Loading...
2006-09-19 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 INDEX Subdivision No. 2-2006 Ridgewood Homes 1. FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 266.3-1-73 Subdivision No. 14-2004 Jane Potter 5. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 301.19-1-27 Subdivision No. 9-2006 John T. Whalen 10. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 266.3-1-3 Subdivision No. 10-2006 John T. Whalen 10. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 279.-1-57 Site Plan No. 36-2006 Robert Clark 16. Tax Map No. 308.15-1-22, 20 Special Use Permit No. 35-2006 Ferraro Entertainment 24. Tax Map No. 296.9-1-1 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 09/19/06) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT VOLLARO, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY DONALD SIPP THOMAS SEGULJIC TANYA BRUNO THOMAS FORD MEMBERS ABSENT CHRIS HUNSINGER GIS SPECIALIST-GEORGE HILTON STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. VOLLARO-We have to get some approvals from previous meetings. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 27, 2006 June 29, 2006 July 18, 2006 July 25, 2006 MOTION TO APPROVE THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 27, JUNE 29, JULY 18 AND JULY 25, 2006, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: th Duly adopted this 19 day of September, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2006 FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED RIDGEWOOD HOMES AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) FREDA MEYER ZONING SR-1A LOCATION 1548 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 7-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF A 7.85 ACRE PARCEL RESULTING IN LOTS SIZED APPROXIMATELY 1 ACRE EACH. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE 2/28/06 SKETCH WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK YES LOT SIZE 7.85 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-73 SECTION A-183 JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-Before we start on that, I think Mr. Hilton would like to have a word. MR. HILTON-Yes. Just a point of clarification. At the time of the writing of these notes, and as you can read, I made some comments that the CEA boundary did in fact cross this property. At that time, I had not heard anything from the Lake George Park Commission who designated the CEA. Since the time of the writing of these notes, I did hear something which the Park Commission has said that the CEA boundary is, in fact, off the property. So as far as we know and the information we have, the applicant’s map is correct. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) MR. LAPPER-Thank you. Thanks for clarifying that. For the record, Jon Lapper and Tom Nace. You left us with a list of conditions and we believe that Tom has complied with all those conditions now that the CEA issue is clarified, and we hope that we’re ready for a Final approval. MR. VOLLARO-I have, I’ll throw the meeting open to the rest of the Board before I make any comments at all. I really don’t have any comments, but I’ll throw it open to the Board and see what they have to say. Don, do you want to start off with you on that? MR. SIPP-I really have nothing. MR. VOLLARO-Tom Seguljic? MR. SEGULJIC-I just need a minute. You can pass on to Tom for a minute. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Tom Ford? MR. FORD-Let’s proceed. MR. VOLLARO-Gretchen Steffan? st MRS. STEFFAN-I’m trying to find a note here. There’s a Monday August 21 memo to George Hilton from Jim Houston, and one of the thing that it mentions is on Paragraph Four. The calculations do not account for all the roof and driveway runoff. Based on my conversation with Tom Nace, it will require that each homeowner develop a stormwater management plan to handle the runoff from their driveway and roof. A note to this effect has been placed on the revised subdivision plat bearing the latest revision. The question I have is, is Ridgewood Homes going to be building the homes in this subdivision? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-I just wondered why they are not responsible for providing the stormwater runoff for the homes? MR. LAPPER-Well, it can’t be done now because I don’t know what the houses are going to look like in terms of a specific plan, but this note requires that when somebody files for a building permit they have to have it specific to that, and the note, I think, is drafted broadly. So whoever the owner is at the time. I mean, if they build three and sell a lot, whoever is applying for the building permit is responsible for it, but certainly it will be them if it’s a house that they’re building, and they plan on building all of the houses. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. That’s what I wanted clarification on. Great. MR. VOLLARO-I could go just a step further on that. 147-11C says that the stormwater management maintenance agreements should be filed at the County Clerk’s Office. That means that if that management agreement is filed at the Clerk’s Office, it goes with the deed I would assume. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And in that case, the homeowner is responsible. That’s how 147 is written. MR. LAPPER-Yes. That’ll be referenced in the deed, too. MR. VOLLARO-Just so you all know that. Tanya, how do you feel on this one? MRS. BRUNO-I am fine. I would have liked to have seen, perhaps, one last lot, but it’s not bad. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Any other comments? I guess, Tom Seguljic, I passed right over you. MR. SEGULJIC-Just to clarify, so you’re going to put a notation that 147 does apply? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. NACE-It’s already on the plat. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) MR. VOLLARO-It’s on the plat right now. MR. SEGULJIC-Is it? Okay, I didn’t see it. MR. VOLLARO-Lower right hand corner. MR. NACE-S-2, the second sheet. MR. VOLLARO-You don’t have the latest drawing. MR. SEGULJIC-Here’s S-2, this S-2. All right. All set, then. I had the wrong S-2. My only other comment would be, I don’t know, on the bigger set, on your stormwater, Drawing S-4, you have the stormwater requirements. Now correct me if I’m wrong, all of this appears to be directed towards the State requirements. I don’t see any 147 language in this, because 147 talks about you can’t have, you can’t strip an area of vegetation, once you strip an area of vegetation it has to be re-seeded within 10 days, I believe is what it says, and I don’t see that language here. MR. NACE-That language is in the requirements of the SWPPP, which is the Stormwater Pollution, Prevention Plan that is part of the stormwater report and is part of what is in file with DEC. MR. SEGULJIC-But this plat here is what becomes record at the County, correct? MR. NACE-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-There’s no mention of that within your stormwater, SWPPP requirements. I don’t want to belabor the point, but what you’re requiring here does not seem to match up with what 147 says. MR. NACE-Well, I think Jim Houston has reviewed in conformance with 147, but if you’ve looked at the Stormwater Pollution, Prevention Plan, what is, there’s language here that requires certain things. There’s also, if you look in the stormwater report, okay, which is the erosion control plan, which is under DEC’s jurisdiction, speaks to when seeding has to be done, how long areas can be left open, and that’s all. I don’t remember what the exact day, the number of days. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Well, I just want to point out that 147-10 says any area of land from which the natural vegetation cover has been either partially or wholly cleared or removed by development activities shall be re-vegetated within 10 days. MR. NACE-Okay. I’ll be glad to make that change on the Final. I don’t know exactly the number of days that DEC has required. It’s either 10 or 14. I can’t speak authoritatively to say it’s one or the other. If it’s more than 10, I’ll make it10. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-One of the things, Tom, that I wanted to point out to the Board and to st everybody else, this was a letter from Jim Houston sent on August 21 to Craig Brown, th and it was cc’d to Tom Nace and Jim Edwards, and it says as follow up to the July 27 letter from Nace Engineering to the Town of Queensbury, we have reviewed the stormwater design for strict conformance with Chapter 147 of the Town Code. We believe the project would be considered a Major Project and therefore must meet all the applicable criteria. The criteria being no increase in runoff in a 10 year event, and a no increase in runoff rate during a 25 year event. Since the proposed disturbance is less than five acres, it being 4.3, the 100 year criteria does not apply to this subdivision. The calculations attached to the stormwater management report demonstrate that the 10 year event criteria is met for a road surface. Calculations do not contain a 25 year storm event simulation, but they do include a 50 year event which demonstrates that there’s no runoff during this event. So in looking at this, and I knowing a little bit about how Jim Houston works, he wouldn’t put these words in unless he really took a look at 147. I don’t believe anyway. So that’s what I went on without going back. I’ve got 147 right here with me, but I didn’t think that that was applicable to go through it any further. It’s up to you. MR. SEGULJIC-As long as they’re aware that it has to be according to 147, Major Project. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and he classifies it as a Major Project. So I was happy when I saw that. I had no problem with that. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set otherwise. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. With that, I don’t see anything else that we have to do. The public hearing was closed, I believe, the last time we did do a SEQRA. So I think we’re all set. I have no other comments. At least I don’t. MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll make a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2006 RIDGEWOOD HOMES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: WHEREAS, a final stage subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 7-lot residential subdivision of a 7.85 acre parcel resulting in lots sized approximately 1 acre each. Subdivisions of land require review by the Planning Board; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and held on 6/27 & 7/25/06; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the subdivision application requirements of the code of the Town of Queensbury; Chapter A- 183 entitled subdivision of land; and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and /or if the modification is a modification, 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, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2006 RIDGEWOOD HOMES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Three complies. Paragraph Four, Negative Declaration, Paragraph Five, Whereas this application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record, Now, Therefore Be It Resolved, that we find this Final Stage application to be approved. th Duly adopted this 19 day of September, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. VOLLARO-I just have one comment. I think you asked a question, Tom, has the Zoning Administrator issued the stormwater control permit. I think that was in one of your notes. MR. NACE-No. One of my notes says that 147 says that it can be done as part of the subdivision review process. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just wanted to clarify that. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-I checked with him today on that, too. So you’re okay. MR. NACE-Good. Thank you. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2004 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JANE POTTER OWNER(S): SAME ZONING: SR-20 LOCATION: SHERMAN AVENUE THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING APPROVAL FOR MODIFICATIONS MADE TO A PLANNING BOARD APPROVED SUBDIVISION. THE APPLICANT HAS REMOVED VEGETATION FROM AN AREA PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TO BE UNDISTURBED. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN THE PLANTINGS CURRENTLY INSTALLED IN THE DISTURBED AREA. MODIFICATIONS TO PLANNING BOARD APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: APPROVED 5/17/05, TABLED 1/24/06; SB 4-98; SB 8-03 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE: 3.52 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.19-1-27 SECTION A-183 JANE POTTER, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-Would you identify yourself for the record, please. MRS. POTTER-I’m Jane Potter. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. Do you want to just kind of explain a little bit about what happened here? MRS. POTTER-I was notified that I cut too much brush when clearing Lots One and Two of my subdivision on Sherman Avenue. I have since re-planted some arborvitae and hardwood, Bradford Pear. I guess I’m here to find out if that’s sufficient or what you else you would like. MR. VOLLARO-What I didn’t quite get on these two maps was the difference between what we approved and what you cut. I think I understand it, but I’m not quite sure. MRS. POTTER-Well, basically I cut a lot of scrubby pine and small, gray birch, and probably waist high underbrush. Our intention was, my son is going to be on Lot One and I am Lot Two and we visualize this as, you know, wide open lawn space with trees around the edges or bushes near the house. We did not intentionally cut more than we thought because we were cutting such small stuff. It didn’t seem like we were cutting anything of major size. What we’ve planted is only the beginning. MR. VOLLARO-The planting occurred, I’ve got to try and understand. I see, the yellow is the Bradford Pear and the other one is the arborvitae. MRS. POTTER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess if you could just clarify for me. There’s a note that the improved clearing limits are in the lighter line and the actual cleared is in the bold. MRS. POTTER-I saw that but I didn’t submit anything with lighter or darker lines. The only things I submitted were these maps with the colors. So I didn’t know what that meant. MR. HILTON-Well, if you’d like I can try to clarify, here. On the attachment that we have, the only one that we received, it showed two sheets, one for Lot One, one for Lot Two. If you look, for example, at the one for Lot Two, you will see what I’ll call a squiggly line that runs just to the back of the proposed home. To me, that’s a lighter line width than the bolder line width that is towards the rear of that property. Those two lines indicate approved clearing limits that are closer to the house and actual clearing limits which that line indicates the one that is farther away from the house. MR. SEGULJIC-Just to clarify if I may. So this is what we approved and this is the actual clearing? MR. HILTON-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HILTON-That’s how we interpret it and that’s my understanding, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So if I could just clarify with you, Mrs. Potter. It’s actually been cleared back to the 402 contour line. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) MRS. POTTER-What I understood is the parcel between Lot One and Two is what they’re saying I should not have cleared, and it’s very hard to tell on this, but you’d have to go back to where Lot One is and you can see Lot One and Two coming together. That is where we cleared, that we were told we shouldn’t have. MR. VOLLARO-That’s between the two lots? MRS. POTTER-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-Mr. Sipp, may I ask you a question, since this is something that you are very strong with. How large do the gray birch tend to grow when they’re mature? How large are they? MR. SIPP-Fifteen, twenty feet. Gray birch is not white birch. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. SIPP-It’s a poor relative, and that’s very sandy soil and not very fertile. MRS. BRUNO-So they could have been considered mature trees that were there and they looked scrubby at that point. Okay. MR. SIPP-Close to it. MRS. POTTER-They’re tall but they’re thin, right? MR. SIPP-Yes. Well, they reach five, six inches diameter at maturity. The Pear is a much better tree, although I don’t know as it’s going to grow as fast, but it’s a better looking tree than the gray birch, and the Lindens that you have on the other lot are more commonly called Bass Wood, and they’re a big tree. MRS. POTTER-They grow fast. MR. SIPP-They grow 40, 50 feet tall with a lot of shade. MRS. POTTER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess where was the confusion? MRS. POTTER-Well, first of all, because we need a lot of fill, it was hard to leave a lot of trees, and because we want grass between these two lots, this is the area that we took out that we shouldn’t have. Between Lot One and Lot Two is this area in between that we visualize as grass, open, you know, ride a lawnmower across two lots kind of thing. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess that’s where I get caught up. I forget exactly what our condition was, but we would have said something along the lines of, you know, these are your clearing limits, and you had these squiggly lines on there indicating what the clearing limits would have been. MRS. POTTER-I’m not following you, sorry. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess where was the confusion? If we had said no cutting in these areas? MRS. POTTER-Okay. Well, first of all. MR. SEGULJIC-You had a vision of having a lawn across there when we had no cutting zones on the property. MRS. POTTER-Right. We had no, no cutting zones on anything except Lot Four. We never discussed not clearing it. MR. HILTON-Yes, I don’t think, and again my understanding of this is primarily from speaking with our enforcement staff and the Zoning Administrator. My understanding is, yes, there was no clearing within designated buffers or areas that were not to be cleared. It’s just that clearing limits went beyond what were previously approved so they’re back before you to have them reviewed. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) MR. VOLLARO-So the only clearing that has really been taken place then is the clearing between the two lots. Is that correct? MRS. POTTER-Right. That’s what I understood that that was the complaint was between the two lots we took out brush. MR. VOLLARO-Do we have a comment from Bruce on this? Did he write something on this? MR. HILTON-Yes, I have a letter in the file. MR. VOLLARO-Why don’t you read that into the record anyway, George. MR. HILTON-Okay. It’s a letter dated March 6, 2006 from Bruce Frank. It says “Dear Ms. Potter: This letter will serve to summarize our on-site discussion of March 3, 2006 at Lot1 of the Potter Subdivision. As we discussed, it appears as though a portion of those trees proposed and approved to remain were removed. The majority of which were between the proposed house locations for Lots 1 and 2, and consisted predominately of gray birch at approximately 15’ to 20’ in height. During our discussion, you informed me you had already intended to replant the area between Lots 1 and 2 with northern white- cedar and little-leaf linden. Additionally, you stated you will have the cleared area professionally located, and once the work is completed, you will submit a plan showing the area cleared with a replanting plan for the planning board to review for the April or May agenda. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact this office.” And that’s what that letter says. MR. VOLLARO-And these plans then represent what the applicant is proposing to do. MR. FORD-Is that accurate, ma’am? MRS. POTTER-Basically, yes, but because all the grading hasn’t been done, we haven’t been able to put a lot in that we want to do, once everything’s graded. MR. VOLLARO-The lindens aren’t in yet. MRS. POTTER-No. MR. VOLLARO-They’re not in yet, because that’s proposed for the future. MRS. POTTER-Exactly. MR. VOLLARO-The arborvitae and the Bradford Pears are in? MRS. POTTER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any further questions on this. MRS. BRUNO-Northern White Cedar is different from arborvitaes, correct? MRS. POTTER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-In Bruce’s letter it said that you would be back for review in April or May. It’s September. Is that just because of the, you haven’t been able to get the work done? MRS. POTTER-That and I was back for something else in between and this just got put off. MR. VOLLARO-We got bumped because there wasn’t any room. We bumped her twice, I believe. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. FORD-Could I ask for just a little bit of clarification? Where did this whole enterprise go south? Was this something where we did not clarify sufficiently with our guidance or where did this go wrong? MRS. POTTER-I’m not sure I’m following you, but when I came in with the original maps, the only lot was Lot Four that specified no cut zone. I had a 30 foot no cut zone on Lot 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) Four only. Everything else was as per the maps. When we started cutting, I misunderstood some of these lines, partly, and partly it just didn’t flow. I have pictures of what was there, if it makes more sense to you, of the small trees and the pines that were there, pines I didn’t want. They weren’t tall. They were about my height, less than six feet, but they were bushy, and the gray birch or these little white spindly trees. We moved them knowing we were going to be putting in lindens, arborvitaes, better trees, but I didn’t realize that we had cut that much in between the two houses to make it wrong. MR. FORD-Just clarification, as guidance for us for the future. MR. SEGULJIC-So it seems like, and as I’m looking at Lot Two it looks like behind it you can see the clearing limits. So that’s where we put the clearing limits. So why would Bruce have said something about the other area, then, if we don’t have a clearing limit there? MR. HILTON-Well, again, you know, I can only, I don’t believe Bruce misinterpreted it. My understanding, again, is going by my conversation with the Zoning Administrator, but after reading Bruce’s letter, it seems to me that his main area of focus was between Lot One and Two. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it seems that way to me as well, and I can picture what happened here. They’re looking for some lawn between these two houses there. There were some fairly scrubby trees in there that they’re going to replace with halfway decent trees. Bruce got there, saw that this was not in exact accordance with the cutting plan, and he talked to Mrs. Potter about that. That’s my guess. MR. SEGULJIC-And we did not have clearing limits in that area, that’s the key. MR. VOLLARO-No, we did not, and that’s the key. MR. FORD-That’s what I’m trying to get at is how we can prevent this from occurring again. MRS. STEFFAN-I think that probably it might have been because the trees weren’t significant. I mean, oftentimes if we’ve got big trees, mature trees, maybe 60 feet in height, those are the things we usually stipulate, you know, put clearing limits on specifically. MR. VOLLARO-See, what I don’t understand, I don’t see what Bruce used to determine that we shouldn’t cut between these two, because I don’t see a clearing limit description in there. I see the squiggly lines around the proposed septic. MR. FORD-Was there a verbal, a written description? Because I don’t see it on the map either. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the applicant is saying it only appeared on Lot Four. MR. HILTON-I believe what she’s speaking about are, I’ll call it a buffer area, like a no cut zone. MR. VOLLARO-Right. I know we specified that on one lot. MR. HILTON-And my understanding is that between Lots One and Two that no cut zone didn’t exist or was not approved, but what you did have were the approved clearing limits, and since clearing is gone, or has taken place beyond those, I believe Bruce made his comments in light of that excess clearing or the clearing that took place. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess I’m all set with it, then. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I am, too. MR. SEGULJIC-So what do we need to do? MRS. STEFFAN-Within the Staff notes they ask for a condition that they submit revised plans for just the Planning Board Chairman’s signature, you know, it just amends the plan so it’s on file as correct. MR. HILTON-Certainly. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) MRS. STEFFAN-It’s a representation of what will really be there. MR. VOLLARO-Right, and when I sign the plat, I’ll look for that. I guess the plat’s going to show exactly what you’re showing here, though, I would assume that’s what’s going to happen. When I go to sign the plat, you won’t have these yellow and purple lines on it, will you? MRS. POTTER-No, but all the squiggly lines between the two properties is what would be removed on the plat, correct? MR. VOLLARO-Well, there really isn’t any, in between the two properties, that’s what I’m looking for. I don’t see, either I’m not interpreting this drawing correctly, or I don’t understand it at all, but I can see what’s happened here, and I don’t have any further problems with it. You’re going to plant in that area better than what was there, it seems to me. MRS. POTTER-Yes, definitely. MR. VOLLARO-Don, what’s your take on this? You know these trees pretty well. MR. SIPP-I would say it’s going to look a lot better in five years than it would than left with pine and gray birch. MRS. POTTER-Definitely. MR. SIPP-Much better trees, much better. MR. FORD-They’ll last a lot longer. MR. VOLLARO-The public hearing was closed on this, and we do not have a SEQRA, and I would ask somebody for a motion on this application. MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2004 JANE POTTER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, a final stage subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: The applicant is seeking approval for modifications made to a Planning Board approved subdivision. The applicant has removed vegetation from an area previously approved to be undisturbed. The applicant proposes to maintain the plantings currently installed in the disturbed area. Modifications to Planning Board approved subdivisions require approval by the Planning Board; and WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for a subdivision modification; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the subdivision application requirements of the code of the Town of Queensbury; Chapter A- 183 entitled subdivision of land; and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and this is a modification, 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, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2004 JANE POTTER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Three complies, Paragraph Four, Whereas this is a modification and the proposed modification does not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts and therefore no further SEQRA review is necessary. Paragraph Five states the same, Now, Therefore Be It Resolved, 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) that we find this modification request to be approved and is subject to the following conditions: 1. Please submit plans for the Planning Board Chairman’s signature which identifies the number, size and type of trees that will have been or will be planted as part of this modification. th Duly adopted this 19 day of September, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got it. MRS. POTTER-Thank you. MR. FORD-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2006 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW SEQR TYPE N/A JOHN T. WHALEN AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RURAL RESIDENTIAL RR-3A, RR-5A LOCATION NORTH SIDE OF RT. 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF A TOTAL 25.92 ACRES, RESULTING IN LOTS OF 16.24, 5.34 AND 4.34 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE NONE FOUND WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES; LG CEA LOT SIZE 38 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-3 SECTION A-183 SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2006 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW SEQR TYPE N/A JOHN T. WHALEN AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RURAL RESIDENTIAL RR-3A, RR-5A LOCATION SOUTH SIDE OF RT. 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 6 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF A TOTAL 38 ACRES, RESULTING IN LOTS RANGING FROM 3 ACRES TO 13.91 ACRES. SUBDIVISIONS REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: NONE FOUND WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES; LG CEA LOT SIZE 25+ ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279.-1-57 SECTION A-183 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT;JOHN WHALEN, PRESENT MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves, representing John Whalen who is with me at the table tonight. First off, I think we’ll start with Subdivision No. 9-2006. I think that was the first one you had. Sketch Plan review for both of these properties are on 149. This is property that Jack owns on the north side of 149, just to the west of the country club. Actually Queensbury Country Club wraps around the property. Just looking to keep it consistent with the three and five acre zoning and create a nice larger lot in the back, and it’s not really suitable for a length of subdivision road, just to create three lots off the existing road. Two of the lots would share a driveway obviously, the five acre and the sixteen acre lot, and then the four acre lot, depending on the sight distances, that we would be reviewing with DOT whether or not, as Staff has suggested, that we may have all three enter or that we have a separate driveway for that 4.3 acre lot as being Lot One. It would really be contingent upon the DOT review of the sight distance for those driveways. Both of these applications, we’ll start right off, have been sent to the APA for their review, to see whether or not there’s anything that would be jurisdictional. We know that on the south side of the road, which we’ll get to, that there are some jurisdictional wetlands. They are scheduled to come out and look at that. As soon as I have that report from them, then we can locate the wetlands and we’ll place them on the map. While they’re there, we’ll also have them look to the property on the north. There is no areas that are mapped on their system at this point on the north, but they’re going to be right across the street, so we’re going to have them look at both. As far as the test pits, we all know that at the time of Preliminary those will have to be provided to you. Whether they’ll have to be done a second time or not, we understand, but that, we all understand that. Long EAF, again, going right through the list of Staff comments, understandable for subdivision, it’s required at Preliminary. It would be provided at Preliminary. A lot of it is contingent upon what we find out with the Adirondack Park Agency, whether or not that they would require a permit or a non-jurisdictional depending on the location of wetlands, but all that would be submitted at the time of Preliminary. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) MR. VOLLARO-They’ll also be doing an analysis on the total, the two lots together, to see whether or not these subdivisions fit into their plans. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. They’re required to, and typically at Preliminary, the Town sends it to them anyway, I think it’s around that time, but because of the fact that there may be, there is definitely wetlands on one side and there may be on the other, I don’t believe so, but there’s always the potential, they’ve both been sent to the APA asking for their Wetland Biologist, whether it ends up being Mary O’Dell or Mark Rooks, will be out to look at both properties. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So in both cases this requires a non-jurisdictional determination from the APA. MR. STEVES-And/or a permit, correct. MR. VOLLARO-Right. Okay, and on the six lots. MR. STEVES-You want to kind of review them both together? I don’t have a problem. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I looked at it as one big subdivision, because of the road. MR. STEVES-You might as well. They’re separate tax parcels, separate deeded ownerships, but we might as well look at them all together, if it’s okay with the Board. MR. VOLLARO-I think it makes more sense to do that. MR. STEVES-Okay. Again, looking through the Staff notes, I do apologize for the typo. It is six lots, not eight. Again, this has been sent to the APA. As far as their second comment, APA is reviewing amount of land in each zone should be provided, no question. We’re looking at, as I say, a total Sketch Plan for now, just to get the input of the Board, show the Board what we’re proposing. On the south side, they all conform to the double lot width. It does have some bearing on whether or not, where the APA wetland line may be once they flag it. Again, well, septics, topography, Long Environmental Assessment Form will all be provided at Preliminary. We just couldn’t see going through that expense and extent until such time as we have the APA review. MR. VOLLARO-Can I ask you a question on that? You just said that on the southern lot, which is the one I’m looking at here, you say that everything complies with the lot frontage, but you’ve got to have. MR. STEVES-You have to be sharing driveways on some of those. MR. VOLLARO-I’m taking a look, for example, let’s look at Lot Number One has got a frontage of 329 feet along State Highway Route 149. This is a split zone between RR-5A and RR-3A. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-And both of those require 200 feet of frontage. MR. STEVES-Or double the lot width. MR. VOLLARO-Or double lot width. Now, that would be 400 feet. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-So Lot One only has 329 feet. MR. STEVES-Right. As I say, as far as your Code, whether it be double the lot width or shared driveways. So Lot One and Two would share a driveway in the middle. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So Lot Six is okay on its own, but Four needs. MR. STEVES-Four and Five would share a driveway. MR. VOLLARO-And Lot Three would stand on its own. MR. STEVES-And Lot Three would stand on its own. Trying to minimize the curb cuts as well. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) MR. SEGULJIC-Can’t we just have one driveway for all of them, just one road in? MR. STEVES-No. We’re looking at the south side. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got to be looking at the six lots. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and 149’s a very busy road with gasoline tankers running up and down that thing all the time. Coming around that corner. MR. STEVES-But you’d have to put in a Town road and reconfigure the, the configuration of this property and the immense amount of road frontage on 149 doesn’t lend itself to bringing in a cul de sac anywhere and creating the lots with the split zone line. It lends itself more to breaking it off of the existing road and the reason that 149 and the Town looked into these arterial roads for having double the lot width and shared driveways is the exact reason you’re talking about, and that’s why we’re trying to minimize it as well. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. There would be two shared drives then, one between Lot Five and Six? MR. STEVES-Correct, and one between Lot One and Two. Correct. MR. VOLLARO-And one between Lot One and Two. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-What about Lot Three? MR. VOLLARO-Lot Three has its frontage. It’s got more than double. Lot Three is about 500 feet. MR. STEVES-Lot Three is his existing home. MR. SIPP-The existing home. Where’s that driveway? MR. FORD-That driveway will remain as is? MR. STEVES-Yes, well, we’ve located the house. We’re going to be depicting the driveway, but it’s basically right about in the middle of that lot. MR. VOLLARO-That’s where your home is now? MR. WHALEN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you should have shown on this map at least where your driveway, where your septic is. MR. STEVES-Yes, we’re working on the septic right now, the well, but the driveway comes in right about on the angle point between the 207 foot line and the 186 foot line, right about in that area, within a few feet of that angle point. MR. VOLLARO-When you get your APA delineation done, you’re going to find out how much wetlands you’ve got on here. MR. STEVES-Right. MR. VOLLARO-This is going to affect your density, it may. MR. STEVES-It may, and we understand that. MR. VOLLARO-And if it does that, then this chart would have to be changed, this map would have to be changed. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STEVES-We understand that. I’ve contacted the APA, and everybody in their department is busy as well, as you can imagine. They have really one wetland biologist now, Mary O’Dell. Mark Rookes is basically taking over in the office, or staying in the 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) northern part of the APA, and I’ve been waiting on projects as long as three to four months for her to arrive on the site. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand. MR. STEVES-But we are aware of that. MR. VOLLARO-Just so long as you’re aware that the density calculation, particularly on the six lots, not so much on the three but on the six you might have a change. MR. STEVES-Understood, and, like I say, once we have that delineation done, then we’ll know exactly the area we have to take out and then that may effect, as the Staff comments have already stated, the density calc’s once we know how much wetlands, whether that adjusts and we lose one or whether it slides back and we don’t lose any. Irregardless, we wouldn’t be gaining any lots, but we may be losing some, depending on how many, area of wetlands, and again, once we know where that is, then we can define the areas in the road. We will be obtaining the sight distances for all the proposed driveways and make sure that they have more than the minimum requirement for the speed limit on that road by DOT. MR. SIPP-Have there been any test pits done on these lots yet? MR. STEVES-We’re waiting for the APA, doing them all at the same time they’re there. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You’re probably not going to be ready for Preliminary on this until you get all your APA information in, your density calculations in, that kind of stuff. MR. STEVES-Because as you mentioned with the test pits, if the south side becomes a jurisdiction by the APA, we have to have not only the test pit data for you, but for them as well. It’s advantageous to try to schedule it all when they’re there. MRS. STEFFAN-Plus with the timetable, it’ll be Spring, and that’s our window of permissible test pits. MR. STEVES-Correct. Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-I thought the Staff comments were really good. I really don’t have a lot. MR. SEGULJIC-My only other comment is that I believe this is in a CEA, on both sides of the road? MR. STEVES-I don’t believe so. MR. SEGULJIC-I believe it is, because I have a map. MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-I’d like that checked, and, Number Two, if it’s in the Lake George basin, based on the map I’m looking at, it doesn’t look like it is, but this is, I guess you could work with George in determining that, if it is or not. MR. STEVES-Understood, and I don’t disagree. If it is, we’ll label it as such and it just means Long Form which we’re required to anyway. So we understand. MR. SIPP-When we drove in there a couple of weeks ago, there were a series of trailers over in this lot on the north side. MR. WHALEN-On the north side. MR. SIPP-North side of 149. MR. STEVES-A series of trailers? MR. SIPP-There’s a dirt road that goes off of 149. MR. WHALEN-Yes. Okay. MR. SIPP-Is that part of a lot that belongs to Peters, or is it between the Lynch and Peters? Where is that road? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) MR. WHALEN-That road would be the road where the mobile homes are on. MR. SIPP-Yes, right. MR. WHALEN-That lines up reasonably close to the boundary between Lot Five and Lot Six. MR. STEVES-Yes, but on the north side where would that be, on this parcel? MR. WHALEN-On that one, I don’t know exactly whether it’s on Peters or on Lynches’. There’s a house way back, probably on Peters land, that you can’t see from the road, and then there’s two mobile homes that you can see. MR. SIPP-And an old shed. MR. WHALEN-And I would guess that one is probably on Peters and parts of the other are on Lynch, but. MR. SIPP-So they would line up with Lot Six on the south side? MR. STEVES-It’s real close to being on that zone line, which is the division line between Peters and Lynch. It’s real close to that area. MR. SIPP-Okay. MR. STEVES-If it would help, since you’ve been out there and seen those, if we located those on the next map for you, glad to do that. Would you like that? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, please. MR. SIPP-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Is the intention to subdivide this property and then sell off lots, or to have a developer come in and build spec houses? MR. WHALEN-I would probably sell off lots. MRS. STEFFAN-Sell off lots, okay. MR. VOLLARO-As far as the Preliminary is concerned, the grading plan, the two foot contours and these will all be requirements for Preliminary. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-They’re not on this I recognize that, and a stormwater management plan would probably have to go along with that as well. MR. STEVES-Yes, yes, that would all be provided. MR. VOLLARO-Tom Seguljic, you talked about this being in the Lake George basin. George, have you got anything to say on that? MR. HILTON-Well, I’ll certainly check. My first glance in reviewing this, I don’t believe it’s within the basin, but quite possibly within the Park Commission boundary. MR. SEGULJIC-If I can just clarify. According to the map that you provided on the basin, it runs right off of the northeast corner of the northern part. MR. HILTON-Of the north side, right. The north side quite possibly. The south side, I believe, is outside the basin. MR. STEVES-The very northerly edge of the north side may be, and we’ll depict that. MR. SEGULJIC-And it shows, this map depicts the basin right on the edge. MR. STEVES-And I don’t disagree. I’m saying that those distances, as George can say, are based upon the tax map distances, and a few other GIS things, and we can determine that distance by survey whether it’s right on or not. The south side I know, the 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) drainage basin does not go anywhere toward the north. It actually goes back toward the west. MR. SEGULJIC-But interestingly enough, they’re both designated as CEA’s within the basins, I mean, if anyone wants to look at this map. It shows it in the Lake George CEA. MR. STEVES-But it’s not within the drainage basin. I understand. MR. HILTON-While I understand that it is a bit confusing and it’s quite possible that portions of the site could be, Number One, not in the Lake George basin, but within the Lake George Park Commission boundary, also in a CEA. So that’s why I think it’s a good idea, we can certainly work. MR. SEGULJIC-We’ll come to you for clarification. MR. HILTON-That’s fine. Absolutely. MR. STEVES-I’ll sit down with George and I’ll also get clarification while the APA is out there. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, that’s all we’re asking at this point. MR. STEVES-I understand. That’s why we’re here. MR. FORD-We await the APA. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think I have any other questions. I’ve looked at all my notes on both of these. Did we talk about defining the amount of land in each zone? I think we talked about that. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-How about slopes over 25%? MR. STEVES-Once the topography’s complete, we’ll have all that detail for you. We’ll do all the slope analysis. MR. VOLLARO-So you’re going to do it two foot contours in order to develop that. MR. STEVES-Correct. I don’t believe, in walking the property, that there were any slopes that steep, but we’ll depict any. MR. VOLLARO-When I drove up, I didn’t see any that steep. I didn’t even see any that even approached 10%, actually, on that property. MR. STEVES-No, I think you’re accurate with about the seven to eight percent range. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Okay. I don’t have any further questions on it. It’s a Sketch, and we know what we’re looking for when you come back. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, I just have one comment. I guess my main comment on the subdivision on the south side of the road is, if for some reason the APA comes in and flags the wetlands and as part of their review process these lots change, get eliminated, I guess is this Board going to feel comfortable jumping right into Preliminary, or would you be looking for another Sketch Plan? MR. VOLLARO-No. If this changes, I’d be looking for a Sketch Plan that reflects the change. MR. STEVES-Understood. MR. VOLLARO-Particularly on the south side of the road. MR. STEVES-We don’t anticipate any changes on the north. We’re going to have them review it since they’re there. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) MR. STEVES-The south, we took, so you know, a conservative approach to where the line is, and hopefully in our opinion if anything gets flagged, which we’re sure it will, it will be east of where we show it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STEVES-Okay. So that way we don’t come back in with a major change, but if there is a major change for some reason, we’ll come back at Sketch on the south side. Understood. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s it. MR. STEVES-Thank you very much. MR. VOLLARO-I’m happy. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 36-2006 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED ROBERT CLARK AGENT(S) JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL CI-1A LOCATION 46 VAN DUSEN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,000 SQ. FT. BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. OFFICE USES IN THE CI ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SP 43-95, SP 28-91 WARREN CO. PLANNING 8/9/06 LOT SIZE 0.57, 4.42 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.15-1-22, 20 SECTION 179-4- 020 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; BOB CLARK, PRESENT MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett-Martin Engineers, representing Bob Clark, Clark Used Autos, who is with me tonight, and Mr. Clark is proposing a 6,000 foot office and storage building on a parcel adjacent to his main facility on Van Dusen Road. We have proposed two driveway entrances to the parcel to compliment the existing facility, as well as some drive area around the storage building for access by his vehicles and an interconnect with the existing parcel. We’ve proposed a wastewater system to serve the bathrooms in the new facility. There’s proposed to be two employees housed in this building. We’ve sized it for five. We’ve provided stormwater management for the parking area and the building. Minimal lighting, only lighting on the building on the new facility, and one new light pole over the parking area on the existing facility, and the landscaping plan that will enhance the front of the facility. So I’ll open it up to any questions. We do know that we have C.T. Male comments still to address. MRS. STEFFAN-Thirty-one of them. MR. JARRETT-Well, if you’ll notice, most of them are very minor, and they’re clarifications. In fact, we were in discussion with their office, and we got such late feedback from them, that we weren’t able to finalize a letter to send in to the Town in time. So we’re very close to being able to finalize that. MR. VOLLARO-You also have comments on the Fire Marshal’s letter of 7/21. MR. JARRETT-I have not seen that letter, so, I talked to George today about it, and I had not seen it. MR. VOLLARO-George, do you have an extra copy there? MR. HILTON-I should, yes. It may even be in the notes, there are some notes on the table there. MR. JARRETT-Were they significant comments? MR. VOLLARO-They have to do with driveway widths. st MRS. BRUNO-Dated July 21. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s to Craig Brown from Mike Palmer. “I have received the submittals for Robert Clark, and the current site drawings indicate the following: 1) Both curb cut access roads are less than the 20’ required width as per NYS Fire Code Section 503.2.1 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) 2) Discussions must take place to establish if the rear driveway area constitutes an approved area for turning around fire apparatus, per Section 503.2.5 of the NYS Fire Code 3) A layout shall be provided of the current municipal hydrant locations to determine the applicability of Section 508.5.1 of the NYS Fire Code” So they’re New York State Code issues that have to be addressed. MR. JARRETT-Sure. Okay. They sound reasonable. We can address those and respond appropriately. So our purpose tonight, knowing that we don’t have C.T. Male signoff, is to get any feedback from the Board that we need in preparation for presumably a tabling for next month, or whenever. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ll throw this open to the Board before I, I’ve got some comments, but I’ll let the Board deliberate on this, and we’ll start off with you, Tanya. How do you feel on this one? MRS. BRUNO-Well, initially looking at the property, and the plans, I thought that it seemed completely reasonable. It looked like it would increase both the use and look of your business. I have to admit I haven’t gotten into some of these details from the engineer quite in-depth enough. So I’ll just pass it on with that comment. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you. Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-I think that the Staff notes indicate, you know, there’s the access issues which we’ve just talked about, but also the lighting issues on the building. We just need to make sure that they meet our Code downcast and that we have cut sheets on what they’re supposed to be. MR. JARRETT-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-The shared parking arrangement is okay, according to the Staff notes, and so those are the things that need to be addressed, the C.T. Male comments, the access and then the items listed in the Staff notes. MR. JARRETT-I’d like to come back to one of those issues when the rest of the Board is finished. MR. VOLLARO-Tom Ford? MR. FORD-Can you address this area where it refers to remove a section of fence? MR. JARRETT-That’s the fence that now separates Mr. Clark’s property from property that he just purchased. So he plans on removing that so that there’s an interconnect between the properties. I think we actually have a leader in the wrong spot. We intended to have it where the interconnect is, and I think our leader’s in the wrong spot. We’ll correct that. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. JARRETT-No wonder it caused confusion. MR. SEGULJIC-I have a general question. I’m just confused about the layout. Because when I look at the aerial photograph, it looks like there’s two separate parcels. When I looked at your drawing, at the top of the first page, it looks like there’s three separate parcels. MR. JARRETT-You’re looking at the key plan at the top of our site plan drawing? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m looking at C-1. MR. JARRETT-Yes, at the very top there’s a key plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, okay. MR. JARRETT-That’s intended to show that, the hatching area is intended to show what we’ve shown on the site plan. So it’s a portion of the northern parcel in the site plan along with the entire southern parcel. Maybe we’ve confused you there. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So the smaller parcel is the one that we just recently purchased. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) MR. JARRETT-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So that’s going to have improvements on it, and only a small portion. MR. JARRETT-Only that small hatched portion on the northern parcel gets any improvements. That’s where the parking area’s proposed on the northern parcel. The rest of the northern parcel remains the same. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and that’s all, looks like vehicle storage, I guess, outdoor vehicle storage. MR. CLARK-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And as far as this proposed building storage, what’s going to be stored there? MR. CLARK-Auto parts. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re going to strip the cars down and catalogue and store the parts within the building? MR. CLARK-Yes, inventory them, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And then have the office. MR. CLARK-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. FORD-What is the potential for reduction of total number of vehicles on these sites? MR. CLARK-I don’t understand that. MR. JARRETT-Meaning the outdoor storage? Is that what you’re driving at? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. JARRETT-Would this building facility any fewer vehicles stored outside on that property? MR. CLARK-No. MR. JARRETT-How is this building going to help you, I guess? MR. CLARK-Well, the cars are still going to be there, but the parts off them are going to go into the building. MR. JARRETT-Just a more efficient operation it sounds like. MR. FORD-I understand. At what point do you anticipate having removed the parts, the usable parts that the remaining chasse would be removed, or what is going to happen, what’s the long term effect? MR. CLARK-Well, once you take the parts out, then the rest of it would be crushed. MR. JARRETT-And gone. MR. CLARK-Yes, be removed from the site. MR. FORD-That’s what I wanted to get at. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’d bring a car in, strip it down, take out the parts of value. MR. CLARK-The motor and the transmission, parts like that, then the rest of it. MR. SEGULJIC-And you crush it on site, or you send it elsewhere? MR. CLARK-No, we crush it there on site, and then they haul them out on a truck. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) MR. SIPP-On the south side, to the south where, I don’t have the name of the next property, but there are trees, and these trees will remain along the property line on the south side? MR. JARRETT-On the south line of the new parcel? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. JARRETT-Yes. Outside of the stormwater basins that we show there, there won’t be any removal of vegetation. MR. SIPP-Okay. Now there’s nothing, then, to the east. MR. CLARK-There’s not much there. It’s the neighbor’s property. Because the metal fencing goes across. It’s Combs’. MR. JARRETT-Yes, the other two property lines are also auto parts, salvage yards. MR. FORD-Right up to the power right of way, right? MR. CLARK-Yes. The neighbor has cars behind that piece that I bought, and then on the other side of it, on the, it would be his south side, he’s got cars over there, too. MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s got to be some place in Town we have to do this. I think this is as good a location as any. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, if I could just ask a procedural question. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. MR. SEGULJIC-And I can see why you only show the portion that you’re going to improve, on the bigger lot, but don’t we really have to see the whole lot drawn out? Because we’re only looking at a portion, and it’s a site plan. MR. VOLLARO-Well, there isn’t very much, you know, that one corner that he’s going to, that’s shown as the key plan, it’s taking a small portion of the, if you look at the overview of this. MR. JARRETT-We’re showing the entire area that we’re planning to impact. The remaining portion of that site is not going to be touched. We didn’t feel it was appropriate to. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I don’t see what the review of that site is going to do for us. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s not very often we just see a portion of the site we’re looking at. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Well, he’s drawn the entire site out, and he’s saying of that site. MR. SEGULJIC-On the key plan. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, up on the key plan. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MR. VOLLARO-And I think that’s good enough, because even if they put the whole, you know, what can you say about the rest of the site? It’s loaded with automobiles that are going to be stripped down and finally crushed and I guess. MRS. STEFFAN-I guess one of the questions that comes to mind is with the questions from the Fire Marshal, will we need to have a site plan of the whole site for access management, you know, for the New York State Code? MR. JARRETT-Well, I will discuss it with them regarding that access, and if we do need to show more, we will show more. It’s as simple as that. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think there’s some comments on the drawing that perhaps the Number Two driveway could be eliminated as a way of getting into this part of the building. If we could eliminate this curb cut on Van Dusen, you’re going to come in here, 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) in any event, right? And then you’ve got a vehicle interconnect between the two properties set up. Maybe you don’t have it shown right here. MR. JARRETT-Well, it is labeled as an interconnect. We just don’t have the section of fence labeled properly. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So anyway, that’s where the interconnect would be. So cars would come in this way and be able to get in to the back of this building like so. They’d be coming in here, but this in would be to service the building. MR. JARRETT-That’s a drive thru through the building, right. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. JARRETT-We’re drastically reducing the amount of, we’ll call it curb cut or driveway on Van Dusen Road. If you’ll notice, if you drive by, much of the new site is driveway and the entire existing site is driveway. So we’re reducing that drastically, and I discussed it with Bob, and he felt he really needed that second driveway. MR. VOLLARO-This one? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-What does it really do for? If he says he needs it, we can look at that as a site plan issue, but it seems to me that this interconnect serves well to bring cars, to drive in. Do you need this to bring something into the back here? MR. CLARK-We just figured it would be easier to get the trucks in when I have to unload it, because if you look at the other driveway, they’re not going to be able to. MR. JARRETT-It’s a cleaner loop to go out, as opposed to going through the other property. That’s for sure. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I see what you’re doing. All right. MR. SEGULJIC-In the southeast corner of the proposed building, is that an overhead door you have? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So you have three overhead doors? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So in theory you’d come in one side and be able to drive right through the building. MR. JARRETT-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Then customers will park. MR. JARRETT-Primarily up in the existing property. They’re really not intending for customers to go in here at all, just storage. MR. SEGULJIC-So you want the trucks to come in through the building. MR. JARRETT-Yes, and that helps us reduce the amount of driveway we need outside, by doing that. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that makes sense. I didn’t realize that was a truck access, but now that you say that, that makes sense to do that. We’re going to need some cut sheets for the building mounted lights. How many lights do you have? You show one. MR. JARRETT-There’s one existing yard light on the existing property, which you’ll see, and we’re proposing a new pole mounted yard light over the parking, and then that’s a double fixture, and then we show four building mounted wall packs. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I saw those. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) MR. JARRETT-And we’re requesting a waiver on lighting standards. We want to put in less lighting than required. MR. VOLLARO-I see that. You don’t operate in the evenings, do you? MR. CLARK-No. MR. VOLLARO-And what I have here, is this an additional light, or is that just a double? MR. JARRETT-It’s one pole with two fixtures on it. MR. VOLLARO-With two fixtures. Okay. MR. JARRETT-So that will give some additional light in the existing facility, you know, at five o’clock in winter evenings, and illuminate the parking. MR. VOLLARO-I know. I go by this quite often to get back and forth. I live right on West Mountain Road. So I go by your place quite a lot. I know what nights you’re not open. MR. SEGULJIC-It looks like it’s going to be an improvement, better for your business, too, I think. MR. VOLLARO-Very definitely. One thing I didn’t understand in C.T. Male’s, maybe you can help me out. I put a scale on your drawings. I think you’ve got the separation distance here to your septic, and I didn’t understand his comment. MR. JARRETT-Well, they’re asking for 20 feet from the building to the leachfield, but the Town has used a standard of 10 feet when it’s a slab on grade. That’s what we propose. MR. VOLLARO-But you do have 20 feet, as I scaled it off. I don’t see where he’s coming from. I scaled it off. There’s a sidewalk there. Is he saying that that’s in the way of the 20 feet? MR. JARRETT-I’d have to put a scale on it. I don’t know what they’re using for their criteria. MR. VOLLARO-What I measured off, this is your septic field. Now this is a sidewalk? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the building starts right here. MR. JARRETT-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-There’s 50 foot, on the scale, that’s exactly 20. I’m not sure what Jim is talking about there. MR. JARRETT-I’ll try and clarify with him. That was one of the issues I know that my office clarified with him and they were comfortable with it. The only issue that’s outstanding is that they wanted to see our stormwater system broken down into separate sub catchments, and we had done it as one sub catchment, since it’s such a simple system. We’ll defer, rather than argue it. It’s easier to do it and just get it done. So that’s the last thing that’s outstanding and we’ll clean that up. MR. VOLLARO-So he wants to separate those two catchments? MR. JARRETT-Yes. He actually wants each basin to have it’s own sub catchment. On a complicated site I would buy that. On a simple site I would argue it, but I’m not going to argue it. MRS. STEFFAN-How long will it take to construct this building? MR. JARRETT-Actually probably the order time is longer than the actual construction. MR. VOLLARO-This is like a butler building kind of thing. MR. JARRETT-It’s a pre-engineered building, right. It should go up very quickly. Is that a particular concern? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) MRS. STEFFAN-No. I’m looking at a tabling motion and when to table it to. MR. JARRETT-Don’t table us until February, please. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, no, because obviously winter’s coming. MR. VOLLARO-George, what does October look like on the famous blackboard downstairs? MR. HILTON-I honestly can’t tell you. I don’t know for sure. It’s impossible for me to tell you or predict how many are there. MR. VOLLARO-October is pretty well jammed up right now, I believe. MR. HILTON-I’m thinking it is. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got to do my completion reviews tomorrow morning, for October. So I’ll look at it. MR. SEGULJIC-The sooner you get this approved the better, or do you have time? MR. JARRETT-Yes. The foundations are critical. I mean, we don’t want to do those in the wintertime. MR. SEGULJIC-When he comes back, it shouldn’t take very long. MR. VOLLARO-No. Once you get a C.T. Male signoff on this, and with the work we’ve done tonight, I don’t see much. MR. SEGULJIC-Then I’d be all set with that. MRS. STEFFAN-I’ve got three things based on our conversation. We’re looking for a C.T. Male signoff. We’re looking for the Fire Marshal’s letter to be addressed, and according to Staff notes a notation that the building and the site will be used for office storage only. They already talked about that they want to put less. MR. JARRETT-Office and storage. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, office and storage only. MR. JARRETT-Okay. I think we have that noted, but we can make it stronger if you wish. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. That was in the Staff notes. MR. VOLLARO-Is it noted on the drawing? MR. JARRETT-It is noted on the drawing, but I can make it stronger. MR. HILTON-I guess I would just suggest, there was some discussion about cut sheets for the wall mounted lights, that they provide that. MR. JARRETT-On the bottom of the site plan it says 6,000 square foot office building with storage, but we can make it stronger. MR. VOLLARO-You can clarify the words, and add the cut sheets to it, and also that the two pole mounted lights be downcast. MR. JARRETT-They are specified that way, but we will make sure there’s cut sheets. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. How about a 9/25 deadline, which is next Monday, for the th October 24 agenda? MR. JARRETT-Well, actually 9/25 is fine for my office, but I’m not sure about the Male and Fire Marshal responses. I can get my stuff in within the next day or two, but I know that I’m going to have trouble with. MR. HILTON-I’m sorry, which meeting were we thinking of? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) th MRS. STEFFAN-October 24. th MR. HILTON-October 24. MR. JARRETT-Well, they were setting a deadline of 9/25 for my submission. MRS. STEFFAN-How about 9/29? That’s Friday, that’s a week from this Friday. MR. JARRETT-It sounds more doable. MR. FORD-So that would be the second October meeting? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, the second October meeting, and we can add it, I’ll just put it in the motion as an extra agenda item. MR. VOLLARO-The September and October for six is slowly crumbling. We just don’t get there. We’ve got, you know, next Tuesday we’ve got eight. There’ll be some quick, we’ll deal with some of them quickly, but we’ve got eight on the agenda. MRS. STEFFAN-Hopefully this will be a quick one. Okay. Does that sound? MR. VOLLARO-It’s 29 for the data. MR. JARRETT-Unless the Fire Marshal’s comments are not resolvable, then it should be quick. MR. VOLLARO-I think his stuff has to do with the width of trucks to get in. MRS. STEFFAN-There’s three New York State Codes. One is access management. MR. JARRETT-I’m not sure what he’s talking about with the rear driveway. Maybe he doesn’t understand our site plan, but okay. MR. VOLLARO-You’d have to talk directly with him. MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think we’re set. Go ahead. MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll make a motion to table. MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me. You’ve got a public hearing. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 36-2006 ROBERT CLARK, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: According to the resolution prepared by Staff, with the following amendments. The date needs to be changed to today’s date of 9/19/06, and then we are tabling this subject to the following conditions: 1. We’re looking for a C.T. Male signoff, and 2. That the applicant has to address the Fire Marshal’s letter of July 21, 2006, and 3. That we need a notation on the drawings that the building and site will be used for office and storage only, and 4. To provide cut sheets for the wall packs, and 5. Pole lights will be downcast This will be tabled to the second meeting in October, October 24, 2006. It would be put on as an extra agenda item, and the application deadline for materials would be Friday, September 29, 2006. th Duly adopted this 19 day of September, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Vollaro 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MRS. STEFFAN-We’ll see you next month. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 35-2006 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED FERRARO ENTERTAINMENT AGENT(S): BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES, NORTHFIELD DESIGNS, JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS OWNER(S): ANTHONY & MARY SUE FERRARO ZONING: HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE HC-INT. LOCATION: 1035 ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 20,856 SQ. FT. MINIATURE GOLF COURSE AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK AT THE FUN SPOT. EXPANSIONS OF SPECIAL USE PERMITS REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. THE PLANNING BOARD MAY ACCEPT LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEQRA REVIEW AND MAY BEGIN THE REQUIRED SEQRA REVIEW AT THIS MEETING. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 42-06, SP 34-98, AV 53-98, NOA 4-98, NOA 3-98, AV 26-98, SP 14-93 WARREN CO. PLANNING 7/12/06: APPROVED LOT SIZE 3.51 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-1 SECTION 179-10- 015 JON LAPPER, TOM JARRETT, & JIM MILLER, REP. APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-Before we get onto this, I’m going to make a motion. MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD ACCEPTS LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 35-2006 FERRARO ENTERTAINMENT, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, in connection with the Ferraro Entertainment project, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Zoning Administrator to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review, and WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review, and th Duly adopted this 19 day of September, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. VOLLARO-Okay. For the record, you are? MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, Tom Jarrett, Jim Miller and Keith Ferraro. MR. VOLLARO-This is a different Jim Miller. MR. LAPPER-Yes. This is the other Jim Miller, Jim Miller the Architect, rather than Jim Miller the Landscape Architect, which is confusing to the land use professionals. This is Jim Miller from Bolton versus Jim Miller from Queensbury, if that helps. In general on this project, we just got the Staff notes and we see that there is a lot of additional information that’s being requested. So we thought that tonight we would sort of do an overview of what we’re trying to accomplish here, get comments and then go home and do some more homework and come back with a revised submittal that addresses the open issues, and I’m sure there’ll be other issues raised by the Board, but that’s how we’re viewing tonight. MR. VOLLARO-For sure we won’t get into SEQRA tonight. MR. LAPPER-Yes. So I guess in general what Keith is trying to accomplish is to replace the waterslide facility in the back with mini golf in the front with the theory that mini golf is 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) primarily landscaping and now you’re looking at a big ugly parking lot in the front and then it’s going to be a much softer use of this site by having a very fancy mini golf facility in the front, and in order to accomplish that, there are really two hurdles, one is the 75 foot setback, the Travel Corridor Overlay, and somehow, we’re not clear because the last mini golf facility that was done on Route 9 was built, that wasn’t an issue. That wasn’t considered a structure, and I guess in this case this is being considered a structure. So that’s something we need to talk about. MR. VOLLARO-That’s another application. We’re talking about this one. MR. LAPPER-I’m just saying in terms of how it gets applied, but in general no building is being proposed in the 75 feet. It’s the golf course improvements, and even the structures, the windmills or whatever, you know, is going to be in the front. MR. VOLLARO-To cut to the chase on that, between the 75 foot and the 50 foot, you’re proposing 25. MR. LAPPER-Yes, but we’re not proposing a building, and that’s really the building setback. MR. VOLLARO-I understand, but the setback finally resolves itself to 25 feet. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what we’re talking about. Okay. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and ironically we could do parking in that whole front area that’s not subject to the setback. It just wouldn’t look as good. I mean, in terms of moving things around to avoid that variance, we could put parking there without a variance. We want to put the golf course because it’s going to look a lot nicer to have the landscaping up front, but that’s something we’ll talk about. MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking about the variances. I spent a good deal of time today reviewing the Area Variance that was done, and I guess what I see there, in the Area Variance, so that all Board members understand what happened, this application came before the ZBA and it was then passed off to us with a, and I think there were five people present that night on the ZBA. You’ve got three of them that said they couldn’t go along with this. I just wanted our Board to understand what happened at the ZBA, but we were then, I guess Mr. Underwood says in there that the Planning Board is going to thoroughly review this and they’re ultimately going to give you the direction, and our point at this time is not going to be pertinent to that, I don’t believe. So I think it would be better for us not to do anything here and send this to the Planning Board first, but the Chairman of the ZBA had already called for a vote, and based on the fact there was a five man Board that night, they got three noes and two nothings. The Chairman didn’t vote and I don’t think, in fact is I know that Mr. Underwood didn’t vote either. So just so that you understand what happened at the ZBA. MR. SEGULJIC-No action, correct? MR. LAPPER-They didn’t have a full Board. MR. VOLLARO-They didn’t have a full Board, but I just wanted you to get the sense of what had happened at the last ZBA meeting. It’s worthwhile reading these minutes. MR. LAPPER-It didn’t actually come to a vote. They just sort of did a poll at that point, but in general we felt comfortable with them referring this to you for Lead Agency because we think that a lot of these are really planning concepts, in terms of what should be visible from the road, and t hat would be, we’d get a more thorough review of those issues here, and then we can go back and talk to them, and, you know, whether it’s 25 feet or 30 feet or whatever, you know, it comes out to, we just felt it was better to be here. MR. VOLLARO-I just wanted to share that with the Board in case the Board hadn’t had an opportunity to review that document. It was rather lengthy. MR. LAPPER-Certainly. MRS. BRUNO-I would like to point out just one particular thing from the same document. First of all I’d like to say that I do agree, going with something like this versus the parking 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) lot closer to the road is definitely a better look. I mean, that’s an obvious fact. What bothered me that I kept seeing in this document was that there was never a direct answer when asked, say next year, five years, ten years down the road we decide to put a wider road, no pun intended, in, what happens to your facility? I think we’re playing a little bit of dice right here hoping that that doesn’t happen for a while until perhaps you get your financial investment back. What I would like to ask for is, let’s assume that that’s going to happen sooner than later. I’d rather not see it happen, just because it shows that we are growing exponentially, but that’s just a personal point of view, but say it does. Why don’t we try designing now for when that might happen. MR. LAPPER-Well, let’s talk about that. The road was just expanded to three lanes, and the idea of that to go from three to five lanes would require a whole lot more traffic. I mean, that would be a pretty big deal, but let’s say it’s 20 years from now and the traffic is there. What would have to happen is that all of the land would have to be acquired on one or both sides of the road, and usually they do it on both sides because they’re established businesses. You try and take less from each rather than a whole bunch from one, and in this case, rather than having to take down a building, which would be real expensive, you’d be re-locating a mini golf course, which is mostly soil and rock and, you know, so it’s not a big expensive thing. If the DOT decided that there was going to be a taking, it’s not like taking down and paying for somebody’s building. MRS. BRUNO-True. MR. LAPPER-And in general, a lot of times when I’ve been before this Board or the Zoning Board with that buffer issue, it’s really a question of what are the other businesses on the road, just in terms of most of that got developed before that. There’s a lot of stuff that’s within 75 feet. So it’s not out of character, but certainly if we propose to put a building up there, that would be different than if we’re just doing really some moving dirt grading and that kind of stuff. It’s not that expensive. MRS. BRUNO-It’s not as expensive as a building, no, but it is still more than a parking lot or just some green acreage. