Loading...
2006-06-22 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 22, 2006 INDEX Site Plan No. 25-2006 Dr. Gina Canale 1. Tax Map No. 296.12-1-27.6 Site Plan No. 9-2006 Stephen Kirshon 16. Tax Map No. 227.13-2-41 Site Plan No. 26-2006 Della Auto Group 29. Tax Map No. 296.20-1-5 Subdivision No. 6-2006 Cifone Construction 35. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 308.8-1-21 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 06/22/06) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 22, 2006 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT VOLLARO, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY DONALD SIPP THOMAS SEGULJIC THOMAS FORD TANYA BRUNO, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT CHRIS HUNSINGER TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. VOLLARO-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Planning Board, Town of Queensbury, for June 22, 2006. We’re going to have a little change in the organization here, that our Counsel won’t be in until eight o’clock, and so we’re going to be coming up with Dr. Gina Canale first, and then Stephen Kirshon will be next, and then we’ll follow in that order. So if the applicants for Dr. Canale would like to approach the table, please. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 25-2006 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED DR. GINA CANALE AGENT(S): JAMES MILLER, WILLIAM V. CANALE OWNER(S): SAME ZONING PO LOCATION 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) LOT 4 WILLOW BROOK DR. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 9,820 SQ. FT. TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING AND RELATED PARKING AND SITE WORK. PROFESSIONAL OFFICES IN THE PO ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. ADDITIONALLY, SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR FILLING AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF A WETLAND. CROSS REF. SP 39-03, FW 6-03, SB 9-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/10/06 LOT SIZE 1 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 296.12-1-27.6 SECTION 179-4-020 JIM MILLER & VINCE CANALE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MILLER-Good evening. My name is Jim Miller, Landscape Architect, and with me is the owner and the applicant, Dr. Gina Canale and her father and attorney Vince Canale. This project is one that some of you may recall. This was part of the Baybrook Professional Office Park. This was the smallest lot in that subdivision, a one acre lot, and I think it was 2003, we represented Rich Schermerhorn to develop this property, and the site plan was approved for I believe 10,040 square foot two story office building. Dr. Canale, in discussions with Rich, the original tenant for that space decided not to lease the building, and Dr. Canale had some discussions with Rich and subsequently purchased the property and fortunately the approval was not renewed and the building permit was not applied for. So we’re here tonight essentially looking for approval of this new application, essentially it’s the old application. The building is actually slightly smaller. The building had to be revised for her purposes. She’s going to occupy the first floor and move her dental practice into that space. She’s now located in Glens Falls, and the building now is 9820 square feet, still a two story building. The site, the required parking on site is 33 spaces, being medical office, added three additional, we’re still within the allowed 20% over the requirement. We also, the existing site lighting is consistent with the rest of the Baybrook Office Park. Rich has established a vocabulary of a globe type light, and he wants to continue that. So we’ve shown globe lighting at the entrance, and along the parking areas there’ll be some soffit lighting at the entryways. The light we proposed is actually in a non-glare type of luminare, but still a globe fixture. So it would not have the glare that some of those globes have. Lithonia has what they call a dark sky light. It’s a globe that casts light downward. So we tried to respond to the Board’s requirement for down lighting but still meet the vocabulary of the office park. The project, we presented a series of berm across the front parking area, since it borders the street, and some buffer planting and street trees and also where the main entrance into the building is very visible, have a very well landscaped entry and front view to the building. As you can see, the rear of the building, there’s an entry. Primary parking for staff would park to the rear and use that, parking for the front would be more reserved for patients. MR. VOLLARO-Are you talking to the north side of the building? MR. MILLER-That’s correct. Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t see any designated parking on the north end. MR. MILLER-Well, it’s not designated. I think it’s going to be just a function of the layout of the building. MR. VOLLARO-There’ll be no striping there or anything like that? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. MILLER-Well, where the striping is shown, that’s what would be striped, it’s shown on the layout plan. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I see striping to the west. MR. MILLER-That’s what I mean. I mean to that rear portion. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s the westerly portion of the building. MR. FORD-That’s the west. MR. MILLER-Okay. MR. FORD-Northwest is trash, and north is wetland. MR. MILLER-Okay. Well, I meant that back portion. As far as, there were some questions from C.T. Male regarding stormwaters and wetlands. This project, when the subdivision for Baybrook Office Park was done, all the wetlands were delineated with Charlie Maine. Tom Nace was the engineer on the project, and Kevin Bruce from the Army Corps of Engineers was on the site, and at time was Al Koechlien from DEC who is now retired, and there was a wetland delineation map done for the entire property, which addressed all lots, and it showed, it addressed the Town roads that were constructed and also addressed mitigation areas. So that wetland plan was signed off by all agencies, and this plan is consistent with that, and likewise there was a stormwater management plan done for the entire property which was submitted and approved by DEC, and it was done for the entire project. So as each phase has been developed, it’s been developed consistent with that plan that was developed, so that the stormwater management for this plan is very similar to Rich’s building on Bay Road. So it’s consistent with all the approved plans by DEC and the Army Corps of Engineers. MR. VOLLARO-Do you have documentation to that effect, so that we have in the record the fact that, I don’t doubt what you’re saying, I’m just saying that the record, our record ought to show that we have that kind of documentation. MR. MILLER-Well, all of those plans have been filed as part of this subdivision, so the Town has all of the records of these wetlands and stormwater management that was done for the overall park. As far as, Tom Nace had a discussion with Bill Lupo at DEC to confirm some of the stormwater questions, especially since it was raised by Jim Houston, and Bill Lupo confirmed that the plan is acceptable if it’s developed consistent with the original plan that they had approved. That was a telephone conversation. It happened kind of quickly. So we didn’t have time for Male’s. MR. VOLLARO-All we need to do here, I guess, is to confirm the consistency that, in other words, confirm the fact that it’s already been done, and then that you’re consistent with a current plan that was done by Rich Schermerhorn when he developed that property. I think that we need something in the record. Now, if we can go back, is this located at the County, is that where that would be? Would it be located at the County? MR. MILLER-Was it a filed map? I don’t think the wetland mapping things would. It certainly would have been filed with the Town. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-Let me ask Staff, do you see anything in our records that you could go back to from the original Schermerhorn development that would show that they delineated the entire wetlands there? MRS. BARDEN-I did look at the subdivision map. Would there have been a separate map, or would it have been on the plat? MR. MILLER-There would be a separate map, because it was an application and a separate report that was submitted. I could ask Tom to give us a copy of that. MR. VOLLARO-He would have a copy in his records, Tom Nace? MR. MILLER-Yes, I’m sure he would. Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay I think we’d like to have that, so that we can show consistency then. MRS. BARDEN-Is your question, Mr. Chairman, to verify the wetland delineation that they’re showing on this property to the one that was done for the whole Baybrook? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’m looking at the comment that was made on C.T. Male’s letter of th June 12 where he says the additive disturbance is greater than one acre and as such treatment may be required. It is our recommendation that the applicant submit a letter from DEC to DEC’s interpretation of the disturbance. If the disturbance is not cumulative, the owner is not required to obtain a SPDES permit coverage for the entire stormwater discharge. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-And we need to have some verification that it’s not cumulative. That’s all I’m saying. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. I’ve got you. MR. VOLLARO-Go ahead, Mr. Miller. MR. MILLER-I’m all done. MR. VOLLARO-Are you all done? Okay. We have some Staff notes. Has everybody here read the Staff notes and familiar with these Staff notes? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. And you’ve read them as well, have you? MR. MILLER-Yes, I believe I have. MR. VOLLARO-So we don’t have to go through the Staff notes, to any extent, but there are some comments in Staff notes that I’ll get to in just a little bit, but I’m going to open this up to the Board and see what kind of questions the Board has before I get into 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) anything else. So I’m going to start off with you down there, Tom, since you’re wide awake. MR. FORD-I’m particularly interested in the response from DEC. I’ll be looking at that closely because I’m concerned with the proximity of the building to the Army Corps of Engineers designated wetland, and how that is going to be addressed. I don’t believe we can really go there without that additional information. MR. MILLER-One thing, you know, the Army Corps of Engineers, their requirement, the DEC did not extend their wetland this far up. They stopped their wetland, basically, at the road, and I think that was part of the reason that Willowbrook Drive ended up in the location it did. So any of the wetland south of Willowbrook Drive was Army Corps of Engineers, and like in the Imaging Center, there was a 100 foot buffer in that area because of that, but the Army Corps wetlands, DEC basically said that that’s more of just a drainage area and not a significant wetland, but Army Corps claims some jurisdiction over it, and they allow, they don’t have any setback. You can disturb right to the edge. As a matter of fact, one of the questions from C.T. Male was we are pretty close there, but this area that’s designated as wetland, it’s inundated in the springtime. It’s wet from the spring runoff, but this has been a mowed field for years. So as you get into the summertime, it’s essentially dry. To be a wetland, Army Corps of Engineers, I think it only has to be flooded for like two weeks. MR. FORD-As of last Saturday, it was very wet throughout that area. MR. MILLER-Down near the stream, it’s pretty much, yes, with all the rain we’ve had, but when we get into the summer, other than the actual stream at the property line, the rest of this area will be pretty dry. So the construction activities, you know, would be occurring at that time of the year. MR. FORD-One other issue, and that pertains to the design, and we may get into that a little bit later in the meeting, but I want to make sure that we address that, in terms of the Bay Road corridor and the recommendation for architectural design. MR. MILLER-Do you want me to address that now? MR. VOLLARO-If you want to get into it. MR. FORD-It’s on the list. MR. MILLER-Well, first, we’re not on Bay Road. We’re on Willowbrook Drive, but I agree that it’s best to put the parking to the sides, to the rear of the buildings where possible. This site, I think if you look at Willowbrook Drive, this layout is consistent, you know, the daycare center parking basically on Willowbrook Drive. The Hospital, even though it’s on the back of, from Bay Road, it’s on Willowbrook Drive, the Imaging Center is on the side, but it’s in the front, and even the senior housing that was just built. So, I mean, there’s, you know, the parking off of Willowbrook Drive for everything that’s been developed to date is not to the rear and to the back. One of the difficulties of trying to do that on this site is, we’ve got the wetland along the west side of the property, but you also look at layout plan. When the sewer was installed in there, it crosses the wetland and extends parallel to the wetland. That’s a 30 foot wide sewer easement. We can have parking and pavement over the sewer easement, but we certainly can’t have a building. So, you know, those factors limited where we could place the building, and the size of the site, it 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) would be difficult to do that. So what we tried to do is place the building where it’s facing the road where you approach it and provided, try to do as much buffering along the parking lot, along the road as we could, but just being a one acre site with that much easement, and things on it, we were limited as to how much circulation space we had. MR. FORD-Could I get Staff clarification, please. Does Willowbrook Drive, in fact, fall within the Bay Road corridor for architectural design? MRS. BARDEN-It does. MR. FORD-Thank you. I thought so. MRS. BRUNO-Was that design put in place prior to the okay of the original site plan? MR. MILLER-Yes, it was, because when we did the Hospital building, you know, that was discussed, and that’s how the parking ended up to the back, and Richard’s building on Bay Road, also, the parking, it’s more to the side but it has a similar kind of situation because of the wetlands. The parking couldn’t be put behind the building and it was put on the side, and similarly it was buffered with landscaping and so what we’re trying to do is follow the same kinds of things that were done on those other sites. MRS. BRUNO-So is it safe to assume that they would have come forward to the Planning Board prior to, you know, within the same type of situation, asking for site review, that they came in front of the Planning Board and got an okay, that we still passed it in the past for those other buildings? MRS. BARDEN-I can’t tell you when those other buildings were approved. However, this is the same layout that was approved last year, and I know that these design guidelines were in place before. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. That was really my question. I’m just trying to figure out the history here. MR. VOLLARO-I was on the Board at the time, and I know that we put Rich through a couple of iterations of design in the buildings. He usually comes up with a pretty austere building to begin with, and we’ve got to move him into something that’s a little more acceptable. This reflects, I think, the best that I’ve seen from him, and I think this compliments what he’s got there now. We’re trying to build a village there. That’s how I see it. MRS. BRUNO-Right. I wasn’t speaking so much in terms of the architectural design yet. I was thinking more in terms of the actual site layout. Because Mr. Miller had mentioned, he was giving a list of how each building was set on each piece of property, which I know, in the past sometimes, you know, things have been done, they just continue to be done, and I’m just taking the opportunity to say time out for a second and where are we really at with this. MR. MILLER-Yes. I think what we’ve done, you know, as a matter of fact, I’ve worked on most of those with Rich. This, Bob, this is not Rich’s building. He has retained Ethan Hall from Rucinski/Hall. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-Right, but it reflects a lot of what’s there. I mean, when I looked at it, I said it fits within the Meadowbrook complex, within that complex itself. It doesn’t stand out like something that doesn’t belong there. MR. MILLER-I think you’re right, and that was the intent, but I think what we tried to do in each one of those is to look at the location. As a matter of fact, the Imaging Center, there was a lot of discussion as you come down the road, you know, that was a long, narrow site. As you come down the road, there was a lot of discussion about trying to get the parking around the back side of that, and we went back and forth with the Board, and the problem with that is then you would be turning the back of the building towards the main road as you drive in, and you would be hiding the parking, but now you’re looking at the back of the building. So the Board agreed with us that that made more sense to present the entrance to the building with the covered canopy and that was a much more professional appearance and approach than to look at the back of the building, and I think that’s what we’ve tried to do here. Even though we’ve got some parking in the front, we’ve tried to soften it as much we can with some landscaping, but what we’re trying to do is present the best image of the building where we’re looking at that front entrance area where we could have that nicely landscaped, and have the best professional appearance we can as you approach it. MR. VOLLARO-I think having the parking lot, considering where the wetlands are now, having the parking lot where it is now, and where it doesn’t show on here, but there’s another parking area right here, for Rich’s other building. MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-For this building that goes where Dr. Saunders is right now, in that area, and it seems to me it makes sense, rather than putting it in the back, even if we could, people may have to make two medical visits on the same day, one to have their teeth fixed, or whatever, and the other one to have their bones done, you know. So you might be in bad shape, but still and all, what you’ve got here is, I think circular wise, we’ve always talked about circulation in our lot, I think this provides a pretty good internal circulation. MRS. STEFFAN-But I also like the suggestion of the foot bridge, because I think that that’s a nice addition from the other development from the main building. MR. MILLER-Well, the only problem we have with that, I mean, the foot bridge that was done, you’ve got to remember, Rich owned both of those properties, and that foot bridge came about because one of the problems that’s sort of been recurring with the one per 300 parking ratio for medical offices, it’s pretty low. One for 200 is probably better for a medical office. So what was happening with Rich’s building, he had leased the first floor as a medical office, and by the time he got into the second floor, there really wasn’t enough parking. So that was, you know, that bridge was really to kind of have some shared parking to alleviate the problem that he has on his property, and it did. Some of the employees park over there, but there’s been problems and complaints, you know, in the wintertime it’s icy and the weather’s bad walking across the bridge across wetlands on a nice warm summer day is one thing, you know. So it’s worked, but in this particular case, it’s a different owner and a different use. So we really have no control or ability to do that, and the other thing that would concern me about that, Bob, you talked about the parking being on the other side. Just on the other side of the wetlands, there’s actually some stormwater basins, and then the parking lot, and what happens, the drainage from 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) the parking lot there comes into some basins and then is released into this wetland. So it’s a little bit more removed. It’s not directly across. MRS. STEFFAN-I think that may be why that the Staff recommended that the other, or C.T. Male, I think it was, that said that the other owner should be listed on the map. Because, you know, the foot bridge sounds like a good idea, but it also goes along with some of the discussions we’ve been having in the Comprehensive Land Use re-write, you know, the bridge on that particular property, on the Schermerhorn property, as been well noted as a good idea for interconnectedness, and a lot of the developments that we’re doing right now, especially in commercial properties, we want interconnects between sites so that folks don’t have to get in their car to go, they can walk from place to place. This is certainly a good opportunity to do that, but I don’t know, we don’t mandate what interconnects in commercial establishments, we don’t mandate that it’s done, but there has to be like a dead head, like a spur. MR. MILLER-I don’t disagree. I think on the surface it looks like a good idea, but the problem we’ve got in a case like this, you’ve got two different users. You know, if we have people starting to park on their lot and causing a problem there and coming across, they’re not going to be happy, but the other issue you’ve got here, we’ve got two different owners, as opposed to Rich’s one owner. So now you’ve got two different liabilities and the maintenance issues and everything, and I just think between two commercial properties, to do a bridge across a wetland like that would be a bit of a burden to the owners. MR. VOLLARO-It might be difficult to get two owners to agree to that. MR. MILLER-It would be easier, a sidewalk is one thing, in areas where there’s sidewalks, but the bridge, I think, would be a difficult thing. MRS. BRUNO-A related question. We use the formula, you use the formula, to come up with a number of parking spaces with the 9,820 square feet, but I think that you mentioned in your opening statement that Dr. Canale will only be in the first floor. Is your intent, Dr. Canale, to lease out the second floor to a like professional? GINA CANALE DR. CANALE-That’s correct. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. All right. So that keeps the formula consistent. MR. MILLER-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-My question had to do with the retaining wall, and, Planning Board, if I’m incorrect with this, correct me, but my understanding with the wetlands is that retaining walls nearby can really only be up to 16 or18 inches like we’ve run into at other sites recently, and this retaining wall shows, as do the topographic lines, that you may end up with a four foot six height retaining wall in some areas. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see topo. MR. MILLER-It may be on the grading plan. I don’t remember offhand. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MRS. BRUNO-Well, the wetland. MR. VOLLARO-The top of the wall is 313, and 315 at the other end. MR. MILLER-You’re right. It’s only about four foot high. MRS. BRUNO-Yes, I think the wetland was 308, and the top of the wall was 313.5. MR. MILLER-Yes, it slopes up a little bit, so probably the base of the wall will be about 308.5, something like that, and then slope up. MR. VOLLARO-One of the things I had on my, just quickly staying on the same thing, I don’t know how you build that wall that close to the wetland, and I know that the Army Corps is not as stringent with crossing into their wetland, but you can be on the edge of it, but you can’t get into it. MR. MILLER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MILLER-That wall, if you look at the detail, and the only reason we use it, as a matter of fact, if you go behind Rich’s office building, we had the exact same situation, and that’s why we used the segmental retaining wall, because all that requires is that they dig a trench two feet deep, especially a dry laid wall. So they don’t need a full foundation. They just dig a trench two feet deep. The first foot of it is a crushed stone base, just a compacted level base, and then they set the stone coming up. There are pre-cast concrete units that are interlocked or pinned together, and then there’s a reinforcing fabric that goes between the, like every other course, and is extended back under the fill, which basically provides the structure for holding the wall up. It’s that geo- textile fabric that holds it up. It’s not a foundation. So you only need like a two foot deep excavation, and the same exact wall was used right behind Rich’s office there we had the same problem. The wetland came very close. MR. VOLLARO-Where you go into Rich’s office the back way. MR. MILLER-The back way. MR. VOLLARO-That wall that’s right there. You walk parallel to it before going into that door. MR. MILLER-Exactly. Exactly. I mean, you can’t see that one because it’s around the back of the building, but that was the same idea and that same wall was used in a very similar situation. MR. FORD-Same size, in terms of height? MR. MILLER-Well, I don’t remember the height of that, but I bet that one’s at least four, five feet. It’s fairly high. MR. VOLLARO-It’s probably closer to six feet. MR. MILLER-It may be. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-Because when I go in there, I look at that. MR. MILLER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I know where it is. It’s probably about six feet high. It’s a pretty high wall. So if that’s the construction method for that wall, then that would probably work without getting into the wetland or disturbing that Army Corps wetland. MR. MILLER-Well, that was the intent. Usually, you know, that trench can be excavated with a fairly small piece of equipment, like a small bob cat or something like that. It doesn’t require real heavy equipment, and one of the things that that retaining wall does, it gives us a good clean edge and a border against that wetland which basically it’s containing the runoff and stuff from the parking area. So other than the construction being along the edge of it, once it’s constructed, it really provides some separation from that wetland and allows us to contain the drainage back into the pavement. MRS. BRUNO-Well, what I’m referring to is in Queensbury Code 179-6-060, under D, Miscellaneous Provisions, for the retaining walls next to shoreline and wetland regs, and the sentence states, when it’s permitted, that’s after it stated that we should try not to do them, but when permitted, retaining walls shall not exceed 16 inches in height as measured from the stationery mean high water mark. I don’t, I really read through this a couple of times. I don’t think I’m mis-using this. My concern is that like with the other wall, this is just going to stick out like a sore thumb. Typically what seems to happen in wetland areas is that you end up with buildings up quite a bit higher than the surroundings. Then we just start seeing these little elevations popping up. MR. MILLER-Well, the wall that we’ve picked out, it’s a weathered versiloc wall. So it’s one that really looks like cobblestones. It’s not like a big, concrete wall. It really looks like stone. It’s a smaller stone. So it’s really an attractive wall. We’re not doing something that’s going to look like a highway overpass. The other thing I think’s going to happen is the four foot is measured from the ground level. As you can see down there, you’ve got grasses growing there that are probably, you know, they’re up around my waist. So what’s going to happen, I think, is as you approach that, well, of course in the wintertime it’ll be down, but as you approach that, you know, all the grasses that are going to be, they’re going to be un mowed in that area. They’re going to grow up across the front of that. I think it’ll provide an attractive edge to that wetland. I mean, if we only went up 16 inches, you’d have to have some kind of a bank or something. Now we’d have a condition where you’d get runoff and things. I have not run across that issue, the 16 inch high wall, and there’s been other projects like Rich’s, I know, where it’s been approved higher. So I’m not familiar with that. I have not run across that. MRS. BRUNO-Well, it’s funny. I agree with you that those walls do look highway walls and the concrete, that the conclusion of the sentence is, and shall be constructed of native stone or wood, and I think what this does is it kind of really makes us careful about what we do in our wetland areas and with our natural areas. So that we don’t look built up and start looking more like downstate New York or other areas that aren’t careful with what we are so lucky to have up here. MR. MILLER-I think this would be a nice treatment across there, to be honest. I understand, well, first of all, natural stone would be very difficult to do structurally, because we’ve got pavement and parking above, and the problem with the wood is that’s 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) hard to deal with structurally, and you get deterioration. As a matter of fact, we used to do a lot of wood timber wall design, and this new pre-cast system has about eliminated us doing any of the wood walls, but there’s a lot of products on the market, and I think the key is to select one that’s the best looking one. I mean, we picked one that really looks like a stone. MRS. BRUNO-Right. Well, I do agree with you there, and you do run into, even with wood, things like that, that once it’s treated, you end up with leaching and that type of issue. MR. MILLER-I think this would look better than the wood, to be honest. MRS. BRUNO-Yes, well, I’m just bringing it up because we’ve come across a couple of different things and I just have been, as you, perhaps, know, I’m younger to the Board. So I’ve been educating myself with all the materials as much as possible, and I came across this and it really jumped out at me when I saw the detail and I just, again, and I’ve said this to some developers, I just don’t want to see things popping up where it shouldn’t be. MR. MILLER-I understand. Our intent here was, you know, we have the grasses from the wetland at the base coming up to this stone wall, and then we have additional landscaping at the top where the parking is. So we would have sort of a hedge along the top, so that, you know, you’re going to see the wetland and some of the stone wall, and we’re trying to screen the fronts of some of the cars that are there, because we know that’s going to be the approach coming down the road. So we’ve tried to do as an attractive approach to the building as we could. MR. VOLLARO-I think the wall provides also its function, as opposed to just being aesthetically pleasing, if that’s your point, but I think it also protects this adjacent wetland from any runoff that takes place on this parking lot, and that might be the trade off there, is to keep contaminants out of the wetland as much as possible. MR. MILLER-Well, that was the intent. If you have wing swale along that lower portion of the parking lot, so any drainage from the parking lot is collected, it goes into the catch basin, and then goes into the infiltrator chambers and then there’s a controlled release out of the infiltrator chambers, an overflow into the wetland. So we have sort of a slow release of that runoff from the parking area rather than sheet flowing it down into the wetland area. MR. SEGULJIC-Could you just dwell on that for a second? So what happens is, as it rains, the infiltrator gets filled up. MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And it fills up to capacity. After the rainfall it flows back out the other way? MR. MILLER-Well, what happens is the catch basin has what’s referred to as an orifice on it. So water goes into the catch basin, so there’s a four foot outlet that goes out of the catch basin. So in a heavy rain, the runoff is restricted as to how much can go into the wetland. It goes into the catch basin, well, that’s actually an overflow, too. What happens, it goes into the catch basin, and then it flows into the infiltrator chambers, and 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) some of the notes that have been going back and forth from C.T. Male, it was agreed upon when this was approved previously with C.T. Male is that some of the soils under the infiltrators would be removed, and sandier material would be installed that would allow some infiltration, and some filtering of the stormwater towards the runoff. So the primary function would be, the water goes to the catch basin, goes into the infiltrators where it’s allowed to seep into the sandy soil, but then what happens is we have to design for a 100 year storm as obviously at some point the infiltrators start to fill, there would be an overflow in the catch basin that would allow water to release to the wetland, but again, it’s controlled by a four inch orifice, so it’s a very controlled release. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-It’s got to release at both ends at well. The pipe is a six inch pipe. MR. MILLER-Yes, but I think if you look at the note on the catch basin, Bob, what happens is you put like an end cap or something over the pipe as it leaves the catch basin, with a reducer or something on it, so you can size the actual orifice that’s controlling the water flow, even though the pipe’s bigger. MR. VOLLARO-So you basically get a volume calculation out of that, to tell you what kind of volume. MR. MILLER-That’s correct. I hate to keep referring to it, but this is the exact same system that was used over at Rich’s. He’s got it in the corner of his parking lot, there’s a bed of infiltrators there and there’s one catch basin, and it functions exactly the same way. MR. SEGULJIC-If I’m understanding this correctly, you’re going to bring in about three feet of fill, two to three feet, something like that? MR. MILLER-Probably. I haven’t looked at that in a long time, I can’t remember. MR. SEGULJIC-And it’s a slab on grade building? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Do you have to bring that soil on to stabilize the site for construction then? MR. MILLER-No. It’s just going to be imported for grading on the site, because what happens is the site drops down toward the wetland and we’ve got to just try to meet grade along the back, and the other thing is we have to meet grade off the Town road. So being just a one acre lot, we’ve got a lot of grades around us that are controlling where things have to be. So with the fill that’s brought in, it’s basically going to be in the area under the parking lot. That’s why we were talking about that material that would be brought in would be a better drained sand material that would help that infiltrator storm drainage system. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-That was the exact same question I had. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. SIPP-I guess you answered most of my questions, but does this eventually, when it runs down to the west, does this join up with that intermittent stream that is in this area, in the wetlands area? MR. MILLER-The site drainage? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. MILLER-Yes. What happens is within the DEC permit, we’re allowed to, I mean, the existing runoff runs into that area. So we’re allowed to do it, but what we have to do is detain it and treat it so we don’t increase additional over what flows in there now. So in the stormwater calculations, say 10 cubic feet per second flows in there in a 50 year storm, that’s what we’d have to maintain in a 50 year storm after development. MR. SIPP-All right. Now, does this stream continue on to the south of Willowbrook Drive and end up in the golf course. Where does the water go? MR. MILLER-Well, it continues. I’m trying to remember how far it goes. It does, it continues south, and then it continues southeasterly. I’m not sure, you know, eventually where it goes. It may end up in Halfway Brook, I’d have to go check. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it does. The Old Maid’s Brook eventually winds up in Halfway Brook. MR. MILLER-Okay, and that would be my guess. I don’t know for sure. MR. VOLLARO-It does. MRS. BRUNO-It’s right on the location plan, at least on SP-1. MR. MILLER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Almost all our drainage path here winds up in Halfway Brook. MR. SIPP-What about snow plowing? What is the snow removal from this site? MR. MILLER-What we typically have to do on a site like this is the snow is plowed to the back parking areas, and we’re, in winters where snow accumulates and it’s a problem, it would have to be removed. MR. SIPP-So the salt and antifreeze and oil drippings? MR. MILLER-Well, we’re not doing any maintenance, and hopefully the patients that are coming here are driving some cars that are passing inspections, and it’s been my experience that salt is used sparingly and we recommend it not be used heavily because it damages the concrete and things. Obviously there’s times where it’s needed, or a lot of times parking lots get sand and not salt. MR. SIPP-What type of sign is on this corner on the entranceway? MR. MILLER-That’s just going to be a small freestanding sign that’s going to just identify Dr. Canale’s business and whatever other tenant may be upstairs. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. SIPP-Monument types? MR. MILLER-That would be a small freestanding, similar to what’s been used in the park that, you know, a couple of piers, probably a dark green, with a gold leaf type lettering. It doesn’t have to be major. It’s just identifying it for patients, coming to the building. MR. VOLLARO-Most of the signs in that community are a monument type sign. If they try to keep some consistency in there, it’ll grow out to be a halfway decent looking park, I think. MR. SIPP-I hope so. MR. MILLER-I think we haven’t shown anything special regarding that. We’re showing the 15 foot setback, but it’s going to be a sign, obviously it’s going to need a permit. It’s certainly going to be a sign that’s going to be within the allowed square footage and design. MR. SIPP-I like your landscaping design. I think it’s much better than what you’ve got on the rest of the grounds there. The question, just an inquiry. What is a Shadblow tree? MR. MILLER-Shadblow Service Berry? That’s a native tree you see. It typically grows in clumps. You see it flower very early in the springtime. About the time forsythias are flowering, you see the white trees back in the woods. That’s the Shadblow. MR. SIPP-I know the Shad bush. MR. MILLER-Well, it’s the same thing, actually. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. MILLER-It’s the same thing. A lot of times it’ll prune and they’re kept in a bush form, but it’s a small tree, 25 foot tall or so. So it’s a good one we like to use where we have some limited space. MR. SEGULJIC-Any maintenance required for the infiltrator, considering it could get sand in it? MR. MILLER-No. The catch basin is what has to be maintained. The catch basin has a sump in it. So sands that go into this system go into the catch basin, in the sump of the catch basin, to trap the sand, so that the grate should be removed once a year and the sands removed. MR. VOLLARO-To help you out on that, when my wife was visiting Dr. Saunders frequently, I happened to see them open up those grates and get in, and it wasn’t the Town. The Town didn’t do that. It was a private company that came in and looked at that. MR. MILLER-Yes. There are people that do that. They come in with a vacuum and remove the water and sands. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I mean, overall, I’m all set. I think it looks good. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I was just thinking, real quickly, in looking at it, and I kind of messed around of making a template of this building and sliding it down just a little bit, because you’ve got 55.75 from your, in your southeast corner here, of clearance, where your setback, and just to relieve that impingement, right on the wetland, you could move that building just a hair down, not bothering your setback, keeping your setback in the back at exactly 20. Where you are now, you’re right on the 20 marker, and get that away from the wetland, just a little bit, because that’s going to be pretty hard to do that eaves trench right close to that wetland where without getting into, it seems to me. You’re making it difficult for the guy who’s trying to do it. MR. MILLER-It is, but I think what we were trying to do, well, we always try and make it difficult on the contractors anyway. You could ask any of them about that. They’re favorite thing is, what do you want us to do here, but I think what we were trying to do there, Bob, is maximize the buffer area in the front. I think, you know, our concern, it’s funny to do the same project before the Planning Board a second time. The questions are so different, but a lot of the concern, when we looked at this previously, was getting some berm and some buffering along Willowbrook Drive, and I think that’s what we did is, and the other side of that, it is tight to that wetland, but I think if you look at that area, it’s basically just sort of, I hate to say this, it’s not like the wetland down near the brook. It’s just sort of a little bit of a swale that comes up in there, and as a matter of fact I was out there today. I was having a hard time even finding it. So I don’t really think it’s going to be a problem, and I’d hate to see us move closer to the road. Plus we’re only talking a couple of feet one way or the other. MR. VOLLARO-We’re only talking a little bit. I looked at it and said, well, they don’t have much. You’ve got 5.75 feet to play with. That’s it. MR. MILLER-Yes, that’s not much. MR. VOLLARO-That’s not much. Do it like the drawing, not a big problem. Then you don’t have to worry about anything at all. MR. MILLER-That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-All right. You do have to respond to C.T. Male’s comments of their June th 12 letter. MR. MILLER-Yes. We have, as a matter of fact, we responded, they, we got a letter and we responded, then we got a subsequent letter and we responded also, but I haven’t gotten a letter back. So I think we’re all right, but we’re close. MRS. STEFFAN-It was brought up a little earlier. There is a back entrance, and you talked about employees going in there, but there is no walkway. MR. MILLER-Yes, there is. MR. FORD-Is that out by the trash? MR. MILLER-No, that’s this, that’s a fire exit out in the back. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, because we were talking about that earlier. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. MILLER-This is the one here. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. That’s fine, then, that makes sense. MR. VOLLARO-I guess that the Wastewater Department had a comment on here that you’ve probably seen, but they’re talking about the wastewater review permit and inspection of wastewater connection before, that was something that I guess came out of the Wastewater Department. It was just a comment. MR. MILLER-Yes. They said that the connection was allowed. They just needed to approve the details. MR. VOLLARO-It’s a pretty standard comment from Mike Shaw anyway. I mean, that’s what he usually states. The Fire Marshal said he was okay with the. MR. MILLER-It should be pretty easy. It runs right through the parking lot. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right. Based on the comments that I see in the C.T. Male letter, one of the things that we’ve talked about on this Board, and I’ll go up and down the Board and ask. We can condition this upon your receipt of a signoff from C.T. Male, because I don’t see anything in here that’s really, you know, very, very serious, nothing that I see that they’ve come up with. MR. MILLER-Do you have both their letters, Bob, or just the one? MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got June 12, that’s all. MR. MILLER-Okay. There was another one. We responded to that, and then we got a th draft, I got a draft of another one on June 20 where most items were addressed, and there was a couple that were not, and then we submitted another letter back in response st to this one on the 21. So we’ve gone back and forth. So I think we’re pretty close to that signoff letter. MR. VOLLARO-So you think that based on that you’re pretty close to a signoff on this? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Because there isn’t very much meat in his letter. Usually Jim Houston’s pretty good, but this didn’t rise to that occasion. MR. SEGULJIC-The only thing I see that would be of concern to me is the fact that they’ve said that test pits should be installed in the areas of the infiltrators to make sure there’s adequate spacing. MR. MILLER-Well, that was one of the questions in his second letter, also, and at first I responded to that saying that we weren’t using infiltrators, and I was trusting my memory. I’m getting too old. I shouldn’t do that. So after I got back into the records, our file, that’s where I found the original correspondence from C.T. Male. They raised similar questions, and that’s when we explained that we would install a minimum of two foot of sand in the areas of those infiltrators. So the test pits aren’t going to be required 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) because we’re going to be installing off site material that will be a well-drained material. So that really kind of addresses the test pits. They’re not going to be necessary. MR. VOLLARO-Just in general from memory I guess I’m going to ask you, what is the seasonal high groundwater? Before this was developed, I know it goes all the way back to the original owner, was it Passarelli who owned this property to begin with? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-It was always known that that field was kind of wet, and I’m just wondering what the seasonally high groundwater level is there and how deep can you get those infiltrators in without butting them right up against the seasonally high? MR. MILLER-Well, the actual high groundwater is pretty close to the elevation of the wetland, around 308 or a little above, but the reason those fields seem to be as wet as they are is that they’re a silty clay kind of material that doesn’t drain very well anyway. So where you get some pockets and things there, the water sits and dries. It doesn’t soak in very well. So that’s a little bit different. There were some test pits that done all throughout this whole property when the original subdivision was done, when Tom Nace did that, and that’s what he found is that most of the soils in here were pretty clay. MR. VOLLARO-I remember some of the perc rates we did back when we looked at this, and they were slow. MR. MILLER-It’s a good thing there’s sewers. MR. VOLLARO-It’s a good thing there’s sewers, yes, it was slow, very slow at that time. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m fine with approving it with them obtaining the signoff. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-There are two other items in the Staff notes we didn’t address. That was colors and trash receptacles. MR. FORD-Trash receptacle, right? MR. MILLER-Well, I think, the trash receptacle, I mean, it’s a medical office. So we’re just looking at a couple of the large cans, and we just had it, you know, there’s not going to be a dumpster for this office. So there’s just going to be, typical for a residential. So that’s why we just had that on that concrete pad near the back service entrance, employee entrance door there, behind the building where it’s out of sight. MR. FORD-Would there be an appropriate location that would be further away from the wetland? MR. MILLER-Well, there’s really not going to be anything in the trash, I think, that’s going to be a threat to the wetland, but the other thing is, the drainage from that area, if there was something spilled near there, that runoff from that area goes to the parking lot and into the catch basins and drains. It doesn’t drain back into that wetland because we had a retaining wall along there which essentially acts like a curb there, so any runoff directly into that, you know, it wouldn’t be possible. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MRS. STEFFAN-The trash (lost word) makes a little more sense, because if it was a dumpster, I would be concerned about having parking spaces in front of the trash area. So that would be, that sounds reasonable to me. MR. VOLLARO-One question. How did you answer Number Nine? When he said an existing sanitary sewer manhole is located in the temporary sediment trap. Consideration should be given to avoiding this condition. How did you answer that? MR. MILLER-Well, we show a temporary sediment trap that is going to trap any runoff from the construction site so we don’t get, basically it’s going to be a basin, so the rainwater gets trapped, so silt gets trapped into that basin and doesn’t flow into the wetland, and there’s going to be silt fence also. Obviously that sediment trap has to be located on the downhill side of the site, and that’s where the sewer easement is. So there’s a manhole there. So what we’re going to do is the manhole’s got to be raised to the new grade. I think it’s going to be raised about three feet. So what would happen is they would remove the cone section, the top portion of that manhole, and install a three foot barrel section, and all the manholes in the Town it’s required that those are water tight joints, and then they’re coated and sealed and they’re water tight. So we would have to get that approved from the sewer department, and when the manhole was revised, we’d have to show that it was done properly, then it would, the manhole would stay there within the sediment basin, but since it would be water tight, the water wouldn’t be infiltrating into the manhole. MR. VOLLARO-I’m surprised Mike didn’t pick up on that. He’s big on not putting any kind of groundwater into the sewer system, because Glens Falls has got to deal with the cumulative accumulation of rainwater. MR. MILLER-Yes. It’s amazing how much gets in through leaky pipes and things, but that’s how we would do that and then the intent is that it would be raised up, before the sediment basin was actually built, that would have to be one of the first things that would have to be done, and then that way, you know, if there was water in there, the rim is well above the water level. MR. VOLLARO-I think that pretty well exercises the engineering side of this thing. Has anybody else got any further questions that they’d like to raise on this? MRS. STEFFAN-Color is the only other issue on Staff notes. MR. FORD-I just have one for the Chairman. Are you satisfied with the lighting plan? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I have a comment on it that I wasn’t going to make because I think that, I looked at the cut sheet and I think that that particular cut sheet looks like the best you can do. I’d like to see the motif of the lighting remain the same as it is on the rest of the site. We were trying to develop that so that it almost looked like a medical community, and I think it would be, as far as the, what I did do is I looked at the site lighting, and I did a quick calculation on that. MR. FORD-I thought you might have. MR. VOLLARO-SP-4. Well, all I wanted to make sure of is we had an average of two foot candles on the ground there, and I think because of the overlap, we’re getting that. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) The only thing we’re giving up to maintain the aesthetics is a little bit of skylight, which I don’t like but I think I’m going to trade that, at least I’m trading it off in my mind as having the aesthetics of this community look the same, as opposed to having a different set of lighting on this. MR. MILLER-That’s why we did that. MR. VOLLARO-And you make certain judgments here sitting in this seat as to you do things, and the longer you sit here the more judgments you learn to make. MR. FORD-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. VOLLARO-But that’s all. They picked the fixture that has the least amount of vertical escape. I wasn’t going to get into it, but since you asked me. MRS. STEFFAN-So based on Staff notes, there is the issue of parking, recommended 33 spaces versus the 36. MR. VOLLARO-I think we can waive that. MRS. STEFFAN-Then the other issue was the foot bridge. Are we satisfied on that one? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I am. At least I am. I don’t know about the rest of the Board. MR. FORD-I agree. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Pull the development away from the wetlands. We already talked about that. Snow removal. We’ve got our answer to that. Trash receptacles. We’ve got our answer to that. Bay Road design guidelines. We’ve talked about that, and then the colors is the last issue in the Staff notes. Did you have any color schemes in mind? DR. CANALE-They’re going to be earth tones, something that is a natural color. MR. MILLER-Yes. I think what we talked about with Ethan was that there would be tans and browns, similar to some of the colors that are being used in the park. Again, to be consistent. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think you want to have a red building in the middle of the way this park is beginning to develop. I think that’s what you’re really making sure of. DR. CANALE-Red wouldn’t be good for a dental office. MRS. BRUNO-Which isn’t to say that you need to have the exact same colors that he has there. I think it’s starting to get a little too monotone. We should have something that does make it a little unique would be nice. MR. MILLER-Yes, I think what Ethan, I talked to him about it because I saw the comment, and he said he didn’t really develop the pallet, but he was talking about having some tans that were darker, so there’d be some variation in the building and then it would be, it would stand out a little bit from some of the other buildings. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-Is that brick around the base, a brick façade? MR. MILLER-Yes, I guess so. MR. VOLLARO-I think it looks like a good project to me. I wouldn’t take it too much further. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. We need to do a Short SEQRA. This is an Unlisted Action. MR. VOLLARO-We also have, I think we have a public hearing on this. Is there anybody in the public who would like to speak to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-And we’re going to proceed on a Short Form SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 25-2006, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: DR. GINA CANALE, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. VOLLARO-Do you want to make the motion? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 25-2006 DR. GINA CANALE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes construction of a 9,820 sq. ft. two-story office building and related parking and site work. Professional Offices in the PO zone require Planning Board review and approval. Additionally, Site Plan Review is required for filling and hard surfacing within 50 feet of a wetland; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and was held on 6/22/06; and WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, where appropriate, i.e. done at the completed review, and/or when required [either Type I or Unlisted] the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration and /or if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: This application is hereby APPROVED: with the following amendments: 1.) Paragraph Four: this complies; 2.) Paragraph Five: a Negative SEQRA Declaration. Approved with the following conditions: 1. A C.T. Male signoff be obtained, 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) 2. That the color scheme of this project will be done in earth tones, tans and browns. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro NOES: Mrs. Bruno MR. MILLER-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck on your project. DR. CANALE-Thank you very much. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 9-2006 SEQR TYPE II STEPHEN KIRSHON AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 84 ROCKHURST APPLICANT PROPOSES LANDSCAPE WALLS, PATIO, STAIRS AND WALKWAY. CONSTRUCTION OF HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE REQUIRES REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. AV 38-92, SP 56-96 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/8/06 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.27 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.13-2-41 SECTION 179-4- TOM HUTCHINS & MIKE GARGIULO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-Would you identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. HUTCHINS-Certainly. Good evening, Board. My name is Tom Hutchins. I’m Hutchins Engineering, Queensbury. With me is property owner Stephen Kirshon, and builder Michael Garguilo. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Before we get started, Tom, did Craig Brown call you in my behalf concerning the two different numbers that came up on the spread sheets? Did he talked to you? MRS. BARDEN-I did. MR. HUTCHINS-No, Craig Brown didn’t, but Susan did. MR. VOLLARO-Susan did. Okay, because when I looked at the spread sheets I said I know, I’ve been in the spread sheet business and I know one wrong move comes out at the end wrong, and that’s what happened here. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, actually, it wasn’t an error. It was, can I explain the difference? You’re talking about the discrepancy between? MR. VOLLARO-No, I’m talking on your spread sheets on the bottom of, when I looked at both drawings, original drawing of 2 something ’06, there’s a drawing of 2/15/06. MR. HUTCHINS-The last submission, yes. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-There’s two submissions that I have in front of me. One of them is dated 2/15/06, and then you modified that. MR. HUTCHINS-Right. This has been modified in response to our last meeting. MR. VOLLARO-Right, but both of those drawings had spread sheets on the bottom of them like this. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and when I looked at spreadsheet number one, from the first drawing, you had, your total pervious was 10,049 square feet. Do you have your 2/15? MR. HUTCHINS-I don’t have my first submission. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you can use mine if you like. You don’t have to pull it out. I’ve got it here. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-If you go to your 2/15 drawing, you’ve got your total pervious is 1,049 square feet. MR. HUTCHINS-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, that’s pervious. When you go to your 5/5 drawing, I know your pervious is not going down. Your pervious is going up, but right here it’s gone down to 995. MR. HUTCHINS-The column you’re reading is the change in impervious area from previous proposed and change. Because we modified the submission from the first submission the first submission, details of which I will explain, that did change the amount of hard area that we have on the site due to those modifications. Additionally, there is one portion of the house, and it’s specifically a back porch that was not shown on the first layout, because this was developed from the house floor plan. This information here was from the field survey. The porch wasn’t on the house floor plan when we developed this envelope. So there is an 80 square foot difference in the house area shown, between the two submissions. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but both of these spread sheets are identically characterized. One is previous impervious proposed and changed. MR. HUTCHINS-Right. MR. VOLLARO-They’re both exactly the same. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, but the numbers are different. MR. VOLLARO-And the numbers are different. MR. HUTCHINS-Right. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-Now you’ve made improvements to this to increase the pervious area. Increase pervious area. You’re going in the right direction, right? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. FORD-You decreased the impervious. MR. VOLLARO-But the total pervious has gone down, where it should have gone up. MR. HUTCHINS-And the reason for that is the difference in the house footprint with that porch. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you’re saying that the new. MR. HUTCHINS-I’m saying this submission that’s in front of you today is indeed correct. MR. VOLLARO-But what I’m doing is looking at both of them, Tom. So I’ve got to look at the first one and the second one, okay. MR. HUTCHINS-Doesn’t the second one override the first one? MR. VOLLARO-Well, it does, but what I see is the way you did it the first time, I think what you’re trying to do is you’re trying to increase the pervious on this site, just from the drawing it looks that way. That’s what you’re trying to do, and I think when I look at the first submission, you had a greater amount of pervious than you do now, and I’m just trying to get you to explain that to me. I think it might, I think you should have more pervious today than you had when you had the old drawing. That’s all I’m saying. MR. HUTCHINS-No. We have more pervious today than the old condition, okay, because the porch, if you look at the footprints of that, we’re talking very, very small numbers. MR. VOLLARO-We’re talking small numbers, and I don’t want to talk about it anymore. That’s it. MR. HUTCHINS-Thirty, forty square feet. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We can get together over a cup of coffee and I’ll go over that with you one time. How does that sound? MR. HUTCHINS-Anyway. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Do you want to go ahead with your project? MR. HUTCHINS-I’d like to, yes. MR. VOLLARO-We can discuss it if you want. Do you want to put it up on the easel? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. HUTCHINS-No, I think we can just discuss it. We’re okay. Yes. You will recall we th were here on March 28, and as a result of that meeting and feedback we did receive from the Board, we have modified our proposal substantially. In addition, I believe we’ve provided all of the additional requested information that the Board was waiting on, namely mean high water mark shown, copy of the survey, C.T. Male signoff letter, APA non-jurisdictional letter, and I’m quite aware all of those were submitted, and I presume you have them. MR. VOLLARO-I do not have, I don’t believe, a C.T. Male signoff letter here. I don’t remember seeing it, but that doesn’t mean. MR. HUTCHINS-And the Staff notes also reflect that that’s been received. MR. VOLLARO-Do we have a C.T. Male signoff? MRS. BARDEN-We have a signoff letter from the first submission. We had to send the second one back, and we didn’t get a response in time. th MR. VOLLARO-We have an April 26 from them, and that’s all we have. MRS. BARDEN-Right, from the first plan, the original plan. th MR. VOLLARO-Do you have something other than an April 26, Tom? MR. HUTCHINS-No. I have the signoff from the first submission. MR. VOLLARO-From the first submission, okay. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-In talking to Craig Brown today about that, since the second submission is trying to be even better than submission number one, to which C.T. Male replied on th April 26, I talked to Craig, and we got together and said fundamentally this looks like a better project than the first one. Because you’ve done a lot right up front in the first 50 feet to help the situation. So going back to C.T. Male, in this particular instance, isn’t going to help us a lot. Just from looking at your drawings, I can see you’re trying to limit some of the problems you had with the first 50 feet on the original submission. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, we’re trying to address the Board’s concerns. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Right. Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-And I guess I’d explain a little bit what we have done. Primary difference, we’ve completely removed the tiered retaining wall and children’s play area that was proposed near the shoreline. That was something the owner’s felt very strongly about, but from the feedback from the Board, we felt it was best to remove that. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s a marked improvement. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s a lot better. You’ve made your strides in the right direction. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. HUTCHINS-And we’ve replaced that with, what we want to be able to do is clean up the rock shoreline. It will remain a rock shoreline. We wish to remove the concrete debris. There’s one of the old triangular highway monuments that you used to see as guardrails years ago. There’s some of those laying sideways to retain material. We want to clean that up and replace it with fieldstone boulders interspersed with plantings, and that’ll define the shoreline. It won’t be a vertical wall by any means. It will keep the existing slope of the shoreline and just define it in rock. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re going to set fieldstone along the shoreline? MR. HUTCHINS-Boulders. MR. GARGUILO-No, on top of the, there’s already stone there where the bank drops off quite substantially, right at the edge of the, do you have a picture? MR. HUTCHINS-I do. Have you seen the site? Have you seen the shoreline? Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-The stone that’s there, we want to clean that up and extend it probably a little higher than where it is, to define the shoreline. MR. SEGULJIC-Define clean up. MR. HUTCHINS-Clean up, get rid of the concrete debris that’s in there. MR. SEGULJIC-But I guess one of my concerns, you’re not going to disturb the existing soil to release sediment into the lake, correct? MR. HUTCHINS-Well, we’re going to use, we’re not going to excavate, no. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. That’s what I was getting at. All right. MR. HUTCHINS-I mean, that’s going to be a lot of handwork. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. The proper silt fence. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, they will take precautions. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-Additionally, another change we’ve made we’re relocated the stairway from the side to the front, and reconfigured the small patio that’s off the southern room on the lakeside, and with that, I think that summarizes what we’ve changed in the past. I’m set. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. One of the reasons that we have our counsel here tonight has to do with the fact that a site plan has been triggered in accordance with our 179 Code. Now, the Kirshons have a building permit on this site. Having a building permit is a little bit incongruent with us going into a full site plan review. I’ve talked about it with a number of people. What we’re trying to do, so that you know what I’m trying to do is to 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) get something into the Code as quickly as possible that says the following, essentially says the following. That any single family development within a Critical Environmental, a designated Critical Environmental Area in the Town of Queensbury, there are four, that before a building permit is issued, the site must undergo a site plan review, and then a building permit is issued once the site plan review, if the site plan is approved. Right now it’s not in the Code that way. What’s happened here is that the Code states, very, very clearly, that when, I can almost recite it, after saying it so many times, when a site plan is triggered, the Planning Board is empowered to exercise all of the requirements of this chapter. That’s almost a verbatim statement. When we started to go that route, we were kind of held up by our Zoning Administrator that said, no, no, no. All you can do is look at the first 50 feet, and he and I had some discussion over a couple of issues, because I felt that was essentially not letting this Board exercise its authority in accordance with the Code, but then when I look at it, and seeing that a building permit has been issued to the property, I felt, you know, I used the word with him that it would be rather draconian to go to a person holding a building permit and say we’re going to do a site plan review on your property, even though you hold a building permit, and I couldn’t quite get myself to do that. So I’m not going to. The reason why we have counsel here tonight is we wanted counsel to hear what we’re trying to do here, and get an opinion from counsel as to, are we on the right track here. I know that Craig would be relieved, the Zoning Administrator would welcome having a site plan done in a designated Critical Environmental Area, even though this Board very seldom looks at single family residences, if ever, except now if they are going to be built in a Critical Environmental Area. I wanted you to have comment on that, if you wanted to comment on it. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s up to the Board. MR. VOLLARO-No, but I think this is something we’re trying to change the Code. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I guess my comment is, I think the way you’re proposing review, the pending application seems appropriate. Whether the Town Board decides to change the Code in the manner you, either as a Board or you, individually, as its Chairman, are recommending is a purely discretionary decision by the Town Board. If it does, it does. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t. I do think that if the Town Board wants to enact that sort of amendment, it would certainly help clarify an existing situation of some ambiguity. So I’m all for clarifying ambiguity, but I doubt that your conjecture about the Zoning Administrator is correct, that the Zoning Administrator would prefer to have site plan review over this application. I don’t think that’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-On this application it’s not correct. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. That’s what I thought you said, I don’t agree with that. MR. VOLLARO-We’re going to stick with the first 50 feet. MR. SCHACHNER-I have no idea about how the Zoning Administrator feels about future applications. MR. VOLLARO-Because he is sometimes caught dithering between whether he should be forcing us to the first 50 feet or not, and this way he doesn’t have to. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. SCHACHNER-Well, easiest answer from counsel’s standpoint is we support any clarification that eliminates gray area. So if you’re going to recommend to the Town Board that they adopt some provision along the lines you suggested, fine by us. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s really why I wanted counsel’s opinion on the record on that kind of change. MRS. STEFFAN-Bob, if I can just add a piece of information, or a point of information. In the Planning Ordinance Review Committee, one of the things that we are looking at is to clarify the zoning so that Planning Board may be reviewing single family residence applications in Critical Environmental Areas and areas with actually 15 to 25% slopes. It would trigger site plan review by the Planning Board. So we are talking about that, and changing our zoning as a result of that. So it is something that has been on the table and discussed. MR. SCHACHNER-And unless I’m missing something, that sounds entirely consistent with what Bob talked about, that site plan review, if these amendments are adopted, if proposed and adopted, that site plan review would now be required for certain single family residential construction, in reference to this situation, in Critical Environmental Areas, for example. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. So I wanted to get on the record to the community, so the community begins to understand that’s the direction we’re going. MR. SEGULJIC-So if I could just clarify, then. So since the building permit’s already been issued, we can only look at the first 50 feet? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, even if a building permit had not already been issued, I think what Bob’s talking about I think is right, is that Craig Brown, our Zoning Administrator, has wrestled with the notion that even if a building permit has not yet been issued, the jurisdiction, for site plan review, seems to be triggered by hard surfacing within the first 50 feet. From the legal standpoint, and I don’t know the fact of the specific application, I’m not trying to bog anybody down, but from the legal standpoint, if, for example, you had a multiple acre site and hard surfacing within 50 feet of the lake triggers site plan review, and you have other activity going on, not even connected to that, the activity triggering the jurisdiction, but some other activity way far away on the site, I don’t think that the Code as currently written would support the notion that the entire property is now subject to site plan review. So, I’m not hinging our opinion on the existence of the building permit, I guess is what I’m saying. MR. VOLLARO-I think the way it was described to me, after talking to Mr. Brown, he said look at it this way. Supposing a building is built with a building permit, and nobody, for the first three or four years, does anything with the first 50 feet. th MR. SCHACHNER-Right. He wrote this out for you on June 13. You all received that, right? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That’s exactly what he did, and so that clarified it for me. MR. SCHACHNER-And it made sense. MR. VOLLARO-It made sense. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. SEGULJIC-I guess I’m just trying to understand this more. So under 179-9-020, and I realize I’m just jumping into the middle of the paragraph, but I guess if you could just square this up for me. When a site plan review is triggered, the Planning Board is empowered to apply all the requirements of this chapter to review of the site plan. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, the requirements of this chapter of the site plan. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re saying the definition of the site plan is only the first 50 feet? MR. SCHACHNER-It’s what’s jurisdictional, right. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-All the requirements can be applied to whatever is jurisdictional. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. That squares it up then. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. At least it’s coming to the surface and hopefully we’re going to grapple with it and thank you very much for your help on that. MR. SCHACHNER-No problem. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We can go and continue with this. I think what the applicant has done, at least I believe as one member, has really gone a long way to improve the first 50 feet over what it was before. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. FORD-I believe they’ve been very responsive to our concerns that we voiced earlier. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s come a long ways definitely. A couple of comments. We have the, under the flagstone patio to the north of the building, not north of the house, you have the infiltrator. Can we get an infiltrator to the south on that patio also? MR. HUTCHINS-Could we? Yes, we could put one there. It’s a little, the reason it isn’t there is because this is a paver patio and this is a flagstone patio with gravel, okay. It’s not necessarily pavement. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, I mean. MR. HUTCHINS-I have no problem. MR. SEGULJIC-The other thing is, you have a beautiful sidewalk there, but you have a direct line right into the lake for stormwater, and that’s what we’re trying to eliminate, and the problem this one sidewalk in and of itself is not that big a deal, but if every single person has one, looking at the cumulative impacts, can we get some type of infiltration on that also, towards the base of the lake? MR. HUTCHINS-Well, yes, let me explain how that’s made and maybe you’ll change your mind, maybe you won’t. This is flagstone. What’s going to be done is the entire, 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) the area is going to be sodded, okay, and then we come back with flat flagstones, set them down, cut out the sod, set the stone in so that it’s flush with the top of the sod so you can mow over it. These are flagstones placed within the turf, placed after the turf is there. There will be grass all the way around every stone there. Do you want to add to that, Mike, how that’s? MR. GARGUILO-Yes. I discussed this with Bruce up at the site, and he even did the pictures that you’re looking at up there. MR. HUTCHINS-It’s not a hard sidewalk. MR. GARGUILO-It’s not a sheeting sidewalk. His response was the grass between the stones was basically acting as your infiltrator. It doesn’t allow a sheeting action. MR. FORD-We may be misguided by the fact that there are lines down the side, both sides of that walkway, and that would indicate to me that that’s solid there, when in effect it is. MR. HUTCHINS-I believe, back in my first submission, I believe I submitted a photo of a typical flagstone walkway. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I believe you did, in the first submission. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. I did not re-submit that this time. MR. VOLLARO-You said something that triggered a comment. I’m surprised my colleague here didn’t pick it up, but you talked about sodding. We’re looking at use of pesticides and fertilizers around the lake. Going through the expense of putting sod in there, I know what you’re going to try to do. You’re going to try and make it nice and green and cut it a lot, and the only way to do that, that I know of, and I think Mr. Seguljic is probably the better man to talk about this than I am, because it’s one of his pets around the lake is not to use any fertilizer on ground in and around the lake itself. So we may, in this application we may state that as a condition of approval, that fertilizers are not to be used on grass right next to the lake. I don’t know, are you planning on putting that in? MR. SIPP-And also on the plantings, the pachysandra and the plantings that are even closer to the lake and the lawn, that no fertilizer, organic or inorganic, be used. MR. VOLLARO-And I know that’s a tough call on somebody who’s trying to make the place look really, really nice. The problem is we are also, a very key thing in our minds is to protect the lake, and if you look at basically Rockhurst itself, every time I look at it I get concerned. You have a peninsula going out there. You have a road going through the middle. You’ve got what, maybe 60 houses in there, I’m guessing, 50 to 60. Every single one of those houses have a septic tank in them. Some have holding tanks. Phil Morse has a holding tank, with a putting green, of all things, but I’m really concerned about that, in terms of when you go back to 1956 when that was laid out, one of our citizens has passed a plat that’s on file at the County that was filed in 1956 of, and it talked about that area as camp lots. MR. GARGUILO-They were. They were cabanas. