Loading...
2007-07-17 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 17, 2007 INDEX Site Plan No. 3-2007 Vance Cohen 1. Tax Map No. 295.8-1-2 Site Plan No. 22-2007 Jolley Associates 8. Tax Map No. 288.16-1-3 Site Plan No. 8-2007 Stewarts Shops 22. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 303.19-1-61 Subdivision No. 13-2006 Thomas Brennan 25. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 315.0-1-12.1, 12.2 Site Plan No. 20-2007 Agnus J. Vincze-Rosen 32. Tax Map No. 226.16-1-49.1 Subdivision No. 10-2007 Gary Markwell 39. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 309.18-1-18 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 07/17/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 17, 2007 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY THOMAS SEGULJIC TANYA BRUNO MEMBERS ABSENT THOMAS FORD DONALD SIPP STEPHEN TRAVER SENIOR PLANNER-STUART BAKER TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER FIRTH-MATT FULLER STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from the month of thst May. May 15, May 24, and May 31. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 15, 2007 May 24, 2007 May 31, 2007 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES DATED MAY 15, MAY 24, AND MAY 31, 2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: th Duly adopted this 17 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp SITE PLAN NO. 3-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED VANCE COHEN AGENT(S) RON MOGREN SARATOGA ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) DR. MITCHELL COHEN ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 1159-1161 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES AN 18,000 SQ. FT. PUBLIC PARKING FACILITY. PARKING FACILITIES IN THE HC ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE AV 7-2007 NOA 4-06 WARREN CO. PLANNING 2/14/07 LOT SIZE 0.57 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.8-1-2 SECTION 179-4-020 DAVE ALBRECHT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; V. COHEN, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. I don’t know how far we’re going to go with this this evening. There’s only four members here, and because of the County denial, you need a super majority, which means even if all four of us voted in favor of your site plan, we couldn’t approve it this evening. I guess I would like to give you the opportunity to table it until next month. MR. ALBRECHT-It looks like we have no choice. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Can I make some comments? 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. I have some questions about the landscaping. MR. ALBRECHT-Go ahead. I’m not the landscaper, but I’ll do what I can. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess part of this is directed towards Staff also, a clarification. As I read the landscaping requirements, under 179-8-040, E in particular, exterior, exterior parking lot landscaping. As I read it, since the site, the parking lot is greater than 10,000 square feet, they need to have a tree every 250, five foot wide buffer, and a tree every 250 square feet. MR. BAKER-Yes, you’re looking at Sub E? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. BAKER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And I don’t believe I see that on the plans. I could be incorrect. So you need to have at least two trees on the south side and north side, as I read it, and in addition, if I’m interpreting it correctly, this is the Upper Glen Street design standards? So that would mean you need a tree every 35 feet along Route 9, which would make you have to have five trees when you have four trees, and the other thing is you have to have a minimum of 18 inch grass area along the road. I don’t think you have that, on Route 9. MR. ALBRECHT-Along the road in between the sidewalk and Route 9? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. ALBRECHT-Well, that’s an existing condition right now. MR. SEGULJIC-But you’re re-developing the site. MR. ALBRECHT-That’s within the DOT’s right of way. MR. SEGULJIC-How does that pan out? I believe you have to bring it up to standards. MR. BAKER-I’m sorry? MR. SEGULJIC-If I’m understanding it correctly, this is under the Upper Glen Street design corridor, shall we say? And it refers you to Figure 11, I believe. MR. ALBRECHT-So I guess the question is do you defer to the DOT design standards, and what was done originally, or is it a Town regulation? MR. BAKER-What Mr. Seguljic is referring to is a Town regulation. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess that they’re saying that they’re in a DOT right of way, which everywhere would be, and we have these design standards. So who’s Code takes precedent? Would it be Queensbury? MR. BAKER-That’s correct. We can’t require planting within the right of way. We’re talking about plantings on the applicant’s property. MR. ALBRECHT-No. You’re talking about a strip between the sidewalk and the road, which is within the right of way. MR. BAKER-Okay, between the sidewalk and the road. All right. Then that is an interesting question. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, our design code says that. MR. ALBRECHT-But is that for a Town owned street? I don’t know. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, I’m just a Planning Board member. MR. ALBRECHT-I mean, we’ve already provided at least an additional 20 feet of lawn in front of the site from what’s there now. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) MR. SEGULJIC-I’m just asking for the Code. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know if we can require them to put grass in a DOT right of way though. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that’s what our Code says. The question is, does DOT or Queensbury? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, I think it’s a good question. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, we have this design corridor. I’m sure DOT’s all along there. So someone wasted their time writing this Code. MRS. BRUNO-That certainly seems like something that we might be able to get clarified, if we do, indeed, table this evening, which I have a feeling that we will need to, and I can go into that further, but I don’t want to take from this discussion. MR. BAKER-You can certainly do that. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. Mr. Seguljic started asking questions before you had a chance to identify yourself. MR. ALBRECHT-I apologize. I’m Dave Albrecht with Saratoga Associates. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. ALBRECHT-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-And the other thing is the interior parking lot, design standards for that. As I understand it, you need at least five percent, and my rough calculations are it’s 18,000 square feet, which would mean 900 square feet, and as I see it, you have like 660 or something like that. MR. ALBRECHT-Well, we do have an exhibit that would show our interpretation of the interior landscaping which does meet the five percent requirement. We could provide that to you. MR. SEGULJIC-If you could. MR. ALBRECHT-I don’t know how to present this, other than to show you that including the interior aisle, the corners, and the sign. MR. SEGULJIC-Now, I guess that’s a question for Staff, then. Do those corners get included in the interior parking lot? I thought it was everything inside the curbs, and that would not be inside the curb. MR. BAKER-I’m sorry. Could you repeat the question? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m talking about the interior parking lot requirement of five percent. They’re taking into account the north, south, east and northwest corner, if I’m correct, but that’s not inside the curb. I thought interior parking lot was everything inside the curb. MR. BAKER-That’s my understanding. MR. SEGULJIC-So that would not meet the requirement, then. MR. BAKER-No, I don’t believe it would. MR. COHEN-Is there a set rule of interpretation of that? MR. HUNSINGER-We had talked about this a little bit the last meeting. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I brought it up last meeting. MR. COHEN-I was talked to several times about it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) MR. SEGULJIC-I guess you need to sit down with Staff. I mean, I’m just looking at the Code. MR. COHEN-We’ve sat down with Staff several times to go over all this. That’s why we’re at the final, should be the final points here. Every time you’ve addressed the concerns for the green space in the front, we’ve made our changes to it, and it seems like every time we come back up you’ve got something else that you want to throw out there. MR. SEGULJIC-No, I don’t agree with that comment. Because I referred to the exact same Codes I did last time, and I recall looking the perimeter and saying it’s 250 square feet, you needed three. MR. ALBRECHT-Based on the last review letter from Staff, we were 40 square feet short. Now I don’t know what the basis of their calculation was, but. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, the Staff Notes say it appears to be consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Code. However, I don’t agree with that comment. MR. COHEN-But it’s Staff who you keep referring to us to go see, and if they’re saying that it’s sufficient, shouldn’t it be? MR. ALBRECHT-They’re saying that you need 792 and they’re saying that the calculate 755. MR. SEGULJIC-Shall I read Section E to you? MR. COHEN-Well, it’s all based on interpretation, you’re interpretation. MR. SEGULJIC-179-8-040 E. It says a tree every 250 square feet around the edge, excluding along the roadway. There’s no trees to the north and south. MR. COHEN-That’s who’s interpretation now? That’s your two interpretation? Because the Staff is the one who’s accepting our changes, and that should be sufficient for you, right? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, when the issue came up at the last meeting, and I don’t have the minutes right in front of me, you know, we did have a general discussion about it, and we had asked that you show us your calculations so that we understand how you arrived at what you did, and you just did that. So this is really the first time that we’re fully aware of how you calculated the green space, and so I think what we’re saying is that’s not the intent of the Code. MR. COHEN-Okay, but Staff has agreed that that would count as the green space? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, Staff can only advise you. It’s up to the Board to decide, and give you final approval. MR. COHEN-And that’s who you guys keep asking us to go see. So if they’re not advising us in the way that the Board thinks, then, you know, you guys have kind of got to get on the same page, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. COHEN-It’s not very fair for us. This has almost been a year that we’ve been coming to you guys to do this small project. MR. HUNSINGER-I realize that. MR. COHEN-And I’m only working with a half acre here, and I was looking to get a little leniency based on the fact that, you know, everything’s changed around us and we have to change to our environment, for our business, and it just seemed you guys are being very nitpicky and it’s not, it doesn’t seem very fair the way you’re coming at us every week with something new. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I believe if you look at the minutes from the last meeting, I brought up the exact same points. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) MRS. BRUNO-And I only came in at the tail end of the environment with which you set, that you just mentioned, and things were pretty nitpicky with that corporation as well. We’ve talked about the fact that we’re right next to the waterway, and we are, you know, in the Upper Route 9. MR. COHEN-Right, and to mention that, I was here at the last meeting when The Great Escape was looking to make some additional changes, and I mentioned these green spaces I’m now being questioned on, for my property, and they’re not being held to the same standard as I am, for the amount of trees. They have not one single tree across the street, and they put up all new fencing. You guys are not making them do the same, you know, treatment to their property that you’re requiring of me, of 200 feet of road frontage, and they’ve got, you know, three-quarters of a mile, and there’s not one single tree on that side of the road. So, you know, I’m just trying to see where you guys are coming from, and, you know, for you to see the position we’ve been put in here. MRS. BRUNO-Those are certainly interesting points. I don’t think I was at that meeting. I think I missed, if I remember right. If I could just address my concerns, and if you’re looking to finally finalize this, just our report that we got from Vision Engineering states that there are at least three things that were asked for by the previous Town’s engineer that have not been addressed, and that concerns me considerably, since a lot of them have to do with stormwater management, stormwater designs, and like I say, we’re right next to the waterway. MR. ALBRECHT-Okay. We’re in a position to address that, but I don’t know if you want to do it tonight or at the next meeting when everybody that would be voting on it is going to hear it. MRS. BRUNO-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess that would be your preference. MRS. BRUNO-Yes. MR. COHEN-I’m not looking to waste my time. MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any other issues from the Board that we want to mention to the applicant? There are still some engineering issues, based on the current th engineering letter from Vision Engineering dated July 10. So that’ll also give you time to correct those. We did have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here that came this evening to make comments on this application? Okay. I think I will hear the public comment, and I’ll open the public hearing. Sir, if you want to come forward. Just please state your name for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN DON DANIELS MR. DANIELS-I’m Don Daniels. You know I’ve been watching the news, the Post Star and some of these Town Board meetings about the flooding problems that we have throughout the Town, Meadowbrook Road, for one, over where they have Morse Field, a lot of the homes that are flooded, and all these projects were all approved by different Boards. Maybe your Board, some of them, the Town Board. Everybody in this Town that has approved all these projects where we have these flooding problems, and I heard you mention the environmental problem and the Halfway Brook that’s just north of the Cohen property, and ten years ago, on the north side of that property, there wasn’t a hill there. This property was maybe a few inches over the top of that Brook, and the water naturally flowed, and over the last ten years with The Great Escape buying the motel next door, which had a lot of trees, on the south side of Cohen’s property, and they knocked all the trees down, and Mr. and Mrs. Canistrary that had that motel had nice lawns, beautiful lawns, and plantings, and they mowed them all the time, and that dried up a lot of the moisture, and when The Great Escape turned that into a parking lot, and the trucks came in and it got blacktopped and the heavy trucks crushed everything down and compacted that soil, the Town came in and put the pumping station right up in the corner just west of Cohen’s property. They have the pumping station for the sewer line, and then the parking lot was all approved when The Great Escape was forced to build the bridge, and all of a sudden The Great Escape put a great big hill and compacted that soil and blacktopped it on the north side of Cohen, and stopped the flow of water, and then Mrs. Bruno says, well, where’s your stormwater going to go, and I heard that 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) mentioned the last time. You have to get rid of the stormwater. Well, it was naturally flowing until The Great Escape piled all that dirt in there and compacted it and actually squeezed them in a little hole there. So there are a lot of problems, and they were approved by everybody in this Town, and I’ve heard some other mentions here, because I’ve been to three or four of these meetings. I think I might have spoke at the last one, when the bridge was put in and the fences were put up, and that would solve all the problems, but it hasn’t solved the problems. It’s created a lot of problems there. The lights were taken away. The crosswalks were disappeared, and New York State passed a law that says when people step on the road everybody’s got to stop, and Sunday I was driving north and I stopped for two different pedestrians up by, people crossing where the new motel is there, the Comfort Inn or Country Inn or whatever it’s called, and they were people wanted to go across the street to Martha’s and up by the Six Flags Hotel people were walking across the street there, and everybody’s just crossing, they’re the ones that are just walking the sidewalk. We’ve got two nice sidewalks. So people are walking on both sides of the road. There’s no place directing them where to cross, so they just have to cross, and I know Mr. Cohen mentioned about the crosswalk disappearing in front of his property. Well, all about three o’clock in the afternoon Sunday I was there. The parking lot at Cohen’s property was full. Nobody was crossing there because everybody had already gone in the morning, but there was a lot of people, and I had to stop twice for people, along with everybody that was driving, without any lights everybody’s driving really nice now, 45, 50 miles an hour. So it’s kind of dangerous for all the pedestrians, for all the businesses, and then you go up by the Outlet stores and people are crisscrossing, 1,000 of them going back and forth. I don’t know if we’re going to have to demand that the Outlets build a bridge, but I don’t know if that, that’ll probably exacerbate the problem even worse up there, and then I think last year, because the problem has really gotten worse there with The Great Escape boxing everything in like a prison sort of, they removed their fast food stand, the grill, that’s gone, and Martha’s Restaurant is not open this year, because their business was slashed in half themselves, and they can’t get people to go over to even Martha’s ice cream, if you don’t see that get knocked down this year, because their ice cream business is half of what it was. So there’s lots of problems that have happened there, and I know the Cohens have had trouble renting those two buildings there, and there has to be some way for them to get some income, I would think, and that place has always had parking. People have always parked there. That’s all I have to say tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Was there anyone else? Okay. I will leave the public hearing open. I don’t know if you had anything else you wanted to add, Mr. Cohen. MR. COHEN-I think that’s pretty much it for right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, again, I apologize that we don’t have enough members on the Board here to hear your project this evening. Would someone like to make a motion to table? MRS. STEFFAN-Tom, you specifically were talking to the applicant about the interior landscape requirements? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I would say the landscaping requirements, to comply with the landscaping requirements under 179-8-040, that would include the interior parking lot and the perimeter parking lot, and then also Figure 11 of the Code, which is the Upper Route 9 streetscape, which is something the applicant brought up since it’s the DOT can they do it, but I’m just looking at the Code. MR. ALBRECHT-Just so you’re aware, as it is right now, the DOT, because of the DOT right of way, and the existing pavement in there now, we have to remove that pavement, which is currently used for parking, out of the right of way and landscape it. Just to clarify that. MR. HUNSINGER-I think the date we would be looking for is the first meeting in August, st which is the 21. MR. COHEN-Is there any way of knowing who’s going to be here when, as far as Board members? MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, it’s really unusual for us to only have four members. In fact, in the seven years that I’ve been on the Board, I think this is really the first time. It’s not uncommon for maybe one person to be absent. It’s a seven member Board. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) MR. COHEN-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-And it’s actually, a majority of the time we do have a full slate of seven members. We do need an alternate on the Board, which we don’t have. So we only have one alternate to pick from. So if more than one regular member is not available for that meeting, you know, we do have an opening, but this is really unusual. MRS. BRUNO-I can say that I do know that I cannot attend that meeting. That week is our vacation week. So we’ll be down at least by one. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, maybe we should put it off to the following week, then, if we know that going in. MRS. BRUNO-What’s the date of the following week? th MR. HUNSINGER-The 28. MRS. BRUNO-That’s fine. th MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Why don’t we table it to the 28. MRS. BRUNO-I apologize for that. We’ve actually already switched our vacation once. MR. COHEN-I appreciate that, actually. MRS. BRUNO-I should be on it right now. -8-040, is that what you said, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC- -8-040. MRS. BRUNO-Right, and that was in the previous resolution, Number Two. MR. COHEN-And out of curiosity, you’re going to be requiring this of every business in Queensbury that comes in front of you? MR. SEGULJIC-It’s the Code, unless you get a waiver. MR. COHEN-Unless you get a waiver. MR. SEGULJIC-As I understand it. MR. COHEN-And who issues the waiver, the Staff or the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-No, this Board. Staff does not have authority to do anything. Anything that requires Site Plan Review is the purview of this Board. MRS. STEFFAN-So if you review the criteria and then decide that there’s just, for example, if there’s no way, based on your plan, that you could meet those, then you would ask the Board for a waiver. MR. COHEN-Which sounds like it’s something that I should probably look into doing. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t see any reason why you can’t meet the requirements. It’s your option. MR. COHEN-Okay. All right. MRS. STEFFAN-Often when folks require waivers, you know, we’ll ask the reasons why, and if there’s some site constraint or some. MR. COHEN-Like the hardship our business is facing over there. Maybe that would qualify. MRS. STEFFAN-Whatever seems reasonable. MR. COHEN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you have the motion ready? MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll make a motion to table. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 3-2007 VANCE COHEN, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: th Tabled to the August 28 meeting. This application is tabled so that the applicant can th address the Vision Engineering comment letter of July 10, and so that the applicant can also comply with perimeter and interior landscaping requirements per our Code, 179-8- 040. Also, that the applicant will examine and comply with the Route 9 streetscape guidelines per our Code 179-7-050. th Duly adopted this 17 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. It should also comply with 179-7-050, the Route 9 corridor, and that’s the streetscape requirements, that directs the 35 foot trees 18 (lost word) along the road. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s what I had just asked. Okay. Tom, it’s 179-7-050? MR. SEGULJIC- -050. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and I would add to the tabling motion that the applicant will examine and comply with the Route 9 streetscape guidelines per our Code 179-7-050. AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver MR. HUNSINGER-Again, I apologize. Good luck. MR. ALBRECHT-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll see you next month. SITE PLAN NO. 22-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JOLLEY ASSOCIATES AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 1412 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING GAS STATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 4,250 SQ. FT. GAS STATION AND CONVENIENCE STORE, NEW GAS ISLAND AND CANOPY, ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. GAS STATIONS AND CONVENIENCE STORE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE BP 05-923 WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/9/07 LOT SIZE 1.5 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.16-1-3 SECTION 179- 4-020, 179-8-050, 179-6-020 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. While Stu’s doing that, I would like to deviate from the agenda, if there’s no objections from the Board, and I would like to move up the Stewarts site modification following the discussion on this item, unless there’s objections from members of the Board. So don’t go far, Mr. Lewis. Okay. MR. BAKER-Okay. Staff comments on Jolley Associates. The applicant has submitted a stormwater management plan and report as part of the application materials, and that was forwarded to Vision Engineering for their review and comment. Are there other uses such as restaurants proposed for the site? If so parking will be needed for those uses as well as the convenience store use. Parking requirements for restaurant uses are 1 per 4 seats plus 1 per every two employees. This parking will be required in addition to the parking required for the convenience store. The lighting plan submitted shows lighting levels underneath the gas island canopy to be compliant with Zoning requirements. The plan also indicates compliant foot candle levels in the parking area; however there appears to be some light spill near the two curb cuts on Route 9. A traffic study was also prepared by the applicant. This study has been forwarded to Vision Engineering for review and comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, Tom Nace, Nace Engineering, Wendy Cimino from Creighton Manning and Sean Crumb from Jolley Associates. Okay. As has been indicated, we’ve submitted a revised site plan package which we feel addresses all of the comments the Board had had before and also the comments that Vision Engineering had had on the previous submittal. The one, well, one of the additional items that the Staff has brought up is the parking with the restaurant use. There is a Dunkin Donuts co- brand in the facility. What I have done, after receiving the comment, was looked at it two ways. One is the whole store is a convenience store. How much parking is required? That comes up to 28 spaces. The second is to take the whole store, deduct the Dunkin Donuts lease, come up with the area that’s used for a convenience store, okay, do that on a square foot basis, then take the Dunkin Donuts and do that on a per seat basis, plus employee, and that, if you do it all, the math also comes out at 28 spaces. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. NACE-I mean, you can’t count area in the store twice. Okay. So the whole store is 4250 square feet. Dunkin Donuts lease is 1,030 square feet. That leaves 3220 square feet for a convenience store, which gives you 22 spaces required, 21 and a half, round to 22, Dunkin Donuts has 10 seats. At one space per four seats, that’s two and a half or three seats. They also have a max of five employees at any one time. At one space per two employees, that’s another two and a half or three seats. So 22 and three and three is 28. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. NACE-Yes on the other comment on lighting by Staff. We’ve complied with the Code as far as the parking area and the gas canopy. There is a little bit of spill. A lot of that’s from the existing street lighting that we show out on Route 9, which is typical of that whole area, and there is a little spill from the two new lights that are not out at the street, but back into the site a ways, but if you look at it, that light level is very similar to what’s spilled onto the street from the existing street lighting. So we’ve tried to keep it th fairly uniform, and I think that’s all I have. Vision Engineering had a letter of July 10 that suggested that the final site plan show the physical location of that drop off in the back that’s off our property on the adjacent property. There’s a six foot bank there, and we will have the surveyor show that, locate it and show it on the final plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. NACE-Wendy, did you want to address the traffic issues? WENDY CIMINO MS. CIMINO-Yes, just the Vision Engineering letter had just mentioned a few items, and I guess one of it was regarding the adequacy and safety of the existing, you know, the existing entrances, and I guess the point there is they’re DOT approved curb cuts. They’re obviously designed to their standards, and, you know, that’s what will be there in the future. So, you know, as far as the safety and adequacy, you know, that site met the DOT standards at one point, and would, you know, remain to be so. Another comment was regarding the spacing between the Route 9 and the Exit 20 signal, which is over 300 feet, which more than adequately meets the DOT standard for driveway spacing with a driveway and a signalized intersection, and again, it meets it and, you know, that’s how this driveway got there in the first place is they met all those standards. Just as far as the operation, which is something we did talk about in our letter, is with the two way left turn median there, you know, that definitely is a benefit to that corridor. There’s no doubt that that corridor gets congested during the peak times, and that that center median allows for a left turn in and out for a refuge area to make what we call like a two step turn so you don’t need to, you know, cross two lanes of traffic at the same time, that it allows for that, which obviously is a benefit to the site with the upgrades and the additional traffic that would be added. I think that wraps those questions up, unless there’s any others. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions from the Board? MR. NACE-I think at the previous meeting you had asked to see samples of materials that the building would be constructed of. MRS. BRUNO-Yes. MR. NACE-And I think Sean is prepared with that information. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) SEAN CRUMB MR. CRUMB-Unfortunately, I was only able to come up with full size prints. This is called Keystone Blend, and as well there’s a sampling of, you had asked for the window screening and particularly the material around the doors. That would be this. The upper area of the building is color. So that would be around the window area, and that color is a fairly close representation of that. I was unable to come up with the exact, circumstances. You had also asked for some samples of our other buildings, and these photos represent the colors of the trim a little better, at least for the green here, and there’s several shots of those. I had also said I would provide you with measurements of the signage. Now we had switched to the brick because of an earlier conversation, and some earlier approvals that you had given, and that’s obviously a clear indication of how we build our stores and landscape our properties. MRS. BRUNO-These colors are typical of the company? MR. CRUMB-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. CRUMB-And again, I would ask you to refer to the photographs for the absolute color on the window trim. MRS. BRUNO-It looks like it has a little more green to it. MR. CRUMB-It is, and it’s a metal façade, and I was unable to come up with a sample for you. So I tried to get as close as I could. MR. HUNSINGER-Are these pictures all the same store? MR. CRUMB-No, there’s two separate stores there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I can tell that now. MR. CRUMB-And I tried to give you also some interior shots of, we take great pride in the stores we build. MRS. BRUNO-I believe Mrs. Steffan had asked you, at one of the prior meetings, about the front door, the fascia around it. MR. CRUMB-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-And you had stated that that’s something that you’d try to maintain? MR. CRUMB-Yes, it is. MRS. BRUNO-Looking at these second sets, the second set of storefronts, I see that it’s not on there. MR. CRUMB-That one was, I didn’t permit that store. However, we would like, that is a signature of our stores. If possible we would like to see it there. MRS. BRUNO-I think I would like to not see it there, just a personal opinion. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. What are you speaking of, again? MR. HUNSINGER-The green vertical. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-Yes, around the. MR. HUNSINGER-This one doesn’t have that, though. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Yes. MRS. BRUNO-I think given your neighbors, the Church and the School. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) MR. CRUMB-Well, this is Exit 20. This is on Route 9. MRS. BRUNO-I apologize. MR. CRUMB-We’ll be back next week for the other. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, next week’s the next one. MR. CRUMB-And again, and to go back to that, Exit 19, Aviation Road, we had proposed this in brick. Due to the fact that if we’re going to do 19 in brick, we’d like to see the same façade for both. MRS. BRUNO-That explains why some of their earlier comments I was saying, wait a minute, I didn’t see that on that site. Okay. Definitely then, I know that’s embarrassing. Definitely up at the Route 9, because of the previous comments that we had made about another company, I still stand by my comment about the front door and what is around it. More so because we’re more on the northern section of Town, which we’re trying to get more of an Adirondack, natural. MR. CRUMB-Quieter look. MRS. BRUNO-Quieter look, yes. MR. CRUMB-If that’s a deal breaker for you, you know, we would certainly talk amongst ourselves, and my company and decide that I think we could probably remove that. They would very much like to see that, but if it came down to being a deal breaker. MRS. BRUNO-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-I would agree with that. I think we need more of an Adirondack theme. MR. CRUMB-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-In terms of the brick colors, then, you have four samples there. What’s your thought? What’s the concept? MR. CRUMB-Those are a mix and match. If you take a look at the lower brick façade on those buildings. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. CRUMB-That’s the same Kingston Blend that would be used throughout the building, if you go back to the color rendering I provided in the earlier meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CRUMB-These photos here are just photos that Mrs. Steffan had requested to see the split block masonry building that we have. So that’s not an indication of what we’re looking to build. You would need to go back to the color rendering. So I added a little confusion to you there. I apologize. MR. HUNSINGER-I do like this look better than the stripes, personally. MR. CRUMB-Okay, and we like it as well, but again, with the fact that you’d requested that up on Aviation Road, we thought it appropriate to do both buildings the same. MR. HUNSINGER-So the choice is for the lower brick portion with one of those brick colors? MR. NACE-It’s a mix. MR. CRUMB-A mix of all of those. MR. HUNSINGER-It would be a mix, okay. MR. CRUMB-And if you’d like to see it in person, there’s a store going up in Clifton Park off of Exit 9 in front of Clifton Park Center that they’ve just begun. They have the lower brick done. It’s going to be in the split block. However, the lower brick is in this format here, with the blend. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I think that’ll look good. MRS. BRUNO-I’m sorry. Will you still incorporate the brick ledge, what is that, it’s about chest high, just to break the wall up? MR. CRUMB-We can. We certainly, to break that up? We certainly could do that. It’s not in that drawing currently. MRS. BRUNO-Actually, with the amount of windows that you have, it would be so minimal, it would probably wouldn’t even be, it’s just an added, strike that comment. MR. CRUMB-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-In some of these pictures you have awnings. Is that part of it, or? MR. CRUMB-Those are not represented there. The second store there, those stores are both in South Burlington, Vermont. They’re about a mile from each other, and I have no idea why the change was done from one Board to the next. One required it and the other did not. We, personally, do not want it. MRS. STEFFAN-There was probably a western exposure or something, the afternoon sun blinded people. MR. CRUMB-Actually, it is. It is, and as to your comment from the last meeting, Mrs. Steffan, regarding the cases of Coke and the windshield wash and so forth, I think as you’ll see, they are, we have none of that in front of our stores. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-A question on parking. You’re referring this as a restaurant, then? MR. NACE-Well, Staff asked us if there’s a restaurant service or food service in the building, it would count for parking for that, okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MR. NACE-I’ve looked at it in both ways. I’ve looked at it just as a convenience store, okay, with the entire square footage used in their parking calculation. That comes up with 28 spaces. I’ve also looked at it as the area inside that store that’s leased to Dunkin Donuts being a restaurant, with your parking based on the number of seats plus the number of employees, and then the remaining area as convenience store based on square footage, and they both come up the same. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Not that I like more parking. I don’t like asphalt personally, but when I look at the definitions, this is a fast food restaurant, not a restaurant. That, dramatically, a fast food restaurant is one space per each 25 feet of gross leasable floor area. MR. NACE-One space for 25? MR. SEGULJIC-For 25 square feet. I came up with something astronomical, 41. MR. NACE-That doesn’t make any sense. MR. SEGULJIC-No, but it’s the Code. MR. NACE-Well, only if you define it as a fast food restaurant, and it’s really not. I define it more as a convenience store. I mean, most of your convenience stores have some sort of a food service in them, a sandwich shop. In Stewarts they have ready made sandwiches. It’s not much different. MR. SEGULJIC-Fast food restaurant is defined as an establishment who’s principal business is the sale of pre-prepared or rapidly prepared food meals directly to the customer in a ready to consume state for consumption, either within the establishment or off site. Fast food establishment may include a drive thru window, which you have. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) MR. NACE-Read that again. I’m sorry. MR. SEGULJIC-An establishment who’s principal business is the sale of pre-prepared or rapidly prepared food meals directly to the customer in a ready to consume state for consumption, either within the establishment or off the premises. A fast food establishment may include a drive thru window. MR. NACE-Okay, but if you take that definition, I think almost every convenience store in Town should better be defined as a fast food restaurant than, and I don’t think that was ever the intent of the Code. MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t see this as serving meals. MR. NACE-No. MRS. STEFFAN-I mean, a Dunkin Donuts franchise is usually, you know, the principal behind it is grab and go, which fits the criteria, in my mind, of a convenience store. MR. NACE-Exactly. MRS. STEFFAN-You’re on the road. You’re getting gas, you’re grabbing something, you’re out of there. MR. SEGULJIC-So we can consider it a whole convenience store then? MRS. STEFFAN-I would think that would be a more suitable definition. MR. HUNSINGER-And convenience store definition does say, which may offer limited seating without wait service. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So that would meet it more than a restaurant. MR. NACE-Yes, and that’s the way we defined it originally. The way we looked at the parking area. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. That makes more sense. MR. NACE-We really don’t need 100 parking spaces. MR. SEGULJIC-No, you definitely do not. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from members of the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-We have all these colors going on. I think, as I read through the plans, you’ve got green street light, green poles, right? MR. CRUMB-They’re a dark, like a forest green street light. They’re not bright at all. They blend in. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. CRUMB-More so than they would. They are green. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address Board on this application? I would ask that you identify yourself for the record and address your comments to the Board. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN DAVE BENGLE MR. BENGLE-Good evening. My name’s Dave Bengle, a resident in Queensbury, and th at the Planning Board meeting May 24, presented our objections to the proposed project, and I was hopeful that you had the opportunity to review those written comments and the engineer findings that we had submitted, particularly the parking requirements. I don’t mean to sound redundant. I couldn’t hear everything that was being discussed regarding the parking initially. So if this is irrelevant, I apologize, but what I’ve handed you are just recalculations of the parking requirements. The Town of Queensbury states, unless specified as gross leasable floor area, computing parking requirements need not 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) take into account basements, cellar and attic, and the plans do not indicate that all or part of the basement is to be leased. However, we can assume that Dunkin Donuts will have some storage in its basement. Therefore, some consideration should maybe possibly be given to the additional parking requirements for the basement, but from this point on, I’m going to exclude any reference to the basement, since we don’t know. On th the site layout, SP-1, submitted by the applicant on May 24, they stated that 28 parking spaces are required for a convenience store. However, it doesn’t seem like that’s really what the plan is. The plan is to have a convenience store and a fast food restaurant with seating, and I know that you’re just trying to differentiate the difference, but drive thru would most likely indicate fast food, but however you take that. Originally the plan included two fast food restaurants. We believe the applicant maybe intentionally did not include the restaurant in order to avoid having to go before the Zoning Board in attempts th to obtain a variance. That’s the issue, and on the Nace Engineer’s letter on June 15 to th Mr. Craig Brown, which was a follow up to the May 24 Planning meeting, they continue to refer only to the convenience store requirements and avoid referencing the requirements for a fast food restaurant with seating, and any engineer, architect preparing the plans would have to be familiar with the zoning regulations, 179-4-040. They have to know that fast food restaurants require one parking space for every 25 square, one space per every four seats, and one for each two employees employed by the restaurant. To further substantiate our belief that the exclusions were possibly intentional, I refer to the Jolley similar submittal which you just discussed, less basement at the Aviation Road Queensbury location. Sheet Three of the site plan prepared by th Bohler Engineering on December 11 of last year clearly states the parking calculations required. They include 67 parking spaces for the fast food restaurants, plus an additional 26 for the convenience store. They acknowledge the need for one parking space for every twenty-five square feet of restaurant and one space for every four seats, in addition for parking for employees. So that was clearly stated on those plans, and in th reviewing the Staff Notes from July 12, it was noticed that they didn’t really address the need, which I think I heard earlier, of the 25 square feet of restaurant, which we thought was probably just an oversight. So the question I guess we had was why they didn’t use the same formula on this project as they did for the Aviation Road project, and I’m just wondering if that was an attempt to try to slide it through. So that was, I guess, the issue. th In addition to the parking, there are other issues outlined that we presented May 24, that included the National Grid line. I’m not sure if that had been addressed, but it just appeared that they planned to build over it, which may or may not be the case. The internal traffic motions, particularly the RV’s towing boats, I thought maybe that was still going to be an issue, and there’s no escape lane at the drive thru. That was noticed, and again, that may have been changed since. The impact of traffic that we discussed before is still obviously a concern of ours. For the connection onto the neighbor’s property, which they admit cannot safely be done, if you look at paragraph four of the Nace report that Mr. Brown had obtained, and, you know, in addition to the environmental issues, filling in that lot, that we outlined the last time we were here. Primarily, though, stated in my earlier comments, the parking proposal didn’t seem to be anywhere near what is required by the Queensbury Zoning Board regulations. What they’re trying to accomplish requires 60 spaces. They have 28, or 46% of what is required. These calculations exclude any basement requirements. Just to be safe. So based on the lack of parking alone, we do not feel the Planning Board can approve this proposal at this time. It just seems they’re simply trying to put too much into too small a piece of property, and that’s all I’ve got to say about that. Thank you for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else have comments? I’ll leave the public hearing open for the time being. If the applicant would like to come back. MR. NACE-I guess to start, obviously parking is the issue. When we initially started this project, we talked to Craig Brown about the parking requirements. He was the one that directed us to use the convenience store, which is the definition for the use. He was aware at that time that there were to be co-brands. I think originally we were talking about two co-brands, and he is the one that advised us that that was a requirement for a convenience store, and we felt that it fit. We looked at the actual needs, based on Jolley’s past experience with these types of stores, and felt that the 28 parking spaces were adequate. MR. CRUMB-I don’t have a lot to comment about the gentleman that was just up here, other than regarding the Subway and the removal thereof basically had to do with we felt that we didn’t have enough floor space for the convenience store, and that was the need for the removal. I would tend to agree with him that up at Aviation Road, that, yes, you may be able to consider that as fast food because it is a sandwich shop. However, Exit 20 is not a sandwich shop, and we had also, if you go back, and this is really irrelevant to tonight’s meeting, but if you go look at the resubmission for Aviation Road, we’ve also 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) added 1,000 square feet, or requested the addition thereof, and in explaining in my narrative there was for the increased need for the convenience store space. So, to answer his question regarding the Subway, that’s the specific reasoning. We could not find the space. We would have liked to have had it, but due to the fact that we didn’t feel we could increase the size of the building any further, we chose to remove the Subway. MR. HUNSINGER-What about the comment about the National Grid gas main on the site? MR. NACE-The gas main? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. NACE-There’s, it’s on an easement, okay. It won’t, our construction won’t affect, you know, the fact that it’s there, it’ll remain there. We’re not building a store over it. So I don’t see it as an issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. CIMINO-The only traffic comments really were about the trailers, the boats, and that is something that we addressed in our study. We have figures in there that showed internal circulation and how all those different types of vehicles coming to that area can ingress/egress through the site, and the general traffic comment, I mean, I did briefly go over the few minor comments that Vision Engineering had, but in general they did state in the beginning of that comment that there will not be any substantial impacts to traffic. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from members of the Board? Are members comfortable with the discussion and analysis on the parking? Are people comfortable in moving forward with SEQRA? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, we still have the last outstanding issue, the building appearance, correct? MRS. STEFFAN-We were going to ask them to take the green fascia off the entry way. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and are we going to want to see that design again? Then I guess my only other problem is, if we had a Dunkin Donuts come before us, we wouldn’t consider that a convenience store. Would we? So I’m confused about that. Not that I want to see more parking. MR. NACE-If we felt we needed the parking to serve the need, we’d be the first ones here asking for it. It does no good for a retail business to have inadequate parking. They’re the ones that are hurt, not the Town. So if Jolley felt they needed more parking, we certainly would have proposed it. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s my only comment. MRS. STEFFAN-I have to admit, I weighed and considered what the existing site was like currently, any of the traffic issues that were there. I considered the investigation and discussion that we had on the site up the street, which was also a convenience store with a Dunkin Donuts and another, I think it had two different franchises? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-And then I looked at the Dunkin Donuts that we have, although I wasn’t on the Board when we approved that, but the one down on Route 9, and this certainly has a better traffic flow than the Dunkin Donuts that’s down on Route 9, and so when I was weighing and considering all those factors and this site plan, I didn’t think there’d be a problem. I don’t think there’d problem with a shortage of parking, and the current convenience store has Subway in it. MR. CRUMB-Has a deli, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-It was a Subway. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else, Tom? 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) MR. SEGULJIC-No, that’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Are you comfortable in moving forward? MR. SEGULJIC-Let’s move forward. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-The applicant has submitted a SEQRA Short Form. MRS. STEFFAN-“Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” MR. SEGULJIC-No. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) MRS. STEFFAN-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. HUNSINGER-My only hesitation is the amount of fill that’s going to be brought in. MRS. BRUNO-I agree with that. That’s my hesitation as well. MR. HUNSINGER-And it really doesn’t fit under one through six. I don’t think the impact is significant, and it is, of course, being mitigated by the stormwater prevention plan that’s been submitted, but I think it should be identified as part of the consideration for SEQRA, as being a small to minor. MRS. BRUNO-As well as in order to do that, I believe there’s going to need to be quite a considerable amount of trees, foliage that will have to be removed. Remember that’s completely wooded behind there. MR. CRUMB-Not entirely. We do have a septic in the back. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. I probably should have asked this earlier, but have you calculated the square footage of the forested area that will be removed? MR. NACE-The disturbed area? It’s all in the erosion and sediment control report. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. NACE-I don’t recall what it is right offhand. MRS. STEFFAN-Shall we proceed? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. HUNSINGER-You can go ahead and make the motion. We just wanted to identify that there is small to moderate impacts that are mitigated by the stormwater management plan. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 22-2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JOLLEY ASSOCIATES, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 17 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver MR. HUNSINGER-I know you’ve been working on a motion. MRS. STEFFAN-And there was no discussion on the retaining wall. MR. HUNSINGER-Has preliminary engineering of the retaining wall been reviewed by the Town Engineer? MR. NACE-Yes, it has. We’ve provided, Schoder River who’s engineering did the structural for the wall, and we provided those drawing to Dan to review, and I think they were part of your last submission process. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. NACE-Or they may have just gone to Dan. I don’t remember. MR. HUNSINGER-I remember it was in their comment letter, previous, which is part of th the reason why I asked, because it wasn’t mentioned in the July 10 letter. MRS. STEFFAN-I just wanted to bring it up to make sure. It’s been a hot topic recently. So I just wanted to make sure that there were no issues. MR. NACE-And we did provide you, I believe, with the agreement with the adjacent landowner to tie the walls together. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, that was there. Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 22-2007 JOLLEY ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five Negative. Paragraph Eight does not apply. This application is approved with the following conditions: That topographical and adjacent building notations should be depicted on the final documents. That the applicant will eliminate the green front door fascia, and that the applicant notes the design of the building will include the brick façade as presented to the Board. th Duly adopted this 17 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) NOES: Mrs. Bruno ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver MR. HUNSINGER-We need four. Would anyone like to put forward a different resolution for the Board to consider? MRS. BRUNO-Well, it would probably, my reasoning is, is I believe at the last meeting I had mentioned that I thought, given the site, understanding that there is fill coming in and, you know, a larger level area is planned to be made, I just still think that it’s too much for the site. So I don’t know how we would make a motion that could combine that. I appreciate that he has looked at, that Jolley Associates has, you know, the architectural updates and everything. I’m just very concerned that. MR. HUNSINGER-This is an unusual position for me on the Board. If we don’t have enough votes to carry or deny a project? MR. FULLER-It’s a denial. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a denial? MR. FULLER-Anything but an approval’s a denial. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. NACE-Can we, since, okay, do they have to pass a denial vote to do that? MR. FULLER-They just did. I guess that’s the concern. MR. NACE-Is there a way we can table this until there are sufficient members? MR. FULLER-Unfortunately, no. You just denied it. MR. SEGULJIC-So that means a whole new application? MR. FULLER-Well, unfortunately, now they cannot submit on the exact same facts anymore either. Once you’re denied, you’re denied. You can’t come back with the exact same application on the exact same set of facts. MR. SEGULJIC-What if tonight we ask them to, I forget what the building is, 4300 square feet, let’s say reduce it to 4,000 or 3500? MR. FULLER-Already denied it. That’s the concern is we’re in a situation. I just commented to Stu that we have issued a Negative Declaration again, but then ultimately you adopted a denial. Some of the issues that you just raised are certainly quasi- environmental issues. So it’s been issued. Yes, ultimately it’s a denial right now. MR. CRUMB-If I may ask, how is it bearing when there’s three members of the Board not here who’s opinions have not been heard? MR. FULLER-In order to have a meeting, under the Open Meetings Law, you need a quorum of the Board. They have that, four out of seven. In order to pass something, you’ll need that same quorum of the Board, four out of seven. Not quorum of the, not majority of the people present. MR. CRUMB-That doesn’t seem fair to me when we didn’t have the opportunity to come in here and count votes and say, you know what, we’d like to pull our application for this evening and come back when all seven members are here. How is that fair? MR. FULLER-The same reasoning could have been made before they took the vote on the Negative Declaration. It’s the same. MR. NACE-And you’re sure that not to pass a positive vote is the same a negative denial? MR. FULLER-Yes, it’s not approved. MR. NACE-Can the same Board go back and pass a tabling resolution? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why I asked the question. MRS. BRUNO-Yes. MR. FULLER-Unless you were now going to adopt a resolution to rescind the previous resolution you just entered into. Again, that’s on somewhat. MRS. BRUNO-I, quite frankly, did not realize that we needed all four. I thought it would be based as well as exactly what you’re saying, that it would be based on this evening’s balance. MR. NACE-The majority of those present. MR. FULLER-Now you know that it’s four. MR. NACE-Okay, but does the Board have the option of rescinding that, under a positive resolution, and tabling it? MR. FULLER-You could do that. The risk to the applicants. MR. CRUMB-I would ask that it be tabled and we be allowed to come back and review this with the entire Board, once again, to get the feeling of everyone on the Board. MR. SEGULJIC-But we’d have to make a motion to rescind it, right? And then have a motion to table it. How do you feel about that? MRS. BRUNO-I think that’s fine. MRS. STEFFAN-We’re on shaky ground, aren’t we? MR. FULLER-You are, but again, it’s purely the applicant’s risk. If somebody challenges that aspect of the decision. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I don’t understand how it’s at the applicant’s risk. MR. FULLER-If somebody overturns that decision. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FULLER-A higher authority overturns any future Planning Board action by saying you’ve already denied it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FULLER-I can’t answer that question sitting here for you. MRS. BRUNO-If we rescind it, the original denial is still in play by a higher authority? MR. FULLER-It’s on the record right now. MR. SEGULJIC-Now explain to me again how it’s at the risk of the applicant? MR. FULLER-They want to go forward with their project. If somebody came in and challenged. MR. SEGULJIC-Who’s somebody? Some outside group, some member of the public? MR. FULLER-Exactly. Somebody, the gentleman that had concerns with it now. If someone with standing tries to oppose the project. MR. SEGULJIC-Say it was voted on denial, and brought it to court. MR. FULLER-And then says, hey, the Planning Board then rescinded that vote because they didn’t have enough votes to approve it, and then tabled it, that’s the risk you run is that some court could say that that was improper, and again, ultimately they want to move forward. It would be your decision being overturned. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, but they’d have 30 days to challenge that. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) MR. FULLER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-So do they go out and start a whole new application? MR. NACE-He just said we can’t submit the same. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, a whole new application. MR. SEGULJIC-What do we do? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we heard Counsel say that we could rescind the vote that was taken, and the dissenting vote said that she would be in favor of that. MR. SEGULJIC-Is there a risk to the Board in doing that, setting precedent? MR. FULLER-Do you want to take a break? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, why don’t we take a break? Or shall we go into Executive Session? MR. FULLER-Yes. MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: th Duly adopted this 17 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver MOTION TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: th Duly adopted this 17 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver MR. HUNSINGER-And I appreciate the public’s patience. Our attorney has some comments to make relative to our discussion. MR. FULLER-The discussion is of Town Law 271-16. There wasn’t an affirmative vote, or enough votes to approve the project, which is where the majority here tonight went. You need four out of seven votes to make that affirmative approval, and I think what Mr. Nace has said is does that automatically vote denial, and what we’re going to do is allow your attorney, whoever you’re working with, the opportunity to call me to discuss it, and we will have a resolution to that question by the next meeting, and I think that’s where the Board would be heading would be to put you on for that next meeting for clarification. MR. CRUMB-That’s fair enough. MR. NACE-So that’ll be next week? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FULLER-So you’ll just have to let me know who you’re working with so they can. MR. CRUMB-If you can give me your card, I’ve just gotten off the phone with him as well. MR. FULLER-I will do that. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) MR. HUNSINGER-And part of the discussion is for the public’s benefit is there have been occasions in the past where there wasn’t enough vote to affirm a resolution that was offered, and there has been cases where multiple resolutions were offered before one was ultimately adopted. So there was some precedent for that conclusion. MR. FULLER-Where the concern was tonight is that difference is we didn’t have another resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. FULLER-So what do we do with you without another resolution coming forward, and I think that’s what we need to resolve. MR. HUNSINGER-And in those other cases we had a full slate in attendance as well. MRS. BRUNO-Right. MR. FULLER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Or I’m sorry we had six out of seven. Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 22-2007 JOLLEY ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: Until our next meeting on July 24, 2007. The Planning Board has decided to allow our Town Counsel and the applicant’s counsel to further discuss this issue and procedural matters. We do not have enough votes to resolve this issue tonight, and that’s why we’re tabling this application. th Duly adopted this 17 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 8-2007 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED STEWARTS SHOPS AGENT(S) SAME OWNER(S) QUAKER & DIX NORTHERN DRIVE LLC ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 777 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO THE APPROVED PLAN. MODIFICATIONS INCLUDE CHANGES TO THE GAS ISLANDS, BLACKTOP REDUCTION; RELOCATION OF TANKS; REDUCED SITE LIGHTING. CROSS REFERENCE SP 59-2004, OPS 27-07 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/14/07 LOT SIZE 1.5 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.19-1-61 SECTION 179-4-020 TOM LEWIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. LEWIS-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. I guess before you start, in light of the past application and what occurred, I will give you and any other applicants this evening the option to table our discussion to a future date. MR. LEWIS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You’re welcome. MR. LEWIS-I’m Tom Lewis. I’m the real estate representative of the Stewarts Shops, and I have been in this exact situation maybe five or six times, and each time when the Chairman either said that or even if they didn’t, I would ask is it okay if, as I go over our application, if I could get a sense from the Board as to where they might be and there was only one time when I was ever denied that, and there was a vote and I was unanimously defeated. So it really wouldn’t have mattered anyway. We have been before this Board a number of times and were approved last month and Mr. Dake, who 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) you’ve occasionally heard me refer to, is what I would describe as relentless. He never stops, and even after we were approved, he looked at the site plan and said, you know, Tom, you really screwed up, because when you look at what we had asked for, that you were so gracious as to approve, which is on the big sheet, which you’ll see we were approved on the right, the four islands, and he explained to me how, that it’ll be difficult for a car if there’s a car at one of these islands here, and then they have to go here, it’ll be hard getting around. So even though, Tom, you thought we needed four islands, we really only need three. So we’re asking for a modification for less than we were approved, and we’re actually reducing our island by 50% from 2808 square feet to 1400. There will be a very modest increase in the blacktop, but we still have over 40% of green space. We have relocated the underground tanks to a more sensible spot because of this, and might I mention that the lighting will be, as a consequence, decreased. Now I wish I could say Mr. Dake had looked at that sheet, with all the numbers on it, the lighting sheet, and said, oh my God, I’m blinded by the light, but that’s actually not what happened. So then there’s a second sheet which I’ve enclosed where I’ve highlighted in yellow what’s new and in green what was approved, and you’ll see that the numbers get lower and the overall site goes from .61 down to .53. So with that brief presentation, I wonder if I could ask the Board for a sense of where they may be on this, before I actually ask whether the Board would consider an approval. MR. SEGULJIC-I’ll ask for clarification. So you’re reducing the number of pumps from four to three? MR. LEWIS-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s the only change, then, other than the increase in the asphalt? MR. LEWIS-Yes, modest increase, and where the tanks, where the underground tanks are moved. MR. SEGULJIC-Why, I would think if you’re decreasing your number of pumps, you would decrease your asphalt, not increase. Why are you increasing? MR. LEWIS-Well, because you’ll see that we needed more room to go around the pump, which is why I gave you the sheet that shows both the increase is right over here, sorry, wrong site plan, wrong town. See, we had the blacktop here, and in order to have the cars go around this way, we had to add about 1400 square feet of blacktop, which actually also by the way gave us an extra parking spot, but this, this is really about the ease of our customers. This is about making things easy for them, and even though there’s one less island, which in theory means we’re going to make less money, if you’re good to your customers, you usually get it back. So, it’s just a modest amount right up here, with lots of green space. MRS. STEFFAN-But it doesn’t affect that garden that was right (lost words)? MR. LEWIS-We also added those whiskey thingies are on the plan. So we’re happy to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-And the building hasn’t changed at all? MR. LEWIS-Nothing else has changed. Only those two items, the tanks, and one less pump, less light. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Tanya? MRS. BRUNO-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Do we have to reconsider SEQRA? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we do have to consider it, but we don’t have to go through the whole thing. If there’s any changes, then we would have to, but. MRS. BRUNO-No changes in the stormwater. It doesn’t affect anything. MR. LEWIS-Nothing. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) MRS. STEFFAN-Ready to go forward? MR. HUNSINGER-Are we okay? MR. BAKER-If the Board is so inclined, you could simply state for the purposes of the addressing SEQRA that you don’t feel there are significant changes, that the changes that are proposed to the site plan, rather, are significant enough to change your previous Negative Declaration. MR. SEGULJIC-So is that two separate motions? MR. BAKER-You could do it as part of the same motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we do have the language about SEQRA in the standard motion, as Item Five, and usually we just modify that to say that we had previously adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration, and the proposed modifications do not result in any new or significant environmental impacts. Okay. Gretchen has it. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 8-2007 STEWARTS SHOPS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: 1. WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a modification to the approved plan. Modifications include changes to the gas islands, blacktop reduction; relocation of tanks; reduced site lighting. 2. WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for a modification. 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 comply with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 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; and 7. 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 8 If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and NOT APPLICABLE 9. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection. NOT APPLICABLE 10. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 8-2007 STEWARTS SHOPS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph One, it says blacktop reduction. Reduction should be struck from that paragraph, blacktop reduction should be struck. Paragraph Two is fine. Paragraph Three is fine. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered. This application is a modification. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) does not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts. Therefore, the Board determined that no further SEQRA review is necessary. Paragraph Six is fine. Paragraph Seven is fine. Paragraph Eight and Nine do not apply. th Duly adopted this 17 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver MR. LEWIS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. LEWIS-By the way, we bought the property. MR. HUNSINGER-You did. MR. LEWIS-We avoided foreclosure. The bank said we’re probably their best bet. We are. Thank you very much. MRS. BRUNO-I have one other curiosity question. You know how last time you had said that you could not sell any meat products because of McDonalds, like the agreement with the. MR. LEWIS-There is a deed restriction which lists specific meat items. MRS. BRUNO-Specific. That was my question. MR. LEWIS-We’re not allowed to sell, and so we bought a modification that will allow us to sell what we now sell, but I can’t add something new like, you know, double decker hamburgers or something. MRS. BRUNO-Right. Okay. Thanks. MR. LEWIS-Thank you very much. SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2006 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED THOMAS BRENNAN AGENT(S) B P S R OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION 751 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 22.70 ACRE PARCEL INTO 16 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1.0 TO 2.33 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SKETCH: 10/17/06 WARREN CO. PLANNING 4/11/07 LOT SIZE 22.70 TAX MAP NO. 315.0-1-12.1, 12.2 SECTION A-183 STEPHANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MS. BITTER-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MS. BITTER-Stephanie Bitter for the applicant, together with Dave BOGARDIS, the project engineer, and Tom Brennan, the applicant. I know that in order to do a brief overview of the Staff comments, I know our submission was extensive to review the items that were deficient at the last meeting. Just to highlight, two of the items that are still of issue, or could be of concern, the length of the cul de sac. We are seeking a waiver, after requesting a determination from Craig Brown, he said that that was the adequate procedure to follow. We feel that this waiver is a reasonable request, considering that there’s four other subdivisions that have a similar type boulevard style, in addition to the fact that the 1,000 foot requirement is actually met from the last landscaping island to the end of the cul de sac. So we feel as if the spirit of the regulation is being addressed. The next item would be the sidewalks. I know that the sidewalks were requested at Sketch Plan review. Due to the fact that originally we were trying to incorporate a connection with the bike path. We understood that that was something to at least try and consider for the purposes of protecting the pedestrians that would be trying to connect to the bike path. Unfortunately, during this review, Hudson Pointe’s property is actually between this parcel and the bike path, and we would have to 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) get their approval in order to make that connection. They’ve declined that request. As a result, since the bike path is no longer an issue, we have removed the (lost word) of the sidewalks. In addition to the fact that the sidewalks would just be leading pedestrians to Corinth Road, which do not have sidewalks, it’s our understanding, in speaking to members of DOT, that that’s considered a hazard to try and lead individuals to destinations of high volume traffic that don’t have sidewalks. Before I turn it over to Dave BOGARDIS to go over the engineering comments, I just want to note that we did have, or we did anticipate that stormwater would still possibly be a concern, based on the engineer’s review. We did try and reach out and have a meeting with the Town Engineer prior to this meeting, to try and iron out those issues, but unfortunately it wasn’t able to be met. So we are willing to try and meet with them to discuss this, and we apologize that we couldn’t do it beforehand, but we did try to. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. BITTER-I’ll turn it over to Dave. DAVE BOGARDIS MR. BOGARDIS-I’m going to go through the Staff comments first, which I received on Friday. The first one Stephanie reiterated is the length of the cul de sac. The second is the density calculations. We did revise those density calculations and submit those with this package. There was a question about the habitat for the new Karner blue butterfly. We submitted a letter dated May 15 with our package. I believe that’s complete. The next comment was the percolation test. The comment Staff made is they were provided. The results of those are on the plan sheets that you do have. Stephanie talked about the sidewalks. Stephanie talked about the pedestrian bicycle connection. The next item was missing information from the previous submittal, and, Stephanie, why don’t you reiterate on that. MS. BITTER-Those items have been met, which Stu acknowledges, but based on our letter of submission. MR. BOGARDIS-Okay. The comments, the last comment from the Staff is that they recommend that these issues, the issues regarding stormwater be addressed with the th Town Engineer prior to granting Preliminary approval for this plat. On July 10, we did talk to Mr. Dan Ryan, and he said that we would have to get permission from the Planning Department to have a meeting, and it wasn’t appropriate to do so at that time. So we did not have a meeting. We attempted to have one. So I apologize. We can’t address all of these stormwater management issues and Vision Engineering. I can talk about them, but I’m not the stormwater engineer. The stormwater engineer is Phil Culzy from Edwards and Kelcey. I can talk about them. I’m knowledgeable enough to talk about them, but I can’t answer the specific questions about the stormwater management report which you do have. The first comment from the engineer was he wanted back up information for our traffic count, which I have given Stephanie a copy to provide to you tonight and we will provide additional copies. The second comment addresses the stormwater management, and I think that the problem that we’re having with the stormwater management is that we’ve designed the stormwater management system for this project so it’s pretty much a mirror image of what’s on the street next door at Quincy Lane. It uses drywells. We had initially went one step further than that and used a pre- treatment system to filter out the contaminants before they get into the drywell so there are no problems with the drywells plugging up with silt, and that was something that the engineer had not seen before. It’s something that’s relatively new. It is posted on DEC’s website. It is approved, but given the fact, in his comment letter, that he didn’t like it, we removed it. So now we have conventional drywells, just like, I think most of the new subdivisions in Queensbury. His last comment is that it is recommended that the applicant obtain a ruling clarification from DEC as to the necessity of a permit coverage corresponding to the design requirements. The project is designed so that it is completely self-contained. There is no stormwater passing from this site onto another property. No stormwater comes on this property and no stormwater leaves this property. What I think that his, let me go on to the next comment. His comment was about the percolation test and the deep test holes. We did do five deep test holes and four perc tests, and I believe that he’s satisfied with those. Under a general, we had some stormwater inlets that were 310, 312 feet apart, and your regulation calls for 300. We modified our plans so the stormwater catch basin inlets are 300 feet apart. So I believe, from reading his comment, that he’s satisfied with that. The basic comment of the drywells and the infiltration, this is where we need to talk to him, because he makes a comment, consideration should be given to providing other stormwater practices which are able to be better managed by the Town, such as infiltration basins and conveyance 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) through the use of a swale and channels. Well, we’re anticipating this to be a high end residential subdivision, and if he’s implying that he would like to use road ditches for the collection of water and the pre-treatment of stormwater, that is something that we were trying to avoid, using road ditches. What we’re using, the Queensbury road cross section that has a wing curb to contain the water in the street and to direct it into an inlet. So I can’t comment on what he means by swales, other than thinking that he might want roadside swales instead of your curb section. So we really do need to have a meeting with Mr. Ryan to understand what he’s looking for, and when he talks about infiltration basins, I don’t think that he, I think that he’s looking for a detention pond type of system where you have an open detention area, like a shopping center, something like that, which is something that, which is something that we haven’t seen used in any of your residential subdivisions, at least in this area, and particularly Quincy Lane, which has an identical stormwater management system that we have proposed. Quincy Lane is the next street over. The topography