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think the 75 foot setback has a lot to do with the aesthetics of the area as well, not bringing, you know, things right up close to the road, giving you some space on either side so aesthetically it would look more pleasing. The closer to the road you get, the less, the more it appears to be very dense. What happens if you keep the 75 feet going, it looks like it’s a little less dense anyway. I think that was the reason for the 75 is to get some character to the road. MR. LAPPER-It should be, but I think it really was because of the cost of doing a taking, eminent domain for taking down buildings. That’s my understanding, but in any case, I mean, we expect to come up with something at the end of the process with your blessing that is going to look good from the road. That’s the intention, and it may not be exactly what we’re proposing now, but that’s the process. With that said, I guess I’d like to ask Jim to walk through the site plan, just to familiarize yourselves with that, to get started. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. MR. MILLER-For the record, I’m Jim Miller from Northfield Design Architects. What we’re looking to do, as Jon alluded to, is, at this point, we have a go kart facility up here on the road, on the Route 9 side, and we have parking, and in this area the waterslide to the rear. What we’re looking to do is to demolish the waterslide and take the parking that’s in the front here and move it to the back with the exception of some parking along this strip on the access road, and then to put the green space, the miniature golf course up towards the front here. We’re pushing in 25 feet into that 75 foot Overlay. Currently there’s very nice landscaping along this stretch of the go kart track. We’re going to continue that theme across the front of the miniature golf, plus the landscaping that’s inherent to the golf course facility, also the water elements and the green space. It should be further stressed that this is a seasonal use. It won’t be used in the winter. So for the time probably from November until late April, there won’t be anything going on, you know, it will be fallen snow that you will be looking at. So it is a seasonal use, whereas now the parking is year round. The parking is stretched out along here and across the back here. We’ll be asking for a variance from on the parking count also, but to talk about that a little bit, the owner has taken counts of parking use over the years and we feel that we’re very safe with the counts we have, and one of the main reasons for that is that in the summertime it’s the outdoor facilities that are generating the parking, and in the wintertime it’s the indoor facilities that are generating the parking. It’s 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) not very often that the two are used simultaneously, and that’s why we feel very conservative about our parking count. MR. VOLLARO-What about the seasonal overlap? There’s going to be some seasonal overlap there. The roller skating facility may be operating and so may the golf course. In the October, November area, around Thanksgiving, and occasionally in the last couple of years the weather’s been pretty nice in that period of time. So you might be getting both in there. I don’t know what the percentage of the 12 months that would happen, but there will be some. MR. MILLER-Yes, I believe there is, but the peaks are, whereas in July the peak use for the outdoor facilities is going to be much higher than the peak use in say October. MR. VOLLARO-Obviously, we’re all sensitive to tourism in this area. It’s how we live primarily. MR. MILLER-The historical reference is how the waterslide has functioned in relationship to the indoor facilities, and what the owner’s finding is that if it’s a nice day, everybody wants to be outside. If it’s raining, they want to be inside. Not too many days in hot July are the folks inside roller skating. MR. VOLLARO-Is the roller skating rink air conditioned by any chance? KEITH FERRARO MR. FERRARO-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-It is? MR. MILLER-From their records, you know, it’s vacant in there in the summertime. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not making any money in the summer is what you’re telling me. MR. FERRARO-Not unless it’s raining, and at that point outside activities are not functioning. MR. MILLER-So I guess in summary, as Jon was saying, what we’re trying to do is put a nicer face to Route 9, hide the parking around the back of the building, and make connections, that’s another part of this, we’re making a couple of connections through to the adjacent lots, so that tractor trailers and deliveries and such can be accomplished without coming in and going out. That’s a good point. Currently there’s two curb cuts. We’re going to abandon one of those curb cuts and just have one curb cut. We have a letter of approval from DOT for that that has been given to Staff. They’re waiting for our final details, but the concept is what they’ve approved so far. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve noticed they said, in that letter they stated it was a preliminary approval, until they see the final drawings. MR. MILLER-Right, it’s conceptual. So if there’s any questions on that part of the project. MR. FERRARO-Can I make one other point, maybe to answer your question. We have the 25 feet we’re proposing to be back. There’s also another 17 feet in front of that that we don’t own before you get to Route 9. So we still have 42 feet for them to develop the road before they get to what we’re proposing. MR. VOLLARO-The setbacks are based on your property line, the 75 and the 50. MR. LAPPER-The setbacks certainly are, but in terms of if they were going to put a lane in, they already have enough room. MR. VOLLARO-There’s some mitigation there, yes. I agree. MR. FORD-Would you kindly trace, using that single curb cut, trace the potential route for an 18-wheeler entering the property, please. MR. MILLER-Okay. It would either be to enter on our property and come in this way, although we don’t have a need for an 18 wheeler on our property for deliveries. For the neighbor’s benefit they would come in and cross into the back property here. Now, you 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) have to understand that there’s another public road up here further. This neighbor on the corner, which is currently the motorcycle dealership, they can be accessed directly right off of that road or off of Route 9 for their deliveries. MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking about Yamaha now? MR. MILLER-Yes. It was a little bit different when it was the movie house, and there was a lot of sharing of parking going on. The movie house was in the evening mostly for its use and Skateland, The Fun Spot facility, was mostly a daytime use. So there was an overlap. Currently there’s not much parking generated for the motorcycle dealership. Their lot is usually empty. So we don’t foresee that need for sharing parking with them. MR. VOLLARO-Well, if they have an empty lot, it looks like to me basically what’s going on here is that you’re going to be looking for a reduction in parking from the requirements of the Code, which is think is one spot for every 200 square feet, and your total square footage here, and it’s listed right on that map under parking requirements, I think is 105,000 roughly, 105,000 square feet. So when you’re looking, if you take a look at the gross square footage of that property, we’d be looking at almost 526 spaces. So we have to take a look at that, and what you’re trying to do is get a lot less than that, and I would assume that if you ever have this crossover in November, that your roller skating is going to be used and your miniature golf is going to be played, you might want to have the ability to cross, have a cross easement with Yamaha to be able to park there. MR. LAPPER-And Keith has talked to them, and that’s certainly a possibility. We’d have to continue to talk with them. MR. VOLLARO-When you talked to them, were they yes or no? MR. LAPPER-The issue is whether they grant the permanent easement. I mean, they have no problem giving permission, but it’s a question of whether they’re going to encumber the real estate with something permanent. MRS. STEFFAN-I also think with parking, for the most part, if you’re looking at roller skating or miniature golf, lots of times it’s multiple people in a car. If you go by the mini golf that’s on Route 9 now, I mean, there are a lot of families that play. So one car is usually a car load of people. The same thing with skating. MR. LAPPER-Yes. It’s also, following up on that, it’s just funny. If you looked at like 500 spaces, which is just so over the top, the Code ought to be more specific, like if you look at the go kart track, how many square feet it takes up and how many people can actually use it at one time, you don’t need anywhere near that kind of per square foot number, and mini golf is really the same, but we’ll get into that in terms of actual counts from what Keith is using and what he anticipates he needs because we obviously can’t create a situation where there’s not enough parking on the site. MR. VOLLARO-You’re looking for a relief of 134 spaces, based on how you calculate it, as opposed to the gross area of the property. MR. LAPPER-Right, because we didn’t count the green space as part of the golf course. Because there’s nothing in the Code that really talks about the specific use. MR. MILLER-The Code is based on structure, interior space. So how you translate that into say a go kart track, which is concrete, and how many go karts there are spinning around on it, or a golf course, how many golfers there are, it’s difficult. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s the gross leasable area is what they’re really looking at. We’d have to check that, because I feel a good deal of the time the area of the go kart track itself could be considered parts of the leasable area. MR. LAPPER-That’s certainly true. It’s just a question of whether that’s a necessary standard in terms of the amount of cars you need to park, but absolutely that’s how the Code reads. MR. VOLLARO-There’s a lot of things about our Code I don’t like, Jon. MR. LAPPER-Yes, especially parking. MRS. BRUNO-Could you help me understand if I were to arrive with my two children, two friends each, and they’re running in circles and we park in the back parking lot and it’s 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) the summertime and we’re going to do the things in the front, how do we get through from the back to the front without ending up in front of cars? Is there, I’m trying to picture behind the go kart track now. I don’t think there’s a walkway, is there? MR. MILLER-There is a walkway along the building here. MRS. BRUNO-Along there. MR. MILLER-Yes, from the parking lot to this point, you are walking in the parking lot. From this point forward, you’re on the sidewalk. MRS. BRUNO-But there’s no, you know, kind of walkway through the southern area into the go kart area? MRS. STEFFAN-Behind the building access. MR. MILLER-It’s a parking lot. If you were to make the same parallel, it would be like you’re in the outer reaches of the Wal-Mart parking lot. MRS. BRUNO-Right. Actually I don’t mean that portion. I think I understand you there. I’m trying to remember. MR. FERRARO-You’re coming around this way. MRS. BRUNO-Right, exactly. MR. FERRARO-There is a grassy area there which you could walk. We have never put a sidewalk in, and that’s where a lot of our patrons go to the waterslide presently. There’s just another sidewalk. MRS. BRUNO-Is there? Okay. MR. MILLER-But the bigger picture is, this concourse here is the feeding area, if you will, to all the facilities. So you enter into this concourse and you either go into the golf or the go kart or into the facility, and that gives us some control, and it also is more directional to the patron. You don’t want them having a whole bunch of different choices. You have people wandering around in the woods. So you want to be very clear in, you know, how you want them to approach the building and the facility. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-I think that that’s it for us at this point. We know that there’s a lot of questions. Lighting, we have the C.T. Male comments that we have to respond to. We have to make some re-designs and a re-submission. MR. VOLLARO-I think somewhere in your requirements here I think that we talked about a 25 or 35 to 50 people per hour. I’m looking at the transition, now, into the parking areas. I think we ought to be taking a look at something like the ITE rates in there just to see, because from zero to 100 per hour, the trip, on an arterial they’re talking about 330 feet between curb cuts. How do we set up with that? MR. LAPPER-Well, we already have two curb cuts. MR. VOLLARO-So you’re going to take one out? MR. LAPPER-Yes. So we’re going to make that situation better. This is certainly a pre- existing, in terms of the lot subdivision, you know, before that provision of the Code existed. So there is certainly a driveway next door that’s closer than you would have in the Code now, but we think we’re going to make the situation better because it’ll be more controlled with one access point. MR. VOLLARO-It’s certainly an improvement. I think on a lighting plan I’d like to see a lighting plan which identifies the average, the max, the min, the max over min and the average over min. I mean, Mr. Jarrett is well familiar with that routine. He’s done it a couple of times now, so we can take a look at uniformity ratios, but looking at them from a couple of points of view. We won’t be able to do a uniformity ratio over the entire, it never works, but you can do it by sections, by zones. MR. LAPPER-That’s why we’ve got Tom. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) MR. VOLLARO-I understand. Well, he’s done it before. MR. LAPPER-That’s one of the reasons. MR. VOLLARO-Do you ever use Langan Engineering for that? Langan Engineering has done some of that work. I see that they did our Wal-Mart job. MR. JARRETT-We’ve talked with them, but we’ve done all of our own. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Good. MR. HILTON-It’s because the Board really liked that plan so much, it’s become the model. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we use the Wal-Mart lighting plan as the Rosetta stone. We go back to that. MR. JARRETT-When we find something you like, trust me, we stay with it. MR. FORD-It registers. MR. JARRETT-It registers. MR. SEGULJIC-If I’m on Route 9, what’s the height differential going to be between the golf course and Route 9? It’s like five feet or something? MR. MILLER-It does vary. I would say that the maximum would be five feet. The natural contour of the property doesn’t change very much. That’s certainly within the front part here. We’re only gaining a foot or so. Whatever height variation in the actual course will be developed as a feature of the course. MR. SEGULJIC-So from the road it’s going to go gradually up to the course and then it’s going to? MR. MILLER-Right. It will go up slightly in that landscaped area, like a berm up to this area of the actual course, but within the course, there’ll be ups and downs for the features of each hole. MR. SEGULJIC-And then along the course, you have a fence along there I assume? MR. MILLER-On the course itself, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. There’s going to be some type of fence at the edge of the course. MR. FERRARO-Yes. MR. SIPP-A child leaving the golf course headed for the road. MR. LAPPER-Yes, right. Yes, we can certainly talk about what type of an attractive fence. MR. SIPP-Is there a plan for a speaker system on this golf course, music? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. SIPP-Noise has been a problem with this Fun Spot for years, and we don’t need anymore noise. MR. VOLLARO-I want to just bank on my colleague’s comment. I guess it was Scooters, I believe it is, we’ve done some work there. They’ve converted over to electric cars, electric go karts. It seems to me that one of the biggest noise generators you’ve probably got on the road is the, even though you’ve put the best muffler on, I read all of that, and I know that’s probably what you did, but the electric car is a lot quieter, and I’m just wondering, are you amenable at all to changing over to electric carts on the go kart track? MR. FERRARO-We have looked at that, and at some point in time in the future it might be part of our future plans, but not in the immediate future, of course, because of cost. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) MR. VOLLARO-Because I know the neighbors are going to speak here tonight, and I thought I’d just preempt a little bit of their discussion on the fact that the noises from the go karts are probably objectionable. Now we don’t have a noise ordinance in Queensbury yet, but I think, and I’d defer to one of my colleagues here that’s on the PORC Committee. Are we doing anything about a thing called db’s and decibels? MRS. STEFFAN-We haven’t talked about that. We haven’t gotten to that part of the Code yet. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, because I think it’s important that we do have it. We don’t have one now. We realize that. MR. MILLER-To speak to the first part of that question, it’s our feeling that trading off this landscaped area and the water elements against a parking lot that’s there now, that we’re going to make the situation better. It’s going to be an absorbing type material versus an open parking lot which of course doesn’t absorb anything. MR. VOLLARO-Is that by design? Are you going to use a material that’s got a capability to mitigate that noise? MR. MILLER-Well, it’s going to be the plantings, you know, the trees in themselves and the landscaping is going to go a long way. MR. VOLLARO-They don’t do much, actually, when you think a little bit about it. What you need to do that, Tom will get into that a little bit with me, but, you know, sound is a funny thing. Based on a frequency range, the way they design things today, you can build stuff that’s an attenuating material, has the size of circles in it that are very much tuned to the frequency you’re going to be looking at, and those circles tend to absorb, and the sound goes into those things and becomes deadening. That’s a basic principal of sound absorption and design. So if you’re going to do anything in there with respect to pre-casting, concrete casting, or stuff that you’re going to be, you could very well look into that, and that might help considerably to reduce the noise. MR. MILLER-To deflect the sound. MR. VOLLARO-Absorb it. Fundamentally, it won’t deflect anything. It’ll take it and hold it until it dies out in those little circles. It begins to attenuate down into those circles and finally gets to zero. You can ask your engineer about it. Tom understands what I’m talking about. MR. MILLER-I think the other point to be made, though, is we’re going to do whatever we can to help the situation, but the use that we’re proposing is not a noisy use. MR. VOLLARO-No, it isn’t, but once we look at a site plan, this Board is commissioned to look at the entire site plan. We don’t have to just focus on what you’re doing. It’s the whole plan we’re looking at. So I’m just throwing some things out that I think that might be germane to this. MR. LAPPER-That makes some sense. If we could come up with some sound absorbing, that might help. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got some technology out there you can use, and if you’re going to be building, I see some of your pictures here that look to me like they might be good candidates for exactly that kind of thing. MR. SIPP-I often wondered why, on the edge of that track, in certain sections, there wasn’t some sound absorbing material put, not that you’re going to block the view from the road, but there are places in the dip and so forth where there could have been some type of structures put there. Are you presently hooked up to the sewer line on Route 9? MR. FERRARO-Not at this point in time, no. It’ll be part of this whole construction process. MR. SIPP-I see the easement that you have on the map runs right to the go kart track. Is that, you must be going elsewhere, then, dig that up. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) MR. FERRARO-It actually goes down the north side of the property, where our connection is, and would go down underneath the new proposed parking lot, around to the back of the building, where our connection would be. MR. SIPP-You’re going to have to move that sewer easement. MR. MILLER-So it would be down this side. MR. VOLLARO-Have you talked to Mike Shaw at all on the connection? Has there been any discussion with Mr. Shaw at all concerning this connection? MR. HILTON-Well, I can’t speak for the applicant, but my understanding is no. Certainly they are within the sewer district. They’re required to connect. It probably would be beneficial for the applicant to contact Mike. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I would get to the Wastewater Superintendent, Michael Shaw, and talk about that connection, because I think this is going to be dependent upon your doing that. MR. LAPPER-That’s definitely part of this project, and we’ll have Tom make that contact with Mike. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Good enough. MR. SIPP-Getting back to this fence along the edge here, my concern would be drivers on the west side of Route 9 coming up to this and gawking to see what’s going on on the golf course, and that, to me, is an unhealthy situation. Now, how high and what materials would be used for this fence? MR. LAPPER-Whatever you want is the answer. MR. SIPP-The Great Escape did a lot with that green fence. Surprisingly the pickets in that only being an inch square, but it did a lot for the improvement of the looks of that whole operation. I was very surprised. MR. LAPPER-We agree, and we’ll come back with some attractive fence design as part of the next proposal. MR. MILLER-One of the reasons that we’re kind of stumbling a little bit is that the actual course is being done by a course designer. So we’re kind of piecing a couple of things together here. MR. SIPP-Is it going to be based on this Wisconsin? MR. FERRARO-Actually the company is Cost of Wisconsin. That course there that you see pictures of is out of, near Boston. So it’s going to be along those lines of themeing. It won’t look exactly like that because they don’t ever design two courses the exact same way. It’s going to have the Adirondack feel, like what that does, with a lot of landscaping and some water features. MR. SIPP-Now, somebody asked about walking from the back of the roller skating facility to the front. This, whatever it’s called, club stand, is going to be where they pay and get their clubs and ball and go right to the first hole. So they would be able to cue up in this area. MR. MILLER-In that concourse area we talked about. MR. SIPP-It would be away from the parking and away from the in traffic. MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Well, let me ask the Board a question, one that’s been running around in my mind. I’m thinking a little bit about how much of an impact on that design, having them comply with the 75 foot setback. I’m uncomfortable with getting out of that 75 foot range. So I want to just poll the Board and get some ideas on how you feel about that. MR. SIPP-I’m going to agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that 50 feet is just too close, and we’ve got a situation to the south of them, two businesses over to the south which has just gotten out of hand with the number of motor vehicles sitting right out. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) MR. VOLLARO-Well, there they’re just violating the 75 foot, and that’s something that probably Bruce Frank has to look at, but here we would be giving basically an approval to deviate from some part of the Code that I think is very beneficial, particularly along Route 9. MR. SIPP-Yes, I thought of that, Mr. Chairman, but if you move the golf course around closer to the go kart track, everybody’s going to have an earful of go karts going by when they’re on Hole 7, 8, 9 and 10. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that was my whole idea of electric karts. MR. LAPPER-Well, it really means we’d have to have parking, probably, in front, and that’s what we’re trying to avoid, just in terms of softening the front, because it’s got to go somewhere, but certainly we’ll talk about it next time. MR. VOLLARO-How much of an impact, is somebody else going to design that course? Are you designing the course? MR. MILLER-No. Cost of Wisconsin will be designing it. MR. VOLLARO-Designing it. Why don’t we ask the designer of the course how much impact it would have if we complied with the 75 foot setback. MR. MILLER-Well, we have explored that. What it means is, we have parts to this project. We have parking. We have courses and facilities. It’s a shuffling of parts. The logical solution, if we can’t put a facility into that space, is to put the parking that we’re allowed into that space. So we reviewed a couple of other schemes. What we’re trying to do is find the balance of the green space, the parking count, and the facilities that we’re trying to do. MR. VOLLARO-You’re at the point where you’re getting two pounds in a one pound bag here. MR. MILLER-We’re close. MR. VOLLARO-I understand. I know what’s going on. I mean, we have another one that’s a little bit like that on our docket as well. MR. MILLER-But our obvious first solution is to put the parking up here, push the course into this space, so that we just have an access road going by. Okay. Shuffling the parts, again, would mean parking up here, pushing the course up into this space with just an access road going by, taking out the parking that’s in this location to fatten that part, and then having some parking in the back, but we don’t want to trigger going over the percentage for green space either. So by doing that, we end up taking some of this parking out to have this be more green to come up with our 30 percent. MR. VOLLARO-Having it more green way, way in the back doesn’t help the aesthetics too much, and I’m pretty much concerned about that 75 feet, and with the addition of a fence, like Mr. Sipp is talking about, I don’t think parking up front would be as objectionable if there’s a decent fence to mitigate that look of parking in the front. MR. LAPPER-If the Board wants to see the parking up front, I mean, that’s certainly an alternative. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m trying to maintain the 75 feet, because I think it’s important. MR. SEGULJIC-What’s the purpose of the 75 feet? MR. VOLLARO-The setback, I think it’s basically to keep things away from being, encroaching on the roadway. Because without that, you can come right up to it. You can come right up to the road, and that’s why the 75 feet. MR. SEGULJIC-If I’m understanding this correctly, that 75 foot line is actually 110 feet away from the road? To me, it would make the most sense, to me it makes the most sense, what they’re trying to achieve here is you have the landscaping along the road, and they’re still going to be, what, 45 feet away from the road. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) MR. VOLLARO-Twenty-five, not from the road, but they’ll be twenty-five feet away from their property line. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, then I guess clarify this for me. This double line appears to be edge of the road? MR. MILLER-Yes, that’s correct, and that dotted line is the property line. MR. SEGULJIC-The dotted line. Okay. So the edge of the course where the fence would be would be approximately 40, 45 feet away from the road? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and that area you would agree to have landscaped to soften the view? That, to me, is what you want to achieve. MR. MILLER-And the argument is that the actual course is landscaping also. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. It’s a busy road, and if you push everything away, you’re going to have people driving faster. You close it in and they’re going to slow down some. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s, the question is, aesthetics versus speed, and what I’m trying to do, we have a thing in the Code that says a 75 foot corridor setback, and it’s been in the Code for a long time, and I think there’s a good reason for it, and I want to make sure that if we have them, I’m not going to use the word violate the Code, but where we can give them an exception to the Code and approve it, I want to make sure that our exception is well founded. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and I can understand that if it was a building it would be more of a concern, but we’re talking about something that’s going to get relatively low to the ground. It’s going to have some features to it that I think would be appealing. I think it’s going to look nice. MR. MILLER-If I may, that really gets to the real point of this whole discussion, which what Code says is you can’t build a structure within that 75 feet, and that’s why they allow you to build a parking lot. They don’t deem a parking lot to be a structure, and our argument is that we’re not going to build any structures. We’re going to build something that’s very close to a parking lot, and hopefully greener and less of an impact than a parking lot. That’s the main premise of our design. MR. VOLLARO-It’s well founded. I don’t doubt that. I just wanted to explore with the Board how the Board feels about that. MRS. STEFFAN-Refresh my memory. Is there a sidewalk on this side of the road? MR. FERRARO-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So there’s a sidewalk and then there’s some grass between Route 9 and the sidewalk. MR. LAPPER-That was all part of the deal. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. MILLER-I was just looking at the drawing. What the drawing doesn’t reflect is where the existing curb cuts are, we’ll have to build a new sidewalk across that. MR. VOLLARO-Does that sidewalk connect to anything at all? Can people really walk or is that just a sidewalk in front of your? It’s a continuous? Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Like this time of year you see people walking on it, campers, because that campground is there. So campers would walk to this. MR. VOLLARO-As long as the sidewalk, you know how I like sidewalks that go somewhere. MRS. STEFFAN-Exactly, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. We have a public hearing. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) MR. SEGULJIC-Would you clarify for me. Within your existing 75 feet now, looking at these plans, most of these structures are low. You really just have the pond. MR. MILLER-The proposed golf course. (Lost words) front of the 75 feet would be basically wet. As you notice on that course print, the first one, it’s the ADA section of the course. You’re not going to have a lot of gradation change. So that part of the course is, by nature, flat. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and the highest structures there are going to be trees. MR. MILLER-Correct, or vegetations. The structures, the features would be behind the 75 foot line. MR. SEGULJIC-And it looks as if, I don’t know for sure, but your main feature is going to be the waterfall which is this cave hole, which is outside your 75 feet. MR. MILLER-Yes, that’s on purpose. MR. VOLLARO-I think we ought to get to opening the public hearing, because I see there are people that came in on this, and I’d like to hear some comments from the public on this. If anybody here would like to speak to this application as part of this public hearing, please raise your hand, or just come on up if you’d like. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED LINDA MC NULTY MRS. MC NULTY-Linda McNulty, Twicwood Lane. I believe that Staff received an e-mail from my husband with a letter addressing this project tonight. I haven’t heard that read. MR. VOLLARO-George, do you have the letter? MR. HILTON-Yes, and you just opened the public hearing. My intent was to let the public speak first. If you’d like me to read the letter, I can certainly do that now. MR. VOLLARO-Well, Mrs. McNulty’s brought the point up. Why don’t you read it now so that we know. MR. HILTON-Sure. Absolutely. As you said, a letter we received today from Chuck McNulty, and it reads, or actually an e-mail that we’ve received. It says, “This pertains to the application scheduled last on the Planning Board agenda for tonight, September 19, 2006. I had intended to attend the meeting to make the following comments until I realized this item is last on the agenda and that I must be to work at 5 AM tomorrow morning. I would appreciate these comments being made available to the Planning Board members as part of the public comment process. My wife and I live at 14 Twicwood Lane, approximately 800 feet “straight line” from The Fun Spot on the opposite side of Route 9. Regarding the proposal for a miniature golf course literally on the edge of Route 9 at The Fun Spot, my first thought is perhaps the applicants are trying to shoe-horn more onto their property than careful evaluation would suggest is prudent. My second thought is wondering whether this will involve a PA system for announcements or music. This has been a problem in the past from the go-cart track and miniature golf course not far to the north on Route 9. My third thought jumps to illumination. We already have area lighting shining in our windows from Suttons. We don’t need additional lights from a golf course at The Fun Spot. We also don’t need shouts, scream, or other noise from customers at this proposed attraction. What really worries me, however, is not the potential for these problems becoming reality, but how they will be handled when they, or another problem, does become reality. Our experience with the Fun Spot and its owners suggests problems will not be handled at all. The Fun Spot seems to believe that a commercial establishment should be free to behave however it wishes because it pays taxes. Generally speaking, the principals in our form of government say we have the right to do as we please as long as we do not infringe on other’s rights. Following that premise, a commercial enterprise should be free to operate as wishes, as long as it does not infringe on other’s rights. But, also on that premise, a commercial enterprise should not interfere with the peace and quiet of a long established neighboring residential area. Given that where commercial and residential areas meet, occasional conflict may be expected, there should be a willingness to listen to and constructively respond to issues when raised. For several years, The Fun Spot has played music with strong, ultra low frequency bass in the evening in their skating 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) rink. Currently they do this from about 8 pm until they close, which may be as late as midnight. Low frequency bass travels long distances through materials that effectively block higher frequency sound waves. The volume of this deep bass, because it is ultra low frequency, is immaterial. If it can be heard, or felt, inside a home in a residential neighborhood it is interfering with the rights of the home owner. My wife and I put up with this problem several nights a week. Especially near and on weekends, we are forced to try to fall asleep with our hearts trying to synchronize with the rhythm of that bass. At the distance we are from Fun Spot, we don’t hear the accompanying music, we just get the low frequency beat. You cannot phone The Fun Spot to complain; you only get prerecorded announcements. Admittedly, they wouldn’t be able to talk on the phone if they were to answer because of the volume of their music. If you visit their facility during the evening you have to shout to be heard over the extremely loud music they play. They do not respond to e-mail. When my wife, Linda, expressed those concerns at a Zoning Board of Appeals meeting in August, the immediate reaction was very hostile. My wife tried to discuss the problem with the owners after the meeting and the response was a demand they be allowed to purchase our home, not an attempt to understand the concern nor any attempt to find a reasonable resolution. The next reaction, the next day, was to increase the volume of the deep bass they are producing. Regarding the issue currently before you, the germane point is not the annoyance of the bass, but the hostile, nasty response of the Fun Spot to the problem. Because the Fun Spot has not been responsive to objections to their low frequency noise, I expect a similar reaction to any problem that might come from their golf course proposal currently before you. An establishment that refuses to face up to problems it creates should not be excused from complying with established rules in order to create yet another potentially problem- causing activity. Charles A. McNulty, 14 Twicwood Lane, Queensbury, NY 12804” MR. VOLLARO-Thank you, George. Mrs. McNulty. MRS. MC NULTY-Okay. The go kart noise, also, is offensive, and there will be crossover in time and use of the skating rink and the go karts and the golf course. I have been out in the yard when the go karts are running on Easter Sunday, and the noise is very offensive, especially on a holiday. The deep bass is a real problem. It’s like trying to cope with a throbbing toothache. Are we going to let it fester? Does it have to fester? It’s my understanding that concrete is being used in building this golf course rather than earth and boulders. I’d like some clarification on that. I don’t see that that would be as permeable for rain. How is that going to affect the drainage in the area for Route 9? I don’t see the need for using 75 feet in an overlay when they have additional property to the rear. At the Zoning Board meeting they were asked by one of the members if they would consider moving the go kart track, which is incredibly offensive, and we are beyond the 500 foot notification for public hearings and we would have been here for that, back in I believe it was ’97 or ’98, but at any rate, they were asked at that ZBA meeting if they would move the go kart track to the back and they said they couldn’t possibly do it, it would offend the campers. The residents get to be offended but the campers don’t? Now this golf course is not going to help buffer that noise, nor the noise from the roller skating rink. If they could design it so that it did, we would welcome it, but I really do feel that the Town of Queensbury is trying to stuff a size seven foot into a size five shoe. I don’t think it should be allowed, not as it’s proposed. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you very much. MRS. MC NULTY-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Would anybody else here that would like to speak to this application? MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, I do have two additional pieces of correspondence. MR. VOLLARO-Find. Do you want to read them, George. MR. HOMSY-Sure. The first letter I have is from Christopher Sabo, 12 Twicwood Lane, th dated September 15. It reads, “Dear Planning Board Members: I have reviewed the proposal put forth by Ferraro Entertainment that places the miniature golf course in the front of their Route 9 property. Although this plan would need a special use permit, I feel that it would be beneficial to the neighborhood by better buffering the go-kart track and creating a more aesthetically pleasing property. If a parking lot is located at the front of the property then I would recommend locating any required green space and large plantings directly in front of the go-kart track. I believe the golf course itself will provide buffering of the go-kart track and therefore I support the proposal with the course in the front of the property. I know that the loss of the buffer, directly behind my house and off Montray Road, in recent years has dramatically increased our neighborhood’s exposure 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) to Route 9. This buffer is continually being destroyed and has created conditions that are unfair to the residences and the businesses of the immediate area. On a daily basis the buffer is being reduced excavation and vehicle traffic. In fairness to the neighborhood and the neighboring businesses, I believe any further destruction of the buffer should be immediately stopped and the destroyed buffer restored. Thank you for considering my opinion. Sincerely, Christopher Sabo” Lastly, a letter we received this evening from A2000 Automotive Center. It states, “To the Members of the Queensbury Planning Board: We the Crist Family of A2000 Automotive Center would like to give our complete and full support to the Ferraro Family in their efforts to construct their new Miniature Golf Course. The Ferraro Family have always done a very professional job with any of their past projects. They not only put together projects that blend well with the surrounding businesses, but also projects that are beautifully landscaped. We are confident this project will be constructed in the same manner as their past projects and will be a great addition to the Queensbury business community. Very truly yours, Keith Crist”, and that’s all we have for letters. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you very much, George. Being that there’s nobody else to speak, we can bring the applicant back up. MR. LAPPER-Just a couple of very brief comments. In terms of what Chuck said in his letter, I mean, we’re certainly here to work with the Board. We understand that the noise is existing. It’s a noise generating use right now, and your suggestion that we might be able to do noise baffling in the golf course, I mean, we’ll have Tom look into that, and we’re certainly here to talk about all those things. The letter from the neighbor that was supportive, I just want to explain. When he was talking about the loss of the buffer, what he was referring to, I believe, is the use that’s behind the Smoky Bear Restaurant, that there’s an excavation business or something back there, that that’s where the buffer’s been removed. He wasn’t talking about this site. MR. VOLLARO-I thought he was talking about the 75 feet. MR. LAPPER-No. I believe that he’s talking about that site, if you look at that letter. MRS. BRUNO-That’s the Montray Road? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Somebody’s taken down all these trees on that property behind the restaurant, and I think that’s sort of denuded that area. If you go by, you can’t miss it. I think Keith wants to respond, also. MR. FERRARO-Basically, as far as I know, we do check our e-mail on a regular basis. I don’t know where she’s e-mailing these things to. I’ve never gotten an e-mail from her about it, and of course the next day after the Zoning Board meeting we did not turn up our music. It’s been the same as it has, and I have also been up there standing on the street next to their house. They have a field which is wooded next to their house, and, I mean, you can hear Route 9 traffic. You can hear the go karts. You can hear crickets. You can hear the Northway. You can hear all kinds of things, but as far as our regular basis, I know on Saturday evenings we do a dance and the music is a little bit louder on that night, but she tells me that the music is that loud all the time, and I know that’s not the fact, and most of the time whenever I’m up there, the only time I’ve ever heard any music is on a Saturday night. I’ve been up there in the afternoon. I’ve been up there on many evenings throughout the summer, and like I said, there was only one Saturday night I heard the music. I’m not saying, it just doesn’t happen every evening like she’s talking about. MR. VOLLARO-I think what she said was that the low frequency noise is the real, you know, you get this, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, that can get you after a while, and that real low frequency noise comes through really, really well, and that’s, I think, a big concern. If you could get rid of that real low frequency sound, and maybe think about putting in electric go karts, you’d be getting well, well, well toward the goal line here. MR. FERRARO-We haven’t looked at the electric go karts in the past, but in my mind, the haven’t perfected them to become reliable yet. It’s still something we are exploring for the future, but to this date, I don’t think they have the battery situation resolved where we could feel confident about purchasing those and them being reliable. MR. FORD-What is the comparative cost? What would it cost to change over to the electric? 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) MR. FERRARO-To change over to the electric, and the modifications and all that, it would be in the $150 to $200,000 range. Because it’s just not the cars. You have to physically build a structure to charge them, in between rides, and those types of things. The pit area might have to be larger. I haven’t really delved into all of that yet. I’m just waiting for them to perfect the mechanism of the go karts and the batteries to make it reliable to run for any length of time. MR. VOLLARO-It seems like a couple of the people who are running go karts along like Scooters who are putting a new track in, are going to be using electrics. MR. FERRARO-We’ll be watching them closely to see how they do with them. Believe me, I don’t want to buy gasoline either. That’s not cheap. MRS. BRUNO-Is there an announcement system with the go karts? I can’t remember. MR. FERRARO-Yes, there is. MRS. BRUNO-Is it something that could be reduced to only emergency situations? When is it used? MR. FERRARO-Basically we play the rules before every ride, and I’ve never had a complaint about that. It’s loud enough, you have speakers that are directed inside the building. It’s not something that’s broadcast out across the course. It’s just directed for them to be heard inside the building. MR. VOLLARO-I think for the transmission of sound, which is really what Mrs. McNulty is complaining about and what her husband, Chuck McNulty, was complaining about, is this low frequency beat. MR. FORD-You don’t just hear it, you feel it. MR. VOLLARO-You feel it. MR. FERRARO-I understand that, but you also feel it from kids driving down the road. You hear that same thump. You have cars in our parking lot. MR. VOLLARO-We can’t do anything about the kids on the road. We’re talking about your installation. MR. FORD-Right. That passes. The other is constant and remains. MR. FERRARO-That’s definitely something we’ll look into. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got to look into it. Do you feel that that adds considerably towards the attractiveness of what you’re doing there, your whole ambience? Does that beat do something for it, or is this because the young kids just like to hear it? MR. FERRARO-On Saturday nights, it is something that they like to have, and we can look at how we can help mitigate that type of impact for that. MR. VOLLARO-Now does that take place in the skating rink, is that where that’s? MR. FERRARO-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-What can you do to put some absorption material on the walls of the skating rink to absorb a good deal of that? Just wall blanket. MR. FERRARO-Right. MR. LAPPER-We understand what the Board’s saying and what the neighbor’s saying, and we’ll come back with some answers. MR. VOLLARO-Because I think you’ve got to be a good neighbor as well. I mean, I know you have to make a living, but I also know you’ve got to be a good neighbor. MR. FORD-May I go back, for a second, to this conversion to electric? Is there a potential for a partial conversion? If you’re thinking about moving in that direction and that seems to be on the scene right now, is that, does that have any potential, or are they not compatible? 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) MR. FERRARO-As far as I know, it’s either electric or gasoline. There’s not a combination of both. Does that answer your question? Maybe I don’t understand. MR. FORD-So you can’t operate both on the same track? MR. FERRARO-No. MR. FORD-Why? MR. FERRARO-Because in the pit, the pit is designed differently so that the cars can come in and charge. So it’s a differently designed kart, which would sit up probably a little bit higher than what we have now. MR. LAPPER-We can certainly look into noise buffering. MR. FERRARO-We’re definitely going to look into working on ways to noise buffer the building. I mean, to be honest, the last time we had a discussion with Mr. McNulty was a year ago. FLY 92 radio station came up and asked us if they could do a Karaoke contest in our front lawn, in the middle of the summer. This was late in the afternoon. It did get a little out of hand. The volume was up. We got them to turn it down and we got them to cut it short and I said, you know, I apologized for it. I didn’t really anticipate it being that loud, and it was done. I said we’d never do it again. We haven’t. That’s the last complaint I’ve had from them that I’ve received regarding any of this. No letters, no e- mails, no other personal visits. MR. VOLLARO-What is your e-mail address, by the way? MR. FERRARO-It’s mail@thefunspot.net. MR. VOLLARO-Mrs. McNulty, did you get that? MRS. MC NULTY-I’m sure that’s the one my husband used. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-I’m looking through the notes, not to quickly jump to another point, but before I forget, I’m looking through the notes, and it seemed like the ZBA had asked for specific numbers to be given to each of the different portions of your facility. You’ve spoken about the seasonality and all of that, but I think that they had actually asked you to try to assign some numbers, and I’m thinking that, you know, before we turn this back to the ZBA, I’d really like to make sure that you guys have done that, or perhaps if I just read into this and they didn’t actually ask for that, that we have some more concrete numbers to see if massaging them around will be enough. MR. LAPPER-For parking? MRS. BRUNO-For parking and what I’m thinking mostly of is the safety issue, and I know that you’ve already mentioned, you know, coming down the sidewalk and all of that. I just, I know that buses go there in the summertime. You’ve got kids from the Lake George Youth Commission coming who, in the past, have gone to both the Waterslide World and the roller skating rink where things do get split. If you have those numbers, if you’ve been counting them through the years, perhaps a spreadsheet would be. MR. LAPPER-We will supply that. MRS. BRUNO-All right, thank you. MR. VOLLARO-That’s a good point, Tanya. I hadn’t thought of that, but that makes some sense. I guess it was contained in the ZBA. MRS. BRUNO-It either was or somehow I read that into something that someone said. I’m not recalling and I can’t find it right now, but. MR. LAPPER-Either way, it’s now in the Planning Board minutes. So, you’ve got it. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. MR. SIPP-Is there plans for a different sign at the entrance, different sign? 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) MR. FERRARO-No. The sign will remain the same. It will be located approximately 35 or 40 feet directly to the north. MR. SIPP-Just down the road, the campgrounds just put up a new monument type sign which is much better looking than I’d have to say yours is. Yours is quite old, and I would like to see us get away from these pole signs or high signs and get more to the monument type sign. That’s very attractive that campground sign. MR. VOLLARO-That’s a good point. MR. FERRARO-That’s something we can look into. MR. FORD-I’d like to reiterate the potential for impacting noise directed toward Route 9 and beyond. You have an excellent opportunity, I believe, with the design of the miniature golf course to mitigate that, to interrupt it, to be a buffer. So I hope the next time you come back that that will be taken into consideration and you’ll have something to show us that will address that, please. MR. LAPPER-We will. MR. FERRARO-Okay. We will. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. SIPP-Five or more years ago Chazen did a whole decibel readings at different times of the day in different traffic conditions and so forth, taking readings on one side of Route 9 and the other, and that was for the, at that time, the proposed noise ordinance which never passed the Town Board. So those figures might be available and with possibilities now of know what would be sound absorbing or maybe interpreting these figures with some differences in the proposed golf course, what this could do for it. MR. MILLER-We have seen that report. Actually some of the readings taken in the adjacent areas are very favorable to our case. I guess counterargument would be, you know, when they were taken, what the average is versus what the high is. MR. SIPP-Right. MR. LAPPER-We’ll be addressing noise buffering, absolutely. MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, if I may, just before you break, if you do break to draft a resolution, I just want to touch on a couple of my comments, as far as lighting and landscaping. I found the plans, as I mentioned, I don’t want to say difficult to read, but just maybe not complete. You touched on the lighting components. I’m assuming that you’re going to mention that in your resolution, but as far as the landscaping, I really think it would be beneficial if we had all the landscaping on one plan, so that we can review that as a whole and just see how it’s going to, how it’s proposed to be developed as a whole on the site, instead of different sheets. So that’s my concern, if you’d like to consider that in your motion. MR. LAPPER-I want to just explain, certainly he’s right, and it’s because we have these two designers doing the work, because the golf course specialist, but we’ll find a way to make it all so it’s easy to understand. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think what George’s recommendation is a simple one. Put all your landscaping on one sheet so that we can see what it looks like. MRS. BRUNO-Is it a CAD format? MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s what we’ll have to figure out. We’ll fix that. MR. VOLLARO-I heard CAD over here. CAD is the end all for design these days. Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll give it a try. There’s no resolution in our packages. You’re going to leave the public hearing open? MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to leave the public hearing open, yes, on this one. I anticipate there’ll be more comments, but I was wondering, if this is going to be a tabling motion, to when? 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) stth MRS. STEFFAN-November 21 agenda with an October 16 submission deadline. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-And that’s the next available. MR. LAPPER-I didn’t hear the date, but we’re going to have to make a re-submission. st MRS. STEFFAN-Right, which I put it up for, on the November agenda, there’s a 21 th meeting and a 28 meeting, and the submission deadline, or the application deadline is 10/16. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. FORD-Is that doable? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. All right. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Go ahead. MOTION TO TABLE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 35-2006 FERRARO ENTERTAINMENT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1035 State Route 9, Queensbury, NY 12804. Whereas, the applicant proposes construction of a 20,856 square foot miniature golf course and associated site work at the Fun Spot. Expansions of Special Use permits require review by the Planning Board. The Planning Board has accepted Lead Agency Status for the purposes of SEQRA review. Now, Therefore Be It Resolved, that we find that this application needs to be tabled to st the November 21 Planning Board meeting, the first Planning Board meeting in th November, with an October 16 application deadline. It is subject to the following conditions. 1. Please refer to the September 13, 2006 Staff Notes for guidance; more specifically what we’re looking for is data on traffic and trip generation patterns. 2. Detailed lighting plan to conform with Queensbury Zoning requirements. 3. Address 35 items in C.T. Male’s letter of September 12, 2006. 4. Data on municipal sewer connection. 5. Updated parking projections with revised SEQRA form. 6. Route 9 pedestrian access via sidewalks. 7. We’re looking for identified noise levels on site for each entertainment venue. 8. We’re looking for a separate landscaping plan to meet Queensbury Zoning requirements. 9. We’re looking for proposed tree clearing at the western portion of the site. 10. We’re looking for data on utilization of each entertainment venue on site by the month. 11. Documentation regarding contact and outcomes with the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation on potential impacts of the proposed action. 12. We’re looking for documentation regarding whether or not the site contains any threatened or endangered species. 13. Details on the fencing proposed on Route 9. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) 14. Details on the sound absorption material that will be contained in the project. th Duly adopted this 19 day of September, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Bruno, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. LAPPER-Thank you. We’ll come back with a lot more stuff. MR. VOLLARO-For Planning Board members only, when the public leaves, I’ve got a couple of things I want to talk about. A couple of things I want to just discuss with the Board before we adjourn tonight. We have a letter from the Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council which I think most of you have gotten, and it’s from Aaron Frankenfeld, and it’s addressed to me, and they’re looking for about an hour from us. They want to discuss what their plans are for Quaker Road, Upper Glen Street Glens Falls, Round Pond Road, Dix Avenue from Quaker Road to the eastern Town line, and they just want to discuss a little bit of what they plan to do and what they’re talking about. So I was wondering what date we’d like to, we talked to them today. Stu Baker talked to them today and they said that they really couldn’t, I was going to have them come tonight because I suspected we were going to be early, and it’s only 9:30. Unusual for us, and I was wondering if you think we ought to make a special meeting for this or tack them on to one of our regular meetings, for one hour. MR. SEGULJIC-Can’t we start at six o’clock one night? MR. VOLLARO-Well, we could ask them that question, and that might not be bad, an hour early, let them come on and say what they want to say and then we’ll hear. MR. SEGULJIC-Because we also have the LGA. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, Kathy Bozony wants to come in and talk. MR. SEGULJIC-One thing we could do is give them each a half hour. MR. VOLLARO-Well, they asked for, specifically during the meeting, estimated time, an hour. Our consultants will provide a presentation followed by questions and comments. I’m particularly interested in, for a lot of reasons, I’m particularly interested in Quaker Road. MR. FORD-And we’ve got another, the LGA wants to as well? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. FORD-What about giving them each an hour at a special meeting? MRS. STEFFAN-A workshop. MR. VOLLARO-I think a workshop would be much better, because we can then be free to ask some questions about what they’re talking about. MRS. BRUNO-We’re not under a time constraint and we’re not overloaded with information to begin with. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right. So I think the consensus of opinion would be go to a special meeting, and then we’ll look at that. MR. HILTON-Okay. You don’t have a date in mind right now? MR. VOLLARO-No, we don’t. I think I want to take a look at the board and see what the blackboard does. That’s kind of the dictating item. That’s our Rosetta stone. We’ve got to go back to that. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re going to look at the board, I guess you’re going tomorrow? 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) MR. VOLLARO-I have to be there tomorrow for, we do a debriefing on this meeting in the morning and then I’ve got to go through October’s stuff for completion review, see that everything’s there, find out which one. MR. SEGULJIC-So I guess after tomorrow you’ll have a date in mind? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And then you’ll float that date around. MR. VOLLARO-I will. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I can float it around on e-mail to everybody. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Or, George, you could put out an e-mail. MR. HILTON-Sure. MR. VOLLARO-Once we determine tomorrow what the date is. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I just wanted everybody to know a couple of things that are going on, to keep you up to speed. I wanted to do it all at one time. There was a fairly large meeting at Town Hall on Wednesday of last week, attended by George Hilton. It was also attended by Stu Baker, C.T. Male by Jim Edwards, myself, Tom Ford. Two Town Board members were there, Roger Boor and Richard Sanford. So we had a meeting that lasted about two and a half hours, and it went over a good deal of the information that we’ve got on The Golden Corral, and following that up, I had a meeting yesterday with George Hilton and Stu Baker, to go over all of the information that I’ve catalogued and made in the last couple of weeks, so that they have a pretty good idea of all the information that I’ve collected. So, I just wanted you to know that that’s going on, and that, you know, we’re working diligently on trying to take a good hard look at The Golden Corral, and this will be coming up again for us on Tuesday, a week from tonight. So that’s about it. Just so you know we’ve been busy. MRS. STEFFAN-What are our agenda items? I mean, what is the forecast looking like? What’s the backup? MR. VOLLARO-The board’s still pretty loaded. We’re into December I believe on the board right now. MR. HILTON-At the very least November. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. HILTON-I can’t say for sure, but it’s consistent. I mean, there are still people waiting. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m just wondering if we shouldn’t add a couple of meetings to get rid of the, you know, I know that we had talked about reducing our agenda items, but I also would like to wrap some things up. I mean, we’re coming down to the end of the year, and it would be nice to wrap some of these projects up, and, you know, as soon as we can, and so I’m just thinking if we added some meetings and got rid of some of the backlog, maybe we could start the year. MR. VOLLARO-Well, when I go down to that board, and I sit in front of that blackboard, which is a big long blackboard that’s got all this stuff on it that Craig Brown keeps very detailed, and my comments have always been at those meetings, there is no need, that board doesn’t dictate a high speed track. We try to keep everybody on the same playing field and give everybody a fair and reasonable review, and I don’t know, having another meeting, I’m just not sure how this Board, we’re pretty chock a block now, and a couple of extra meetings in there, I don’t have a problem with it, but. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) MRS. STEFFAN-I mean, I know that I’ve never been a fan of extra meetings, and I have Planning/Ordinance Review meetings to go to, but, you know, my concern is that we’re holding some folks up and also I just, you know, we’re going to have to change. MR. VOLLARO-I haven’t heard the hue and cry come from the general public and why isn’t my application being heard earlier. They seem to understand that we’ve got a. MRS. STEFFAN-Some of the other issues, Bob, is that you’re not going to be here after the end of the year. MR. VOLLARO-So what’s that got to do with anything? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it has to do with. MR. FORD-Don’t you want to leave here with a clean slate? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it also has to do with we’re short people. We have no alternates, and for some reason, the Town Board is not interviewing the alternates. I have a person who applied and they’re application is in the abyss. She has not heard, and so. MR. VOLLARO-My applicant was sitting right here tonight. MRS. STEFFAN-So I think, Number One, I think that that’s just plain rude, but from another point of view, we are unsupported, the Planning Board is unsupported, and so very selfishly, I’d love to get some of those applications done while you’re still with us, because we have no idea what’s going to happen at the beginning of the year, if the Town Board continues not to address the issue of alternates, we’d be down another member. MR. SEGULJIC-Can we pass a resolution or something saying, Board, get on the stick? MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’ve got a couple of resolutions on, one that you wrote an e-mail to Roger Boor on and he wrote back to you and said we’re going to take care of that, and that had to do with anything in the CEA gets a review by the Planning Board before a building permit is issued. Now I think Roger is on top of that, and will be, but it’s like everything else, you know. MR. SEGULJIC-We need alternates. MRS. BRUNO-I think we also have to find out about how the Zoning Administrator, how Bruce can get more, the Code Enforcement Officer, I meant Bruce, I’m still unclear as to why more people are not fined and I was really hoping we would be able to get into that the night of the joint committee, but I’m still wondering, because I just heard it from the general public from the orthodontist as I was coming over here, we’ve always wondered why, you know, after everything goes through, and such and such happens, why the person never gets in trouble, and I’m kind of curious, you know, we put all this time in, and I’m sure there’s an answer. I just don’t know it. MR. HILTON-And honestly I guess I can’t give you a complete answer. I know that in some cases with enforcement our Staff will make visits, will talk to people. Sometimes the resolution to a issue is to have someone come in and appear before this Board for a modification for approval. Sometimes it may result in another Board reviewing, or re- reviewing a project. Sometimes they may come into compliance. Sometimes they may, there are just many things that can or do happen, once someone is let’s say cited or a violation is brought to our Staff’s attention. I guess I don’t know. It’s ultimately possible that perhaps someone comes into compliance and it’s just not apparent to other people. I guess, ultimately, like I said, I can’t answer the question. I know it’s a very complicated process that can take, there are many ways to either come into compliance or to settle an issue once it’s been raised, and ultimately I think Bruce would probably be the person to speak to, as far as that concern. MR. VOLLARO-A lot of times we, as a Town, are in court, though, I know that, in front of Judge Kroggman or Judge Aulisi on an issue that either Bruce has brought up or has come out of the Building and Codes Department. MRS. BRUNO-So it’s that someone’s suing us or the Town. It’s that we are going after a violation? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) MRS. BRUNO-So it is actually happening more than? MR. VOLLARO-It happens a lot, although I, you know, a prime example is Mr. Batease. I keep thinking about how many times we, as a Planning Board, have had him in front of us with obvious violations, and we go back year after year. It used to be a joke after a while. We’d go down there and, let’s go in and see what Batease is doing and same old story, and he comes out, you know, just does what he wants to do. MR. HILTON-And I can’t speak to Mr. Batease in particular, but generically, if someone, if an item winds up in court, while that’s being decided, my understanding is that our enforcement is kind of in limbo or is, we’re waiting until a resolution. So that may be something as well. Someone may not see a resolution or some kind of enforcement because something is still being decided in a court or. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think one of the prime examples of that would be what’s going on in French Mountain right now. There’s a Stop Work Order on it. Our guys have gone up there. The thing is absolutely stone still until the courts decide who owns what. Eventually they’re going to be coming before us, but the courts are still having a difficult time trying to find out who belongs to what on that property, before we get into the act. MR. SEGULJIC-While we’re on that vein, anything with Hoffman? MR. VOLLARO-Hoffman, I don’t know what’s going on with Hoffman. As you all know, I stay pretty close to the ZBA Chairman on most of the stuff that’s going on. Hoffman is still in litigation. They haven’t arrived at anything yet. Cathi Radner, who’s the attorney that’s handling that for the Town, has asked me what I thought about if they came to some sort of a handshake between Mrs. Hoffman and the Town, would we then withdraw our objections to the land bridge, and I said, no, we wouldn’t withdraw our objections because we would like to see that as a separate issue. We are named in the Article 78. We, as a Board, are being sued by the Hoffmans, as well as the ZBA, and we haven’t had our turn yet, and we may still get that in the courts, because I said to her, an agreement by the ZBA to do this or that doesn’t necessarily mean that we’re going to be able to say, well, okay, now the land bridge is all right. What the handshake is supposed to be about is they’ve got, against our 14 foot height of the railing, they’re up at 17 and a half, and the ZBA is saying, in their position right now is take the railing down, totally, making the upper deck unusable. She hasn’t agreed with that. So that’s still in contention. George, am I close on this? MR. HILTON-And my limited understanding is, I mean, that’s kind of what I recall. I don’t know the details. I haven’t been especially involved with that, but that’s my recollection. MR. VOLLARO-I know you haven’t, but that’s kind of where we are, and she hasn’t agreed to that yet, and so this litigation is still ongoing. MR. HILTON-Yes, definitely. MR. VOLLARO-So, that’s your answer to Hoffman. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. The saga continues. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-How do folks feel about any extra meetings if it’s necessary? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’ll go along with an extra meeting, but we’d have to take a look at the board and see how that. MRS. BRUNO-I could swing a few extras. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m really just afraid of the backlog, and if we don’t get alternates, and if we lose Bob at the end of the year, you know, we’re going to be in a jam. MRS. BRUNO-That’s an excellent point. MR. HILTON-That’s fine. I guess the Board has kind of indicated that perhaps a special workshop to discuss the Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council and the LGA, to at least have them present to you. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/19/06) MR. VOLLARO-And that would be a special meeting. MR. HILTON-Now would the idea be to put items on that as well at that meeting? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think so. That’s a workshop. You don’t want to jam, the two kind of don’t fit. MR. HILTON-That’s fine, but assuming that that meeting takes place in October, I guess you would wind up with four meetings in October, if that’s your intent, and that’s fine. I just want to be clear. MR. VOLLARO-Well, what I would like to do is take a look at the board and see what we st can do out to December. Your feeling is December 31 is your drop dead date, right? MRS. STEFFAN-Because that’s your drop dead date, Bob. MRS. BRUNO-The last Tuesday in October is actually Halloween. I don’t know if that becomes like a legal holiday, but I know I won’t be around. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we could spread these out between now and December. Let’s take a look at the board and see what we can come up with, but I would like to say this about special meetings. I’d like to limit those to not seven, but maybe four. MR. FORD-I’d like to stay out of December if we could, for the extra meeting. MR. SEGULJIC-And I think after tomorrow you’ll have a much better idea of what’s going on. So next Tuesday night we can discuss this more. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ll know what the load looks like for October. MR. SEGULJIC-I think our goal would be to pick off some of the simpler things. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m willing to do more so that we end up at a better place at the end of the year, and we don’t have jammed up meetings at the end of December either. MR. VOLLARO-Let’s look at what the backlog looks like and see if we can chew up some of it, but I can tell you we won’t chew it all up. MR. FORD-Look at the board tomorrow with that in mind. MR. VOLLARO-You would rather not do two meetings in December because there’s holidays there. I’ve got the same problem. MRS. STEFFAN-Or more than two. MR. FORD-More than two. We’ll do our two, but that’s it. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but that’s it. MR. SEGULJIC-Also, while we’re on it, Seaboyer. th MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to be making a motion to deny Seaboyer on the 26 because they got, their application for their septic system was turned down. MR. SEGULJIC-So why do we have to deny them? We gave them approval. MR. VOLLARO-And Schmulbach has got the same problem. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Vollaro, Chairman 46