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-So now we’re putting pretty good sized homes in that area with septic tanks and all the amenities that one would have in another area, except that they’re right next to the lake. When I look at that, I get really concerned. A lot of people are becoming very concerned about it. Our Town Board is becoming, you know, I’ve been preaching to certain members of the Town Board that, hey, you know, the protection of the lake is one of the primary things that this Board, among other things, tries to do, and so that would be the reason why we would specify no fertilizer here. I had a thought, if we could, and we probably couldn’t, but to go to every house on the lake, on that peninsula, and put the yellow dye in, and watch what happens along the lake. That’s a concern. MR. HUTCHINS-The area would be very well served by public sewers. Unfortunately that’s not a reality right now. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That’s the fundamental reason why. I just wanted to, we don’t just say you can’t use fertilizers because we don’t like the idea. We’re trying to protect the lake from things like phosphorus. MRS. STEFFAN-I saw the landscaping plan, but in the photographs that are up on the screen, there’s trees and some shrubbery along the water line. Are those things staying? Is the landscaping in addition to what’s there? MR. GARGUILO-Everything from that tree south is untouched. Not going to change. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So some vegetation will be removed? MR. VOLLARO-No. It’s all going to stay. MR. SEGULJIC-I just want to point out that within our Code, under 179-6-060, it states, within 35 feet extending inward from all points along the mean high water mark, no vegetation shall be removed, which is something we haven’t followed. This area shall be maintained as an undisturbed natural buffer. So technically all 35 feet all the way around the lake, as I interpret this, is supposed to have a natural buffer. Further in the Code it goes to state re-vegetation. When a shoreline lot owner violates the shoreline cutting restrictions, the Zoning Administrator shall require total re-vegetation so as to create a buffer strip area which is in compliance within this section. MR. GARGUILO-Yes, but I don’t think we’ve. MR. SEGULJIC-Where I’m going with this, I just want to make everybody aware of that. I think you guys have come a long ways from what we first saw. I guess I’m not going to press this at this point, but I think it’s something that I will be pressing in the future. MRS. STEFFAN-So the trees that we just talked about, they’re not going anywhere? MR. HUTCHINS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. STEPHEN KIRSHON 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. KIRSHON-I have a very tall fir tree. I’ve had a tree surgeon examine it and trim it and balance it because it could be a hazard. As a matter of fact, my neighbor to the north had a similar tree that fell down about 10 years ago and almost took the roof right off my house. It just missed the house. So there are times when those trees do need to be removed. This particular tree I’ve had tested and examined, and it’s healthy, and it’s balanced, and I would never remove it at this point in time, but if the time comes when that becomes a hazard, and if you look at the bottom on the north side, it has been eaten into, and that’s what made me nervous, and if it becomes a hazard, I’m going to take it down, but I don’t plan on doing that. It has to be a reasonable, there has to be some reason. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I don’t have any further questions on this, but there is a public hearing tonight, and if somebody wants to come up and speak to this application. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KATHY BOZONY MS. BOZONY-Hello. I’m Kathy Bozony from the Lake George Association, and I agree with you on the necessity to encourage these buffer strips. Planting sod or even planting grass seed to the lake is not a good infiltrator. The soil, the root system is so shallow that the water does sheet off. This is an over 4,000 square foot house on a quarter of an acre of land. I know it was not subject to the FAR calculation. I did notice in the recent revised revision of the basement, they’ve changed the size of the windows so it no longer really does apply what should have been included and what I think should have been FAR. I know this isn’t the Board, but it is a very large house. I am getting calls every day about the size of the houses on Rockhurst, Assembly Point, and the concerns of the neighbors of these very large homes. This home is going to be greater than 28 feet in height. You can see by the one photo up there, and I took photos myself, the basement, there will be fill probably brought in to bring the elevation so that it does not exceed that 28 foot graduated, but I really would encourage you to talk about the fact that a native planting of the buffer strip is a really critical thing that I’m hoping to encourage all lake front owners to really look at it. There are a lot of, and you can call me. There are a lot of really great, there’s one particular, Drew Monthie, who is an excellent resource for native plantings. The Shadbush is a true example, and if you’ve seen the birds that are currently eating those Shadbush, it is just incredible. You don’t see those birds anywhere, and they were all over our bush at the office today, but the native planting of buffer strip is such a critical thing on this very, very small piece of land, and I do hate to see the grass being planted right to the lake, because it really does nothing with the sheeting action and the infiltration which is so limited on this property. I guess that’s it. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Thanks for all your help, by the way. MS. BOZONY-Yes, and I will be a resource or a pass on, you know, to a person that’s an expert in the field, if you do desire. MR. VOLLARO-Where are you located? MS. BOZONY-We are at Exit 21, right next to the ADK, Lake George Association. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ve got you. MS. BOZONY-And there is a tremendous benefit to planting a buffer strip, versus having lawn, and it can be very attractive as well. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. How wide a buffer strip would be good? MS. BOZONY-Well, they don’t have that much land. So buffer strips 20 feet minimum is really the best, and if you cannot give up your entire shorefront for a buffer strip. If you give up part of it, that’s good as well. Anything you can do to create greater depth of root structure in order to do the infiltration, and, you know, unfortunately, this tree probably won’t be there forever. It probably was built with a lot of trees around it that were helping hold it up, and I agree with Mr. Kirshon, it may become a hazard at some point, and the key would be to start planting new trees there, and get a nice filtered view so that, you know, you have privacy from people on the lake and vice versa, and it’s a really big thing that I’m really trying to push. It’s such a simple thing for stormwater management and it’s so inexpensive. MR. SEGULJIC-Does it make sense to have something like a five foot wide buffer strip? MS. BOZONY-Anything. Anything would help. MR. SEGULJIC-With what kind of plantings in there? MS. BOZONY-I’d have to get back with you on that. There are a lot of them, depending on what kind of soils you have, depending on what kind of sunshine you have, you can go in a lot of different angles, and you can find some variety that are really beneficial and might appeal to you, and, you know, there are a lot of nurseries around. Meads has a good supply. Schroon River Nursery. MR. SEGULJIC-So you could be a resource. MS. BOZONY-I’d love to be. It’s a really important thing that I’d hope that the Board would help encourage. Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Thanks a lot. Mr. Salvador. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. I think we’ve concluded that projects like this are in a Critical Environmental Area. I would like to recommend that the record show that. These brief outlines of the project, Staff notes, should include that. So there’s an appreciation that we do have that situation existing. Secondly. MR. VOLLARO-This Board is probably pretty aware of it. You’re talking about the general, getting it out to the community. MR. SALVADOR-The whole review process takes on a different tone when it’s in a Critical Environmental Area. It’s as simple as that. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I understand. MR. SALVADOR-The second thing is, with regard to zoning districts, definition, that sort of thing, in effect the shoreline and wetland regulations are an overlay district, and that should be noted on here as well. So you have not only a Waterfront Residential zone, and a Critical Environmental Area, you have it in a shoreline and wetland regulation district. MR. SEGULJIC-And Lake George Park Commission, the 147 regulations, stormwater regulations. MR. SALVADOR-147 are ours. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MR. SALVADOR-Are our regulations. Yes, they should be inventoried here. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I just want to state something to the Board. 147 is being mailed to each member of this Board, so you have an opportunity to review it. MR. SALVADOR-With regard to use of fertilizers, they can be eliminated, outlawed, in the near shore areas of Lake George with the stroke of a pen, and they should be, and you don’t need fertilizers to keep grass green. You can stick a pony pump in the lake and just pump the water out. Grass will grow in the desert if there’s water. That’s all you need. There is no excuse to be using fertilizers. The issue of the windows and this sort of thing and whether or not the basement is living space, I think you should bear in mind that the second exit from a cellar is just one criteria for establishing the potential of living space. Somebody can live in a basement with one exit. They can do that. It’s just a question of the inconvenience that they’re willing to suffer. MR. VOLLARO-I think the second entrance is a safety regulation, though. MR. SALVADOR-That’s right, but it’s just a basis for issuing a permit, if you will, but anyone can live down in a basement if you don’t mind the inconvenience. So I think it’s a matter of the potential, the potential to be able to use it as living space. MR. VOLLARO-Well, when we start to look at, if we get this put into the Code, then that space will be subject to a Floor Area Ratio as well, and we’ll take a look at it in that direction. MR. SALVADOR-And don’t try to attack these problems you’re talking about tonight, one project at a time. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think it can be done that way. MR. SALVADOR-It’s got to be done at the Town level. MR. VOLLARO-We’re trying, John, we’re trying. Believe me, we’re trying. MR. SEGULJIC-We’re getting there. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-I spend a lot of time on this, not as much as you do, but I spend a lot of time. MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Anybody else on this application? MRS. BARDEN-I have a couple of written correspondence. Mr. Salvador, did you want th me to read your comment into the record? Your June 13 letter? Does the Board have th the June 13 letter? MR. VOLLARO-I do. It was mailed to us. MR. SALVADOR-It’s not necessary. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. I do have one other piece of correspondence, dated June 20, 2006, to Mr. Robert Vollaro, Chairman, Town of Queensbury Planning Board, regarding Kirshon, 84 Rockhurst Road, Site Plan Review 9-2006. “Dear Mr. Vollaro: I have reviewed the above referenced site plan application and I would like to offer the following for consideration by the Board: The project proposed is the construction of patios within the 50 foot setback to Lake George. Section 575.4B of the Adirondack Park Agency Rules and Regulations states, ‘porches, decks and other structures attached to single family dwellings or to other structures subject to building setback restrictions shall be considered part of the structure for applying the setback restriction’. Since the patios are not flush with the existing grade, it appears the shoreline setback dimension should be applied to the patios since they are attached to the principal structure. There has been a jurisdictional determination prepared by the APA which states the project is not jurisdictional since the application will be reviewed by the Town of Queensbury which has a local approved land use plan. However, I understand the Town of Queensbury’s interpretation is not consistent with the APA regarding patios and other structures within the shoreline setback. I look forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Planning Board in defending the natural resources of Lake George and its basin. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky, P.E., Lake George Water Keeper” MR. VOLLARO-I think, based on that letter we’re acknowledging, and I think the applicant is acknowledging, that he is within the first 50 feet and it is attached to the house, but that’s exactly what we’re doing is talking about hard surfaces within 50 feet. So I’m not quite sure what Christopher’s saying there. He’s talking about the patio being part and parcel of the house, and in this situation is it part and parcel of the house, but we’re also acknowledging that that portion of it is within the first 50 feet. MRS. BARDEN-Right. I think he’s saying that the patio pertains to the shoreline setback of 50 feet, and thus would need a variance from the shoreline setback. MR. VOLLARO-He’s putting it in the variance category. MRS. BARDEN-I think so. Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. That also would have to change in the Code, then. Okay. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. SEGULJIC-I just have one other thing. MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to close the public hearing first, Tom. I haven’t closed it. The public hearing was open, and now the public hearing is closed on Site Plan No. 9-2006 for Stephen Kirshon. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels about this, but I’d like to see the five foot buffer strip, for lack of a better term, from the top of the retaining wall, five feet out, and the plantings be done in consultation with the Lake George Association. The zoning says you have to maintain 35 feet. So by allowing, requesting like five feet, as far as I’m concerned, cutting a lot of slack. MR. GARGUILO-Can I comment on that? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. KIRSHON-All right. I agree with Kathleen Bozony. I have been a member, myself, of the Lake George Association, and I totally agree with a lot of the things that have been said. I intend to do my landscaping from the wall towards my house, in a very appropriate way, and we have made, you know, inquiries to use indigenous and proper plantings, low plantings, and then to have an edging so that we can mow up to it. I’ve hired landscapers, professional people to help me with this, and as it fits in with the topography of the land down there, we fully intend to do a buffer zone. I also want to say that nobody can accuse me of fertilizing my lawn in 18 years, because I don’t do it. Maybe it’s laziness, maybe I care about the lake. I’ve been on this lake since I was a little boy. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’d be in agreement with putting a five foot buffer strip? MR. KIRSHON-An appropriate planting along the wall, yes, absolutely. MR. SEGULJIC-Would you work with the Lake George Association? MR. KIRSHON-Yes. I already talked to Kathleen about it. I’ve been a member of the Lake George Association. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I think we have what amounts to a responsible land owner here. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, it sounds that way. MR. VOLLARO-You want that in the motion? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, at least five feet, yes. MR. VOLLARO-How do you want to describe it, Tom? 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. SEGULJIC-A five foot native planting buffer strip, a minimum five foot native buffer planting strip extending from the. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll tell you what I’m going to do, I’m going to give you the responsibility of making the motion. You seem to have the words down pretty pat. Why don’t you do the motion on this. There’s a prepared motion in your stack. MR. KIRSHON-Can I clarify what I said a little bit? I’ve hired Volt Landscaping. I would like to work with Volt and the Association to do a proper planting there. I don’t know exactly what that is. I’m no expert. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think what they’re devising now are the words that go into the motion that describe what Tom is talking about. So that the motion carries basically a. MR. KIRSHON-Also what you should know is it’s in the plans, we are putting a sprinkler system to grow the grass. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s fine. You’re taking the water from the lake to do that, obviously. MR. KIRSHON-Yes. Like Mr. Salvador said, you can put a pump and do it. We’re doing it. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 9-2006 STEPHEN KIRSHON, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes landscape walls, patio, stairs and walkway. Construction of hard surfacing within 50 of the shoreline requires review by the Planning Board; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and was held on 3/28/06, 6/22/06; and WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, where appropriate, i.e. done at the completed review, and/or when required [either Type I or Unlisted] the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA [Negative / Positive] Declaration and /or if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: This application is hereby APPROVED. The approval is based on the following conditions being met: 1. We need to have a C.T. Male signoff, 2. Just a clarification on the walkway, that it is borderless, flagstone as pictured in the presentation package, 3. No fertilizers or pesticides used, 4. And we need to have an infiltrator added in the flagstone patio as discussed, 5. A minimum five foot native planting buffer strip on the west side of the new retaining wall. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: MRS. STEFFAN-The planting buffer should be coordinated or there should be a consultation with the Lake George Association to select appropriate plantings. MR. SEGULJIC-The only thing is, do we need a C.T. Male signoff? MR. VOLLARO-We’ve conditioned this on the receipt of a C.T. Male signoff. We do not have a C.T. Male signoff as we speak. MR. SCHACHNER-My comment has nothing to do with the C.T. Male signoff. I’m not sure I’m 100% comfortable with an element of a condition of approval that says something about a required consultation with a private organization. How is that enforceable? What does consultation mean? Does that mean if they consult and reject the advice that fulfills the condition? That’s a little unusual to have as a condition of approval a required consultation with a private entity. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess you’ll just have to strike that last sentence and just leave it native plantings. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, I was comfortable with everything up to there. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, Maria, let’s strike the consultation with the Lake George Association. MR. SCHACHNER-They can certainly do that. I’m just not comfortable with that as a condition of approval. MR. FORD-He’s already indicated that he would. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. I’m just not comfortable with it being a condition of approval. MR. FORD-I agree with that. MRS. STEFFAN-Tanya just brought up a comment about we had a discussion about the excavation on the lake would be done by hand, no machinery. Is that a condition? 