody does, but if you look at Town Code Chapter 179, in the beginning, right after the index, there are 18 different general references, Chapter 94 is one of them. Now the point I’d like to make here is, how confusing it is for everyone to use this Code. MR. VOLLARO-We know that, John. There’s no question. MR. SALVADOR-Here’s a perfect example, okay. It says here, general references, Freshwater Wetlands, Chapter 94. Okay. Also in the index, there is a Section under Environmental and Performance Standards, Section 179-6-. MR. VOLLARO-Excuse me, John, do you have any objections to for us, for me to formally close the meeting and let you speak? MR. SALVADOR-Yes, absolutely. MR. VOLLARO-Because I don’t want this to be on the record. So what I’d like to do is adjourn this meeting and have the recorder shut down while Mr. Salvador speaks. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, no question. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Vollaro, Chairman 57