Loading...
2006-10-17 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 17, 2006 INDEX Site Plan No. 38-2006 Patricia E. Klinck 1. Tax Map No. 239.19-1-4 Site Plan No. 4-2006 David R. Kelly, M.D. Sally N. Kelly 4. Tax Map No. 239.15-1-3 Site Plan No. 18-2006 Michael Stevens 22. Tax Map No. 290.10-1-29 Subdivision No. 13-2006 Thomas Brennan 33. Tax Map No. 315.-1-12.1, 12.2 Site Plan No. 1-2006 1093 Group, LLC 37. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-55 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 10/17/06) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 17, 2006 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT VOLLARO, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY THOMAS FORD TANYA BRUNO DONALD SIPP THOMAS SEGULJIC MEMBERS ABSENT CHRIS HUNSINGER GIS SPECIALIST-GEORGE HILTON LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI SITE PLAN NO. 38-2006 SEQR TYPE II PATRICIA E. KLINCK OWNER(S): SAME ZONING WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL THREE ACRE LOCATION 28 JOSHUA ROCK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES REPLACEMENT OF A 520 SQ. FT. BOATHOUSE DESTROYED BY MARCH 2006 WIND AND ICE STORM. BOATHOUSES IN WR-3A ZONES REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE BP 2006-492 WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/11/06 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.84 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.19- 1-4 SECTION 179-4-020 PATRICIA KLINCK, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-For Staff, this is an Expedited Review. MS. KLINCK-My name is Patricia Klinck, and I’m here to request approval of a new boathouse to replace a boathouse that was damaged heavily and blown over by the big thst storm last February, end of February, beginning of March. It was like the 29 or the 1 of March. The wind and the ice blew our boathouse over, and we would like to replace it with an almost identical boathouse. Size wise it is just slightly smaller, because we’re moving it in a foot so we can get around the end. It’s going to be on the exact same footprint as the old boathouse, which has been there since 1960. The only differences are the fact that it’s going to have a slightly peaked roof instead of a deck for insurance and liability purposes, and that the glass windows will be replaced with screens. Other st than that, it will look almost identical to what was there prior to March 1. The docks are exactly the same. Everything else is the same. The only questions you have on Staff review, one was the height of the boathouse, and it will be 12 feet seven inches because there is a seven inch differential between the high watermark and the top of the dock and the boathouse with the slightly peaked roof is 12 feet high. MR. VOLLARO-Right. The boathouse itself from the dock up is 10’ 8”. MS. KLINCK-No, it’s 12. According to the plans, the 10’ 8” I think came from the old survey map that was done on the old boathouse without the peaked roof. If you look at the plans from the architect, it’s 12. It’s eight feet of boathouse with a very slight peak so that the water and snow will run off. MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking at a drawing by Robert Foote. MS. KLINCK-Yes, that’s what I have here and he has, on this drawing, which was the one that was received by the Town of Queensbury, there’s, if you look from the bottom to the top, maybe I’m reading it wrong, but it looks like it’s eight feet high with four feet, and it’s, oh, it’s twelve, then it is ten, eight. I’m sorry. MR. VOLLARO-It’s 10’ 8”. From the top of the dock itself to the peak of the roof is 10’ 8”. MS. KLINCK-Ten, eight, yes. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. VOLLARO-Now you’ve got a seven, roughly a seven inch up from the water mark. MS. KLINCK-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-So really it’s 11’ 3” from the mean high water. That’s the real number. MS. KLINCK-Yes, right. MR. VOLLARO-Other than that, I had no comments. Would the rest of the Board like to comment on this? MR. SEGULJIC-Just a clarification. In the Codes it says the maximum surface area of any dock or wharf shall be 700 square feet. What exactly is 700 square feet? MR. VOLLARO-It’s the dock itself. MR. HILTON-Yes, it’s the dock itself. MR. SEGULJIC-So the roof doesn’t count. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. HILTON-The roof is limited to the height, the 14 feet from the mean high water. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So it’s the dock itself, okay. MR. VOLLARO-It’s the square footage of the dock itself. MR. SEGULJIC-The other question I have is you have, what, three slips, I believe? MS. KLINCK-No. Basically, when I asked the Lake George Park Commission what they considered it, there is one slip for a boat, but there is an “L” dock, which could be, I suppose by somebody used for a slip. It’s not a slip. It could be I guess used, but there’s not three. MR. SEGULJIC-So you just dock one boat there? MS. KLINCK-One boat. MR. SEGULJIC-You don’t rent out any of the slips? MS. KLINCK-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MS. KLINCK-Our insurance company won’t let us. No, we rent no space and we have a wooden boat which is why we need, this is, in essence, what I consider a boat garage, very utilitarian, but to protect the wooden boat. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set. MR. VOLLARO-Anybody else with comments? MRS. STEFFAN-What about the note in the Staff notes about requiring the Lake George Park Commission permit? MS. KLINCK-We have received a letter from the Lake George Park Commission already saying, quote, we are prepared to issue your permit pending approval by the Town. We’ve got to get through their process. MR. VOLLARO-They do have an application for the permit. They just don’t have it yet, and I can see where they would take a while to do that. MS. KLINCK-They’re finished, according to this. I mean, the public comment for your application has ended. The Commission has completed its review, and they’re waiting on you, basically. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Do we have a copy of that letter? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. HILTON-Well, no, and I made my comment just so we could make our records complete. Prior to the Zoning Administrator signing off, if we could have a copy of that. MS. KLINCK-They said they cc’d you. MR. HILTON-Did they? Well, I, personally, haven’t seen it, but perhaps it is. MS. KLINCK-Okay. That’s why I didn’t bring copies, because they said. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not in our package. MS. KLINCK-Okay, because they said they cc’d you. Otherwise I would have brought copies. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and this is by Molly Gallagher? MS. KLINCK-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HILTON-And that’s just a letter that says that they’re prepared to sign off, correct? MS. KLINCK-They said, pending approval from the Town. MR. HILTON-Yes, and I guess just as a formality, my thought was if we could have a copy of their permit in our files, at some point prior to that. MS. KLINCK-Yes, you will have that. I mean, but they won’t do it until you do it. I don’t want to get, it’s like a Catch-22 here. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-With the Lake George Park Commission it can be a Catch-22. MS. KLINCK-So when I get your approval I have to send it to them, and then when I get their approval, I should send it to you. MR. HILTON-And then you can send it back to us, sure. MS. KLINCK-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Some day we’ll try to get out of this dock business and let the Lake George Park Commission do its job on its own. This becomes very tenacious, and it’s not a good procedure. I wouldn’t want to be sitting in your chair and trying to do what you’re doing right now. MR. VOLLARO-Gretchen, would you like to make a motion on that? Hold on a second. There is a public hearing on this tonight, I believe. Does anybody here want to speak to this application? I don’t think so. I don’t see anybody here wanting to make a public comment. So I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-And you can make a motion. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 38-2006 PATRICIA E. KLINCK, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: 1. WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes replacement of a 420 sq. ft. boathouse destroyed by March 2006 wind and ice storm. Boathouses in WR-3A zones require Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) 2. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and was held on 10/17/06, and 3. WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. WHEREAS, pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. Paragraph removed – not applicable. 6. WHEREAS, final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt. 7. WHEREAS, the applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy and, if applicable, to be combined with a letter of credit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 38-2006 PATRICIA E. KLINCK, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraphs One, Two, and Three are fine. Paragraph Four, complies. Paragraph Five doesn’t apply because this is a Type II SEQRA. Paragraph Six and Seven are appropriate. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that we find the following application is approved and is subject to the condition: 1. That a copy of the Lake George Park Commission permit be furnished to the Zoning Administrator before final signoff. th Duly adopted this 17 day of October, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ford MR. VOLLARO-You’re all set. MS. KLINCK-Okay. I just have one more question. I will get something from you that I can send to the Park Commission? MR. HILTON-Yes. You will get a copy of our resolution saying you’ve been approved and instructions on how to follow up, yes. MRS. KLINCK-Okay, and I can send this to them, and then when I get their approval. MR. HILTON-Send that back to us. MRS. KLINCK-And then I will get the permit. Thank you. Thank you very much. MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck. MR. VOLLARO-You’re welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 4-2006 SEQR TYPE II DAVID R. KELLY, MD SALLY N. KELLY AGENT(S) JONATHAN LAPPER OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL THREE ACRE LOCATION 8 ROCKY SHORE DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING HOUSE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,920 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. HARD SURFACING/FILLING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE AV 8-06, SP 9-03, AV 8-03, SP 57-02 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/8/06 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.89 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-3 SECTION 179-4-030 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) JON LAPPER & CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-There will be a public hearing this evening. Before we begin, I’d like to just ask the Board a question and just, in terms of SEQRA, has anybody looked at NYCRR 617, in terms of the SEQRA itself, whether the SEQRA should be a Type I or a Type II, Type II or Unlisted? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, we go back and forth with this. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I saw that it was a Type II and so I went with that. I know we’ve had issues where we’ve talked about because it’s in a Critical Environmental Area that we should look at that again, but I didn’t spend any time on it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We’ll stay with this. Has PORC looked at this at all, at this particular section? Nothing? Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s so convoluted what we’ve done at this point. MR. VOLLARO-All right. Sorry for our interruption. MR. LAPPER-Not at all. Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with the applicant, Dr. Kelly, and Curt Dybas, the architect. I guess very briefly, if we could just explain where we are, David and Sally Kelly have an existing home, and we’ve been to the Zoning Board to apply for and have been granted some variances. In general what’s proposed here is to build a new house to replace that camp that’s there, to move it back farther from the lake to build a conforming septic system where the septic will be pumped up the hill. This is obviously a very tricky lot because of the steep grade. I’m sure that you were there, and, you know, not something that you want to do in the middle of winter, but by this design. MR. VOLLARO-Either that or with the leaves on the road. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-That’s kind of interesting, too. MR. LAPPER-By pumping the septic up to the top of the hill, it gets it away from the lake, and by infiltrating the stormwater, that’s a big improvement over what’s there now. So certainly the Kellys are careful caretakers of the site and they view this as an environmentally friendly and positive re-development, and the Zoning Board was supportive as well. We’ve read the Staff comments and the C.T. Male comments. I guess just to start with it would be good to have Curt walk you through the site plan. MRS. BRUNO-Before we go on any further, Mr. Lapper, I’m not sure how we’re going to handle this since we are only five tonight, but I need to request that I be recused from any deliberations this evening. I think we might still be able to vote on this. MR. VOLLARO-We still have a quorum with four. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Would you like to walk them through the site plan? MR. DYBAS-Why not. Basically we start off with, as you know from visiting the site, very steep. We have a huge rock outcropping, and we’ve investigated various locations to put the septic, and we’ve, in your package you should have a design, signed and sealed septic design, which has not been applied for a permit because we don’t know if we’re going to obviously get through this stage. The engineer in charge found a place up on top of the knoll to locate the septic system which is approximately 200 feet from the lake. He did a deep pit back in August of ’04 and designed a system and it is an Eljen system. The driveway that runs down through the property and connects also to the neighbor will be left intact, it is a hard surface. All that driveway from the top of the hill downward will be handled. It’s an existing driveway but we’re going to put it through, into a stormwater system. The house itself is basically in the same north/south position as the existing house. It’s pushed back 10 feet, and what we have done is created a parking turnaround area up in back of it, which there is one there now, and trying to work the grading into the site with a minimum amount of disruption has been the aim of the project. We’ve handled the stormwater runoff from the roof through two infiltrators which we’re going to place down in the front, so everything is drained by gravity. As Jon had mentioned, there is full on-site remediation of stormwater and a new septic system which complies. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. LAPPER-I’d just like to point out, and I’m sure you’ve seen it in the C.T. Male letter. They end by saying the design of the stormwater system is above and beyond the requirements of Code Section 147 because it treats all impervious areas, not just the increase in impervious areas, and certainly that was the intent to do this right. The only, C.T. Male made a couple of detailed comments, and the only thing that we haven’t been able to provide is the depth to groundwater and bedrock in the area where the infiltrators are going to be because Curt simply couldn’t get a piece of machinery around the house, just because of the existing house and the lake, you’d have to come in from the lake, but when we discussed it, there is six feet between the lake level and the ground level at that area. So there’s certainly six feet where you need to have two feet between the groundwater and the system. So it shouldn’t be a problem, but we would propose to just verify that at the time of building permit. It just wasn’t possible to do that at this point, but we’re certainly not concerned about it. MR. DYBAS-And while Jon is on that subject, in that particular area of the infiltrators, I drove a six foot long steel rod for five foot six inches and did not encounter any rock, and it’s also, from talking to John Matthews who’s family owned this property from the 40’s and 50’s, this area of the site happens to be the area of no bedrock. In fact the existing septic system is up behind the existing house in this approximate location. So we know we’re quite deep in that area. The other side is down near the lake. The rock comes right out of the ground as you, you know, from your visit you could see. MR. VOLLARO-I guess we could equate the level of the lake with the level of the water, that’s what you’re trying to get at, Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-That it would probably be about six feet down. That could very well be, but the average groundwater level would probably, water seeks its own level, usually. When it doesn’t, we have a problem, but if the lake is at one level, probably when you go down you would be driving down to look, and you would pick water up at the lake level, it seems to me. MR. DYBAS-That’s the assumption at this point. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, okay. All right. Are you folks finished with your inputs? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’d like to get some input from the Board. Have you got any questions on this that you’d like to talk about? MRS. STEFFAN-What do we do with the test pit data? Because there’s the new Town guideline, Town policy about, that the test pit data has to come between I think it’s February and April. Does that apply to this because it’s an existing? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think it was prepared by James Hutchins, who is a professional engineer. We said in their that so long as it’s prepared by a P.E., he could come out of that window. MRS. STEFFAN-I didn’t know that was in the Code. MR. DYBAS-May I clarify? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. DYBAS-It’s my understanding from the information on Jim Hutchins’ drawings that the test pit was taken in August. MR. SEGULJIC-September 8, 2004, I believe. MR. DYBAS-Yes. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-I would agree, because when you look at the design manual, it says test thth pit data should be done from March 15 to June 30, which would be traditionally the highest water mark you would have, and he’s indicating, Mr. Hutchins indicated, he says probable seasonal high groundwater is 36 inches, which is. MR. VOLLARO-Three feet. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. SEGULJIC-Which is exactly what you need to install a system there, because I believe you need a three foot differential between the rock. MR. VOLLARO-From the bottom of the system. MR. SEGULJIC-From groundwater to bedrock. I’d be more comfortable if he had said 60 inches, but he’s saying 36, which is exactly what you need. This was taken in September, and the good book says it says March to June. MR. LAPPER-But that was, that policy only went into effect this year, and this was done previous to that. MR. SEGULJIC-But I believe the design handbook for septic systems says test pits should be done March to June, and my concern, once again, is that, if I’m correct, you have to have a minimum of three feet between the bottom of the septic system and your groundwater for bedrock, which is exactly what you have. Once again, if you had said five feet, I’d be more comfortable. We’re in a Critical Environmental Area. As we all know, nutrient loading in the lake is increasing, mainly because of septic systems. We want to make sure we do this properly. MR. LAPPER-My point was just that that policy about the, the March to June policy was only implemented this year. MR. VOLLARO-I think it was in 136 all along. I believe 136 carried that requirement as well. MR. LAPPER-But previously there were soil scientists that were approved by the Town that could do it year round, just like DOH. MR. VOLLARO-Like Charles Maine. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and Jim Hutchins is one of the older, experienced engineers in the area. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t think, you know, Tom Seguljic is questioning that. What he’s really questioning, primarily, is the coincidence between the requirement for 36 inches below the septic and its exactly what we have, even though it was done outside th the window on September 8 of ’04. I think, correct me if I’m wrong, Tom. thth MR. SEGULJIC-That’s what I’m saying. When I say March 15 to June 30, that’s according to the individual residential wastewater treatment design handbook which is put out by the Department of Health. MR. LAPPER-But the difference is when you do it outside of that period, you look for soil mottling, rather than looking for the actual groundwater. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, I can accept that, but we’re at exactly three feet, which is the minimum required. MR. LAPPER-Right, but he’s a licensed engineer and, you know, if he says it. MR. SEGULJIC-So am I, and I wouldn’t be comfortable with doing that. I’m just saying, you’re right exactly in the middle. MR. LAPPER-In general, just if you look at the site and where this area, where the septic is, up on top of the hill. MR. SEGULJIC-Right adjacent to the lake, also? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. VOLLARO-No, he’s talking about the Eljen system up top. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. MR. LAPPER-Yes, that I mean it’s not near any residence and it’s not near the lake because it’s being pumped all the way up to that one flat area where there’s soil. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess what I’m getting at, close to the lake is a relative term. MR. LAPPER-Yes, but here, right now we’ve got a nonconforming system on the lake. MR. SEGULJIC-You had a holding tank, don’t you? MR. DYBAS-No, we have a nonconforming system on the lake. MR. LAPPER-So this is being moved from right next to the lake all the way up the hill. I mean, that’s a pretty big deal in terms of what, a big expense, but obviously the right way to do it, to pump it away from the lake, and it’s not like there’s anyone to be impacted up there, like there is down, by keeping the existing system. So, you know, on balance this is a pretty big improvement. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess I’m just concerned, because we’re right at the minimum required, which is 36 inches. MR. LAPPER-And I don’t disagree that it’s 36 inches, but that does, the engineer says that it complies. MR. VOLLARO-It’s just that whenever we get to coincidence like that, you have to really think about it. That’s part of the problem. Because when you get right on the number, and there’s no plus or minus involved, it’s like 36 and 0, we really have to think a little bit about it. MRS. STEFFAN-George, did you have anymore to add? MR. HILTON-Not at this time. I’m all set for now. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I think that, one of the things that I think that Building and Codes, George, would have to do when they look at this, they don’t have a permit yet for this septic system. It would be a requirement, eventually, for them to get this septic system permitted. One of the things we could do in our tabling motion, if we were to table this tonight, is to say that Building and Codes really have to take a look at this 36 inches. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s, if we get to tabling, we would do that. The other thing that, as long as we’re in that area, there’s some fill that’s got to be put in the perc, in the fill area, some fill material has to go in where that test pit is located, and that should be required to sit for 60 days to determine the perc rate. I think some place in here the perc rate, I don’t see, I’m looking for it but I didn’t see it. MR. SEGULJIC-On the bottom, one inch in four minutes. MR. VOLLARO-One inch in four minutes, and that’s what, if he’s going to get one inch in four minutes, he’s going to have to wait 60 days after that fills gets in to settle to get that kind of a number. See, I don’t know how he got one in four minutes without being able to take a perc test after he put the fill in. MRS. STEFFAN-Is that perc test, though, from the 2004? MR. SEGULJIC-That’s the indication. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, the indication it is, but that’s the perc rate that he’s given us for this probable seasonal high groundwater and percolation at 20 inches is one inch in four minutes, and I think he’s making an assumption that he’s going to get one in four up where the test pit is located at the Eljen system up top. So I don’t know how Mr. Hutchins got to that. Because I see this one in four as being current. Do you see it that way? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, no, I’m believing the data came from 2004 which is why I raised the question about the data, because I was led to believe, and this will be new construction. MR. DYBAS-The information is from 2004. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Then what is the assumed perc rate when he gets all done putting in the fill? MR. DYBAS-I don’t know this. MR. VOLLARO-See, I’m making an assumption that he’s looking for one in four, even, that’s another coincidence that I was looking at. He has a test pit up here and he’s taking, site plan information says probably seasonal groundwater is 36, which Mr. Seguljic has already talked about, and the percolation rate at 20 inches in depth is one minute, one inch in four minutes. Now I’m assuming that, because I don’t see anything, he doesn’t, until he gets fill in there and lets it sit for 60 days, he’s not going to know what that is. MR. DYBAS-I’m sorry, I was listening to two conversations. MR. VOLLARO-Go ahead. MR. DYBAS-I don’t think it’s a true mound system. If you’re looking at it as a mound, it’s not a mound system. In that particular area. MR. VOLLARO-No, I’m familiar with the gravelist system that Eljen is. MR. DYBAS-Yes, and in that particular area that you’re looking at, or that test pit is obviously taken, you know, your bottom of that test pit, even taken into fill, is going to be down into the existing soil. That’s just because of the grade, what has to occur there in order to get that Eljen system in. I think what you’re looking at is if he’s grading out in the front, and if you look at the grading, the new grading versus the old, and if I’m reading it correctly, in no location does he have any more than two feet of fill. So in all probability, these Eljen mats will be sitting in the existing strata that’s there, and two feet of fill over the top will be primarily fill over the top, and as we all know, your septic system, about half of the handling of it is evaporation. MR. VOLLARO-Transvap, yes, I understand that. MR. LAPPER-But that wouldn’t be added until the system is installed. MR. DYBAS-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m looking at his test pit data in the lower right hand corner of his drawing. I think this is your drawing. MR. DYBAS-That’s my drawing. I have, his signed, sealed drawing is a large 24 by 36. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t want to have to break that out if I didn’t have to, but I will. MR. DYBAS-But one of the reasons for the fill was the grading requirements that, the slopes. MR. VOLLARO-To be less than 15%. I got it at 11 when I did it, roughly. This drawing says it’s about 11%. MR. SEGULJIC-The slope across the septic system? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Eleven percent. MR. VOLLARO-It depends on which contour you pick to measure from. MR. SIPP-Where is that measurement taken from? MR. VOLLARO-Where I took it from was, let’s see, from 372 up to roughly 377, and that turned out to be 11%. MR. SIPP-All right. MR. VOLLARO-It’s 11%. It’s probably like 60 feet from one of those contour lines to the other. I think I got 61 feet. I’m looking at my numbers, here, I think I got 61 feet. So he’s 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) saying, he’s got, under this he’s got four feet of impervious strata, bedrock or seasonal high groundwater which is underneath his Eljen system. Is that right? MR. DYBAS-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-But he says the probable seasonal high is 36. I guess this test pit that he’s got up here, in one section he says is four foot to impervious strata, or seasonal high groundwater, and yet he comes up with seasonal high groundwater at 36. There’s some disparity between what’s on the drawing up in the upper right hand corner here and what’s down in the lower right hand corner as far as test pit data is concerned. MR. DYBAS-Don’t compare my drawing to his drawing, please. Refer all the information to his, because he will be the one that designs the system and signs and seals it. I will not. MR. VOLLARO-So, in that case you’re saying that really the probable seasonal high groundwater, according to his notes, should be four feet down, 48 inches as opposed to 36. See, one of the things in the notes, if you look at the note under the Eljen in-drain section under Note, place filled with percolation rate equal to or greater than In Situ usable soil in the absorption field. So he is bringing in a certain amount of fill here that has to have a percolation rate that’s equal to or greater than the In Situ usable soil in the absorption field. So there’s an indication there that what he’s going to be doing, this design utilizes shallow design absorption trenches cutting all trees, stumps, vegetation, so on, remove all leaves, limbs and boulders. Do not scarify, Rota till or remove root structure below grade and so on. Then he gets down to say place fill with percolation rate equal to or greater than the In Situ soil. So the percolation rate, no greater than one inch in four minutes is what he’s looking for, but he definitely, in order to get that, see, he’s talking about, well, in the design data, then he says assume four bedrooms and a design percolation of one inch in five minutes. I’m having a tough time here trying to nail down this. MR. LAPPER-I wonder if I could help with something, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-You certainly can. nd MR. LAPPER-I’m reading the March 22 C.T. Male letter, which was. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got an October 10 is the best I can do. th MR. LAPPER-And the October 10 said, it referred to, we offer the following comments based upon our March 26, 2006 comment letter, and number one says addressed. Well, nd the number one comment from March 22 was on the site plan the proposed septic system contains a pump station, two inch force main, and a new in-drain absorption system. Given the depth to groundwater and bedrock indicated, a cross section of the absorption system would be helpful to confirm the system meets the DOH design criteria. Also the pump system and force main should also meet the DOH criteria, and then he says he reviewed the revised drawings, and he says that that was addressed on your letter. So he did look at all these issues look at all these issues, including depth to groundwater. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So when he said that, he must have been looking at this drawing. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I would assume. th MR. LAPPER-Because he said that he looked at the revised plan sheets dated July 28 th and the wastewater replacement plans dated July 19 by Jim Hutchins. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I have a date printed of 9/8/04, but I’m looking, it must be upgraded to 7/19/06, is that correct? MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, I don’t have any other comments on that. I think what Hutchins has done here is he’s probably answered that number one comment from C.T. Male, and with what he has on this drawing, it looks like it would conform. The only thing I’m saying here is that when you place fill with percolation rate equal to or greater than 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) the In Situ soil, in order to do that, you should let that material sit for 60 days, before you take any perc tests at all on that. That’s in the design manual, that red book. MR. DYBAS-I don’t see a problem with doing that. I mean, the Town of Queensbury obviously will review and do the site inspections. MR. VOLLARO-Was Tom supposed to be here tonight? MR. DYBAS-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. LAPPER-They figured Curt could handle it. MR. DYBAS-Also the perc rates for design, correct me if I’m wrong, the first table it says three to five minutes. I mean, that’s the way the table’s set up for application rates. So, you know, four, five, I mean, it’s. MR. VOLLARO-When they do this kind of design data, they ought to be clear and concise about what, that’s always been my problem is I hate to be all over the board on this stuff. It should be real easy for the engineer to sit down and write something like that, but I think that, as far as I’m concerned, I don’t have a problem with it. Okay. Now what I do have a problem with is the C.T. Male comment when he talks about the stormwater management for minor projects with respect to the Chapter 147. I think there’s two things here that leads us to a major project. If you look at 147, under an area that says when minor projects become major projects. Are you familiar with Chapter 147? Okay. There’s a section in there that says when minor projects, which C.T. Male has classified this as, become major projects, it talks about two things. It says if the project is in a Critical Environmental Area, as described in the Lake George area, being 500 foot from the mean high water of 320.2, or, B, that the grade of the property is in excess of 15%. I came up with a grade of roughly 25% here. MR. SEGULJIC-As did I. If I recall correctly, it says you take 100 feet across the center of the project, and I got a 25% grade. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I did. MR. SEGULJIC-Which makes it a major stormwater project. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Which then means it kicks off a number of other requirements, one of which, I think you’re going to have a tough time meeting, is you can’t have infiltration within 100 feet of the lake. Your infiltration is at about 15 feet from the lake. MR. DYBAS-One of the reasons, when we first addressed this project, one of the things I fully understood was all we had to address was the increase in pervious area. MR. SEGULJIC-In addition to 147. MR. VOLLARO-You made application to 147. MR. SEGULJIC-There’s a stormwater permit in there, I believe. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, there is. MR. DYBAS-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, application for stormwater management permit. MR. DYBAS-That only addresses increase, and it was my understanding that we only had to address increase. MR. LAPPER-The increase in impervious over pre-construction. MR. DYBAS-Pre-construction buildings and surfaces, and we took it upon ourselves, in order to further protect the lake, to address this as an entirely new project, and in essence handle all the stormwater from the existing driveway and the roof of the new structure. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. SEGULJIC-Well, the way I interpret 147, it says the following activities are exempt from the requirements of this Chapter, and Number Two is, development involving land disturbances or land clearing of less than 5,000 square feet which does not result in the creation of new impervious area more than 1,000 feet. Therefore, if you’re over 5,000 square feet, you’re caught up in the regulation. MR. DYBAS-We’re not over 5,000 square feet. MR. SEGULJIC-Your application says 9700 square feet. Therefore, you become a major project because you exceed 25%. MR. DYBAS-No, that’s, the area that we’re talking about is the present impervious area. It includes the driveway. It includes the new roof. If you compare that back to what is there, the driveway hasn’t changed, and the net roof area is minimal. I mean, basically we could run this thing into a 55 gallon drum with holes in it, but we took it upon ourselves to address the entire site, as a new project. MR. SEGULJIC-Your stormwater application, Page Two, total area of land disturbance, 9600 square feet. MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s because it was designed for 9700 square feet, but it’s not new disturbance of 9700 square feet, because that whole driveway, the paved stuff is already disturbed. That’s not going to be changed. So that’s a design criteria but that’s not correct. That’s not new disturbance. MR. SEGULJIC-You’re saying it’s because it’s new, correct, that it’s not caught up. MR. LAPPER-It’s existing. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, the house is new, correct? MR. LAPPER-Yes, but to get the 9700 square feet, you’re including the area that was previously disturbed and is not going to be disturbed. So that was done for the design, to talk about how much water is going to be infiltrated, but it doesn’t properly answer the question of how much new disturbance there is for this project. Nothing’s going to be touched on the driveway, except that that water is now going to be treated. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, you’re going to disturb the area in front of the house because you’re going to put a lawn terrace. MR. LAPPER-How many square feet is all that? MR. DYBAS-Forty by twelve. MR. SEGULJIC-You’re going to be putting in the new house, which is new. MR. DYBAS-Well, there is already a stone, a concrete patio in front of the house that we’re taking out. We’re putting in a new house, but the size of the footprint, you have to right directly compare to what is there. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. Well, here’s the key. When you look at Chapter 147 and you look at the Definitions, new is not defined. When you go back to the back of the Chapter, it says terms defined in this section shall have their meanings set forth in the sections. Terms not defined in this sub chapter shall have their usual meaning, their usual and ordinary meaning. Therefore, new is new. MR. DYBAS-The driveway is not new. MR. SEGULJIC-But the house is new. The area in front of the house is new. MR. DYBAS-Yes, but you’ve already taken what is an impervious surface, i.e. a concrete patio, if you were there and you walked across it. We’re taking that out and we’re putting in a grass patio. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s a new area of disturbance. MR. LAPPER-It’s not impervious. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. DYBAS-It’s not impervious. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s an area of disturbance. This section does not talk to, it talks about land disturbance. MR. DYBAS-You mentioned 5,000 square feet. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MR. DYBAS-We are not disturbing 5,000 square feet. We are not increasing the area of impervious by 1,000 square feet. That’s my point. MR. VOLLARO-I think the problem we’ve got here is not, I think Tom is on to, but I don’t think that’s the key problem. I think the key problem we’re looking at is there are two areas in 147 which talk, and Tom can break it out if he wants to, but there’s two areas in there that talk about a minor project going to a major project, and the reasons for that. One is if the project is located within 500 feet of Lake George, the mean high water mark of 320.2, it shall be deemed a major project, that’s one. Two, if the average slope, and he and I, coincidentally, have come up with the same number, the slope is 25%. If the slope is above 15%, it also drives it into a major project. Once you get into the major project, then you have to take a look at how 147, if you’ve determined this isn’t a major project, you’re shaking your head, but I can’t, I’ve got to tell you. MR. DYBAS-You can’t build anything on Lake George, then. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, you can. You can build it if the slope is not greater than 15%. MR. DYBAS-But everything is within 500 feet of the lake. MR. VOLLARO-Well, then you have to comply with Chapter 147. MR. DYBAS-I disagree with you. It’s a new project. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t know. I’d have to rely on, I’ll talk to Staff about that and see what it says. Have you got 147 there with you? MR. HILTON-Yes. I guess just to give you my two cents, in writing my notes, and you have seen the statement that I made that this application requires a stormwater permit under Chapter 147. I did speak with the Zoning Administrator and he did confirm that. He didn’t confirm minor/major. I think that’s obviously being discussed here this evening, but I think, I know that, in speaking with the Zoning Administrator, he did state that this requires a stormwater management permit under Chapter 147. MR. VOLLARO-And I think these folks recognize that, in the fact that they submitted one. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-And then just to clarify, under 147-8(b), minor projects reviewed as major projects. Any minor project may be treated as a major project if such treatment is desirable due to specific site limitations or constraints, anticipated environmental impacts, or the need or advisability of additional public notice and comment, and it goes on and on, and then, [a] a critical environmental area. It’s located in a CEA, which this project is. It also states further, if it exceeds the 15% it’s a major project. MR. VOLLARO-Fifteen percent slope, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-If the project exceeds 15% it’s a major anyway, and it can be made a major project if it’s located in a CEA. MR. LAPPER-All right. I have two reactions to that. One is that the C.T. Male letter says that this has been designed for, you know, not just the increase, but to treat all the stormwater. So that’s certainly a benefit that doesn’t have to be done, that goes beyond what the regulations require, to infiltrate all the water rather than the change, than the increase from what’s impervious now. So, if we do what you’re suggesting, the result is going to be that the stormwater would have to be pumped up the hill in order to be 100, you’d have to deal with the stormwater to get it 100 feet away, but the result of that is that the only way that would be cost effective would be to only treat the increase, so you’d have a worse system than what’s been proposed now because you’d only be treating the increase from the existing plan. So you’d be treating a lot less stormwater than we 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) proposed, and now you’ve got everything just running into the lake. So what we’ve proposed is a much better system for the lake, and you would force this to just treat a much smaller percentage. I think, just in terms of, you know. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m just saying 147 exists, and we’re just noting what 147 says. MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s a word in there that may help, and I’m thinking about this, and it says when a minor project goes, it may, there’s a word that says may go over. In looking at the over, this overall site and what these folks have done. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess I want to clarify that. It’s a major project if it exceeds 15%. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right. MR. SEGULJIC-It is a major project. MR. VOLLARO-And if it’s in a CEA, it is a major project. MR. SEGULJIC-No, no, no. If the site exceeds 15% it’s a major project. You may classify a minor project as a major project if it’s located in a CEA. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So 147 impels us to say this is a major project. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, I guess that kind of answers your question that everyone on the lake within 500 feet would be subject to a major project. This is saying that the word “may” in there is something that the Planning Board has to wrestle with, but the 15% slope turns it into a major project, no matter what. That’s what it says. MR. DYBAS-And where are you measuring a 15% slope? MR. SEGULJIC-It says 100 feet across the center of the project I believe it states. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It says in any direction. MR. SEGULJIC-An area with a slope of 15% or greater when measured in any direction over a distance of 100 feet from the center of the proposed building site. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s how I got. MR. SEGULJIC-So I took a line right across the middle of the building site, and I got 25%. MR. LAPPER-This is an interesting site because the building site is relatively level and then you’ve got a mountain behind it. MR. SEGULJIC-And a level area up on top. MR. LAPPER-And a level area right up on top. MR. SEGULJIC-So why don’t we put the house up there? MR. LAPPER-Because that’s the best place to put the septic system. You can’t put both. MR. SEGULJIC-You could put the house up there and the septic system up there also, I believe. MR. LAPPER-No. We would be chopping down the mountain. I mean, we went through all that with the Zoning Board. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, the Zoning Board talked about blasting, I believe. MR. SEGULJIC-Why do we have to blast. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I guess when the Zoning Board was deliberating, somebody talked about, well, if we put the house way back, we’d have to do some blasting, and the ZBA said this is better than blasting. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. LAPPER-It would also be much more visible because right now it’s at the bottom with a mountain behind it, and at the top you’d see it from everywhere on the lake. It would be in your face. MR. SEGULJIC-I think you could design a house up there that, you don’t have to blast. MR. LAPPER-We have the variance and this is what the Zoning Board wanted. That’s not what’s going to happen. What’s going to happen is, if you want us to comply, we’d wind up treating a very small percentage of the stormwater rather than treating all the stormwater. MR. SEGULJIC-No, if you comply with 147, you’d be collecting all the stormwater. MR. LAPPER-No, we only have to comply with the increase over the current. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t believe so, no. MR. LAPPER-C.T. Male stated that right in their review. MR. VOLLARO-See, you’ve got to understand, we’re sort of grappling with 147. The whole Board has been grappling with this for a while, and we’re getting more and more familiar with that spec, and I don’t know whether we can legally just say, well, we’re going to not do it, not go to a major project when you do what they say to do, and you go from the center of the house up 100 feet and you find that there’s a 25% slope, it throws you into a major project. MR. LAPPER-I guess I just think you’re missing the forest for the trees, just because this is a unique project, where the stormwater is being completely infiltrated and the septic is being moved way from the lake. So those are two, you’d have to agree, those are two benefits to what’s proposed. MR. VOLLARO-I do agree. I know where you’re coming from. Our problem is we’re locked into a spec here, and trying to find out a way around that spec is not, it really is not easy for us to do. MR. LAPPER-And I guess my point, which I made twice but no one seems to be paying attention, is that the result of this is going to be that we’re going to wind up infiltrating only a very small percentage of the stormwater. MR. VOLLARO-That’s a portion of the argument that I don’t. MR. LAPPER-Because the law only requires us to treat the increase from the existing condition to the new condition. MR. VOLLARO-To the new condition. MR. LAPPER-And that is a very small increase. MR. SEGULJIC-It says pre-development condition, I believe. MR. LAPPER-The pre-development means the project. It doesn’t mean, you know, during the ice age. MR. VOLLARO-Staff, are you taking a look at this? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And what’s your conclusion up there? Do you see where the 15% is coming into play? If you take and go from the center of the new construction, going south, I believe, in a southerly direction 100 feet, you’ll come up with roughly 25% slope, and that’s exactly, that’s 10% above what the 147 allows. So for us to say, well, we’re going to not do that, we’ve got to really think pretty hard about jumping by a spec like that. MR. LAPPER-Well, we would just not want to waste anybody’s time tonight. So we’ll ask that it be tabled, and we will consult with our engineer and we’ll come back with a revised plan. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. VOLLARO-It would help. It may not be as bad as it seems. If he gets to 147 and gets to that major project, I don’t really know, but he may say, hey, let’s do it because it’s not a big deal. MR. LAPPER-I don’t know, either, but we will figure it out and come back. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HILTON-I was just simply going to say that in the meantime, while this is being tabled and perhaps we, Staff, would, perhaps the whole project would benefit from the Director of Building and Codes looking at the septic, Number One, and having Staff discuss this as it applies to 147, and perhaps we can give you some more answers the next time this appears before you. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that might be a good idea. Have Building and Codes look at the septic design, at the same time you’re looking at 147. We’ll get the two pieces put together that way. MR. LAPPER-That sounds good. MR. VOLLARO-And I appreciate you doing that, actually, rather than take a lot of time to go back and forth, just see what your engineer says about it. MR. LAPPER-Sure. MR. SEGULJIC-Now, the other concern I have, just to point this out now is that there’s a number of trees down by the lake that are not noted on any of your drawings. I just want to point out that 179-6-060bA says within 35 feet extending inland from all points along the mean high water mark, no vegetation may be removed. MR. DYBAS-We haven’t removed any. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m just pointing out that you don’t have any trees located here, and what I’d be interested in verifying is that you don’t disturb any of the trees along the lake that are there. You haven’t located any of the trees that are on the lakefront. MR. DYBAS-As far as species and diameter? MR. SEGULJIC-Noting where they are. MR. DYBAS-They’re there. MR. SEGULJIC-Because I’m kind of interested how you’re going to take down a whole house and rebuild it without disturbing anything. MR. DYBAS-They’re there. We’re sliding this thing back 10 feet. MR. LAPPER-Away from the lake. MR. DYBAS-Away from the lake, and we’re not excavating because basically the foundation is at the, the basement is at grade level. The trees that are in front are there, and they’re also on the site plan, if you’d like to see that. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, once again, I’d like to see the trees located on the plan. MR. DYBAS-They’re there. MR. VOLLARO-He says it’s on the plan. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m looking at this plan, I don’t see them. MR. DYBAS-Down here you’ll see the circles, down in the front. Now did I call them to diameter and species? No. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, okay, now that you point out that they’re circles. You don’t have a legend indicating that the circles are trees. MR. VOLLARO-I guess, you’re saying that these are trees? 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. DYBAS-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And they’re all between the house and the lake. So they won’t be disturbed. MR. SIPP-Now I’m concerned about the west side of the house, the new house. You’ve got a 24 to 25% slope there, below where you have your drywell, which is taking out the water off of the parking lot and the driveway. What happens when a heavy rain on that slope from the back of the house down to the lake, how much erosion are we going to be looking at with a 24% slope? MR. DYBAS-Basically, going back to C.T. Male’s comments, I mean, I’ve over designed the system for a 25 year storm. MR. SIPP-And you’re going to get no erosion with a 25 foot, a 25 year storm on a 25% slope? MR. DYBAS-Should not. I mean, there’s 4.2 inches of rain in 24 hours, and it’s designed for a half an inch initial deluge. MR. SIPP-And nothing is going to be carried into the lake by this type storm? DAVID KELLY DR. KELLY-Right now there’s no stormwater. MR. SIPP-I know there isn’t, but that doesn’t. MR. DYBAS-But it’s been designed for 4.2 inches, as Dr. Kelly’s. MR. SIPP-Yes, but between the drywell and the lake, there is nothing but soil. MR. DYBAS-That’s correct. MR. SIPP-And it’s all downhill. MR. DYBAS-That’s correct. MR. SIPP-And nothing is going to move in a four inch rainstorm? MR. DYBAS-To the best of my knowledge, that has been there for at least 50 years that I know of. MR. SIPP-Yes, but there’s no erosion. MR. DYBAS-It’s not changing anything. There’s no erosion now. DR. KELLY-I’ll do whatever you suggest, but I’m trying to handle it. MR. DYBAS-I mean, your maximum runoff is off the impervious surface, which is i.e. their driveway. Right now there is no stormwater management on this site whatsoever. MR. SIPP-Well, how deep is that soil right there? MR. DYBAS-That’s six, seven feet right there. MR. SIPP-Six or seven feet. MR. DYBAS-Up on top right there. MR. SIPP-I’ll tell you, last Saturday it didn’t look like six or seven feet of soil right there. I’m concerned about water. Is this right now supposedly in grass, right? MR. DYBAS-Yes. MR. SIPP-Which is kind of sparse, right? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. DYBAS-Yes. So there’s no erosion on the 25% slope of four inch rainfall? MR. DYBAS-There’s no erosion now. I mean, we have a mountain in back of the existing house, and I see no evidence of erosion on that very precipitous slope in back. I mean, there’s no turrets or anything coming down through there right now, and that hill has been there since who knows. I mean, I don’t think anyone’s touched it. There was an old foundation up on top, but I see no evidence of any erosion anywhere on the steep parts of this property. MRS. STEFFAN-George, you have a comment? MR. HILTON-Yes, I do. MR. SIPP-Do you have any plans to put in a buffer or anything on that piece of land there? DR. KELLY-Certainly I would welcome natural plantings and as much vegetative buffer as we can put, a lot more than there is now. MR. SIPP-I would like to see somebody with a shovel go out there and tell me that there’s six, seven feet of soil there. I really have a tough time believing that. MR. HILTON-Just a suggestion more than anything, on that western side, could you put a stone line trench or something along there to maybe help infiltrate a little as the water does run down. Understanding that most of the stormwater is coming off the impervious surface, perhaps something like that would help. MR. DYBAS-Where would I run it to? MR. HILTON-No, no, I’m saying, you see where that pitch is coming down, at the end of that, where it begins to flatten out, is there an area, I guess I’m asking more than anything, is there an area to put, perpendicular to that slope, like a trench where stormwater would. MR. DYBAS-Are you talking down here, George? MR. HILTON-In that general area, yes. MR. DYBAS-The problem is, what do I do with it after I trench it? Then I have an issue, I can’t run it into the lake. MR. HILTON-I’m just wondering if it would infiltrate. MR. DYBAS-It’s already infiltrating, that’s my point. I mean, it’s, there’s no erosion. If I saw something, fine, but I see no evidence of torrential water running down through here, and why start playing with it? Because as soon as you start disturbing it, then you leave yourself wide open for erosion. I mean, that’s the whole point of disturbing soil, or not disturbing soil. We all know that. MR. SIPP-I would like to see plantings up that whole side, if possible, because I just don’t see how you can not have erosion. You’re going to get a three foot snow pack or six foot snow pack some winters, and when that melts, there’s no erosion? MR. DYBAS-But it has been going on for years. MR. SIPP-Well, yes, but 10,000 years of erosion has been going on on Lake George and we don’t know how high Buck Mountain was 10,000 years ago. MR. DYBAS-That’s fine. We’re not going to stop that. MR. SIPP-I’ll bring you some planting suggestions. MR. LAPPER-That’s not a problem. MR. VOLLARO-On the drywell, when you, let me ask this question. The drywell is obviously on the slope. MR. DYBAS-Yes. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. VOLLARO-And when we get water sheeting down the drive, how does that drywell function? Tell me just what it does. Give me a description of how the drywell functions on that driveway. MR. DYBAS-Okay. The design is set up for, the initial half inch of water has to be immediately retained. You cannot do any infiltration with that. The rest of the water, well, it’s 4.3 total, 3.7 inches of rain over a 24 hour period, is assumed it’s put in over a 24 hour period, and it runs in. It’s retained and infiltrated into the soil. I don’t, without looking up the calculations, I have more than enough capacity in that drywell. I’m over. MR. VOLLARO-I see that the drywell is almost flat. It’s almost flat in that area. MR. DYBAS-Yes, that is correct. MR. VOLLARO-So it should, okay. I was wondering. As long as the drywell is fairly flat, it’ll be able to contain water, but if it’s like this. MR. DYBAS-I will grade it so that it will create a bowl right there at the drywell. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what you need for that to function correctly. MR. DYBAS-Yes, that’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think the tabling motion’s going to be rather simple. MRS. STEFFAN-George, do you have a comment? MR. HILTON-I hope I’m not jumping the gun here, and I’m sure you know and are aware there’s a public hearing scheduled this evening? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I understand that. MR. HILTON-And I just want to let you know, I do have a couple of pieces of comment. MR. VOLLARO-What I’d like to do is throw this meeting open to the public. Does anybody here want to talk to this application at all? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We’ll leave the public hearing open. MR. HILTON-I’ll actually read these right now, if you don’t mind, really quickly. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. HILTON-Number One, it’s really just a brief comment from C.T. Brickman. It says th we have absolutely no objections, dated October 12. Secondly is a letter from the Lake George Association received today, and I’ll go ahead. It says regarding David and Sally Kelly, Site Plan No. 4-2006, “A 59 foot shoreline relief variance approved for a new home on Rocky Shore Drive will replace a nonconforming two-story house with a three- story, 2920 sq. ft. house at a maximum height of 28 ft. Although this home is not that excessive in size, its 54% increase over the existing dwelling (proposed home 2920 sq. ft./ existing 1892 sq. ft.) is substantial when considering its ledge location only 21 feet from Lake George. With this said, it is recognized that alternatives for mitigating construction on this steep, rocky shoreline are limited. The applicant has proposed constructing a new home five feet further away from the lake than what was originally submitted to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, but with the presumed blasting/fragmentation of the hillside behind the home necessary to accommodate an additional wing and the presumed blasting/fragmentation of the hillside to the south to enlarge the parking area to almost twice its current size, the five foot additional setback which secured the approval seems to be relatively insignificant. The large parking area next to the house should be reduced in size to accommodate a small turnaround and drop off area and all parked cars remain in the upper parking lot. This would allow the home to be moved back a bit further from the lake and a lakeside buffer strip to be planted for infiltration of stormwater. Increasing the amount of permeable surface between the house and the lake (with the removal of the impermeable pavement that is currently there and carefully evaluating the proposed septic and subsequent tree removal for septic construction are critical to the water quality of Lake George. The applicant had previously proposed minimal tree removal for construction of the new non- 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) conforming home, but the tree removal in this revised application has been increased due to the “…..addition of fill to the site….”, based on the engineer’s report. For many reasons, a new home is desired on this site and the applicant should have the ability to construct one, but many lakes grant no variances because of the potential negative impact that accompanies increasing the size of the nonconformity. The amount of blasting or fragmentation of the hillside required for the new foundation and parking area should be discussed, as well as the amount of fill proposed. Your careful review of this site plan for a new home within 21 ft. from the lake should include requirements for as much permeable surfaces as possible between the house and the lake, minimal soil and tree disturbance, and an extensive buffer strip planted to absorb stormwater infiltration. Thank you. Sincerely, Kathleen S. Lindberg Bozony Land Use Management Coordinator” And that’s all we have. MR. SEGULJIC-George, wasn’t there also a letter from the Lake George Water Keeper? MR. HILTON-I’m not finding one. I’ll look. MR. DYBAS-I would like to comment on the letter, in that she’s completely wrong on the tree removal and the rock blasting. One of the reasons for the design is that we didn’t do blasting. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That’s true. MR. DYBAS-And the tree removal, that’s completely erroneous. MR. SEGULJIC-So there will not be any blasting? MR. DYBAS-No. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the reason they’ve got it here. If I read the ZBA deliberations, they considered going back further detrimental because of blasting. MR. DYBAS-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-And so they’ve agreed to the five foot movement as about as much as you could get, and I tend to agree with that. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. DYBAS-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-There’s also, Mr. Vollaro and I went on our site visits together, and one of the Kelly’s neighbors from California, and their name eludes me now. MR. VOLLARO-Sears. MRS. STEFFAN-Sears. They just wanted to go on the record to say that they were in favor of the project. They talked to us so I just wanted to put that out on the record. MR. SEGULJIC-Didn’t you answer some questions from the Lake George Water Keeper? For some reason I recall seeing that. MRS. STEFFAN-There was some information in the package, but I didn’t see a letter from the Water Keeper. MR. DYBAS-I talked, Chris wrote a letter to the ZBA, and I talked to Chris this morning. He had some questions regarding stormwater management, and he brought up the fact that Queensbury uses one and a half gallons per square foot and I told him, you know, the correlation to that is like two and a half inches of rain versus the 4.2 inches of rain that I designed for, and after a couple of battering back and forth, I said, you know I don’t understand the one and a half gallons per square foot. I only understand it off the chart it’s in inches, and we discussed it for about fifteen or twenty minutes and we came to a meeting of the minds. I asked him if he was going to send something in, and he said no. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see a letter from him. MR. SEGULJIC-There was a letter, I guess it was attached to the letter from Attorney Lapper. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. VOLLARO-That’s the letter that went to the ZBA. MR. SEGULJIC-It went to the Zoning Board of Appeals, okay. MR. HILTON-Yes. I’m not seeing anything in this site plan file. MR. VOLLARO-I think if Chris was really. MR. SEGULJIC-I would just like to see that letter, see what the Lake George Water Keeper had to say. MR. HILTON-Well, again, I’m not seeing it in the site plan file. Assuming that it’s in the variance file, I don’t have the variance file here. MR. VOLLARO-It’s in the ZBA. MR. HILTON-But we can get it to you. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think if Chris was, I haven’t talked to Chris, but I know if he had some really serious concerns about this he would have probably written a letter on this one as well. The fact that he hasn’t. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. The public hearing’s still open. MR. VOLLARO-The public hearing is still open. MRS. STEFFAN-So we’re going to table. MR. VOLLARO-We’re going to table for a very, I think the tabling motion would be very minimum, and if you want, I’ll do the tabling motion. If nobody wants to do it, I’ll take a crack at it. Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 4-2006 DAVID R. KELLY AND SALLY N. KELLY, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: Tabled the first meeting in December, December 19, 2006. New information should be in by November 15, 2006. The conditions of tabling would be the following: 1. To look in to Chapter 147 in terms of it being a major project, and the major project being defined as an area measured from the center of the dwelling 100 feet in the southerly direction, being in excess of 15%. 2. To take the septic design as it currently exists to the Building and Codes and see whether or not you can get a septic permit. So that when you come back the next time you’ll have a septic permit as well. 3. In addition, looking into a buffer strip on the west side of the house to the lake, and that would be a vegetative buffer. 4. A final C.T. Male signoff. th Duly adopted this 17 day of October, 2006, by the following vote: MR. VOLLARO-The other thing you’d probably want to bring in is a final C.T. Male signoff. I guess they have still a couple of questions in their last, I guess it’s the July 10 letter, or October 10. MR. SEGULJIC-You asked them to look at in light of 147, major projects. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. See they call for a minor project in theirs, and there’s a disagreement with them, I guess, with our own engineer. MR. LAPPER-We understand. AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Ford 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-I think you’ve basically got a good project. It just needs a little tweaking, and I think it’s going to work. SITE PLAN NO. 18-2006 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MICHAEL STEVENS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL ONE ACRE LOCATION 986 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING REQUIRING FILL OF APPROXIMATELY 0.25 ACRES OF FILL WITHIN 50’ OF THE SHORELINE OF A WETLAND. FILLING WITHIN 50’ OF A WETLAND REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. AV 34-96, AV 24-04, AV 87-01 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/10/06 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 4.73 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.10-1-29 SECTION 179-6-060 MICHAEL STEVENS, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-For the record, you are? MR. STEVENS-Michael Stevens. MR. VOLLARO-Do you want to tell us a little bit about what you’ve done here, Michael? I’d like to just ask a question before we get started. Is anybody here from the public looking to talk to this application for Mr. Stevens? Nobody here to talk to Mr. Stevens. Okay. I just wanted to see if there was anybody here who wanted to chat. Do you want to tell us a little bit about what you’ve done, now. MR. STEVENS-Since the last time I was here? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. STEVENS-I believe you wanted a topographical map, which I supplied, and there was a question on the delineation on the flags. MR. VOLLARO-Is Mr. Steves here with you? MR. STEVENS-No. MR. VOLLARO-He’s not. MR. STEVENS-I didn’t know anybody wanted him here. No, he’s not here. MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s something that you would ask him to do, to support your, because this is his topo map, with the delineations on it, and there’s some questions that we have on that. We’re a little concerned about some of the flag notes that are on here, and some of the lines that are drawn. Some of them look like, do you have your map in front of you? MR. STEVENS-No. MR. VOLLARO-You don’t have this delineation map? MR. STEVENS-I don’t have it with me. MR. VOLLARO-If you don’t have a map with you, then we’ve got a problem. MR. STEVENS-Well, I’ve got a map. Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Let me try to guide you in on something here. Has everybody on the Board got a copy in front of them of S-1, dated August 22, 2005? Okay. Get down to the proposed house and get down to, it’s south, I guess we would call it southeast corner where it says drainage flow. Okay. Right next to that, to where it says drainage flow, it looks to us, some of the Staff members and to myself and to the Zoning Administrator, after we talked about this, it looks like those were penciled in. They’re not the same flag numbers as the rest of them, and it doesn’t follow. Then it looks like between, at A-27 to what looks like should have been A-28, there’s another pencil line that connects A-27 to what looks like should be 28. So we see there’s a change in the delineation there. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. STEVENS-I hate to tell you the worst part. MR. VOLLARO-Go ahead. MR. STEVENS-When this was done, I asked to have my four corners surveyed, so I’d know where they were. So when they went back out, they did it again, so I asked them just to re-shoot that area, and the numbers came up different again. So I don’t know if somebody’s playing with me out there, or, you know, kids run four-wheelers up there. I don’t know if they’re having a party at my expense, but it seems like every time I go back, there’s a flag or two that are different. It seems like it’s just concentrated on two or three flags. MR. VOLLARO-Well, what we’re concerned about, it looks like somebody put a penciled flag marker on, as opposed to the flag markers that are actually put on here by the computer. There seems to be a change. It looks like that it should go from A-27 to A-28 being down at the bottom and then up to A-29, but now it’s got a small pencil jump. MR. STEVENS-Well that may very well be, because when I first got it there were several missing, and I went back and I think there were three missing out of, I think 50 flags, I think three flags, if I remember correctly, were missing, three numbers, in the twenty’s I think, and then they called me up and said it’s done and they went back. I know I got a bill for it, and that’s what I got. So, you know, I can’t answer how they put it in there. MR. VOLLARO-That’s why I asked you if Matt was here, because it’s a question we have basically for him. MR. STEVENS-And then I got another map, after I wanted the four corners done, which even has shot again, and I got like duplicate numbers like 225’s or something. I mean, I don’t know. If I bring, that would be actually the latest map which is after this map. So I don’t know. MR. VOLLARO-We’re looking at August 22. You have a later map than this? MR. STEVENS-Yes, not with me, and I don’t, it was only for me to show where my four corners would be, so I could see where it would be. MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking about the four corners of the house. MR. STEVENS-Four corners of the proposed house. Yes, I wanted them, I asked them to do that when they originally did it, and they overlooked it. So they went back, and then when they did that, of course, they re-shot that whole area, and the numbers were different again. MR. VOLLARO-Well, somebody has to set these flags manually. You know, these flags are not set by shooting them. They’re set manually. Somebody sets these. MR. STEVENS-They were set by the DEC, or by Army Corps of Engineers, but that was a while ago. By the time the surveyors got there, three flags were either missed or whatever. I had to call Army Corps of Engineers. They came back up at their leisure, ran through it again, then I had to call the surveyor again, and then they came back up, and that’s what they got. MR. VOLLARO-See, one of the problems you’ve got here is this has been going on since a year ago, 10/25/05, and in a year an awful lot can happen to all those flags that are set out there, particularly if you’re telling me that four-wheelers are running through there. MR. STEVENS-But they’re surveyed in now. So it doesn’t matter at this point because they’re shot. I mean, they shot them all. MR. VOLLARO-Well, they don’t shoot them, they set them. MR. SEGULJIC-I think he’s saying that they did the survey with the maps, flags in the field. MR. STEVENS-No, they did the survey off the flags. These are, every one of these is surveyed in. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, if they’re all surveyed in, then why do we have a couple that look like they were penciled in? That’s a problem that I have. MR. STEVENS-I don’t know how the map was amended. That was how the map was amended, because three flags were missing, and I had, I went into the truck, I saw three were missing, and I went back and said we’re missing three numbers here. They’re unknown or something. So we had to get that amended, and that’s how it was amended, but it was three flags, by the time the Army Corps left, and by the time I got the surveyors there to read those maps, three flags I think were missing. If I go back there now, there may be five or six missing, but they’re surveyed in. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, the only two that are not surveyed in is this one at A-26 and the one that goes from A-27 to what looks like is it’s supposed to be A-28. MR. STEVENS-They’re surveyed in now. He did them. When he went back to do the four corners. MR. VOLLARO-Did you read the Staff notes on this? Because the Staff themselves, after looking at this drawing, has the same problem that I’m having, is trying to determine what the lines of. MR. STEVENS-And here’s the other issue I have. MR. VOLLARO-What the limits of disturbance are. MR. STEVENS-I turned that in 45 days ago, and I was called up one day before the termination day and mentioned about that, when there was nothing I could do to prepare myself better for you. I waited 45 days for this thing to get reviewed, and the last day it was brought to my attention about these couple of flags, which I think, I have to tell you I think is, out of the 50 flags they are shot in there, I’ve got, you know, 47 of the 50, I think it’s, I don’t mean to be smart or anything, but how important are the three flags for this project? I mean, if I go out there tomorrow, I’ll bet you there’s half a dozen missing, but he did survey each and every one of them. So if it was an issue, he can always pick them up, because he got them all. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s why I asked you whether Matt was going to be here tonight, because I knew we were going to ask this question, and he’s the only one that can really answer it. th MR. STEVENS-I wish I’d known. I handed this in, like I say, I think it was August 16 and assumed, I said if there’s any questions, please, let me know while I’ve got time to do this. It sat and sat and sat, 45 days, and then from one day to the end, I get a call that, you know, what about these numbers. Well, nothing I can do about it now. MR. VOLLARO-Staff, what does it look like to you up there? MR. HILTON-Well, I don’t know. Personally, I’m seeing that this has been tabled a few times over the last few months. I’m guessing more than anything that if this was submitted in August for September, perhaps it was deemed incomplete for September. I don’t know that to be the case, but I’m also seeing that there were phone conversations between the Zoning Administrator and the applicant on 9/26, pretty much outlining all these issues that I’ve re-outlined in the Staff notes, and I’ve got, you know, his notes here. I can only go by those. MR. VOLLARO-He’s had conversation with Mr. Steves? MR. HILTON-According to these notes by Craig himself, yes. MR. STEVENS-The only conversation I had in regards to any of these three issues was a conversation from Craig Brown one day before the termination day that I think you might need this, and this and this, and it was, I mean, it was too late for me. I couldn’t do anything different, and I told him, I said, 45 days, I think I should have been told this before. I don’t think it’s right. I don’t think it’s fair. Yes, I’m going to get tabled again, but, again, I have to say, 50 flags, 3 flags out of 50, I don’t think that’s hitting too bad here. I mean, it’s so difficult when you’ve got activity up there to, I mean, unless we post a guard, by the time the surveyor gets there. MR. VOLLARO-How many conversations did Craig have with him? Do you have that written down there? Did he have three phone calls? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. HILTON-Well, based on this, it looks like it was three. MRS. BRUNO-And was that with the applicant or with Mr. Steves? MR. HILTON-Mr. Stevens. MR. STEVENS-Yes, but that wasn’t in regards to this. That was in regards to the driveway. MR. HILTON-I’m seeing differently, but again, I’m only going by these notes, and I obviously didn’t take part in those conversations. MR. VOLLARO-Why don’t you read the note off, so we know what it says. MR. HILTON-There’s a few of them. A phone call to Mike Stevens regarding 7/7/06 revision date on two maps with different data. Here’s one actually to Matt Steves, regarding the 7/7 maps. A phone call to Mike Stevens regarding test pit data on Williams Williams map, as well as the wetlands mapping revised when by whom. Those are the notes. MR. STEVENS-But what were the dates? MR. HILTON-9/26/06, and again, I’m assuming, if you submitted in August. th MR. STEVENS-I submitted, I think it’s stamped August 16. MR. HILTON-Okay, and if that’s the case, I’m assuming that that was submitted for September. I can only guess that it was deemed incomplete and it was not heard by this th Board in September, and then as a follow-up, those conversations took place on the 26, like I, that’s all the information I have. MR. STEVENS-That isn’t the way I understood it. The way I understood it was that due to some sort of glitch in the advertising or something. MR. HILTON-Is that what it was? MR. STEVENS-Yes, that’s what I was told, but I only got, like I said, there may have been something on the test pit, and there may have been, but it was considerably after that I handed it in. All I know is when he called me, he said, I’ve got to have it by tomorrow, and there was nothing I could do. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, could I just have a refresher? What kind of wetlands are these again? Army Corps? MR. VOLLARO-These are Army Corps, yes, and they were flagged by Army Corps personnel. MR. SEGULJIC-And what’s the Code on Army Corps regulations? MR. VOLLARO-He’s going to be disturbing some Army Corps wetlands here, and what we’re trying to figure out, what are the limits of disturbance, and actually the flags being set, what is the differential that you see in that, George? How much more disturbance might there be if the flags were what they think it should be? I’m wondering whether we’re, how much wetlands are not visible here, in terms of limits of disturbance. MR. HILTON-Well, that’s difficult for me to tell. I guess, overall, the limits of disturbance shown on the map aren’t clear to me, but if the line I’m looking at on the map is what I think is the limit of disturbance, I’m also seeing a proposed house, and septic system beyond those limits. So I’m just confused by where the limits are and where exactly the house and septic system sits in relation to that limit of disturbance, based on the S-1 map. MR. STEVENS-But you have a map that shows the fill area, and it shows it very clearly. MR. HILTON-I guess I don’t see it. MR. STEVENS-The fill area is behind the house. It’s from the back of the house. It doesn’t have anything to do with the 25, 26, 27 and 28. That isn’t touched. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. VOLLARO-I don’t see that as being, if the flags were set like we think they should be set, the differential in the limits of disturbance is pretty small. MR. HILTON-I think that they may be two separate issues. I think the comment is, number one, that the delineation map appears to be revised, certainly. That’s number one. Number Two, I’ve made the comments that the limits of disturbance, to me anyway, aren’t clear, and if the line I’m looking at, in the area of the septic field and the proposed house, if I go by that area of the line where it says limits of disturbance, you’ve got a septic system that’s going beyond that limit, essentially in the wetlands, so I’m kind of confused by the map. MR. VOLLARO-That would be the southern portion of the leachfield. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Right in here. MR. HILTON-And I guess as I said in the notes, ultimately our comment, my comment is where is that actual limit of disturbance, and can this house and the septic meet the setbacks once the fill is put in place. I don’t know. I can’t see that on this map. MR. VOLLARO-I see where you’re saying where the limits of disturbance as it shows here is crossing, is almost bisecting the proposed septic system. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Putting one half of it into the wetland. MR. STEVENS-If you see that fill chart, though, it starts on that back corner, and it comes right around, and it incorporates that. That was the whole purpose of the fill area was to make the septic system work. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but what we’re seeing here is the limit of disturbance. It shows a portion of the septic system to be in the wetlands itself. MR. STEVENS-No, it’s not in the wetland. MR. FORD-It goes beyond the limits of disturbance. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Have any trees been taken out of here? I think the last time, didn’t we have a topo map or something? MR. STEVENS-I cut my driveway in and I made a turnaround and that’s it. We took, we knocked some down to make a turnaround and get the equipment back out, but that was it. We left what was there there, and then we were told we could buck up what we had, just, you know, don’t, we couldn’t keep going. MRS. STEFFAN-Didn’t take anymore. MR. FORD-Mr. Stevens, you shook your head when I pointed out, will you look at the map, please, and see where the arrow points, limits of disturbance. MR. STEVENS-Yes. MR. FORD-Okay, and that line clearly cuts across that proposed septic. MR. STEVENS-That’s not, I don’t know why that line is there, but that’s not, I follow him now. That line right there, I don’t know what the heck that’s for. I think, it was my understanding it was to get over to this, but the limit of disturbance goes right around. I understand what you’re saying now. I see that. Yes. I don’t know what that mark is, but that’s not how it goes. It just follows that and goes right around. It goes from whatever that is, 25 to 26. It just makes a little sweep there. I see what you’re saying. Yes. I think that’s just to carry it to 25. MR. FORD-What we have to go on is what we can observe right here, and that’s pretty clear to me. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. STEVENS-I’m positive in the other map, that I didn’t bring, the new one that shows, for my four corners, that that line isn’t there, and if that is the only objection you have, I would be glad to provide it. Because I think that was just a mark, that isn’t wet there. It’s dryer, that’s my high ground. So I understand now what you’re getting at. So I wouldn’t have any problem because the other map that I got, which is going to show different numbers because somebody, I think there’s like two 25’s on the flags. If we can get by the flag numbers, the other map I’ve got, it shows there’s no line there. I don’t know why that was put there. MR. FORD-If you don’t know why it was put there, do you know who put it there? MR. STEVENS-That came from Van Dusen and Steves. MR. FORD-And it’s pretty clear that they meant to have it there, because they drew an arrow to it and clearly stipulated that it was the limits of disturbance. MR. STEVENS-Yes, I’ll get, my other map doesn’t have it, my revised map. Nobody’s perfect in this. People do, you know, there’s been a couple of mistakes in this, and we’ve been kind of hashing it over, but I can understand what you’re saying, and I didn’t see it before, but I do now, but had I known that, I could have brought the other map and it would have clearly showed that’s not there. MRS. BRUNO-Mr. Stevens, could you just humor me for a minute? I believe I was still an alternate when you first came through this process earlier. This may have been discussed at your earlier meetings, but had you looked at the more northerly part of your parcel. MR. STEVENS-We went all the way up and all the way down. Of all the spots we picked, I had the Army Corps of Engineers there, Craig Brown was there. We just went up one end and went down the other, and then we had it surveyed, just a rough survey by Van Dusen and Steves, and then we got into the fill area because they only wanted, the quarter acre fill seems to be the real turning point for Army Corps of Engineers. Anything over that starts becoming a big deal. So then we, Van Dusen and Steves came back, dealing with the quarter acre of fill, and they just kept shifting it and moving and moving it, then getting the septic in there, and this was the one spot that we got. MRS. BRUNO-Right. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-See, if that limit of disturbance was to go a little further to the south, and clip the end of that septic system, the leach field, he’d be fine, but it doesn’t. It bisects it, and it leaves 50% of it outside. MR. STEVENS-Like I say, I understand what you’re saying now. In my other map, don’t ask me why, I’m not going to make it up, I don’t know why it was there. I see what you’re saying now, but in my revised map, it’s not there. MR. VOLLARO-The only thing we can deal with is the material in front of us. MR. STEVENS-You have to tell me what you want me to do. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you know, you have to go back to Van Dusen and Steves and get him to give us a map that shows clearly that the septic system is not inside the Army Corps of Engineers wetland. They allow you to come right up to it. The Army Corps says you can get right to it, bingo. MR. FORD-I have an alternate suggestion. You might want consider a different site for your house. MR. STEVENS-Are you willing to give me my money back? MR. FORD-Your money back for what? MR. STEVENS-You mean move it in another spot you mean? MR. FORD-Yes, move it in another spot. MR. STEVENS-Well, we’ve tried every spot on it. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. FORD-Maybe not on it is the place for it. MR. VOLLARO-Supposing you moved that house just slightly to the north, to get inside this area that’s called limits of disturbance, put the house right smack in the middle of that. That would move your septic as well. Assuming that all these flags are correct, it seems like that’s what you probably want to do, and then everything outside of that would be the limit of disturbance, and you wouldn’t be disturbing any of the Army Corps stuff. You wouldn’t, right now, if you look at that, at the corner of your house, it’s outside, it’s in the Army Corps wetland, as opposed to adjacent to it, and so is the septic system, based on the limits of disturbance that I see here. So there’s two areas projecting right into the wetlands. MR. STEVENS-Well, the back is the fill area. MR. VOLLARO-The back of what? MR. STEVENS-The back of the proposed house site is the fill area, and it cups around to the right hand side a little bit, to A-24 or 25. It comes around, if you look at that shaded area. MR. VOLLARO-See, what the Army Corps is allowing you to do is they’re allowing you to disturb a certain portion of their land, right, and I don’t know what the area inside the limits of disturbance are. MR. STEVENS-You have another map that shows it. You’ve got a shaded map that, you’ve all got a copy of it, because I made them. MR. VOLLARO-Are you talking about this one here? MR. STEVENS-I’m not sure, but you’ve got one that shows the actual fill area. MR. VOLLARO-I only see details on this map. This map only has plot plan details. MR. STEVENS-There’s another map with that whole fill area and the, I know because I went and made copies of them. MR. VOLLARO-Now, is this shaded, this shaded area is supposed to be what? MR. STEVENS-There’s a shaded area, and it’ll say the .25 acres that’s being filled. MR. VOLLARO-Now, these flags one through eight don’t correlate with Mr. Steves’ drawing of S-1. I don’t see any correlation at all with these flags. This looks all together different to me. MR. STEVENS-Well, there was two times it was flagged. It was flagged one time, and then we had them come back and flag it again. I don’t know if that map will be the first time or the second time, but it was only surveyed in on the second time. MR. VOLLARO-See, if you were to do an overlay of this drawing, assuming it was in the same scale, with the drawing that Matt Steves supplied. MR. STEVENS-That’s the older map. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, you know, there’s no correlation between the two. The septic system on this is well to the south. MR. STEVENS-Yes, that’s the old map. MR. VOLLARO-We need one map that tells the real story. MR. STEVENS-Well, the problem is every time we get tabled then you ask for something else and we make another map up and you guys keep the old map. So it’s, you’re probably starting to get a stack of the old stuff. I don’t take them back. I mean, you guys have got, you know what I mean? You guys have got all the original ones which don’t even apply anymore. MRS. BRUNO-You’re saying you submitted the newer map? MR. STEVENS-Yes. This actually would be a newer map for the flags than that one. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) nd MR. VOLLARO-What’s the date on the map that you just said that? Is it August 22? nd MR. STEVENS-This one’s August 22 that I have. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and that’s the map that we’re saying has got your septic system dead smack in the middle of the Army Corps. nd MR. STEVENS-It’s not August 22 on that one you’re holding in your hand, I don’t think. MR. VOLLARO-No, it’s not. th MRS. BRUNO-It’s August 14. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that, but, you know, this doesn’t correlate with that. I’m having a real problem trying to figure this thing out. MR. STEVENS-Well, because we revised it after that. th MR. VOLLARO-This is August 14. MR. STEVENS-Yes, we revised it after that. thnd MR. VOLLARO-So this is August 14 is the seal on this. This latest map is August 22. It shows, the latest map shows that the septic system, and a corner of the house, is inside the Army Corps wetlands. That’s what it shows. I mean, I don’t know what else to tell you. MR. STEVENS-Well, I see what you’re saying. MR. VOLLARO-The only thing we can do here is to table this application and have you go back to Matthew Steves and maybe have a meeting with Staff. I think that Matt Steves, yourself ought to be meeting with Staff and clearly coming up with what’s going on here, so that Staff and the Zoning Administrator has a clear idea of what’s happening, so the next Staff notes that come out make some sense. Right now they don’t. MR. STEVENS-Part of the confusion is that, originally, we had to try to move the house site for the fill area. MR. VOLLARO-Look. I’ve got the clock running and we’ve got a real big one coming up tonight, and I don’t want to spend anymore time on this. I’ll do a tabling motion for this application. MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, did you open the public hearing? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I did, I believe I did. MRS. STEFFAN-You asked if anybody was here. Would you like to speak to this application? AUDIENCE MEMBER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Because I asked before, does anybody want to speak to this application. You must have come in late. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-The public hearing is open. You may come up. State your name for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JAMES GREY MR. GREY-James Grey, 984 Ridge Road. I live on the right of way going to the property on the south border. There were mistakes made on somebody’s part. My survey markers as well as my neighbor to the north were removed. I had that place surveyed in ’94. Somehow they mysteriously disappeared as soon as Mr. Stevens decided he was going to build a house on the back property. There were trees taken. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. VOLLARO-Are you Mr. Grey? MR. GREY-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ve got you here. All right. Go ahead. MR. GREY-I paid for those survey markers to be in there. They mysteriously were gone. MR. FORD-Steel posts, or what? MR. GREY-Yes, driven in the ground. Since he has had it re-surveyed, it’s close enough to my satisfaction, even though there isn’t steel markers in the ground like before. There’s wooden stakes with flags on them. The delineation markers, I believe they were moved, like Mr. Stevens said they were. Four-wheelers, kids, I don’t believe so. When Mr. Stevens had Friedman Construction come in and put the driveway in, I was back in the woods watching them when they were doing it, cutting down trees. I saw the bull dozer go beyond the delineation markers. I called the Town of Queensbury Board and told them that the bull dozer had gotten beyond the delineation markers. They came over, investigated, the markers had been moved back. MR. VOLLARO-The markers were moved to show the that bull dozer did not go over the top of the markers? MR. GREY-Correct. Yes. I was told that Mr. Stevens’ construction company was supposed to stay 50 feet from the delineation markers, and then I was told 35 feet. Now you say that they can move directly up to. I’m not sure of the facts. MR. VOLLARO-You can put stuff right up against an Army Corps wetlands, but not into. MR. GREY-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-This is showing that both his house and his septic is entering the wetlands. MR. GREY-Okay. Once again, I doubt that Mr. Stevens has the room, like you say, to put his proposed project in where he wants to do it. I think that the property back there is unsuitable for building what he is suggesting. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You’re welcome. MR. STEVENS-Can I make a comment on that? Just quick. I’m not an equipment operator and I had a backhoe out there playing around with it, and I got it stuck out there. The only reason the bull dozer even went anywhere near the delineated property was because we had to get it out, and I swung it around and got it out. It was no big deal and the Building Department came. They said you haven’t done anything wrong. It’s no problem, and there was no issue, because if there was, you’d have heard about it, and we didn’t move any flags. So you want to just table it? MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to give you a date, if you want to wait for it. VINCENT SPERO MR. SPERO-Can I say something, too? MR. VOLLARO-You want to talk to this application? MR. SPERO-Yes. My house borders the property that’s in question. MR. VOLLARO-Were you sitting here when I said does anybody want to talk to? MR. SPERO-You said originally does anyone want to speak for him. MR. VOLLARO-No, no, to this application. MRS. STEFFAN-Sorry, no, please just state your name for the record. MR. SPERO-I just want to concur with Mr. Grey. Vincent Spero, 972 Ridge Road. Markers were moved, and as far as it being children or four-wheelers, there are no four- 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) wheelers back there, none of that is back there. It’s strictly a wetland, and after the bull dozers were back there tearing the trees down and they were told to stop, there was still cutting going on the next day. So I just want to let you know maybe there’s some issue with the character of the individual here, okay. It’s not just Mr. Grey alone has made that observation MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Mr. Grey and you’re Spero. MR. SPERO-I’m Spero. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SPERO-Markers were moved, and I know there was a survey done. People came out again and were re-doing the survey and then I saw the Army Corps of Engineers back there. I went back to talk to them, and I just confirmed that they were back there, and they said that there was a problem with the wetland and the line and where they wanted to put the septic. They said they saw a problem. Then after that markers were moved. MR. VOLLARO-Did you see the Army Corps setting markers? MR. SPERO-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SPERO-Yes, it was a middle aged gentleman and a young man with a, very young man, but I think that it is worth investigating on the Town’s part to come out, not to take my word or Mr. Grey’s or anybody’s, that they should come out and look at this, and somebody should actually come out and see what’s going on back there and actually check and see, where are these markers. I have steel poles as markers for my boundary, my survey back there, that couldn’t be moved, okay. When the first surveyor came out and was putting his markers in, they were off, because my markers are clearly marked there, with metal poles, and I said, what about the poles here, and he said, well, I guess my map is wrong, we’ll have to come back out. So I think someone should investigate and come out and actually look where the markers are, what should be done. Don’t take anyone’s word. I think the Town, it’s worth investigating, and look into. That is a wetland area back there. There is a lot of wildlife back there, and it is the only border between our property and Stonehurst. MR. SIPP-Now where exactly is this driveway in relation to the emergency squad across the road? MR. SPERO-Emergency squad? You mean Bay Ridge? MR. SIPP-Bay Ridge. MR. SPERO-Bay Ridge is farther up north on the road. MR. SIPP-Farther up north. MR. SPERO-Farther up north. MR. SIPP-All right. Now how would we find, is this area, is this driveway marked? MR. SPERO-If you came up Ridge Road, just north of Haviland Road, if you made a left off of Haviland Road coming onto Ridge, you would see Dan’s Garage on the right hand side. My house is three houses past Dan’s. So it would be the fifth house past Dan’s Garage. MR. VOLLARO-That would be where Mr. Grey lives? MR. SPERO-Correct, right outside of Mr. Grey’s bedroom window is that driveway that they dug up. MR. SIPP-Is it marked? MR. SPERO-Yes, there’s marks there, and I think it’s just dirt, right? There’s some flags there, but you can’t miss it. If you come up there, you see the beautiful houses and the lawns. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. SIPP-We missed it Saturday. Bay Ridge is on the opposite side of 9L. MR. SPERO-Correct. It’s on the west side of the road. MR. SIPP-All right. Now how far down south of Bay Ridge is this entranceway? MR. SPERO-About a half a mile, a half a mile south of that, I guess. MR. SIPP-A half a mile. MRS. BRUNO-You had mentioned something about, or you implied that after they came in to put the driveway in, they were cutting the trees down. MR. SPERO-Yes, they weren’t supposed to be cutting any trees down. MRS. BRUNO-George, could you clarify for me once again, because I’m trying to make sure that I’m completely up to date on this. Was there a Stop Work Order or something along those lines issued, or was this more of a verbal? MR. HILTON-With this property as far as, I’m not sure I understand. MRS. BRUNO-When they went in and began the clearing. MR. HILTON-Okay. I honestly don’t know. That’s something I’d probably have to research. I don’t know. MRS. BRUNO-Is that something that would have to legally be there, an actual, or, excuse me, would they have had to have gotten permission to be clearing those trees? MR. SPERO-Yes. MR. HILTON-Well. MR. SPERO-All they had permission to do was to make the driveway to the woods. They didn’t have permission to go into the woods, knock trees down and disturb anything back there. MR. HILTON-Yes. Typically when there is an application before this Board, we would not want, and we would tell the applicant not to go in and clear in areas, based on the fact that there’s a site plan or a subdivision or whatever pending. In this case, though, I’m not sure what took place, what kind of discussions between our office and the applicant or anyone. I don’t know the nature of those discussions, but I can just say, typically, yes, we would say no clearing. Don’t do anything until, or unless and until there’s an approval granted. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-We have a tabling motion we’re going to be running here, but thanks very much for your information. We’ll probably try and get up and look at it again. MR. FORD-Before you go any further with the tabling motion, there is an alternative. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, Mr. Ford. MR. FORD-Vote on the application, as presented, for your consideration. MR. STEVENS-Well, I’d like to request a tabling. MR. VOLLARO-I think the applicant has the right to request a tabling. MR. FORD-Understood. MR. VOLLARO-So we have a tabling motion set up, and we’ll read it. Gretchen, go ahead. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 18-2006 MICHAEL STEVENS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Tabling it to the December 26, 2006 meeting, the second Planning Board meeting in December, and the application deadline for materials to Staff of November 15, 2006. The conditions for this tabling motion include: 1. Revised maps: a. Map Number One should be a topographical contour map for the entire property, both existing and proposed, what exists currently and what will be proposed. b. The second map that we’re looking for is a site plan map with A, clearly showing the disturbance line, B, the area where the fill is proposed. C, wetlands delineation, and, D, wetlands flagging numbers clearly defined. 2. We would also recommend that the applicant arrange for a meeting with Staff to clarify the submissions made. th Duly adopted this 17 day of October, 2006, by the following vote: MR. STEVENS-That’s not enough time. I wouldn’t be able to do, that’s what, two weeks or something? I’ll never get a surveyor, I’ll never get Van Dusen and Steves there that quick. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then let me revise the tabling motion for the dates. This will be th for the December 26, that’s the second Planning Board meeting in December, and the th application deadline for materials would be November 15. MR. STEVENS-Thank you. AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2006 SKETCH PLAN THOMAS BRENNAN AGENT(S) BPSR OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL-ONE ACRE LOCATION 751 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 22.75 ACRE PARCEL INTO 16 RESIDENTIAL LOTS. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE AD SUB 1-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 20.50, 2.27 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 315.-1- 12.1, 12.2 SECTION A-183 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-This is a Sketch. No public hearing and no SEQRA required. Before we start, there was a comment to Staff on the Fire Marshal’s letter. Is there a letter from the Fire Marshal? MR. HILTON-Yes. There should be. I believe. MR. LAPPER-I have it. MR. VOLLARO-I looked for it in my stack. MR. LAPPER-I can just read it to you. It’s very straightforward. MR. VOLLARO-I think he had no comment. MR. LAPPER-No, there were four issues, and we’ve made the changes, but obviously haven’t submitted it. Emergency service driving lanes must be a minimum 20 feet on both sides of the center divider, and that’s been changed. There’s plenty of room for that. Two, the first island divider appears to be greater than 40 feet from the highway and will be acceptable as shown. Any movement closer to Corinth Road will require additional review. So the 40 feet is there. So that’s not a problem. That didn’t require a change. Three, locations of municipal and private fire hydrants to be discussed. They are now shown on here, and that’s certainly something that they could be moved if anybody wants them moved, and, four, many of the access roads from the main access 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) road to the individual structure are in excess of 150 feet and are dead ends. This is not in compliance with New York State Fire Code Section, and he quotes the section. These are not access roads. They’re driveways. So we were confused about that comment, but in any case, there doesn’t have to be a 150 foot driveway. It is, for the record, Jon Lapper and Tom Brennan, the property owner, and it is our hope and intention that this is a completely conforming residential subdivision. The Staff notes asked us to verify the density, and it’s a 22 acre lot, parcel with 16 homes. Every building lot is in excess of one acre. So there’s no density issue, and there was a question about the length of the cul de sac and the distance between the edge of the boulevard and the throat of the cul de sac is less than 1,000 feet. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Lapper, is that measured from here? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-To the end. MR. LAPPER-I think it’s to the beginning. MR. VOLLARO-To here. MR. LAPPER-Yes. I believe that’s how the regulations are interpreted. MR. HILTON-Well, I can just briefly speak, and this is another one where I spoke with the Zoning Administrator prior to issuing these notes, and the cul de sacs are measured from the edge of Corinth Road all the way to the back of the cul de sac. So it’s a pretty substantial cul de sac. I just wanted to clarify my comment on the density. As I mentioned, it does appear that there’s enough residential density here. Just at preliminary stage, or if we get to that point, we’d like to see the calculation at least shown on the maps. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that would be shown on the Preliminary, I guess. MR. LAPPER-The notes say 22.7 acres. MR. VOLLARO-Is this reasonably flat? In other words, we don’t have any contours to be subtracted from this? MR. HILTON-Well, there’s one area, but I don’t believe it will impact the density. MR. LAPPER-Yes. This is far in excess of the 16 acres you’d need, and I’m looking at the, we’ve got 974 feet to the front of the cul de sac, but if the result of what Mr. Hilton said is true, you would have plenty of room to extend the boulevard additional distance, if that’s necessary. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think the comment was from Corinth Road, as opposed to from the end of the boulevard. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. HILTON-Yes, that’s how we measure our cul de sacs. It’s from the intersection of, in this case Corinth Road, all the way to the back of the cul de sac. MR. LAPPER-Well, that can’t be the case. MR. HILTON-Well, I can just tell you that I spoke with the Zoning Administrator and that’s his interpretation. MR. LAPPER-I can tell you, but I can point to Michaels Group subdivision, Quincy Lane. The Schermerhorn subdivision up here, Hiland Estates, the Hayes subdivision Western Reserve. I mean, everything is measured from the edge of the island because it’s not a, because there’s two, a road on either side of it. MR. HILTON-I don’t believe that’s the case. Perhaps waivers were granted, but again, in speaking, in discussing it, that’s the way we’ve always, we Staff have always measured the cul de sacs is from the beginning to the end. MR. VOLLARO-I think that has to be clarified, unless there were waivers. I’m not sure. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. LAPPER-I don’t believe there were waivers. I think that the issue is that if you’ve got a road on either side, it’s not considered a single access, and I just mentioned three that just come off, you know, I mean, Hudson Pointe, that doesn’t count, that’s got two accesses. MR. VOLLARO-Being that this is at Sketch, that’s something that can be checked out with the Staff. MR. LAPPER-Sure. MR. VOLLARO-I think it ought to be looked at. MR. LAPPER-I mean, Quincy Lane is right next door. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I see Quincy Lane here. MR. LAPPER-I’m just confused about that. MR. VOLLARO-In the North Country letter that was submitted, there’s a submission from North Country in there. MR. LAPPER-Yes, the surveyor. MR. VOLLARO-And they do mention in there that there’s no wetlands on this property. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-But they don’t talk about, he talks a little bit in there about the protected species, but I didn’t see anything clearly, you know, basically we’re talking about Karner blue. MR. LAPPER-Yes. My understanding is that that has been checked, and we will document that for Preliminary. MR. VOLLARO-Looking at the property, I doubt seriously that there’s a Karner blue thing in there. MR. LAPPER-It’s all treed. MR. VOLLARO-It’s all treed, and I, you know, it’s not a typical field where the lupine would be located, I don’t believe it is, but as long as when you bring in your Preliminary we have a comment, probably by, I don’t know, I think Kathy O’Brien, in jut looking at this, she doesn’t even have to come out. MR. LAPPER-I think she did. I don’t recall. I had that discussion a few weeks ago with the surveyor, but we’ll certainly document that. He said that it was checked and I don’t recall if he said it was Kathy. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. She has, I believe she could bring this up on her, and she would be able to tell you right from where she lives what’s going on, as opposed to coming out here. MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. We’ll have that documented. MR. VOLLARO-So we’ve got two issues. We’ve got, looking at the 1,000 foot, over 1,000 foot on the road, the Karner blue, or endangered species of any kind. These are all on-site septics? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you’d need perc test information on your Preliminary. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And also mean high water mark checked as far as, not mean high water mark, but. MR. LAPPER-That was all done before the end of June, but we’ll have all that on our Preliminary submittal. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. VOLLARO-Other than that, I don’t have any comments, because it almost mirrors what is going on at Quincy Lane. It’s almost a mirror image of Quincy Lane. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and I’ve said this before on Sketch Plans, that, you know, with a cul de sac this long, I’d like to see sidewalks. That’s what we’ve been talking about in the Ordinance Review, and there was some discussion last night, we have sidewalks that go to nowhere, but this is a long cul de sac, and if there are going to be families, you know, it would be a great place to walk, and so I’d like to see sidewalks. MR. LAPPER-We’ll discuss it. MR. VOLLARO-That would be a nice amenity. MRS. STEFFAN-Just like all the developments in that area, it’s just, there’ll be beautiful homes, nice places to walk, and I know it’s expensive, but it’s nice infrastructure, and adds value. MR. LAPPER-It’s not so much the expense up front, although it is an expense, but it’s the maintenance because you have the liability issue that, you know, certainly if you have older people, you have to shovel it because if somebody slips, then you’re responsible, and that’s where it gets tricky. MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s indication of a Homeowners Association here? MR. LAPPER-Yes, for the boulevards. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, you know, the Homeowners Association could encompass that. MR. LAPPER-You’re right. It’s just increases the cost, but it’s certainly a possibility. I should point out, Tom just mentioned to me, reminded me that there is an access from the cul de sac for a walking trail to that, or bicycle trail to that future bicycle connection on the site next door that goes to Hudson Pointe that would ultimately hook up with the convenience store, if that ever goes in. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think Hudson Pointe was really enthusiastic about that, were they? MR. LAPPER-They didn’t want the road, but they wanted the bike path, and that was all worked out with the Town Board. So this would hook up to the, a bike path to the bike path, which would be a nice amenity. MR. VOLLARO-That would work out nice. MR. LAPPER-It’s down, right there, the diagonal right by where you were, the next lot, right there. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I see it. MR. LAPPER-And the roadway here was placed as far from the Corinth Road West Mountain Road intersection as a design feature as well. Besides making it more interesting than a straight shot, it’s also better for traffic safety. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that was the parcel that was for sale, obviously. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-So what you’re saying is you made this loop so that the entranceway is as far away from West Mountain as you could get it. MR. LAPPER-Right. That was a design change. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t have any, from a Sketch point of view, I don’t have any other questions, except the ones that have been raised. MR. LAPPER-I’m just really surprised about that issue with the length of the cul de sac, because this, I thought, was a very much settled issue. All these subdivisions were done the same way, but, you know, we’ll certainly get into that. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. VOLLARO-Well, let’s see what Staff comes up with, in terms of, we ought to look at Quincy Lane to see what that was, and whether or not, I don’t even think, is that a waivered issue? MR. HILTON-Yes, it is. It’s in the subdivision regulations. So this Board can. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Let’s see whether we waive those or not. I don’t remember, on Quincy Lane, waiving that. MR. LAPPER-It talks about a single access, and the theory is that if you have a boulevard it’s a double access because if you had a car out of commission on one side, you could drive around the side. MR. VOLLARO-You could use the other. Yes. MR. LAPPER-I know that’s how the Board’s viewed it for the last few years where I can recall projects, but we’ll certainly talk about it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Anybody else got any comments on it? Okay. MR. FORD-Seriously consider sidewalks. MR. LAPPER-Seriously consider sidewalks, we will. MR. SIPP-The driveway to Lot Number One, the east end is to be removed, so the only way would be off the regular driveway in, the one that goes to the barn in back. MR. LAPPER-You’re talking about Lot 16 or Lot 1? MR. SIPP-Lot One, the driveway in from Corinth Road. MR. LAPPER-No, that’s Lot 16. I’m sorry, you know what, we changed the map. So we’re looking at the one that addresses the Fire Marshal’s comments. MR. SIPP-Say that again, Jon? MR. LAPPER-I’m just looking at an updated version of the map. So what you’re calling Lot One, the one with the driveway on Corinth Road, that’s an existing driveway. MR. SEGULJIC-That part near Lot One is going to get removed. So you’re going to access Lot One from the new road. MR. VOLLARO-So we’re not looking at. MR. SEGULJIC-We’re just looking at this one here. MR. LAPPER-Yes, we made that change. MR. SIPP-And the barn goes, too. MR. LAPPER-The barn goes, too. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think that’s it. We were just looking at a couple of depressions, the density. MR. LAPPER-Right. We’re way over that, in terms of that. MR. VOLLARO-It won’t effect it, really. MR. LAPPER-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 1-2006 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED 1093 GROUP, LLC AGENT(S): WILLIAM PALADINO, ELLICOT DEV. CO. OWNER(S): MARY JANE CANALE ZONING HIGHWAY INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL HC-INT. LOCATION 724 UPPER GLEN ST. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH EXISTING BUILDING AND 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) CONSTRUCT A NEW RITE AID PHARMACY. NEW RETAIL USES REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. SP 48-90 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 3/8/06 LOT SIZE 2.88 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-55 SECTION 179-4-020 WILLIAM PALADINO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-There’s going to be a public hearing tonight. Is anybody here for, there’s nobody here for the public hearing. One of the things, before we start, I’d like to talk to the Board just one minute. The applicant has submitted a Short Form SEQRA. I think really for a project of this size we ought to be looking at a Long Form SEQRA. How does the Board feel about that? I think they’d need to supply a Part I to this. MR. SIPP-Absolutely, yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So I think the Board would like to see a Long Form SEQRA, which means you’d have to submit a Part I to us, Environmental Assessment Form, EAF. Okay, and now you can proceed. For the record, you are? MR. PALADINO-My name is William Paladino with Ellicot Development Company. We’re the developer on the project, and with me is Tim O’Brien from BL Companies, our project engineer. MR. VOLLARO-Fine. MR. PALADINO-Our traffic engineer was unable to be here tonight. He had a last minute conflict, but he has sent comments in, after the last meeting, regarding a number of the issues that we can discuss. MR. VOLLARO-I have a small comment on the traffic, but I’m going to let you go forward with your presentation and then we’ll talk. MR. PALADINO-Okay. We’re here to propose relocation of an existing Rite Aid up the street at the corner of Route 9 and Route 274, currently in the plaza. It’s about a 6,000 square foot location, down to a site on Lower 9, wrapping the corner of Lafayette and Route 9. We’re proposing an 11,153 square foot Rite Aid Pharmacy, single story building, masonry building, with 56 parking spaces on site. The site itself is about 1.64 acres, and it is currently, the property we’re purchasing is owned by a Mr. Canale. Mr. Canale’s property actually stretches all the way from Lafayette and encompasses all the property that you see on the plan. Right there, it will involve a subdivision of his property and recombination of the three lots now into two lots, hopefully, assuming this project is approved. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the approval of this project, if it is approved, is dependent upon subdivision of those properties. Is that correct? MR. PALADINO-Yes. The property, even if it is not approved, the properties will be subdivided, in any event. We’ll look to do that and proceed and purchase a portion of the property from Mr. Canale. MR. VOLLARO-I see. Staff, you understand what was going on on that one, that this is contingent on a subdivision? MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. BARDEN-No application for a subdivision has been submitted yet. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. PALADINO-It’s currently in process, and you’ll have that shortly. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Go ahead. I’m sorry to interrupt you there. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. PALADINO-We’ve been through many different phases of this, addressed many of the different issues that have been presented by the Board and by Town Staff. As far as all the setback requirements, we do meet all the setback requirements with regard to the site. There’s some zoning criteria that we do not meet, such as interior landscaping and exterior landscaping on the property. Due to the narrow width of the property, some of these items, we’re looking for some leeway on, on our approval. The curb cuts, we’re looking to, there’s two curb cuts currently on Route 9. We’re looking to have one curb cut on Route 9, close to the proximity of one of the existing curb cuts that is there. Also we’re looking for an access that comes out around onto Lafayette Street, to help alleviate some of the traffic congestion onto Route 9. We feel our project will reduce the amount of traffic currently coming to, well, not currently coming to the property, what could be coming to the property based on the square footage of the existing building. The existing building on site now is about 20,000 square feet. Wide open. I guess it’s been a multitude of uses. MR. VOLLARO-That’s going to be a knock down, except for that small building in the back. MR. PALADINO-And that will be, under our project it will be knocked down. That small building in the back will remain. It’s a senior activities center is how they properly refer to it, and that building will remain. It is actively in use presently. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. PALADINO-We do call for a drive-through on the property, a two lane drive thru. Drive thru access. The drive thru itself from the Rite Aid is, it’s more for convenience than anything else. It’s not like a McDonalds or a fast food drive thru. It’s not used even closely as much as they are. There are two lanes on the drive thru. One is strictly for drop off. The other lane is for pick up, and/or drop off. MR. VOLLARO-The drive thru, could you just point to that for me please. TIM O’BRIEN MR. O’BRIEN-The driveway is located right here. The pick up window is the window at the building, the drop off is the outside lane. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now show me the vehicle path from, let’s say somebody comes in from Route 9 and exits via Lafayette. Let’s just trace that. MR. O’BRIEN-You’d come in, turn in, pick either a turnaround and go back out this way or go around the building and exit. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So there’s two ways for him to get to Lafayette? MR. O’BRIEN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-So, in your mind, the best? MR. O’BRIEN-The best route really would be to go around the building. MR. VOLLARO-Around the building and then out, but the exit from this, the preferred exit from here is to take the Lafayette exit. Is that what your design is? MR. O’BRIEN-It depends on which the direction is traveling. If they’re going to head up Route 9, they can easily pull out and go up Route 9. If they’re going to go out towards the light. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Does that mean that you have a right only out, is that what you’re planning to have, a right only? MR. O’BRIEN-No, it’s full access. MR. VOLLARO-Full access. Okay. That’s what I wanted to know. All right. MR. PALADINO-Yes. We are requesting the curb cut on Route 9 and the curb cut on Lafayette that we have full access at both curb cuts. MR. VOLLARO-At both curb cuts. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. PALADINO-Based on customer preference, I guess and where they live or where they’re heading will determine which route they use, and/or people from the area, I’m sure they’ll familiarize themselves with the site over time and use whichever is the suggested access point. MR. FORD-I’m sorry, before we proceed, could we have a review of that access to Lafayette from the drop, without going around the building. How does one do that? MR. O’BRIEN-Well, they could come in here and they could make a quick right out this way. It is, it’s not a preferred way of turning the building. That site isn’t really designed for a car to do that, with the design requirements, but it is easily conceivable that somebody could perform that turn. MR. VOLLARO-That’s pretty hard, it’s about a 180. MR. O’BRIEN-Correct. You have about 35 feet there to make the turn, but most people will head straight and go around the building. MR. VOLLARO-It depends. If grandma’s driving, I don’t know if she’ll make that 180 or not. MR. O’BRIEN-In terms of the curb cut which you’ll see here, a curb cut on Route 9, and then Lafayette is right here. This is the drive lane itself, and these areas here are (lost word) located, this is our dumpster enclosure, surrounding, green space will be surrounding the enclosures, along with fencing. This here is further drainage (lost words) road right here, and this is all green space, it will be retained by Mr. Canale. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Point to Property B for me. MR. O’BRIEN-Yes, I’m going to outline the property. Here’s Property A, situated right here. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. O’BRIEN-Property B, actually down this way around all the way, the end of it is cut off from the far end. MR. VOLLARO-What about that little spike at the top? MR. O’BRIEN-This here is with Property B also. MR. VOLLARO-It’s all part of B? MR. O’BRIEN-All part of B. As far as the future use of B, Mr. Canale really has nothing in mind, presently, nor has it been discussed with us. MRS. STEFFAN-But you will have a right of way over B? MR. O’BRIEN-We have an easement. That is finalized and I believe you have a copy of it as this point. MR. VOLLARO-We do. MR. O’BRIEN-To access that. We will construct it. We will maintain it, and we’ll both be able to share in the use of it in the future, and these assume will be, in the future, the only access points to the property. MR. VOLLARO-That easement is between yourself and Mary Jane Canale, correct? MR. O’BRIEN-Correct, the proper owner of the property. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Okay, I’ve got a pretty good picture of what’s happening so far. MR. O’BRIEN-As you see here within our site, we have a rather large buffer area about almost 30 feet here out in front. This is green space, which would be out in front of the site. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. PALADINO-We will have, as you can see, Tim, if you can point out where the parking lanes are out in front, where the drive lanes are. MR. O’BRIEN-Parking against the building and then along the front curb line. MR. PALADINO-There’s two lanes of parking along the front of the building and two lanes of parking along the side of the building. There’s 26 foot drive aisles situated there. There’s a 31 foot drive aisle situated behind the building where the loading will occur, in that area there. As you see in the front, there’s a cross hatched area. We’re calling for a new sidewalk, since there’s not much in sidewalks along the front of this property currently, a new sidewalk going along the front, and then there will be a sidewalk that will continue up towards the front of the building with cross hatching bringing you over to the front door of the building. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve already got one vote here on the sidewalks. MR. PALADINO-There’s been discussion, obviously because of Route 9 and the traffic congestion and the level of service at the intersections. I know the Board and Town would like to see some interconnections there. We have talked to the different property owners on each side of us, and they currently are not willing to do anything with this regarding it. MR. VOLLARO-Let me say this, so that, while we’re on that subject, the first thing I have on here is we need a letter from Wendy’s and Jack’s Bistro saying that they’re not interested in discussing it at this time. There’s a reason for that. The way our Code reads, in order for us to give you a waiver on the separation of 330 feet, I believe it’s called for in the Code, we need to know that you’ve made an effort to contact your properties to either side of you, which would be Wendy’s and Jack’s Bistro. MR. PALADINO-I have it from Jack’s. We’ve been unable to get anything out of Wendy’s, after repeated and repeated attempts. MR. VOLLARO-Somebody has to give me a letter for me to be able to do what we have to do to give you waivers, okay. MR. PALADINO-Okay. We’ll continue to try to get that out of Wendy’s. We do have one out of Jack’s. MR. O’BRIEN-Would copies of the letter that the developer sent to them suffice, that they have not responded? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it would. If you’ve got letters to Wendy’s asking about this and they’ve just not responded to you, that would be sufficient. MR. PALADINO-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-At least for me. Okay. I’m sorry to interrupt, but while we were on there, I thought we might as well discuss that. MR. FORD-Certified mail would certainly help, wouldn’t it? MR. PALADINO-Well, we’ll send, like I said, we do have the one letter. Maybe we’ll send just a confirming letter that they haven’t responded to us, to our requests at all, and certify that to them and give that to you. MR. VOLLARO-That would be enough for us to know that they’ve made an attempt to get a cross easement or to get the connection. MR. FORD-As long as it’s certified, but a written letter doesn’t mean that it was sent. MR. PALADINO-Okay. With regard to the green space here, we do meet the green space requirement. We have, I believe it’s 35.6% where the requirement is 30 on the total site. With regard to the interior landscaping, we are short on the interior landscaping, as I discussed earlier, probably because of the narrow width of the site, which leads to us being short on the exterior landscaping also. Once you have the drive lanes to get up to get up to the right parking requirement with the size of the building, it just leaves about two feet on the north side of the property line and three feet of landscaping along the south side of the property. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. VOLLARO-So it’s three versus five? MR. PALADINO-It’s three versus five and two versus five, on each. On the interior, we do show a tree in one of the parking spaces, but obviously to maintain the parking requirement, we were unable to place more trees in those areas. We’re one shade tree for every 15 spaces required, meaning for 56 space we’d need 4. We do have four shade trees along the front of the property we have placed, and one in the parking area. So we have five compared to four on the total site, though, when you only have two lanes of parking it’s sort of difficult to judge interior versus exterior landscaping, and Tim can show where those trees are right there. MR. O’BRIEN-Then we have islands with shrubs. MR. PALADINO-Yes, there’s islands with shrubs around the dumpster area that’ll screen those somewhat, back near the drainage pond and a space at the end of the building. MR. VOLLARO-Could you show me where the deliveries to the building would be? In other words? Okay. Now what size trucks normally deliver to Rite Aid? MR. O’BRIEN-They usually have a truck that will fit for the site. We do show a truck running through the site. MR. PALADINO-Yes, we do show a tractor trailer that can circumvent this site. We show the lines of how they will drive around the site. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. PALADINO-If need be on sites, too, we also have the ability here to not drive around the entire building. We could back up to that door, there, based on the size of the site, and if need be, we can load before hours so we don’t disrupt anything also. MR. VOLLARO-I was looking for the turning radius of let’s say a 16 wheeler, if one came in. MR. O’BRIEN-If you look at the site plan, we do show a truck going through the site. It’s gray scaled so you can see him. Here’s the radius right here. He fits right between these two islands, and back out, towards Lafayette. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. What drawing is that on? MR. O’BRIEN-That would be on SP-1. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see it when I reviewed this and I looked for it. MR. O’BRIEN-It’s rather light. The site is, there’s quite a bit shown on the site plan. MR. FORD-What was the reason for the cut back from the five feet to the three and the two? MR. PALADINO-When you look at the site, based on being able to get the truck around the building and have the loading on the north side, size of the building and to get two lanes of parking on the south side in order to meet the parking requirement, all you’re left with is three feet on one side and two feet on the other, to maintain proper drive lanes, too, being 26 feet. MR. O’BRIEN-What’s also happening is each neighboring property has their parking right up to the property line. So there’s no green space on their side of the line. So it’s really going to be only on this parcel. MR. PALADINO-Yes, but currently there is no green space between any of the properties. The parking spaces abut one another on both sides of the property, a little fence on one side and a little chain barrier on the south side. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. O’BRIEN-If the Chairman would like, I can point out where the truck is on his plan. Would you like me to show you? MR. VOLLARO-Go ahead. Just point to it on yours and I’ll correlate with it. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. O’BRIEN-You’ll see the truck right here, coming into the site, and you can follow it. It goes around. You can see how he squeezes between the building and the property line, if you look where I’m pointing right now. You can see the truck right here, and then he goes around. MR. PALADINO-It’s sort of the outline of the truck, Mr. Chairman. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’m looking at it, but I don’t see the outline of the truck there. Okay. I see it. Okay. So that truck is just, the front end of that truck is really, really close to the line. MR. O’BRIEN-No, that’s the outside, what that truck shows and those outside lines show the outside swing of the truck. That would be the furthest part of the truck that would extend out, meaning the bumper of the truck. It’s not like actually the wheels. MR. VOLLARO-It’s close, though. MR. O’BRIEN-It’s close. MR. SEGULJIC-If I’m understanding correctly, it’s going over the island that’s right in the northeastern of the? MR. VOLLARO-That’s paved concrete. MR. PALADINO-Yes, that’s paved concrete for the truck to back up to. It’s not an island. It’s so they don’t ruin the regular pavement with the dollies that they use to unload the truck. MR. VOLLARO-So the truck will actually go across that when he’s moving? MR. PALADINO-Correct. MR. O’BRIEN-Right. It is concrete. It’s to be driven on. MR. SIPP-Are you going to be removing all the snow from this lot? MR. PALADINO-Correct. Well, we’ll be putting it back, where we can, we’ll be putting it back near the drainage ponds and items like that. MR. SIPP-So there’ll be no snow in that loading dock, unloading area loading area? MR. PALADINO-No, that’s one thing they’re very adamant about is not blocking any of those drive lanes and/or the loading areas with snow. MR. O’BRIEN-As part of Rite Aid’s operations, they wouldn’t allow that. MR. PALADINO-Yes. When we do have problems with rather large snow piles, when it tends to build up, we will haul it off site, also. MR. SEGULJIC-So the truck’s going to continue all the way around the building and go out Lafayette? MR. O’BRIEN-Go back out to Lafayette. MR. PALADINO-There is enough room, too, if the truck actually came from Route 9 also to circumvent around the building. MR. VOLLARO-It probably can be done by a pretty experienced driver, but it looks tight to me. MR. O’BRIEN-You’d be surprised what they can do. MR. PALADINO-Exactly. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I know, but that’s not what we do here. MR. FORD-This is about as tight a spot as you’d want to put that facility. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. PALADINO-That’s correct. MR. O’BRIEN-If you travel the highways, you’ll see Rite Aids sometimes have smaller trailers, because of the intercity sites. Those trailers are meant for driving through tighter sites. MR. PALADINO-We’re showing the worst case scenario with the truck we’re showing here, and as I said, where they do have to, they could also back up to that door the other way and not even go around the building if they had to, if they found it difficult, or they’d probably just use smaller trucks here. MR. VOLLARO-Does corporate require, they don’t have a standard size building. Right now in the other, where the Rite Aid is now. MR. PALADINO-No, they do have a standard size building. MR. VOLLARO-They do. MR. PALADINO-They do, which this is not actually. This is a step below. Their standard size building right now is 14,564 square feet. This site here is 11,153, which is a variation we can do, though not preferred. So we agreed to do this here because of the site limitation. MR. FORD-What’s the size of the next smaller? MR. PALADINO-There is no next smaller building. It’s 14,000 or 11. That’s it. MR. O’BRIEN-On the west coast actually they’re up to, I think, 17 and 20 something thousand square feet. MR. PALADINO-Rite Aid has actually probably the smallest prototype variation of any of the chains now. CVS doesn’t go below 12 and Walgreens doesn’t go below 14. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-That’s interesting. Everybody assumes, when they pick those numbers up, that there are sites that will accommodate that. MR. O’BRIEN-And that’s why in this particular case they’ve actually gone down to the 11,000 square foot building. MR. PALADINO-As I said, with loading and trucks now, they have smaller trucks for accommodations such as this. We have a lot of urban sites that they use the smaller trucks on all day long, because these trucks would never fit on those sites. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m assuming that the Lake George is the 14,000? MR. PALADINO-That’s the 14,000. Correct. You can see the size. It’s a big building. Yes. They poured the pad there now, so you can see the footprint of it now. MR. VOLLARO-Did you go through site plan review at Lake George? MR. PALADINO-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Go ahead. Have you got anything else? I think that’s, we’ve pretty much covered all the stuff we’ve talked to date. I guess if you want to go over some of the questions that you’ve had. I know there’s a lot of engineering questions I know Mr. O’Brien’s addressed with your engineer, if you have any questions regarding that. Our traffic engineer gave a letter back to you regarding some of the comments you had last time regarding the report, that answered a majority of those questions. If you have any other ones, I’ll be willing to look at that. I also brought, I know there’s a question, so I brought an enlarged aerial here that shows the way the curb cuts are across the street from those and those proximities, to give you a better idea as to why ours we feel is good where it is and why the other ones are sort of askew over there. MR. VOLLARO-In looking at this, this one right here, there was a building there already, and if this was an infill, let’s say what we call a infill, there was nothing there, blank, and you were trying to put this in, I would have a problem with it, but the fact that you’re going to demolish a building and put another building in its place in that particular environment 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) on Route 9, I don’t have a problem with that, in terms of the size of the site or the size of the building. I would have a big problem if that site was empty and you were trying to do that as an infill, between Jack’s Bistro and Wendy’s. MR. O’BRIEN-As you can see here, there’s rather large open spaces they have right now, except this little island, from pretty much here all the way down is just open across the street. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. There isn’t very much you can do with the amount of curb cuts that are on that road now, and knocking a building down, putting another building in, and living in that current environment, where that site was once a used site, and this is not just an infill of a blank. I can understand the difference between the two. Does the Board understand where I’m coming from on this? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. O’BRIEN-We’ve also increased the green space on the site from the existing conditions. We’ve eliminated one curb cut. MR. SEGULJIC-As far as you’re proposing 56 parking spaces, do you need that many? MR. O’BRIEN-Usually Rite Aid likes in the 60 to 70 range, and this is all we could really get on the site, plus it matches your zoning. MR. SEGULJIC-So you really think you need all that? MR. PALADINO-Yes, I mean especially around the door. I mean, there’s a few in the back, if we want to make a little more green space we could, but nothing up near the door. As Tim said, it’s sort of low for where we are right now, and what we prefer to see on sites, in terms of use. MR. FORD-Thank you for making a point about the green space and for making that effort. It isn’t a point to be thrown away. MR. PALADINO-We’ve also reduced a curb cut on the property. MR. VOLLARO-I view this as basically an improvement to what was there. If it was blank, I’d have a problem. MR. FORD-That’s what I’m referring to, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. O’BRIEN-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Now, I’d like to get something, in terms of trip generation, I looked at, I’m familiar with the ITE, Institute of Traffic Engineers, Transportation Engineers’ document. It says in here that the spread between the two was something like 10 and 2.55. Were they additive numbers? Because you’ve got a trip generation of 7.25. Is that per trip hour, is that 7.25? It seems low to me. MR. PALADINO-A pharmacy is low, the trip generation. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, I think, the way I read your document. MR. PALADINO-When you look at a pharmacy, it’s more of a continuous business throughout the day. You’ve got young and old using it. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. PALADINO-I mean, as with any business, you know, after work it’s a little bit of a peak, but unlike most other retailers will either get busy in the morning or at night. A pharmacy is a pretty steady business throughout the day. MR. VOLLARO-So the 7.25 is really a combination of egress and ingress in an hour, and that would be 7.25 at peak? 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. PALADINO-Not being a traffic engineer, but I believe that sounds correct to me. Based on other sites I’ve seen, yes, that sounds correct to me. MR. VOLLARO-That’s a pretty low utilization rate. I’m not unhappy with that, because we’ve got some utilization rates I’ve looked in here that are 150 times that size. MR. PALADINO-Yes. Like I’ve said before, we are going to drastically reduce, based on what’s there now and what that building could be re-used for, with what we’re, the lesser square footage and the use of this building, you’re going to see a significant drop in traffic if you compared that building occupied to what we’re proposing occupied. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Okay, but that 7.25 is what you’ve come up with. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess just square this for me. I’m confused, but you said you need 56 parking spaces, and that’s low for you, but only generating seven trips an hour, what’s happening? MR. PALADINO-In pharmacies you have a lot of elderly and a lot of different people. Pharmacy’s like a convenience business. It’s more perception than reality with a lot of it, but you will get spikes after work and things of that nature. Fifty-six is Code, so we have fifty-six parking spaces. We usually like to see as many as we can, like I said, just for that perception. MR. O’BRIEN-It’s a perception also if the parking lot looks empty, nobody’s going to go there, but if the parking lot’s full they’re not going to go there either. MR. PALADINO-Correct. MR. O’BRIEN-So part of retail is you want a parking lot that looks part occupied and part empty for that purpose, and right now we’re meeting your Code. MR. SEGULJIC-And I guess what I’m just trying to understand is, if you’re only generating seven trips an hour, that means a maximum of seven cars an hour, if I’m understanding this correctly. MR. PALADINO-Correct, on average but at different times, though, you will get bigger spikes, during the day. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, people are going to spend half an hour in the store, I assume. MR. PALADINO-People spend some time in these stores. I mean, they hope they spend time in the stores. MR. SEGULJIC-But only seven cars. MR. FORD-That is an average? MR. PALADINO-That’s an average taken out of the trip generation standards for a use such as this. So, it’s not something we just randomly made up. It’s real data that’s taken. MR. FORD-No, but when we look at averages, we also look at those hours when there would only be perhaps two cars. MR. PALADINO-There may be hours when there’s only two cars in those lots. MR. O’BRIEN-There’s also, don’t forget there’s employees. Sometimes there’s up to seven or eight people in the store minimum. MR. PALADINO-And there’s also, when we design the site, too, we’ve got to think of future uses years and years from now, too, what may be there other than a pharmacy. MR. O’BRIEN-And growth of the business. MR. PALADINO-That’s why you have your zoning laws, obviously. MR. FORD-Do you intend to designate employee parking areas? 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. PALADINO-No, we don’t, but we typically tell them to park in the rear. I mean, the parking spaces, given the elderly nature of some of the clientele, obviously, closest to the door are the most prominent spaces, and they ask the employees to park as close to the rear as possible. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ve got the section I wanted to talk to, and this is probably a transportation engineers problem, but let me just go over it and see what you’ve got. MR. PALADINO-Yes, go ahead. MR. VOLLARO-It’s Comment 37. It says regarding the proposed trip generation rates, the ITE trip generation handbook, sixth edition, suggests peak period average trip rates between 2.66 and 10.40, per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, and you’ve come up with 7.25. It looks like it falls right within the ITE trip generated rates, or am I wrong? MR. PALADINO-No, that’s what he was saying there. That’s what his data showed. MR. VOLLARO-Compared to the locally generated rate of 7.25. Now how does he come up with a locally generated rate of 7.25? A lot of people that come before the Board say, look, it depends on how they view it. When they like the ITE numbers, they use them, and when they don’t, they don’t like them, you know. It’s one of those things. MR. PALADINO-Yes, understood. I’ll have to ask him for clarification on that. MR. VOLLARO-But he’s using 7.25, which seems to me falls right in the middle, or almost dead in the middle. MR. FORD-Bob, would you go back and re-read that portion? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. FORD-Because isn’t it stipulated on a per 1,000 square feet? MR. PALADINO-Per 1,000. So we multiply that by, he’s correct. MR. FORD-So you’ve got a multiplier effect in there. MR. PALADINO-Correct. MR. FORD-It really isn’t 7.2. It’s 7.2 times the number of 1,000 square feet of retail space. MR. O’BRIEN-Basically it’s 77 trips per hour. MR. VOLLARO-So it’s 77 trips per hour. MR. SEGULJIC-That makes a lot more sense. MR. FORD-That makes a heck of a lot more sense. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. O’BRIEN-That makes more sense. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It’s per thousand square feet. Tom, I’m glad you picked that up. MR. FORD-Okay. Thanks. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but he’s still in the middle of the ITE trip generation per thousand square feet, because he says per thousand, and he’s saying 7.25, which would give you 77. Okay. So now we’re looking at a different thing with respect to 56 spaces. MR. PALADINO-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-All right. Okay. So what I’m looking at here is basically, he’s accepted the ITE data and he’s using that. So that’s, okay. Go forward. Anything else? MR. O’BRIEN-We’ve received the previous comments from the engineers, and we’ve th addressed all of them. We recently received a new letter. It was dated the 11 of this 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) month. There were three comments for the civil engineering portion of that. I’ve responded to those comments via e-mail to the Town, and to the consultant. I talked to the author of the letter, Alexandria Rhodes. I spoke to her today, and she believed our responses. I also called Mr. Houston at C.T. Male and left a message. I did not hear back from him by the time I left to come to the meeting. I also had to leave at four o’clock. MR. PALADINO-I mean, at this point I think we’ve addressed all the comments C.T. Male did have, unless the Board has further comments and additions to any of those questions that they did raise. MR. O’BRIEN-And if they have any questions or comments to our responses, we’ll address them. We have no issue with anything that they’ve come up with, and basically the last time we were at the meetings, the Board had some comments about the sidewalks, which we’ve added, clarified the landscaping, the lighting. We’ve addressed all of your comments to date. MR. SEGULJIC-With regards to the lighting, how tall will the light poles be? MR. PALADINO-They’re 20 feet in some areas. I believe 20 feet total. MR. O’BRIEN-Flip to LP-1, the lighting plan. MR. PALADINO-There’s a chart there at the top. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m not seeing it. Wait. I take that back, gotcha. I found it. MR. O’BRIEN-The first few lights, O, F, and L, O is at the front canopy. I believe L is in the drive thru canopy, and the other ones are along the building, at the rear door. The Q- Q-1’s, Q-2 and Q-3 are all poles on site. MR. VOLLARO-On your average over min at 4.05, that’s, that’s up in your foot candle chart, 4.05, that’s very, very close to our Uniformity Ratio. That’s pretty good. MR. O’BRIEN-One of our last meetings, you commented that you wanted to get us as close to that number as we did, and we played with the lighting to get that to work, to come in. MR. VOLLARO-Okay so far. I haven’t heard of this Alex Rhodes. Has Staff heard of her before? MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. O’BRIEN-She is, I believe, a staff or project manager and she’s assisting with the review of all projects for Jim Houston. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I haven’t run across her name before. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, that’s a new one. MR. O’BRIEN-She’s in the Gloversville office, I believe. Correct? MR. VOLLARO-Latham. MRS. BARDEN-I think Latham. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, because I just have a note on the bottom of mine, who signed this? Because it’s not a signed letter, but it’s got a fax cover that says its her. So normally we like to see these letters signed by somebody. Right now there’s no signature on the C.T. th Male letter. That’s their October 11 thing. Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m still not a fan of the reader board sign. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels about that. MRS. BRUNO-I agree. MR. PALADINO-With regard to signage, we’re proposing here to meet, to have two pylon signs, and if Tim would be so kind, one there on Route 9 and one on Lafayette. The one on Route 9 would have the Rite Aid sign and its shield, along with the reader board 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) underneath, composing the 64 square feet, which would meet your requirement. We’re also asking for another 21 square feet, roughly the same exact size as the reader board, that will display in the future anything that Mr. Canale should do in the rear for his use, in the rear, with pretty much that being flipped there for the sign on Lafayette then. MR. O’BRIEN-We’d have a sign located right here. MR. VOLLARO-One there, and down there. Now I’m interested in the one that Mr. Canale can use. Right there, and that would be for anything that might go on his Project B? MR. PALADINO-On his Project B in the future. MR. O’BRIEN-It would show the Rite Aid shield also. MR. SIPP-Do you have a drawing or a picture? Is that both of them? MR. SEGULJIC-What’s the height of those signs? MR. PALADINO-Twenty-three feet. Your Code’s 25. MR. SIPP-That would be on Route 9 and Lafayette? MR. PALADINO-Route 9 and Lafayette, at the entranceways there. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s the sign, that’s the monument down in the low right hand corner? MR. PALADINO-That would be the pylon sign. MR. O’BRIEN-The pylon sign. MR. FORD-Why a reader board? MR. PALADINO-To display sales, different things that are going on. A lot of people have them in the area. A lot of retailers use them to help distinguish what they have from other people in the area. MR. VOLLARO-I know that CVS is using one on the corner there. MRS. STEFFAN-They squeaked through, and it’s one of those things that I think is awful. MR. FORD-The fact that they’re out there doesn’t mean that it’s right or that it’s good. MR. VOLLARO-No, I realize that, but that’s what we’re talking about as a reader board, the thing that’s? MR. PALADINO-Correct. MRS. STEFFAN-And we are addressing that in the new Ordinance. I can assure you we’re addressing that in the new Ordinance. MR. O’BRIEN-This is not like one of those ones with the arrow with the flashing lights. It’s kind of dressed down. MRS. STEFFAN-You mean like our Civic Center downtown Glens Falls? I’m sorry. MR. O’BRIEN-It’s kind of appropriate with the type of sign that we’re proposing. MR. FORD-Kind of appropriate? MR. O’BRIEN-It matches, it fits in with the signs. MR. FORD-Kind of semi-appropriate. MR. O’BRIEN-Semi, yes. MR. PALADINO-We feel it’s appropriate. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MRS. STEFFAN-We understand. It’s a norm in your industry. MR. PALADINO-Correct. MRS. STEFFAN-We’re having some issues with that in our Town, and, you know, we’re re-writing our Comprehensive Land Use Plan currently, and it’s one of the issues that we want to address. It’s not the kind of signage that we want in our Town. I’m speaking as an Ordinance Review Committee member. I’m not sure how the rest of the Board feels about that. MR. SIPP-I feel the same way, and I think a monument sign of less height. How is this lit? MR. PALADINO-It’s internally illuminated. MR. SIPP-I’m not in favor of this reader board at all, and I’m not in favor of this size sign on Lafayette without anything on it. MR. O'BRIEN-The sign is approximately 30 feet from the property line, the right of way line, and then it’s probably another 10 feet. So it’s close to 40 feet from the road. MR. SIPP-Well, you know, up that road you’ve got one at Wendy’s, and then you’ve got one at one up above at Sherwin Williams. MR. VOLLARO-Sherwin Williams is up there as well. MR. SIPP-But you don’t have any other pylon types. MR. PALADINO-Well, Dunkin Donuts has one, too, and I believe. MR. SIPP-Well, that’s across the road. I’m looking at one side of the road, and I think a monument type sign of less height than what you’ve got there is something that I could live with, but nothing that size out on Lafayette. MR. VOLLARO-What’s the height of that? MR. PALADINO-Twenty-three feet. MR. VOLLARO-Twenty-three feet. MR. SEGULJIC-That would seem to tower above everything MR. PALADINO-Well, your Code’s 25. So I assume other people have come close to that. MRS. STEFFAN-Staff, do you know how high the Dunkin Donuts sign is across the way? That was approved in the last few years. I’m just wondering. MR. SEGULJIC-What is the height of the building? MR. PALADINO-The height of the building is 28 feet. MR. VOLLARO-So this is crawling right up on the height of the building. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, it’s going to tower above your trees that you have out in front there. MRS. STEFFAN-And there will be a Rite Aid on the front of the building, too, right? MR. PALADINO-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I think 23 feet’s a little excessive. MR. VOLLARO-It seems that way to me. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, it’s going to tower above everything. MR. PALADINO-Well, as with most places, most retailers on the street, it’s sort of in line with whatever the height of your building is, the sign’s sort of proportionally as high. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. O'BRIEN-We also want to provide space underneath the signage for sight visibility, and you don’t want somebody to walk into the sign. The problem with reader boards is sometimes kids like to change the letters around. MR. FORD-Right. So we ought to eliminate that reader board. I agree. Keep it at that height and eliminate the reader board. MR. VOLLARO-I think bring it down, Tom, and eliminate the reader board both. I think the sign is far too high. MRS. BRUNO-Move it down and eliminate the reader board. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, from what I see, your building is going to be visible as it is. MR. VOLLARO-Twenty-eight. It’s going to be a visible building. People are going to know. MR. PALADINO-We’re going to be set back from the street, though, significantly further than the other retailers on the street. So we’re sort of going to be in a little bit of a hole where we’re situated. When people look down the street there, they’re going to see those other buildings and not necessarily be able to see our building right away. So that’s why we do want a sign that is readily visible out in front there. MR. O'BRIEN-Right. If you look at the site plan, you’ll notice the front, the buildings for the adjacent properties are shown, and you can see that our building is stepped back. It’s at least, reading the map real quickly, it’s probably 40 feet beyond the front of those other buildings. MR. SEGULJIC-What about reducing the size of the sign and put it in your lawn area in the front, you know, reducing the sign significantly, putting it right out in front. MR. PALADINO-Well, then you have visual lines, when you look down the street and you see Wendy’s above it and all these other signs higher than ours. MR. SEGULJIC-Hopefully Wendy’s will be reduced some day soon, too. MR. PALADINO-It’s sort of hard not to, I mean, who’s going to look down with all the other signs are at a certain height going up and down the street? We’re going to be missed. MRS. BRUNO-Don’t you agree that most of the clientele for Rite Aid is someone who, clients that are already going to that store, people who have existing prescriptions? MR. PALADINO-I agree with that, but the same thing with the Dunkin Donuts and other things like that. It’s the same people that normally use those locations. It’s people in the area that are going to use them, but you’re looking to always get new customers and have a readily available profile, too. MR. O'BRIEN-It’s also to attract new customers or visitors driving through the area. MR. PALADINO-Correct. I mean, you have a lot of tourism in this area, too, that come here year to year, and they obviously want to attract some of that crowd, too. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the compromise would be to reduce that sign maybe probably two feet, three feet, three feet, and get rid of the reader boards altogether. MR. SEGULJIC-Don’t we want to reduce the height of the signage overall? MR. VOLLARO-Well, you know, one of the problems I have with that, and I understand where they’re coming from, but take a good hard look at where they’re going. I mean, they’re fitting into an already established neighborhood. There isn’t very much that this Board’s going to do about recreating that neighborhood. It’s what it is. MR. SEGULJIC-The only problem is then the next guy comes in and says. MR. VOLLARO-The next guy where? I mean, there’s no, they’re going to, what they’re assuming a great cost of knocking down a building. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. PALADINO-But most of the buildings there are somewhat new. There’s only a few other ones that aren’t. MRS. BRUNO-That’s irrelevant when it comes to re-development, how new buildings are. MR. SIPP-When it comes to writing zoning laws, there could be a sunset provision in these laws that these signs will all be reduced over a period of five years or something like that. MR. VOLLARO-If we write that into the Code on a sunset basis, yes, you could. MR. SIPP-If we’re serious about doing something about signs, I think that’s the step that has to be done. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-I think that, you know, we’re going to table this because obviously we need the SEQRA Long Form, and so one of the things I think we should look at as a Board is the signage. Now that we’re coming down to the home stretch on this, I think we need to go look at the site location, not that we haven’t been there before, but with different eyes. What do we think the sign height should be? Let’s look at what’s in the neighborhood and make some decisions. I mean, I think we’re unanimous on the reader board situation, but let’s look at what’s there and what’s reasonable. MR. VOLLARO-That’s a good point. MRS. STEFFAN-I know that on Lafayette, you know, there’s Hovey Pond that’s there. There’s the fire company. Those are smaller, shorter signs and then there’s the funeral home, the Noon Whistle Deli. So let’s look at what fits based on what we know now, look at it with different eyes. MR. FORD-That makes sense. MRS. STEFFAN-We approved a Dunkin Donuts two years ago across the street. I mean, let’s look at what would fit in with what is there. MR. PALADINO-I think we’ll be open minded, so long as it’s fair in comparison to the other people on the street, both streets. MR. VOLLARO-Let us go take a look at it, you know, go down. I think Gretchen has a very good point. Go down and let’s assess what does the view shed look like now and what would fit. MR. PALADINO-Correct. You have to take into consideration please, too, that we will be sitting back further than everybody else that’s currently situated out there. MRS. STEFFAN-In some of the neighborhoods we’ve actually had businesses converting houses and so the shorter signs are more appropriate for neighborhoods, but certainly an industrial commercial area like this you need something different. So let us take a look at that on our next get together, and see if we can make some better recommendations. MR. O'BRIEN-With that, can you schedule us for one of the upcoming meetings? MR. VOLLARO-We’ll let you know. Right now we’ve got 19 in the back log and the list goes on and on. We go down tomorrow morning at nine o’clock I’ve got to be down there and I go through each one of these things, because right now we’re going to talk about this at the end of this meeting, but right now we only do five and five. We meet two nights a month. That means we do ten a month. So it’s a squash. I mean, this area is just, I know people on other Planning Boards can’t believe the time that we have to put in to do this stuff. It’s unbelievable. MR. O'BRIEN-It sounds like we’ve basically addressed most of the site issues except for the signage, and maybe architecture. It sounds like we can probably address these two items rather quickly. MRS. STEFFAN-I have to tell you, I was very pleased with the package. You came back and provided what we asked for, and I appreciate it. I think it was a very good package. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. O'BRIEN-Right. We’re just looking out for Rite Aid and the developer here. The longer this process goes on, it’s costing them money, and we want to try to get this moving. MR. SIPP-Are you going to be in this area tomorrow? MR. PALADINO-I will be. MR. SIPP-Will you go down to Wendy’s, or across the street from Wendy’s, at a quarter to twelve to one o’clock and watch the traffic go in and out of Wendy’s and look at the line of sight that you’re going to have up through, if you allow left turns out of this, out of your driveway. MR. PALADINO-I’ve seen it, but I don’t think, like I said once again, I don’t think re- developing the site from what it is now, and the amount of trip generation we’re going to generate, I don’t think we’re going to have an effect. I think Wendy’s, yes, it’s very busy there, but I think we’re improving what is currently existing there. MR. SIPP-There’s nothing there now. MR. PALADINO-Well, it’s a 20,000 square foot building. If we weren’t here right now and we hadn’t been proposing this plan for such a long time with Mr. Canale, Mr. Canale would have a tenant in that building right now and it would be operating. He’s had many different uses for. We’re the ones that have held it up. MR. SIPP-Well, fine, but I would say the same thing to them, that when you get people pulling into Wendy’s and then coming out Wendy’s, after they go through the drive thru, that is a zoo down there at 12 o’clock. MR. PALADINO-Most fast foods are a zoo at twelve o’clock. MR. SIPP-Well, then, if you allow left turns out of that at that time of day, with that center turn aisle full of cars stacked up, where are they going to go? MR. PALADINO-Well, I think people will realize with our site that we have another access out of Lafayette if they’re having problems pulling out and they would realize that. MR. SIPP-Well, I would eliminate the access coming on to Route 9. MR. PALADINO-We can’t eliminate the access onto Route 9. MR. VOLLARO-In other words, not make a full turn capability in there, maybe right out only, no left. MR. SIPP-Well, a right would be much better than a left. MR. VOLLARO-We’ve just recently come along with another application, and we’ve restricted the left hand turns because of that, on a different road, but it’s a main arterial, and we went back and forth with the proposed contractor on that one, and he agreed that he would eliminate the left out. That left out of there, Don has a point. Left outs are always tough. MR. PALADINO-That’s the least of, I mean, if one had to be eliminated, I’d feel that would be the one I could probably live with, as long as we get lefts in and rights in and rights out, but once again, in fairness, if everyone else has access to it, and we’re the only ones being restricted, in an area, you know, why should Wendy’s? MR. VOLLARO-They’re there now. Where this Planning Board has got to try to get a little visionary. MR. O'BRIEN-It also sounds like the only time that this would really become an issue is at lunch time. The rest of the day to restrict this site to. MR. SIPP-It’s five o’clock, too, but not as bad, because you have more traffic. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but you know signs don’t work. When you say no left turns, some people, they don’t even look at that. MR. O'BRIEN-Yes, they put the blinders on, but people who would use this store at those hours will learn that exiting through Lafayette would be an easier way. MR. VOLLARO-One thing I like about this site is you’ve got that relief valve sitting right out back there. MR. O'BRIEN-Right. It’s there. That was a plus to this site when the developer found the site and already looked at it. Knowing that they had this second access to this site was a great advantage to us, but looking at this site, to try to restrict us to right in and right out only, for only a couple of hours during the day where there’s a traffic issue, the clientele that would use this store at those particular hours would learn to use Lafayette Street, where the rest of the time this could be full access. MR. VOLLARO-Well, Don, I think what the applicant has said is they would look at a no left turn out of there, and I think that that’s a compromise we could certainly make. MR. PALADINO-So long as we had three out of four movements, I think I’d be willing to discuss that with Rite Aid to get their full opinion on that. Right in, right out we could not live with. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It’s the lowest entrance, the lowest, right there, which would be the elimination of a left turn, left out. MR. PALADINO-Left out. MR. O'BRIEN-So basically it’s going to be a right in, left in, and just a right out, is what you’re requesting. MR. VOLLARO-Correct. See what corporate says about that, because Don’s got a point. It really is congested up there. MR. SIPP-And your landscaping plan, do you use salt on your snow removal process? You’re going to have to be careful with those maple trees because they’re very susceptible to salt. MR. O'BRIEN-It’s a combination of salt and sand. MR. SIPP-Well, the sand won’t hurt it. It’s the salt. MR. O'BRIEN-It all depends on the contractor hired for the snow removal. MR. VOLLARO-A lot of people, in sites like this that, you know, have a lot of turnaround and a lot of internal movements have decided to take the snow off the property. It’s a lot easier for them. MR. PALADINO-Yes, we have, I mean, if anything, you know, I mean, we have land in back we can dump it back there if it becomes a problem. If it does become a visual problem in sight lines and that, we will haul it off. MR. VOLLARO-See, on tight sites, snow becomes a problem in the winter time. MR. PALADINO-Correct. No, you know, we don’t like when you see some retailers just stack it places and it comes into the drive lanes, and that doesn’t occur on our sites. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You said before you might dump it into the retention ponds. I don’t know. MR. O'BRIEN-I think he was pointing to the voids between the two ponds, not in the ponds. MR. PALADINO-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. There is a void between these two ponds, I see that. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. PALADINO-Correct, and plus we’ll be sharing, you know, in the back it’s sort of a common lot in the back and there is easements across it, and we have talked to Mr. Canale about his property in the back, we can store it back there, too. MR. O'BRIEN-The odd shaped piece there, the pie shaped piece would be great for snow storage. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right now that’s an unutilized spot, but that’s part of his. MR. PALADINO-That’s part of his property, his B. MR. O'BRIEN-Right, and I’m pretty sure, the way the site is laid out, that what they probably do with snow removal now is push it to that spot, if they don’t take it off site. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So I would just think a little bit about taking the snow off site, just to see what corporate has to say about that. It’s going to make your life a lot easier, believe me. People who have sites that tight seem to finally resolve it to the fact that, let’s get it out of here. MR. PALADINO-As I said, with all sites, if it reaches a certain point, they’ll assess it, you know, the first winter with this, and they’ll assess at what point they will haul it off, and if it reaches that point, they will, and/or if the Town sees it’s a problem and they’re not doing it, you just notify us and we will make sure it occurs. MRS. STEFFAN-Is that a manager’s decision, do they make those kinds of decisions? MR. PALADINO-Yes. They’ll decide that based on how busy the store is and who’s coming in, if it’s becoming a problem. It’s more, the managers assess for Rite Aid the site contractor they use to do all those operations. The managers give them an assessment, and they work closely with them to make sure that it’s taken care of, and when it’s not, they do complain. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I don’t believe I have any other questions on this. The thing you’ve got to come in, you’ve got to give us a Part I Environmental Assessment Form. MR. PALADINO-Correct. I’ve got the Part I. We’re going to talk about looking at the signage a little more and we’re going to talk about the curb cut restrictions. MRS. STEFFAN-George or Susan, in the Staff notes it says General, any approval of the proposed site plan for Parcel A is contingent on approval of the subdivision of the parcel into Parcels A and B. A subdivision application should be submitted by the applicant and reviewed and approved by the Board. MR. VOLLARO-Is that before we give them a final approval we have to have a subdivision approval, is that how that reads, or should it be contingent upon them doing so? MR. PALADINO-I was under the understanding that they’d be done sort of simultaneously. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. BARDEN-They could do it either way. The site plan approval could be contingent upon the subdivision approval. However, the preferred procedure is that the subdivision would be approved before. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but the gentleman just said it could be simultaneous, which would be better for us. In other words, you would be coming in with a subdivision plan. MR. PALADINO-You approve everything at once and we’re done. MR. VOLLARO-Approve everything at one time for the approval. That would be the preferred route. MRS. BARDEN-Sure, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, I think we would go with that. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. PALADINO-We’re going to have that in to you this week, the subdivision and all that. So hopefully at the next meeting then we can look at everything. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HILTON-Yes. The only thing I would make a comment on is that that subdivision application would then be in by the November deadline. With such a potential back log, is it possible that that doesn’t get before this Board until January? That’s possible. MR. VOLLARO-Well, what we would do in this case, I think, if things are coming to a close, it looks like we’re getting close, we would open it up to an additional meeting beyond what we normally do. We’d put you on an additional item. In other words, if we have five, we’d make you number six. MR. PALADINO-Okay. That would be great. MR. O'BRIEN-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Because I think we’re getting close here. MR. O'BRIEN-I do, too. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. O'BRIEN-I think you’re happy with the site and all the improvements that we’ve made. It just seems like a couple of bullet items, almost. MR. FORD-Bob, have we sufficiently covered to everyone’s satisfaction the appearance of the building in terms of materials to be used and coloration? MR. VOLLARO-I’ve been looking at it. Can you see it down at the bottom there? They’ve done a pretty nice job of it, compared to the last time we saw it. MR. PALADINO-We started, I don’t know if you saw originally, this is originally where we started, and we’ve since made some changes. This was the main concern of the County when looking at it. They saw our Lake George store and they said we’d like to see something similar to that. We don’t think Lake George fits down here, given the other structures in the area. We think something similar does still with masonry, which we have here, it works. I’m not sure what the Board feels. MR. VOLLARO-See, the bank, this starts to compliment a little bit of the architectural, and I’m not, Tanya, you ought to get into this mix, because this is your business mostly. What do you think? MRS. BRUNO-It’s better. I think I stated in the last meeting that I was not going to use the bank as an example, and I’m reading in your letter that you’re saying the same thing. It’s definitely more along the lines of what we’re looking for. I mean, there isn’t a lot you can do with such a large square building. MR. PALADINO-Well, different rooflines hopefully is meant to break up the elevations a bit, the same with the windows and the different materials being used. MR. FORD-I see it as a substantial improvement over the original site. MRS. BRUNO-I could see from, sorry, Bob, but from the two elevations, and I think we had talked about this before that, you know, the name and the emblem on the two diagonal corners, we really are going to have a lot of Rite Aid signage. I mean, you’ve included in your architecture, again, just to back up the statements about the main signs. MR. VOLLARO-What I see though is there’s only one sign. Am I right? There’s only one Rite Aid sign, that’s it. MR. PALADINO-Rite Aid, and we have to have the pharmacy there by law, pharmacy has to be on it. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the same one up there, and it’s the same one in the upper left. MR. PALADINO-That’s all the same sign. There’s only one on the corner, where before we were showing two different elevations in signs. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. VOLLARO-Right. MRS. BRUNO-I’m sorry. My misinterpretation. I can’t read from this far to see what elevations I’m looking at. MR. PALADINO-Yes. This here is the same as this right here. MR. VOLLARO-Right, and that’s the same as it, looking at it dead on. MR. O'BRIEN-This is just a blow up of the front. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. PALADINO-And then this store will have a GNC in it, some don’t, GNC Nutrition. Some areas they do. So they do like to readily advertise that they are in the building, and then also food mart. They’ve expanded food lines in these bigger stores, where some of the smaller stores they get very limited, which I think up there they have very limited food in the stores. This will have that, and then the one hour photo they show, they have it in all their stores now. MRS. STEFFAN-Now are they lighted, those little, on the side of the building? MR. PALADINO-Yes, they are lit, interior lit. Smaller signs, interior illuminated. MR. VOLLARO-They just drive it to the function of that window, is that what those signs are for? MR. PALADINO-No, it’s not a function of the window. It’s just a function that these are available within the store, those different avenues where they’re not. MR. FORD-More illuminated advertising. MR. PALADINO-It’s more illuminated advertising, correct. MRS. STEFFAN-And there are no light strips or anything like that under the eaves? MR. PALADINO-No, under here? No. The only place you’re going to see lighting is in the signage, the front door, obviously, there’ll be lighting there, and lighting underneath the canopy here, and on the back you’ll see some recessed, over the overhead doors and that, there’s some recessed lighting. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not excessive, I don’t think. MR. PALADINO-No, it’s very minimal. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-So, you have a tabling motion going there. You’ve been writing away. We’re just discussing the tabling motion. There’ll be an item in here that says look into the sign height. That’s for you to look at. We will also look at that. MR. PALADINO-Try to come to a reasonable solution. I’m okay with that. MR. VOLLARO-November, I have to look at November’s tomorrow. We would doing five and five, out of the eighteen or nineteen that are there. So we’d be pulling ten of those. MR. HILTON-If the Board continues with the. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what we’re going to, we’re going to discuss this in a few minutes. MR. HILTON-Yes, but if you stay that course, yes, five and five. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, five and five. MR. PALADINO-I mean, we could readily respond very quickly to everything that’s been presented tonight. So we’d like to be on as soon as possible. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. We’ve just tabled two things to December. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Do you have a calendar up there? MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-We’re looking at 10/16 would be the application deadline date to get it in on 11/21 or 28. MRS. STEFFAN-Which was yesterday. MRS. BARDEN-Yesterday. MR. FORD-That’ll be hard to make. MRS. STEFFAN-Would it be reasonable to give them a deadline of the first week in th November for the November 28 meeting? MRS. BARDEN-I think that is fine. It’s just the question of the subdivision application. That won’t be able to be processed in November as well. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and we’d like to do it concurrently if we could. So that would put us outside the November window. MR. PALADINO-It’s up to you. Tim mentioned maybe we could come back and just work out all the other issues and then have the subdivision with the final site plan approval at our last meeting. I know you’re busy with meetings. If you think we could get it all done in one meeting, which I hope we could. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we could, if you could agree, probably, to a December meeting, and we’d finish it off. MR. PALADINO-As soon as we could. Do you have a meeting early December? th MRS. STEFFAN-The 19 is the first meeting in December. th MR. PALADINO-The 19. Yes, I think we could do that. MR. VOLLARO-How about we do 12/19. MR. PALADINO-That’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-That means you’ve got until 11/15 to get this material together. MR. PALADINO-Okay. MR. O'BRIEN-Thank you very much. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It’s a struggle on both sides of the house here. Okay. Go ahead, Gretchen. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 1-2006 1093 GROUP, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: We will table that to the December 19, 2006 meeting, with a submission deadline of th November 15. Tabled with the following conditions: 1. Obtain a C.T. Male signoff. 2. Submit Part I of the Long Form SEQRA. 3. To eliminate the reader board signage from the plan. 4. To provide proof of letter sent to adjoining property owners regarding the interconnection. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) 5. To consider elimination of left turn out of the driveway onto Route 9. 6. To provide the subdivision application. 7. To examine or look into the sign height of adjacent properties for uniformity, and the Planning Board will do that as well. th Duly adopted this 17 day of October, 2006, by the following vote: MS. GAGLIARDI-Did you open the public hearing? MRS. BARDEN-It’s still open. MR. VOLLARO-The public hearing should be still open, hopefully. AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. O'BRIEN-With the Board’s approval, may I contact C.T. Male to get, contact them regarding their approval? MR. VOLLARO-Well, normally that goes through Staff, the final approval, so that Staff has a record of it. MR. O'BRIEN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-In other words, everything is in a box, and if it’s not in the box, it’s not in the record. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, you mentioned earlier you were in contact with both, and that’s normal procedure. MR. O'BRIEN-Okay. th MR. VOLLARO-There was a resolution on July 18, this July. The motion was to limit the number of agenda items for the months of September and October to no more than 12 without the approval the Chairman. So we’ve been operating on a limit of six and six. This is a motion made by Mr. Hunsinger. In other words, we can have more than 12 items only upon the approval of the Chairman, and at the second meeting in October we would re-visit the workload, not this meeting but the second meeting in October coming up, and then make any changes, either to this agenda or Bylaws and Procedures of the Planning Board. So, we’re one meeting away from deciding whether we want to stay with what we have now, which I believe is seven, which gives us 14, or staying with six or some other number for next year. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, how is the back load? MR. VOLLARO-The back log right now, tomorrow I’ll go in, can we do this at nine o’clock, by the way, is it okay? MRS. BARDEN-Sure. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll be in at nine o’clock, and we’re going to be looking at 18. MR. SEGULJIC-A back log of 18. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-How does that compare to back in July? MR. VOLLARO-About the same. We’re running a back log of roughly between 15 and 20 all the time. MR. HILTON-Well, yes, that’s all new. Like you have 18 or 19 new submissions. MR. VOLLARO-And there’s some stuff on the board. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MRS. BARDEN-Or carried over. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Or carried over. So we’re probably looking at a total of maybe 25? MR. HILTON-No, that’s pretty much everything. MRS. BARDEN-That’s it. MR. HILTON-Yes. MRS. BARDEN-Yes, that includes the old. MR. VOLLARO-Includes everything. Okay. What do we do? Do we stay with six and six or do we move it back to seven and seven. MR. HILTON-I guess we’re just looking for some direction, although, you know, the Board stated they would look at it the second meeting in October. That’s going to be after we set the agenda for November. So there’s really no direction out there as to what you want to do for November. So that’s kind of why we were hoping you would discuss this tonight. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. What we can do is we can make a vote tonight to, the Bylaws right now say seven and seven. We could change the Bylaws to say six and six. We could make a vote tonight to do it. There’s enough of us here, to vote, to hold six and six, and change the Bylaws to read six and six. No more than six. MR. FORD-Regardless of whether it’s six or seven, it is discretionary with the Chair relative to the actual numbers? MR. VOLLARO-No. It’s not. In other words, we can have more than 12 agenda items only upon approval of the Chair, but the Chair can’t say I’m only going to allow six, unless I can’t find six tomorrow morning, that somehow or other they don’t go through the filter. MRS. STEFFAN-This is Queensbury. I don’t think you’re going to have any problem. MR. VOLLARO-So I’m sure we’ll find enough to fit. So we could make a vote tonight to hold for six in the Bylaws. MRS. BRUNO-And then you can always say we’ll take an additional one or two. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. We can always say, as a Board, hey, it would be nice, because like we’re going to do for these gentlemen here, put another item on. In other words, we can have more than 12 agenda items, upon approval of the Chair. So six and six would give you twelve, and the Chair might make a vote and say to put seven on for that particular night. MR. FORD-That would require a vote? MR. VOLLARO-No, no. Well, it won’t be my discretion. It’ll be one of your discretions. Just so we know what’s happening. Mr. Seguljic is saying he’d prefer to stay with six, with the Chairman making a vote to bring it up to seven if there’s a special set of circumstances, and if I were voting, and I will, I’ll vote this, but I think that’s the right thing to do, hold at six. MOTION REGARDING LIMIT FOR THE NUMBER OF AGENDA ITEMS. STARTING IN NOVEMBER OF 2006, TO BE LIMITED TO NO MORE THAN 12, WITH THE CHAIRMAN ALLOWING AN ADDITIONAL ITEM UPON HIS OR HER APPROVAL. TO FURTHER THE MOTION, WE WOULD WANT TO MAKE THE CHANGE TO THE BY- LAWS AND PROCEDURES OF THE PLANNING BOARD, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Duly adopted this 17 day of October, 2006, by the following vote: MR. FORD-Clarification. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. FORD-An additional item. Are you talking an additional item per meeting? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. FORD-Twelve yes, thirteen possible, fourteen possible. MR. VOLLARO-It might be. It might turn out that you have a meeting where you’ve allowed an additional one above your six, to each of the meetings for some reason. Normally you would do that when you think you can get through that individual in a hurry, but yes, the answer to your question is yes. AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you’re going to be sticking to six, and I think that’s enough of a load. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 15, 2006 August 22, 2006 THND MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 15 AND AUGUST 22, 2006, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: th Duly adopted this 17 day of October, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. VOLLARO-One more thing that I have to do as an individual is I’m going to have to make a motion to include into the record for the Golden Corral the spread sheet that was developed by the Chairman, as his personal property, will be entered into the record and be available in the record. MR. SIPP-Second. MR. SEGULJIC-What are we doing? MR. VOLLARO-What are we doing? I made up a spread sheet if you remember. It was never included in the record because it was my intellectual property. You understand that as an engineer, intellectual property. It has been summoned through the Freedom of Information Act by Mr. Jon Lapper, and in order to do that, in order for the Clerk to actually do that, it has to be determined that it is part of our record, and then therefore it is FOIL able. MR. SEGULJIC-You maintained it as your own personal property? MR. VOLLARO-I maintained it as my own personal property. MR. SEGULJIC-So now the Board is giving you a directive to make it a part of the public record by this vote? MR. VOLLARO-No. Who’s directing me is our legal staff, Mr. Schachner says that if this was shared with anyone, and it was shared by me to my supporting engineer, which was Mr. Edwards from C.T. Male, and it was shared in a fashion that I just asked him to look at the document to make sure that it was valid. There was no memorandums transmitting it to him, and no e-mails transmitting that to him. It was handed to him by me, with the statement would you look this over to see that it’s accurate, and the fact that I did that, according to our attorneys, made it part of the record. 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/17/06) MRS. STEFFAN-So we don’t have to have a motion. You are just are making a statement that it is included. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-You’re just stating it. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So we don’t have to have a vote on this. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-We don’t have to have a vote. MRS. STEFFAN-I wanted to let everyone know that I heard that the Supervisor’s Office has contacted the people who have applied for the Zoning and Planning Boards for interviews. I believe they’re going to take place next week, and so they are interviewing alternates. I just thought I’d give you a status report because one of the people who applied told me. MR. SEGULJIC-So we’re gaining on them. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s good. That’ll start next week. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Vollaro, Chairman 62