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, we’re not going to excavate within the lake with machines, no. The only machine work I can envision is there are some large pieces of concrete debris in there. It’s not in the lake. No, we’re not going to excavate in the lake. MRS. BRUNO-I’m just thinking of the application that we had a few weeks ago that accidentally turned into excavation. MR. VOLLARO-That was taking out a lot of soil. He had to restructure the front. MRS. BRUNO-Right. MR. VOLLARO-I think there’s some old concrete out in front here that probably would be too heavy to do by hand, and a small backhoe possibly to take it out. I think that’s what you’re thinking of doing. MRS. BRUNO-I think the applicant is completely sensitive to the issue. I don’t doubt that whatsoever. I didn’t know if that needed to be just stated in terms of if there was an accidental, whatever, so that Bruce can properly reinforce it, or, I’m just putting it out there. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. MRS. STEFFAN-I think we’re okay with that. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-We won’t add that to the motion. So the motion stays as it is. AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. VOLLARO-That’s it, you’re done. MR. KIRSHON-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO.26-2006 SEQR TYPE II DELLA AUTO GROUP AGENT(S) RIST- FROST ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) FAMIGLIA BELLA ZONING HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION 293 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 1,610 SQ. FT. SHOWROOM ADDITION AND NEW ENTRANCEWAY TO THE EXISTING DELLA AUTO SALES. MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING SITE PLANS REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. AV 31-06, SP 38-05, FWW 3-05, AV 62-04, AV 88-04 WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/10/06 LOT SIZE 4.97 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-5 SECTION 179-9-020 JOHN CHAPMAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MICHAEL DELLA BELLA MR. DELLA BELLA-Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Michael Della Bella. I’m the owner of Della Auto Group. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-Good evening. MR. CHAPMAN-John Chapman, Rist-Frost Associates. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m going to throw it open to the Board. This is fairly straightforward. MR. CHAPMAN-Yes, sir. MR. VOLLARO-I know that you’ve got the 1.6 relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals, 1.6 feet. I’ve got a picture of your façade. This is the General Motors requirement, as I understand it, the façade going up in the front. MR. DELLA BELLA-That’s the current one. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the current one, and the one you’ve supplied is in our package. MR. DELLA BELLA-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And I just have a couple of questions. If the Board wants me to, I’ll just go through mine. They’re very, and you might pick up on some of them. They’re rather minor. I’m going to ask, have you received the New York State DEC Freshwater Permit since you wrote your letter of April 17, 2006? MR. CHAPMAN-Yes, sir. MR. VOLLARO-You did. Do we have a copy of that permit? MR. DELLA BELLA-I made a copy this evening. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. BARDEN-No, I don’t have it in my file. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got to give a copy to Staff so it goes in our record. MRS. BARDEN-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Would you read that into the record for us, please. MRS. BARDEN-This is a Freshwater Wetlands Permit, effective date 5/23/06, expiration date 10/1/09. This is a new permit issued by Mark Migliori, New York State DEC Region V, Warrensburg sub-office. Does it say that it’s specific to this? MR. DELLA BELLA-I think it has a number on the bottom that gives the permit site or the project site. MRS. BARDEN-This says Page 2 of 7. I don’t see where it talks to your site specifically on this. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. DELLA BELLA-Does it have a number on it? I thought it had a number. Permit Number/DEC ID Number. Does it have it on the permit? MRS. BARDEN-It does have a permit ID number, but it doesn’t say that this permit ID number is specific to your site. MR. DELLA BELLA-I can give you another letter. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. Thank you. Okay. This is the same permit number, and this is dated May 23, 2006, it has the DEC permit number. It’s to Mr. Della Bella, Della Pontiac, Buick Isuzu. “Enclosed is your general permit authorization which was issued in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Environmental Conservation Law. This permit is valid only for the activities expressly authorized under specific activities authorized for this permit at the bottom of page one. General permit does not eliminate the need to obtain approvals from other local agencies or state agencies.” It’s signed by Mark Migliori, Deputy Regional Permit Administrator. It doesn’t say specifically what, just the general permit. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s a general permit. So it’s not going to have a specific number for the site. MRS. BARDEN-That’s fine. It is to Mr. Della Bella and it does say 293 Quaker Road. It’s just that this permit authorization didn’t have the location for the applicant. It’s a general permit. MRS. STEFFAN-So then that copy is submitted. MR. DELLA BELLA-I just need a copy of the letter back. The permit I made a copy of. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. DELLA BELLA-She has that. The copy of the second letter which says what the permit says, I need that one back. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. As long as it’s been read into the record, I’m happy with that. MR. DELLA BELLA-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-One of the things I noticed on all of the Rist-Frost Associates drawings that went with this, I’m going to make it a condition that these drawings be re-submitted and be stamped by a professional engineer, or whoever. I see the stamp on your drawing. I don’t have them on mine. MR. CHAPMAN-The copies I have should be the same copies you got. None of yours are stamped? MR. VOLLARO-See, where you have your stamp, on the bottom, mine’s blank. I don’t have a stamp on any one of my drawings. I’ve looked them all over and there’s no, yours are stamped, mine are not. As long as we have stamped drawings in the file, I’m happy with that, that the drawings be given to Staff. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. CHAPMAN-The original set that was submitted was stamped and signed. I’ll get the copies. MR. VOLLARO-Do you have the original set? MRS. BARDEN-I can look in our file, but they will have to submit four sets of approved plans and those will need to be stamped and signed and dated. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We’ll just make it a condition when we condition it that the drawings be submitted and stamped. Now I do have one question I think I’m going to have to raise, and that’s on your ES-1, that’s your lighting plan. This is a fairly large area. I’ll just break out the, you really need better photometrics than you have for me to be able to, normally when we get a parking lot of this size a lighting plan that supplements the parking lot. I just picked some numbers off the photometrics here, of seven and a half foot candles on the ground. In some cases it’s five on the ground, and then the progression of lighting begins to change as it leaves its source, which is normal. Our Code requires two foot candles at average on the ground, and the way you come up with that for us is to give me an indication of your average, your max, your min, your max over min and the average over min. I can give you those to you slowly if you’d like. We need the average, the max, the min, the max over min, and the average over min, and the average over min is used to calculate uniformity ratio, which should come pretty close to a four to one ratio across the parking lot. So some of the lighting that you have is going to have to be changed in order to get in compliance with the Code, because it’s two foot candles average across the parking lot. MR. CHAPMAN-A lot of this is existing lighting. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I looked at this and it said exterior lighting addition plan. What triggered me was the words addition plan. Had it been something that was already there, then that’s something else, but it sounds like you’ve given me cut sheets. I have cut sheets in here to describe some of the lighting from Laconia, I believe. MR. CHAPMAN-On the original submittal, when we presented this project last year, we had just given the contour plans for the new addition and at that meeting you requested that we add the existing site plan lighting into it, so you’ve got an overall representation of the site, not just the additional, and that’s why we did that. I’ll admit we’re remiss in not designating new and existing on here, which we can certainly do. MR. VOLLARO-When you start to mix the lighting, what would happen, when you begin to mix the existing and the new, it’s going to be difficult for you, you’ve got seven and a half foot candles in certain spots in that parking lot, which is way above our spec of two, and you’ve got a lot of fives, tens, and fifteens out here that, there’s spots that are pretty hot and close in, fifteen, ten, then it goes out to seven, five, and five. MR. CHAPMAN-Yes, those are, that is, you’re talking about the A fixtures down on the south side of the property? MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. CHAPMAN-Those are all existing fixtures. MR. VOLLARO-Do they serve to illuminate the building or the parking lot itself or? 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. CHAPMAN-The parking lot. MR. DELLA BELLA-Those lights on the right hand side are lights that have been on the parking lot probably since ’85. Now the ones that we talked about when we came the last time I got the approval of almost like that looks now, we have three lights that were going up, they’re in the ground, in the front of the building, and you had requested that you don’t want up lights. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct, we don’t. MR. DELLA BELLA-So what we did is we said we’ll put down lights. So that’s what we agreed to do, and approved it the last time. What we’re trying to do now, instead of making that it flat is put that entrance canopy, if you will, it’s all covered canopy walking into the showroom. Those have lights on it. So that should be the only light plan. MR. VOLLARO-These are the Type F fixtures you talk about here. I see them along the canopy. Type F right at the front of the new addition. MR. DELLA BELLA-So we weren’t going to do anything with the parking lights, the lots that were already there. They’ve been there, well, I change the bulbs all the time. MR. VOLLARO-The ones that are pre-existing this are the A’s, all of the A’s, which I guess are the floods because they’ve got 15 close in. MR. CHAPMAN-Yes. The A’s, the D’s out front, the C’s back in the parking lot. MR. VOLLARO-So this is all existing lighting? MR. CHAPMAN-Yes, for the most part. MR. VOLLARO-So the only thing you’re putting on that’s new are the Type F’s? MR. CHAPMAN-Correct. MR. DELLA BELLA-I’m taking out the ones that are on the floor. In the front of the showroom there’s three of those big, giant spot lights. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, those are coming out. MR. DELLA BELLA-They’re coming out, and we’re putting the ones that are in the canopy, just going down, just, what it’s really doing is lighting the entranceway. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand that. When you pull, the lighting from the three existing lights don’t show on here, though, do they? They’re not infiltrated in this photometric. MR. CHAPMAN-No. MR. VOLLARO-How does the Board feel about this? These are all pre-existing lights. When I go by this in the evening, it doesn’t seem overly lit. It doesn’t stand out like a hot bulb. It’s certainly not in keeping with the Code, but if there’s some pre-existing lighting 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) there that’s been approved on previous site plans, then I think we have a problem. We have to leave it that way. I don’t see where we can change that. Everything on here, all the C’s are pre-existing as well? So the only new that you’re putting in is the Type F fixture that goes under the canopy? MR. CHAPMAN-That is correct. MR. VOLLARO-And they’re Type F fixtures and I think they’re very low. MR. CHAPMAN-The Type F are basically accent lighting in the front, down light illuminating the front of the building. MR. VOLLARO-That’s these little guys that are going to go right up in there. They’re the flush mounted units? MR. CHAPMAN-Correct. MR. DELLA BELLA-Yes, they’re part of the canopy. MR. FORD-Bob, even though it exceeds what should be there, does the applicant have a problem with reducing the current wattage so it would come at least closer into compliance? MR. DELLA BELLA-Those lot lights, and we’ve talked about this probably a year ago or so, they’re timed. They’re only open until nine or ten o’clock, depending on what time of year it is. So they go out. The only ones that are on the lot when the place is closed, which is after nine o’clock, are the security lights, and they’re too low. Because you’re driving through the lot, you can’t see, but those are the only ones that are left on. The ones in the front I’m sure will always be left on, the canopy ones, the new lights going on, but the other ones don’t. They go out at night, other than security lights, which are two security lights on one and one security light on the other side, which unfortunately is out right now, but we have one on one side of the building and one on the other, just for security. MR. VOLLARO-See, we did this site plan about maybe a year ago, year and a half ago. MR. DELLA BELLA-In July. MR. VOLLARO-In July, and the lighting that you see here is a result of what we did there Either I was asleep or I wasn’t on the Board at that time, or something. Okay. MR. FORD-I just saw this as an opportunity to come into closer compliance, that’s all. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know whether these fixtures will take lower wattage bulbs or not. I’m not sure. I don’t know what they look like. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I like to think that they shut them off because business is closed, and I think that’s. MR. DELLA BELLA-When we’re not there, they’re on timers. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s a big plus. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, if they were on overnight, I’d be a little more. MR. CHAPMAN-I think that was the concern, and it was the general consensus that it doesn’t, it doesn’t impede that corridor, considering the amount of light that’s along Quaker Road in that area. MR. VOLLARO-I go by there at night when it’s fully lit, and from just my perception of the lighting on there doesn’t look as bad as it looks when I see 15 foot candles right close to the A fixture, but it doesn’t appear that way when you drive by. MR. CHAPMAN-As an engineer, I know sometimes when people look for specific numbers, they don’t always look at what they’re looking for. MR. VOLLARO-The only thing that makes real sense on any of these lots is uniformity ratio. Because these, as you know as an engineer, talking to another engineer, the fact is these things don’t adjust that quickly. MR. CHAPMAN-Right. MR. VOLLARO-So the uniformity ratio is to give your eyes a chance to get accustom to the light when you go out on the road, for example. Okay. I think that Mr. Seguljic brings up a good point. Since they’re going to be shut off, and I think that was part of the reasoning why they’re like they are because the applicant pleaded that position the last time we were here, he was here in front of us. We have the Fire Marshal’s approval in their letter of 5/2/06, as far as getting around is concerned, and I’d like to open it up to the Board for any additional questions. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m all set. MR. FORD-I’m all set. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We do have a public hearing this evening. If anybody in the audience would like to speak to this application, please step up. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. VOLLARO-Hearing none, seeing none, I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. STEFFAN-And I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 26-2006 DELLA AUTO GROUP, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 1,610 sq. ft. showroom addition and new entranceway to the existing Della Auto Sales. Modifications to existing site plans require review by the Planning Board; and 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and was held on 6/22/06; and WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, where appropriate, i.e. done at the completed review, and/or when required [either Type I or Unlisted] the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration and /or if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: This application is hereby APPROVED: The conditions of the approval: 1. A complete copy of the Freshwater Wetlands Permit to Staff, 2. The drawings must be stamped by a licensed professional engineer. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. VOLLARO-You’re all set. MR. DELLA BELLA-Thank you very much. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. MR. CHAPMAN-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. FORD-You’re welcome. SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2006 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW SEQR TYPE N/A CIFONE CONSTRUCTION AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR- 1A LOCATION SMOKE RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 6.20 ACRE PARCEL INTO 10 RESIDENTIAL LOTS FOR 5 DUPLEX TOWNHOUSES W/ZERO LOT LINE SETBACKS. LOTS WILL RANGE IN SIZE FROM 0.51 ACRES TO 0.95 ACRES. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) CROSS REF. AV 6-06, SB 7-85M, SB 11-01, AV 74-01, AV 98-01, SP 23-02 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 6.20 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.8-1-21 SECTION A- 183 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-For the purpose of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent the applicant. With me are the two principals of the applicant, John and Matt Cifone, and Tom Center, from Nace Engineering. This has basically been before the Board before. I don’t know exactly the date, but this is the back side of Burnt Ridge, and the front side of Burnt Ridge, which is between this strip of lots and Sherman Avenue, is all developed with duplex homes. Most of them are rental. We came in, probably a couple of years ago, maybe three years ago, and obtained variances to build duplex homes on the lots. At that time, we had five lots that were approved, and we got some variances because they were compatible to the lots across the street, and honestly at that time there was an awful lot of discussion that Board members would rather see ownership than have more rental properties there. Since that time, and then we came to the Board and we actually got site plan approval for the five lots or subdivision approval for the five lots, and since that time, Mr. Cifone, or Mr. Cifone’s have decided that they would develop this with individual ownership, and we went back to the Zoning Board and got an additional variance for having a zero side line setback where the party wall is, and also because we were dividing the lots in ownership, we got lot width variances. So this is exactly the same thing that’s been before the Zoning Board on two different occasions, and before this Board on at least one occasion, with the exception that now each of the ten units possible would be owned by a separate family, as opposed to being set up for rental purposes. MR. VOLLARO-Each one will have a deed? MR. O'CONNOR-Each one will have a deed, and it’s a townhouse operation. There’s no common ownership. MR. FORD-No homeowners association. MR. O'CONNOR-No. We have received notes from C.T. Male, and probably Tom is better at addressing those than me, except that I’ll say that we don’t have any strong th disagreement with them. The letter was dated June 16. We have responded to C.T. Male. We feel confident we can satisfy the issues that they’ve raised, and believe that we could have that before you next meeting, and would ask for your action tonight, conditioned upon us getting that. We also looked at the Staff minutes, or Staff comments, and we had no strong problems with that. I’m a little surprised, we’ve been here three times before, and we really haven’t had any problem with the Karner blue, and I don’t think they’ve moved in. The site is probably a site that’s not conducive to Karner blue. I think that when Mr. Clute had his land looked at, which is immediately behind our land, there’s a strip of land that’s owned by Niagara Mohawk, and then there’s Lands of DKC Holdings. You see that on the map. I think he was in here for some approvals before the Board, but we, if the Board wants us to, we’ll go through the process with Kathy O’Brien and see if we can get a letter before your next action, saying that this is not a habitat. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-If she’s done it before, she probably has something on file. Normally when we look at any Niagara Mohawk, or now National Grid, layout like this, it automatically triggers this Karner blue thing, because that’s where it gets mowed. That’s where the lupine likes to grow. It gets a lot of sun, and it’s rather sandy. Why we don’t have any Karner blue in there or any lupine in there, I don’t know. Kathy O’Brien knows about things like that. I don’t know. MR. O'CONNOR-Our adjoining parcel is predominantly forested. It’s not a continuation of an open area. If you went out and walked the back of these lines, you’re still in the forest, and my understanding is the same as yours. It’s got to be open. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, sunlight’s got to be able to get in for it to grow. MR. O'CONNOR-For the blue lupine to grow so that you end up with the Karner blue. We can get that letter. MR. VOLLARO-I know she’s done one for DKC Holdings. I’m pretty sure that was done for them as well, and it borders right on the same NiMo lines. MR. O'CONNOR-We looked for the letter, and we have not located the letter. So we thought we were actually going to borrow the letter and use it for this file. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but you’ve seen it, for DKC? MR. CENTER-Yes. There was some open areas on that. MRS. BRUNO-The map that Staff produced for Staff notes, where is that information gleaned from, unless I’m looking at this incorrectly. That’s for the Karner blue. MR. VOLLARO-No, that comes out of GIS for slopes. If you look up in the upper left hand corner, the dark red is slopes greater than 25%, and the others are 15 to 25. MR. O'CONNOR-And I didn’t answer that question directly, but Tom says none of the driveways will exceed 10% slope. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. This we get from the GIS. You know how we. MRS. BRUNO-I’m sorry. I misread the map, that’s all. MR. VOLLARO-No problem. Yes. I’ve got a comment on that slopes greater than 15 and 25% on Lots 20 and 21. You plan to do what to keep the driveways below 10%, is that what you? MR. CENTER-The driveways in the front of the house? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. CENTER-Yes, they’re shown as less than 10%. We tried to keep it one foot and anywhere from fifteen to sixteen feet out towards the road. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-Being this is Sketch, what I’d like the Board to do work with you on Sketch to give you as much information as we possibly can, so when you come in on Preliminary, we’re still on the same page. MR. O'CONNOR-As part of this application, Mr. Vollaro, we asked that you waive Sketch, because we’ve been here before with these lots. All we’re really doing is talking about whether you have one owner or two owners, and we asked, we were asking in this I believe is an application for Preliminary. MR. VOLLARO-This came to us as a Sketch Plan review. MR. O'CONNOR-If you look at Staff notes, the very bottom of it, the applicant’s agent in a cover letter with this application requests a waiver from the Sketch Plan review requirement. On the very bottom of the Staff notes. MR. VOLLARO-If you say it’s there. Requests a waiver from the Sketch Plan review. Well, you know, it depends how the Board feels. What I’ve got is a, I think there was a resolution passed here. Planning Board resolution dated February 21, 2006, the Planning Board wishes to see Sketch Plan subdivision applications prior to Preliminary subdivision applications. Further, in most cases Preliminary and Final subdivision reviews will be conducted during separate meetings. That’s a resolution that this Board made on February 21, 2006, and I’d certainly like to adhere to that, but I don’t even know whether the resolution provided for waivers at that point. MR. O'CONNOR-I think there’s a general provision in your Subdivision that you can apply for waivers for any part of your regulations or your rules, and I can pull that paragraph if you want. MR. VOLLARO-No, it’s not necessary. MR. O'CONNOR-I just would say, where we’re going, this is a little bit unique in that we’re not talking about building a new road. That road already is existing. It’s been dedicated to the Town, where you’re talking about using the existing frontage on a back road, if you will. We’re also really not talking about a different configuration than what you approved two years ago. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, the lot is just now split, based on what was given to you by the Zoning Board of Appeals, the zero lot line between two buildings, and now you’ve got smaller lots essentially than you have before. Before you had five. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, if you combine each of the two, I think it’s identical to what the prior five were. I don’t think we shifted any of the side lines other than the common boundary lines. We took the lots and split them in the middle. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s pretty obvious when you look at the drawing that that’s what’s been done. Well, how does the Board feel? Do you want to go and consider this to be at Preliminary and grant the waiver? I’d like to hear from the Board. How do you feel? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m comfortable with that, considering we’ve seen it before and it was approved and it’s really just lines on a map. I mean, we have some more questions. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well I’ve got some questions, too, but I’m really concerned that we’re looking at Preliminary and not Final, and not Sketch, and they would be coming back for Final based on this Preliminary approval. Do you all understand that pretty well? Okay. It looks like the Board is willing to grant the waiver. MRS. STEFFAN-Tom and Bob, you were the only two on the Board at the time. MR. SEGULJIC-Good point. MRS. STEFFAN-Don wasn’t. Tanya wasn’t. Tom Ford wasn’t, and I wasn’t. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that’s a good point. MRS. STEFFAN-And although we’ve read the documentation. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll go along with it. MR. SEGULJIC-So, Gretchen, how do you feel about that? You’re not comfortable with it? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, you know, I looked at the plan, and it’s the first time I’ve seen it, and based on my activities in the Ordinance Review Committee, I looked at it and said, why isn’t it a conservation subdivision. I know they’re townhouses, but Cifone Builders, did you built the Burnt Ridge properties, too? MR. CIFONE-Not all of them. We built I think 12, 12 out of the 18 that are there. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So they’re your rental properties? MR. CIFONE-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. CIFONE-And as we said, when we came back to do them again, the Board really frowned on the rental properties, and we do, too, and we didn’t want to build them. So we went back and hesitated and said, well, what if we build them this way and sell each half, as an empty nester, you know, housing type thing, sort of like Queen Victoria’s Grant, same thing they do down there, and there’ll be owners, separate water, separate septic, really divided. So we basically came back with the same thing, only we’ll sell each half instead of renting it. MRS. STEFFAN-And no homeowners association. MR. O'CONNOR-And maybe I should say for your record, and John correct me if I’m wrong, typically these are going to be, not typically, they’re going to be between 1500 and 1600 square feet. They’re going to have a two car garage. They’re going to have a full basement. They’re going to be one story, and they’re all going to be a two bedroom unit. Just so you have an idea of it, and one of the Staff comments was, too, that we did not have any elevations or plans. We actually have plans, but I know I’ll submit them for the next. MR. VOLLARO-For Final? 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, if you want to look at them. MRS. STEFFAN-So 15 to 1600 square feet, two car garage, one story with a basement? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. FORD-I assume that’s a full basement? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. It’s very good soils up here. A little bit west of this you will see that years and years they excavated all the sand out of what used to be the Aronson property. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I looked at the EAF. The perc rates are, I think it’s this one, isn’t it? The perc rates are phenomenal. MR. VOLLARO-This is pretty sandy up there. There’s no question about that. On the slopes, looking at what I can see coming off the GIS here, there’s some pretty hefty slopes, probably on 20 and 21. Now you’re going to grade those out? MR. CIFONE-Yes, sir. We’re grading as best we can to get the septic systems. The grading changed on these plans from the last ones that were submitted from the duplexes. Because we had to separate the septic systems. So that’s why we ended up having to do additional grading on these lots, but we’ve done the best we could to eliminate those slopes in that area. MR. O'CONNOR-You actually have contour maps, don’t you, with one foot grades, or one foot contours? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, the other map has got a one foot contour on it. I’m basically just taking a look at what the GIS says. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The actual on-site contours. We show the constructed finished grades. MR. CIFONE-We tried to minimize disturbance into the woods, to leave a buffer in the back end of the property as much as we could. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m just more concerned about the driveway slope approaching 10%. It’s pretty steep. I know it’s Code and all that but 10% grade’s a pretty good grade for a driveway. MR. CIFONE-We’re less than 10%. MR. VOLLARO-Are you? MR. CIFONE-Yes, sir. MRS. BRUNO-Actually I’d like to hear more about what you were saying. Somewhere in here I know I read the percentage about the trees removed versus, at least I think, and I’m not coming across it now. If you could just talk about that for a second. The forested, you had 6.2 acres presently. After completion it’s 1.92. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. CIFONE-Yes, 6.2. It’s 6.2 acres. On the after completion we have 3.34 acres of meadow or lawn area, 1.92 of forested. MR. SEGULJIC-You said 3.2 of meadow or? MR. CIFONE-3.34 of either the lawn or the, you know, the brush area that’s existing. MR. O'CONNOR-Approximately two-thirds of the forested would be removed by construction. You’re going to have lawns and buildings or paved surfaces. MR. VOLLARO-You don’t show any clearing limits on here. MR. CIFONE-Yes, sir, I do. Along the backside, the half circle that goes along the back on S-2. It shows the clearing limits. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I see it. What I wanted to have in there was a 25 foot no cut zone, adjacent to the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. Normally when things are lining up along the Niagara Mohawk right of way, we ask for 25 foot cut zones back there, no cut zones, right across the back of that. MR. CIFONE-We tried to minimize it. We have an existing road that we have to meet with a driveway which sets the elevation, I worked everything off of the existing road to the house. MR. VOLLARO-Off of Smoke Ridge? MR. CIFONE-Off Smoke Ridge, yes. So we’re kind of, it’s not like you’re doing a subdivision from scratch where you’re putting the road in and you can set the road elevation and the house elevation. We’re kind of stuck with the road elevation that’s there which in turn you try to come up less than the 10% grade to the house, which sets your finished floor, and then as you come back out to the septic area, you have to set your septic area at 20 feet from the foundation of the house and that septic area has to be less than 15% slope across the septic system, or level, and then you can start, and then you go six feet outside the septic system, and then you can start changing your grade. So, everything is set off of that road. We can provide the buffer in most of the areas except that one behind 20A and 20B where we already had the severe slope the GIS map shows, we’re kind of hooked into the existing grade of that, the main road. So that’s why we have that, and that’s why I kept some of the slopes, you know, tightened them up behind the septic systems in the areas of fill, to limit that disturbance. MR. O'CONNOR-We have no objection in showing a 25 foot no cut zone along the other lots, except for those two. MR. CIFONE-It’s going to be difficult in 20A and 20B, and I believe on, looking at 23A in the northwest corner, up in there, but that’s away from the NiMo line anyway. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, 23B you were saying? MR. CIFONE-23A. That’s not close to the power lines. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-I’m not worried about that. I’m worried about the ones that are adjacent to the Niagara Mohawk. MR. CIFONE-We can provide it everywhere except that one area. MR. VOLLARO-So we would not be able to put no cuts in, and I can see why, in 20A and 20B. They would come out. Yes. I can see you’re a slave to the elevation of the road. MR. CIFONE-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So you had said you have to maintain, I’m probably wrong, but you said you have to maintain level elevations 16 feet from the septic system? MR. CIFONE-Twenty. You come out from the building 20 feet. You need 20 feet of separation to the edge of your infiltration trench. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. CIFONE-And then across the system itself, it can only slope, it has to be less than 10%. We like to see it as flat as we can, and then you go six feet out, and then you can start sloping away to maintain basal area underneath the septic system. Because some of these are fill areas. MR. SEGULJIC-Now what’s going to happen along Smoke Ridge where you have the driveways and it appears that you have stormwater drainage going right across the driveways? MR. CIFONE-We have the grass swales that are in there, and we’ve kept the slope to a minimum. We have a change point between 22A and 22B. There’s a high point, and so we grade that off there, and it comes down. That’ll be just the driveway will be cross sloped. MR. SEGULJIC-Will you have culverts across the driveways, then? MR. CIFONE-No, sir. It’s grading across, the water’s going to come across the grass and then into the culvert alongside the road. MR. SEGULJIC-I think I’m missing something, then. So is the water going to run across the driveway or not? MR. CIFONE-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-It is. MR. CIFONE-It’s going to go across the driveway towards the road. It’s going to be cross sloped with a pitch so that the water goes in the direction of the culvert, and eventually, that only happens with 22A and B, going in the opposite directions, and then somewhat on 21A, as you get closer to the road, and then from there on it’s just, you have to maintain that 10%, you have that 10% slope coming up to the house, but it’s all going cross ways towards the road and into that culvert alongside the road. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. SEGULJIC-So the driveway’s going to be sloped in two ways, then, up the hill to get to the house and then? MR. CIFONE-Yes. You’re coming up on that hill anyway. MR. SEGULJIC-I was just concerned about pooling on this. MR. CIFONE-No, it’s going to be draining off, and it’ll also get filtered as it goes through the grass to the culvert, or not culvert, but to the drainage swale. MR. SEGULJIC-And that’s the culvert that’s on? MR. CIFONE-It’ll go through the drainage swale and it’ll go down to that existing culvert where. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s on 20A? MR. CIFONE-Yes, at 20A. Where we relocated that drainage easement. MR. SEGULJIC-And what’s going to happen, the water’s just going to pond up on NiMo’s land or National Grid’s land? MR. CIFONE-There’s very little that comes, there’s no drainage, there’s no defined drainage path. With the well drained soils that are there currently, the road that’s there now, there isn’t even a touch of a wet area. I’ve been back there. It was dry as a bone in the Spring. It’s all very deep well drained sand. The perc rates run anywhere from around 30 seconds to just over a minute. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-We’re having a sidebar discussion about sidewalks, because the new Ordinance Review Committee is talking about sidewalks in all subdivisions, new subdivisions, and we were talking about that they would be sidewalks to nowhere. MR. O'CONNOR-Kind of, because I think there are lots on each end of this little strip that are not owned and controlled by the developer. Jerry Barres I think used to own the one on the west end. I don’t know who owns these here, and he’s saying he sold it to. If you had seen the property four years ago, and you’ve seen it now, you’ll also understand that they also listened to everybody as to trying to get the properties across the street upgraded significantly, and that was something that they worked on in order to be able to do this as townhouses. Some of those properties had gone out of control, and brought them back into control, I mean out of control, out of ownership, and back into ownership and everything else. So that they are more representative of a residential neighborhood. MR. VOLLARO-Frankly, when we did our drive around and we parked right about here, and this is not a very attractive area. MRS. STEFFAN-That would be Lot 22A and B. That’s about the spot we stopped. MR. VOLLARO-And we were looking over at 14 and 13 and 12 and 11, and it’s not very attractive. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. O'CONNOR-You need to plant the seed and maybe it’ll take off. That’s all. MR. CIFONE-We just evicted somebody out of one of those today, or yesterday, we finally got them out, and they just trashed it, and that’s why we’re trying to upgrade the whole thing. MR. VOLLARO-One of the problems, just for the record here, is when you try to sell a reasonably nice looking building here, you’re going to be getting whoever your real estate person is, or if you do it yourself, and people walk in here, they look across the way, and it’s going to be tough selling these things. That’s your problem, not mine. MR. SIPP-Where is the school bus stop, on Sherman? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I get behind him. If I come to Town Hall here in the morning at 8:30, if I have to get a meeting here, I know I’m going to get behind this guy, and he goes all the way down Sherman. He stops at every one of those places. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think they go in anything less than a half mile. If it’s a half mile, the children walk, and that’s maybe not the freshest. MR. SIPP-It depends upon their age. Two miles for high school kids. MR. O'CONNOR-Is it? Okay. MR. SIPP-They should be walking, but they don’t. MR. O'CONNOR-My recollection is not as fresh. I haven’t had that issue for a while. MR. SIPP-It’s a mile and a half for a kindergarten kid. MR. O'CONNOR-Is it a mile and a half? MR. SIPP-Or a mile and a quarter. MR. O'CONNOR-I thought it was a half mile. MR. SIPP-And a mile and a half for elementary, and two miles for high school. They can make them, but no school district does, obviously. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Well, isn’t Queensbury a half mile for grade school? MR. SIPP-This is a State law. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but Queensbury. MR. SIPP-Queensbury stops every driveway in some cases. MR. VOLLARO-Every driveway. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, that’s if you’re on the road, but they won’t go off your side road unless it’s more than a half mile. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-You mean turn in? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. SIPP-Yes. What I’m wondering about, is it a selling point to have a sidewalk down to the? MR. O'CONNOR-We don’t own the land, though, Mr. Sipp. We could put in sidewalk, but it would be a sidewalk from nowhere to nowhere. Somewhere to nowhere, I guess. MR. VOLLARO-Is a sidewalk, in your view, considered an amenity to the property? MR. CIFONE-No. What we’re aiming for are empty nesters living in there. I don’t think a sidewalk, especially if we can’t make it go to anywhere. MR. VOLLARO-I’m not a big advocate of sidewalks going nowhere. I’ve talked to members of the PORC Committee, this member of the PORC Committee, and have said apply a fee to every one of these things, a nominal amount that gets put into a residual account of some kind called sidewalks, and when the Town sees an opportunity to put a sidewalk in that goes from some place to some place, put the whole thing in. So you don’t have small pieces, one deteriorating after another. You never have a sidewalk without one portion of it being cracked. It just doesn’t make sense to me. MR. O'CONNOR-Like on Luzerne Road between Western Avenue and the Northway. That would be a great place for a sidewalk. MR. VOLLARO-Well, when we did Rich Schermerhorn’s thing, off of Luzerne and Pine, there was a big discussion there about whether or not he should put sidewalks in, and I said, I went there and I looked, it would be great if we went all the way from Luzerne, Luzerne Road, down to the Main Street. That would make some sense, but they wanted to put a sidewalk just in front of his place. It didn’t make any sense to me, and this doesn’t make any sense to me either, unless we can put a full sidewalk in somewhere. Anyway. MRS. BRUNO-I’m a little concerned with the amount of clearing that is necessary for the project. I’d like to see some sort of a landscaped, you know, re-planting plan, for the Final. I’d rather see it before the Final, if we end up waiving this as being the Sketch, if this turns into the Preliminary. Normally you would see it, make sure that we’re all okay with that. I just, there is so much vegetation out there right now. I just picture a desert. I know you’ll go back and put the grass and put the grass in and everything, but I would just like to see some more trees put back in. MR. CIFONE-We didn’t want to go back as far as we’re going, but the septics, because we had to make separate septic systems, we’ve got to clear back farther. We didn’t want to do that. MRS. BRUNO-But you have approximately 60 feet, isn’t it, in between the two ends of the buildings that are not sharing the common wall? Isn’t that what I understood from the meeting minutes? MR. CIFONE-Well, there’s probably about 50. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MRS. BRUNO-Fifty. So you could put something in through there and through the front, especially if you’re trying to upgrade the look. Rather than just kind of have those vast. MR. FORD-Was that a part of your plan, to have any plantings of trees? MR. CIFONE-We were going to do, you know, landscaping, normal landscaping. We weren’t going to put in any shrubs. MR. FORD-Shrubs. MR. CIFONE-That’s right. MR. FORD-No trees. MRS. STEFFAN-But the Town Code require it, doesn’t it? MRS. BARDEN-In subdivisions? Not for this many lots, a landscaping plan. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Right now, when you drive up here, a good deal of this is all treed forest right now, and you’re going to be putting a couple of houses, attached duplexes, in. I think there maybe ought to be some clearing limits, not just around the base of this, the way it is now, but clearing limits around the houses themselves, if that can be done, some clearing limits. So it forces you to leave a couple of trees in there. MR. O'CONNOR-Where we don’t need to do any grading, I don’t think we have any problem with that, but I’d just ask Tom, this is showing the final grade, and it probably doesn’t give you, how much of that is new grade? MR. CIFONE-This new grade comes all the way out to here and straight from the road, because there’s some humps and dips. There’s a big hump in here that has to come out. That’s all grading back to those clearing limits. In order to keep the 10% on the drive with less than 10% on the driveway match the road, bring it back, make the drainage work and try to keep the back coming off to the back, and that large 15%, it’s very difficult to have an area where you’re not, you can’t grade off, you’re going to leave natural. I’m sure that any mature trees that aren’t going to have their roots damaged through the grading will be left, but I’ve walked this to do test pits and perc tests, and there are very few, most of the nice trees are up close where the houses are going to go. In the back you have pretty heavy brush, woods, you know, forested, it’s a lot of low stuff. There’s not a lot of real big, you know, when you think of forest and just trees that you can walk through, there’s a lot of heavy stuff down below, too. MR. O'CONNOR-Why don’t you have us bring back a landscape plan as part of Final, and Mr. Cifone can try and make it a little bit heavier, a little bit beefier than what it might be if you’ve got some concerns. MR. FORD-I certainly would, personally, appreciate that. As long as you’re really trying to upgrade the neighborhood, then an occasional tree in some of those front yards I think would do a lot to accomplish that. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MRS. STEFFAN-It’s got to be green because there’s so much density, with them being townhouse units, and the lots being so narrow, it really does need green, and even with you explaining trying to keep some trees, the reality of it is during construction, that you’ve got like 25 feet on each side of the building, nothing’s going to live. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, truthfully, we know that everything in front of this tree line is the finished grade, and everything up in front of that is going to be new grade. So I don’t think that there’s anything in front of this existing tree line that’s going to be there. I mean, they probably will go through and take the trees out of there and then grade it. They won’t be grading each site, each lot individually. Because you’ve got to put the stormwater in. You’ve got to make it all work all as one unit. So, but that’s, John has built a lot of houses, and he knows what he’s got to do to make the house saleable. He’s not going to do this and not have these things saleable. You go up Ridge Street you can see the last house he built. MR. CIFONE-I wish that was the last one. MR. O'CONNOR-I just jokingly say that. MR. SIPP-That’s a concern when a builder goes in there and they level everything, and then they move out and they leave a couple of sticks sticking up as the landscaping, and that looks terrible. That’s what was done at Lehland acres there, when the new. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess the problem is, and I don’t know, I assume because you hire loggers, and they’re going to go in and cut everything down. I guess what we’re saying is minimize the cutting necessary. MR. O'CONNOR-This probably is not big enough, Tom, to hire a logger, and it probably, there’s probably no salvage wood in this. This is all scrub pine. I call it scrub pine I don’t know what the tree term is. MR. SIPP-But that’s what makes the subdivision look bad, is when they just level everything, and most contractors do it for their convenience, so they can back their trucks in there, and it leaves, to me it leaves a bad taste to allow this to happen. MR. CIFONE-Well, we have to be careful, too, because we’re not just walking away from this, because we own, still own, a better part of the neighborhood as rental property. So we’ve got to make the whole thing look good. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, just see what you can do for us. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. MR. FORD-Appreciate it. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t really have, I just want to take a look at the notes I wrote and see if there’s anything else that I missed in there, just in the discussion. I don’t think so. We’re going to be doing SEQRA tonight, at Preliminary? MRS. BARDEN-One thing to consider is that it looks as if the agenda identified this as Sketch Plan review, and that means that it wasn’t advertised. So public hearing notices have not gone out. So if you do SEQRA and close the public hearing. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MRS. BRUNO-I don’t think we can really do SEQRA without the blue Karners referred to at DEC anyway. MR. O'CONNOR-You could do it and then re-open it if we can’t produce the letter. I’ve seen you do that. We did it the other night on something. MR. VOLLARO-She brings up a good point, though, being at Sketch, this wasn’t advertised, and there’s nobody here in the public that’s had an opportunity to speak to this at all. MR. O'CONNOR-When is the left hand going to figure out what the right hand is doing? The application is for Preliminary Stage approval. The cover letter says, and it’s recognized in the Staff minutes that we asked for a waiver of Sketch Plan. MR. CIFONE-I personally did that myself. MR. VOLLARO-The problem is that the Staff can’t give you the waiver. The waiver’s got to come from here. MR. O'CONNOR-No, but they could advertise it appropriately. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-This is not something that falls on your shoulders. MR. SEGULJIC-So what can we do now, then? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t really know. Legally I think that we can’t go forward with doing an environmental review here, without this thing having been advertised. MR. O'CONNOR-Can we take all your comments, and we will address them and file an application for Final, so that the next time we appear on the agenda, that perhaps we can get Preliminary and Final? MR. VOLLARO-On the same night. MR. O'CONNOR-The same night. MRS. STEFFAN-I doubt that that’ll happen, just because there will be other members here that weren’t here tonight, and I believe that you’re going to get other comments and that will end up not happening. MRS. BRUNO-Something that the public might say might trigger something. MR. O'CONNOR-I’m saying that there’s nothing unforeseen. There’s a lot to be considered, but I’ve also done that, trying to catch up, trying to, you know, we’re trying to proceed. I don’t know when this was filed. MR. VOLLARO-Being that it probably falls on the Town as a responsibility, that it hasn’t been advertised, I think I would bend the rules a little and try to do the Preliminary and Final on the same night. We’re doing the Preliminary now, really. Because I don’t see 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) any other way to get around the advertising end of it. So that the public knows that that’s happened. MR. FORD-I’d like to try it. I see no reason for the applicant being penalized because it was not advertised. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess what Gretchen is saying, we’ll work with you, but we can’t guarantee you that you’ll get it. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. We can say that you can do that in one night, and then you may get a whole bunch of comments that you didn’t hear tonight because there are other representation. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. So there are no guarantees. We’ll work with you. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but I guess what I’m asking for tonight is for you to direct Staff to accept our Final application, even though you haven’t given us Preliminary, and that you direct Staff to advertise it for Preliminary and Final consideration in your first ad. So we don’t end up with another advertising problem at the other end of the rainbow, and then see how it goes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we can do that. That sounds like a viable alternative to me. Do you understand what Mr. O’Connor has asked us to do? MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-And we would appreciate that. Are you going to table it? MRS. BRUNO-Will you be turning in the elevations to Staff this evening? I’m just curious. MR. O'CONNOR-We have one set. Do you need 15 sets of building elevations because it’s a townhouse? You do? MRS. BARDEN-Fifteen sets for all the Board, and it would go to with our referrals as well. MRS. BRUNO-You’re saying of each building, because it’s the same building? MRS. BARDEN-Is that what you mean? MR. O'CONNOR-No, I meant one set of one building. I didn’t think that was part of your checklist for subdivision. MRS. BARDEN-Fifteen sets of elevations and floor plans for just one prototype house. MR. VOLLARO-I’m going through my list here. You talked about walking the property and doing test pits and perc analysis. MR. CIFONE-Yes, sir. MR. VOLLARO-Is it on here? 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. CIFONE-Yes, sir, bottom left of S-2. Right next to the retaining wall detail. It’s the grading plan. MRS. STEFFAN-We only have C-1 and C-2. MR. VOLLARO-We only have C-1 and C-2. MR. CIFONE-Okay, well this is probably where part of the problem was. We submitted Sketch Plan and Preliminary at the same time. We were advised by Mr. Brown, John and I met with Mr. Brown, and he said submit Sketch and then submit Preliminary, submit both of them, and the Board will decide in their review whether or not to give you a waiver. So we had submitted two sets. MR. SEGULJIC-We only got Sketch. MR. VOLLARO-We only got the Sketch. Because I don’t have anything. MR. CIFONE-Well, I submitted both Sketch and Preliminary at the same time. MR. VOLLARO-See, once we get into this, when you get out of the groove, you can tell the Board begins to dither. MR. CIFONE-Because originally when John and I went in and met with Craig. MR. VOLLARO-Craig should have said no, number one. MR. CIFONE-We talked to him about both, and he said since this is a unique, again, being a unique, it’s already been up before, and the Sketch didn’t change. MR. VOLLARO-I know, but you know nobody on this, now it’s becoming evident. Again, it’s our friends at Staff are really helping us out here. Craig should have called and said, look, Bob, here’s what’s going to happen. He talks to me a couple, three, four times a day, why didn’t he tell me that this is what’s going down here. We didn’t know. MR. CENTER-Our comments for C.T. Male were based on the Preliminary drawings also. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, are we ready for a tabling motion, then? MRS. BARDEN-You don’t need to. MR. SEGULJIC-We don’t need to? MRS. BARDEN-Not for Sketch. MRS. STEFFAN-The other thing I think that, you know, in just looking at it, and I’m trying to be other centered, from the Staff’s point of view, I know that the package we got this week was that high, and that’s just what we’re going through, and I know that they’re juggling months ahead, and so I know it’s frustrating for you folks. It’s frustrating for us, but the volume of materials is just. 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. O'CONNOR-Don’t ask for 15 copies of everything in the world, and I do hope you’re going to address that in part of your procedure next week. MR. VOLLARO-We’re going to have to try. There’s a lot of extraneous paper. We’re cutting down a cut down a ton of trees. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s, unfortunately, I don’t know how you do it. I don’t, really, I haven’t sat on that side of the table. I don’t know necessarily how you feel comfortable. Do you get everything you need to get, but I sit on my side, I send people to Staples all the time. I say, you go to Staples and you can pay the money at Staples as much as me trying to send it to Black and White or some place like that, which is a little bit more expensive, and most typically we tell them to get 35 sets. Because you need 15 for your Board. You need 15 for the Zoning Board, and somebody else will want some before we get done, so make an extra five, or actually that’s an extra two, because, or maybe that’s an extra two because you’ve got a consultant, you’ve got the applicant, and you’ve got my file. So 35 sets of a set of plans. MRS. BRUNO-I don’t envy you. I have to make six or seven usually and just that makes me cringe. MR. VOLLARO-Listen, we did completion reviews the other day. We started at nine o’clock in the morning on Monday. We left at four, because we were trying to get 14 applications that fit out of 30 that we looked at, the stack was that high in there. So that’s what’s going on. MR. O'CONNOR-I thank you and I thank you for your patience, the same as I did the other night. MR. CIFONE-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-I’ll offer something just from observing. Sometimes, though, you’ve got to watch where you get sidetracked. MR. VOLLARO-You mean if a John Salvador comes in with some information and stands there and talks to us? MR. O'CONNOR-You take the patio that I talked about the last couple of meetings. He first came in and said we needed an APA permit. We do not. They don’t consider patio a structure, particularly a patio that’s below grade, and somebody else made the point the other night, well you probably intentionally put it below grade. Yes, we did. We did not want APA jurisdiction. Then came in and said we needed a Lake George Park Commission stormwater permit. They don’t issue stormwater permits in the Town of Queensbury. They’ve delegated it to the Town. That’s where that big, that law came in the where you adopted your own thing. The other night he was trying to say we needed a fill permit from DEC because we were putting the patio hard surfacing within 35 feet of the water. Now, if you looked at all those regulations, which I did when I wrote that letter to you, and I was trying to be very kind because I wasn’t saying who said what or who didn’t what. You read the regulation from the top to the bottom, there’s no basis for those arguments. There really is no basis for those arguments. I mean, he talks about fill, and I think he talks about it’s part of a bank. The regulations, if you read that part of the regulations, says a bank from the high water mark can extend up to 50 feet, but it doesn’t say everything up to 50 feet is a bank. 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-Maria, have you shut the tape off. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Vollaro, Chairman 63