for Quincy Lane actually duplicates exactly what we have. It’s right next door. The ground contours are the same, and the engineer that did that design, and this Board approved it, uses drywells and infiltration trench which is what we had proposed. Comment Number Six, I believe he’s looking for a typical erosion and sediment control plan should be completed for each individual lot construction. Well, in this plan we’ve given a complete sediment and erosion control plan and a grading plan, and naturally it’s based on the actual road design, but it is based on speculative of where houses would go because every person may not choose to have the same style of house we have. So it’s a demonstrative grading plan that shows that the lots are buildable, and that stormwater can be managed, but when a buyer chooses to build a home and chooses to put it on the lot, as long as it fits zoning, and reasonable engineering practices, you know, the house that gets constructed may not be exactly the house that’s shown on this grading plan. So what we normally do, and I’m sure what you require, is to do an individual plot plan for each individual house for a building permit which shows grading, stormwater management, septic design, etc. So we would propose to do the sediment and erosion control on a per lot basis, on the actual house that’s going to be constructed, along with the demonstrative plan that we have to provide to DEC. He asked for a note be added to the lot layout plan indicating that roof drains shall be guttered and piped to the drywell depicted on the detail. That note is on there, but we can include the word “shall”, which we do not have, if it’s more clear. Number Eight, the limits of disturbance should be indicated on Drawing Number Six. The limits of disturbance are shown on Sheets Numbers Nine and Ten, and Sheet Number Five, and I don’t know how they got deleted. That’s my fault. They’re shown properly on the clearing plan, but on the grading plan they got omitted on one sheet. We will correct that. The statement is made, the Town Code requires any proposed grades greater than one on three to be specifically landscaped so that mowing will not be required. I’ve reviewed the grading plan, again, and there are no grades on this project that exceed a slope of one on three. Number Ten, the typical lot diagram should indicate a minimum of 20 feet separation from the roof drywell to any sewage component. I agree with that totally. This plan is marked up to include that note, and this last comment requires, again, a meeting with Mr. Ryan. The statement is made, the erosion and sediment control notes and requirements need to be clarified on the plans, and I don’t find anything that I don’t understand, so they’re standard notes and standard detail. So we need to talk to him about that. And he makes the comment, also, steeper slopes will require temporary and permanent stabilization, which should be clearly indicated, and I’ll have to review that with him also. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MS. BITTER-Not at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up to questions and comments from the Board. MRS. STEFFAN-How do we feel about the cul de sac issue? There have been some past decisions made where the length of the cul de sac was determined based on the end of the boulevard. I think that’s an issue brought up by Staff. It’s something we should discuss and decide on. MR. SEGULJIC-I believe, if I recall there was a letter from Craig Brown, saying it’s 1,000 feet. You can’t take into account the boulevard. MRS. STEFFAN-The boulevard. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) MR. SEGULJIC-I guess with regard to the cul de sac there was also a letter in the package saying that the Hudson Pointe Homeowners Association was not in favor of a connection to that road. Have you approached them at all? MS. BITTER-Right, we did. They were at the last meeting, so we discussed it with them. That’s why they sent the letter saying they didn’t want that. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, you know, it’s in our Code for 1,000 feet. I, for one, would have to stick with that, and I think you should go back and talk to Hudson Pointe. MS. BITTER-Well, we did. That’s the problem, and I think that’s why Craig Brown’s indicating that the waiver is what the next procedure would be, and it seems to me, unfortunately, I FOIL’d the four subdivisions that I referenced, but I haven’t received those resolutions, but they’re of the same type of situation where the 1,000 foot was either measured from the end of the landscaping or a waiver was granted. That’s why we’re proposing it in the same instance. MRS. STEFFAN-Tom, the issue of the Homeowners Association not wanting to have a connection, path connection to the Hudson Pointe, I think their Homeowners Association, especially the folks that bordered where a possible connection would be, the folks who lived in that area didn’t want the traffic. They were concerned about the safety of their children and some other issues. MS. BITTER-I think they made comments at the public hearing at the last meeting. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, how much traffic would there really be? MS. BITTER-I think it’s a matter of not only the homeowners of Brennan, but also whatever thru traffic it could produce, which was their concern. MR. SEGULJIC-Isn’t one of the things we’re trying to do is promote more connectivity in the community? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, absolutely. MR. SEGULJIC-And I think, I don’t know how you approached Hudson Pointe. I’ve got to believe they’re not interested in connecting, nor are you. So you didn’t really address it with them. MS. BITTER-Well, honestly, we were trying to obtain a resolution. So we did approach them, but, you know, as their spirit at the last meeting showed that they weren’t even interested in entertaining the idea of the bike path, nor the connection. MR. BOGARDIS-If you look at our cover sheet, Quincy Lane is shown. We’re the shaded property, and Quincy Lane is the property up sheet, and that’s an 18 lot subdivision with a road about equal to our length, that was approved by Queensbury, what, three years ago, Tom, and, you know, as the Staff Notes for the original review of this project state, that would have been the time that we could have worked together and put a connection between these two projects, and unfortunately we don’t have that option now. MR. HUNSINGER-And they made the argument, we’ve talked to all the neighbors, nobody wants to work with us, and therefore this is the only feasible option. MR. BOGARDIS-He was the neighbor, and I think he probably would have went for that. MR. HUNSINGER-I voted against it, by the way. So I remember it well. MS. BITTER-And that’s why I got the letter from Hudson Pointe, just to show that we did make an attempt to reach out to them. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Sure. MR. SEGULJIC-So you approached, they did not approach you, Quincy Lane did not approach you? And it was presented to us that they did. Is that what I’m hearing here? 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t remember exactly what the argument was, but they made an argument for all the reasons why, you know, they couldn’t make a connection. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I think we ought to start having connectivity in this community, and we’d appreciate it if you’d work with us. MS. BITTER-Right, and that’s what we tried to do, Tom. MR. BOGARDIS-We certainly agree with you, and from an engineering standpoint, we’d love to loop our water line also, but we don’t have the opportunity left to do either one of those two things anymore. TOM BRENNAN MR. BRENNAN-They were adamant about when a convenient store was going at the end. A road was supposed to go all the way through. They fought that. MR. HUNSINGER-I know. I remember that, too. MR. BRENNAN-They don’t want it connected it, and that would be with no houses. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and it’s really in their best interest, and I felt that all along. I mean, they complained that there would be additional traffic, but it’s still the same neighbors, you know. MR. BOGARDIS-We have no opportunity, other than Hudson Pointe. MR. BRENNAN-Can’t even get to the Town of Queensbury (lost word). MR. BOGARDIS-We’ve had quite a number of discussions with them. MR. BRENNAN-They won’t even let me put an easement to get to the bike path, to ride a bicycle. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any thoughts, Matt, on how, you know, and maybe not even for this application, but in the future we can, you know, force neighbors to provide better connections, whether it be subdivisions or commercial properties? Because we sit here and hear the same arguments every meeting, and people saying the neighbors don’t want it. MR. BOGARDIS-I’m (lost word) as a member of a Planning Board in my community, and not as the applicant here. In a lot of cases, you would mandate that an easement be held there in place, with a provision for it to be tied into, whether it ever happened or not. MR. FULLER-You already do. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s what we do for commercial properties. MR. FULLER-It’s in your Subdivision, too, A-183, in the Subdivision Regs, 183-23 F. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we haven’t had a lot of success with that in subdivisions. There’s been maybe two or three that have been able to do that. MR. FULLER-Yes, that’s how you do it. MR. HUNSINGER-And when it works, it works really well. It does. MR. FULLER-Is there vacant land adjacent to this one? MR. HUNSINGER-There used to be. MS. BITTER-This was it. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, maybe you ought to talk to someone on Quincy Lane and build them a new house over here, with a loop through. Have you considered that? MR. BRENNAN-I don’t think that would even, it wouldn’t work because there’s Homeowners Association property. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) MS. BITTER-So the covenants and declarations are incorporated as well. MR. BRENNAN-It wouldn’t be buying a house, it would be buying, trying to buy a piece, buying a house and a piece of the Homeowners Association, which we’d never get that to happen. You could buy the house, but you wouldn’t ever get the Homeowners Association to sell you a piece. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, you’d have to get 16 folks, or however many lots there are, to approve it. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s something that could be evaluated. MR. BRENNAN-I mean, we just spent about a half an hour with the President and some other gentleman that was a member of the Homeowners Association in discussion, very nice polite discussion, amiable, but no. MRS. STEFFAN-Will your development have a Homeowners Association? MR. BRENNAN-We’re going to try. MRS. BRUNO-Right behind the Quincy Lane area, there’s a small, basically a margin in between the back lots and I guess the folks that come off of Kettle’s Way. Is that a NiMo easement? MR. HUNSINGER-I think it’s a buffer. I’m not sure why. MRS. BRUNO-A Hudson Pointe buffer? MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not sure. I think it was put in to satisfy the people at Hudson Pointe. MR. BRENNAN-Yes, I recall that. MRS. STEFFAN-So it’s probably owned by the Homeowners Association? MR. BRENNAN-I believe so, but I don’t know that for a fact, but I believe so. I remember that gentleman telling us that was part of Quincy Lane. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the questions I had was on the letter from North Country Ecological Services regarding the Karner blue butterfly. Usually we get something from DEC that confirms those findings. MS. BITTER-We could confirm that if you’d like us to. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes. I always forget the woman’s name at DEC that issues those letters. I mean, it’s basically a signoff saying, you know, we agree with the Findings and Conclusions offered. MS. BITTER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here that wanted to address the Board on this application? I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-And I will leave it open. MRS. BRUNO-I’m very interested, my initial step would, in terms of the cul de sac, would be exactly what you’re doing, the FOILing. I’d like to se some of those decisions, too, just to be able to compare. MR. HUNSINGER-Which were the other ones, other than Quincy? MS. BITTER-Quincy Lane, Surrey Lane, Grandview Boulevard is the most recent, and Western Reserve Trail. MR. SEGULJIC-But just because we made mistakes in the past doesn’t mean we should continue with them. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) MR. HUNSINGER-I know. I agree. MRS. BRUNO-That’s true. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? Would anyone like to offer a tabling resolution? Do you know what the agenda looks like for August, Stu? I haven’t seen any mark ups yet. MR. BAKER-I believe it’s looking fairly light. Craig mentioned to me earlier that there were 11 applications for August. rd MR. HUNSINGER-If we got submissions by the 3. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2006 THOMAS BRENNAN, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: stst Tabled to the August 21 meeting, which is the 1 Planning Board meeting in August, rd and extend the submission deadline to August 3, which is a Friday. I’d like to table this with the condition that the applicant will address the Vision Engineering comments of thth July 10 in their letter of July 10, and so that the applicant can also arrange a meeting with Vision Engineering through our Town of Queensbury Community Development Department to address specifically Item Five regarding stormwater design. A further condition for this tabling motion is that the applicant will provide information on the similar cul de sac approvals from the Town of Queensbury. th Duly adopted this 17 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: MR. SEGULJIC-Do you want to advise them with regards to the cul de sac at this point? MRS. STEFFAN-That is an issue in the Staff Notes, and they do know that we’re looking for information, but the agent for the applicant said that they were FOILing some information, so I think that will come back as an open issue. MR. BAKER-Do you want to specify that you want that information in the re-submittal? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver MR. BRENNAN-I have a question on protocol. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. BRENNAN-How do I arrange a meeting with Dan Ryan, other than calling Dan Ryan and asking for a meeting? I was told that a meeting had to go through Craig Brown. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they should go through the Town. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, I said the Town of Queensbury Community Development Department. MR. BRENNAN-So call Craig Brown and get a meeting scheduled? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-The reason for that is because any services that the contract engineer provides gets billed to Community Development Department. So he can’t charge something to someone’s account without their knowledge. MR. BRENNAN-Sure. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) MR. HUNSINGER-And we had had problems in the past with the Town not getting copies of information. The engineers would work things out and we wouldn’t have the information to know what had been worked out. MR. BRENNAN-Thank you so much. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you’re welcome. MS. BITTER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 20-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED AGNUS J. VINCZE-ROSEN AGENT(S) CIFONE CONSTRUCTION; LITTLE & O’CONNOR OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 262 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF 1250 SQ. FT. BOATHOUSE WITH 307 SQ. FT. SUNDECK AND REPLACEMENT WITH 1220 SQ. FT. BOATHOUSE AND 745 SQ. FT. SUNDECK. SUNDECK/BOATHOUSE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE AV 24-07 WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/9/07 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.84 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.16- 1-49.1 SECTION 179-5-050; 179-6-060 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, do you want to summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. BAKER-Yes. Following the Planning Board action on this application on May 24, 2007, the applicant has submitted a site plan for the walkway and stormwater infiltration trench that are proposed as part of this project. The main issue with this current application appears to be stormwater. The applicant has designed an infiltration trench to intercept water from the proposed walkway. The figures provided on the site plan indicate that the infiltration trench will adequately manage stormwater from the proposed walkway. Vision Engineering has reviewed the stormwater portion of this plan and a comment letter has been included with the Staff Notes. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. We have not seen that comment letter. So I really can’t respond to it. Basically, for the purpose of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor, and I represent the applicant, and with me at the table is Matt Cifone who is the contractor for the applicant. As I understood your comments and concerns last month with regard to stormwater, you had concerns as to whether or not the walkway, even though it is a very minor area, which was 316 square feet, which actually is less than 316 square feet, within the 50 feet of the lake, but the total walkway that we’re talking about here is 316 in square feet. Whether or not that would be influenced by the stormwater for the house that was shown, and that the fact that there wasn’t any test pit for the area, the infiltrators that was part of the house stormwater. That has been shown. It does seem to be in compliance with the regulations of the stormwater. So I think that that should answer those questions. The other question was that, as you were getting a look at this as being lakefront property, would the owners be willing to install a buffer, landscape, along the seawall or along the edge of the seawall, and that they’ve done, except for an area which they’ve left open for access to the swimming area and for the two walkways to the two existing docks, and if you have questions, we’ll be glad to try and answer them. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Members of the Board, questions, comments? MRS. STEFFAN-There’s a note on the Vision Engineering regarding the rain garden, and the notation, the last sentence, it says, presumably the garden will be stone lined which should also be specified. Apparently it wasn’t specified on the plan. Do you have a copy of Vision Engineering? MR. O'CONNOR-I just have it right here right now. Yes, I’m looking for the rain garden. Right here. We can do that and put that on a final plan that would be satisfactory or get approval by Vision Engineering, if that’s a condition. Jim Miller actually designed that. I can’t tell you, there is detail as to the trenching that goes alongside the walkway. I don’t see detail here as to that rain garden, which may be correct. It probably would put something like river stone in there. So it would not be out of character with the rest of the lawn and the landscaping, which I don’t think it makes a difference what type that’s in there. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) MR. SEGULJIC-One of the things I believe last time you were asked if a stormwater permit was issued under 146 for this project. MR. O'CONNOR-I believe you asked Staff that, and I don’t know what, we’ve never, I’ve never seen a stormwater permit, and I think that, in part, they applied for the building permit, obtained the building permit. I don’t know if they had a separate stormwater permit issued in connection with the building permit, but part of it is, I think, that there’s less runoff after construction than prior to construction. As Jim Miller was here. He explained that we probably fall within the exemptions of the stormwater because we’re not increasing in any manner the discharge. That was my understanding of his comments last month. MR. SEGULJIC-Now, for the record, there is a stormwater permit for the site. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m a little disappointed here that the contractor for the site is not aware of that. Number Two, the total area of land disturbance on the permit indicates 15,606 square feet. MR. O'CONNOR-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-That means it’s a major project. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. You’re back, again, to the issuance of the building permit for the house. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m back to the issuance of the stormwater permit for the site. MR. O'CONNOR-Which was issued in connection with the building permit for the house. MR. SEGULJIC-A portion of the area we’re looking at is included within the area of land disturbance. The 50 foot setback includes the area of disturbance. MR. O'CONNOR-If you take a look at the map, the lining of the heavy broken line is the area of disturbance, and the only reason I know that is I couldn’t figure out what that line is. There is probably seven, maybe five square feet of this walkway that’s included within that area of disturbance that you just referred to, and that area is outside the 50 foot setback from the lake. So it’s not really within the purview of this Board for hard fill within 50 feet of the lake. MR. SEGULJIC-The 50 foot setback line continues back to the house, that includes the infiltrators. MR. O'CONNOR-Not over on the corner where the walkway is, Tom. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it includes the infiltrators. So a lot of this area has been disturbed, and as the permit indicated, as it was filled out by, there’s a signature of the agent, I can’t tell who it is. It’s also signed by the owner, and it’s signed by Craig Brown, I believe. It says 15,606 square feet, which makes it a major project. MR. O'CONNOR-I understand the dimensional requirement within our stormwater regulations. It says that if a project is in excess of 15,000 square feet, it’s a major project. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MR. O'CONNOR-But I don’t know the significance of that with the. MR. SEGULJIC-You can’t have infiltrators within 100 feet of the lake, Number One. You can’t have infiltration within 100 feet of the lake. MR. O'CONNOR-I think it says, when you get into those regulations, they can be adjusted and waived. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t see a waiver here. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I did not make that application or get that permit, and I don’t know if, truthfully, it has jurisdiction or if it has anything germane to this walkway. You want to go back and review the permit. When was the date of that permit? MR. SEGULJIC-It was signed 11/2/05. So I guess, and it expires 11/2/06. So I guess, in looking at it further, you don’t have a permit for this project, now that I think about it. You’re constructing a project without a permit which you’re required to get. MR. O'CONNOR-I’m sure that the building permit was renewed. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess that’s something I’d like the Staff to look into for me, and I think that’s a violation. You have an expired permit. MR. O'CONNOR-No. I’m told they renewed the building permit. If the Staff here did not renew that permit, I can’t tell you, I don’t know, does that permit have an expiration date written? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Has it been renewed? I don’t know that. MR. SEGULJIC-Your contractor doesn’t even know he had a permit. 11/2/06. I guess the infiltrators are in. They’ve been installed, correct? They have not been installed? MR. O'CONNOR-The infiltrators are 400 square feet of stormwater capacity, I believe. MATT CIFONE MR. CIFONE-No, they’re not in. They’re not done. We’re not even close to being done. MR. SEGULJIC-And you don’t even know if you have a stormwater permit. MR. CIFONE-Yes. I’m remembering now, because it was a few years back we did it, two and a half years ago. MR. SEGULJIC-Is that a violation? I believe it’s a violation of Town Code if you don’t have a stormwater permit, and they’re still constructing. MR. BAKER-I’d have to look into it further. MR. SEGULJIC-And there’s still open land there. Under, I’d just like to make Staff aware and I’d like to have them take action on this. Under 147-15, it says Notice of Violation. When the Town of Queensbury determines that an activity is not being carried out in accordance with the requirements of this Chapter, it shall issue a written Notice of Violation to the owner. As far as I can determine, you don’t even have a permit. Your permit, your expired permit, indicates that a land disturbance of 15,606 square feet. Personally, I’m very disappointed, I believe that the Zoning Administrator assigned this, and said it was minor. When you look at the back, anything over 15,000 is a major project. They can’t have infiltration within 100 feet of the lake. I see a number of issues with this project that need to get sorted out. To say nothing of the fact you have all this open area without any cover for it, and I believe there’s a comment that’s been submitted to Staff about all the runoff after the last rain storm, which I believe is also another violation. MR. O'CONNOR-Where is that comment? I don’t have that comment. MR. BAKER-There was an e-mail sent to Code Enforcement Staff, I believe. MR. O'CONNOR-By who? MR. BAKER-By Al Chanese, of 266 Cleverdale Road. MR. O'CONNOR-And was there a follow-up by Staff on that? MR. BAKER-I believe there was a follow-up response, and I may actually have access to th it. Okay. We actually have two correspondence from Mr. Chanese. The one of July 13 was actually sent to the Planning Board courtesy of Pam Whiting and Tom Seguljic. th There was also an e-mail sent to Craig Brown by Mr. Chanese on the 12, which th included some photography. In his response of Thursday, July 12, Craig Brown noted, 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) actually, I’m sorry. This was regarding the, the e-mail was primarily regarding the, I’m sorry, Craig Brown’s response was primarily regarding the Long property. He stated this was the first time he had heard Mr. Chanese’s comment, concerns about the Rosen property, and that he will visit the site in the near future. It goes on to ask Mr. Chanese to contact him during a rain event when such runoff is witnessed, as well as contact the Park Commission. I don’t know if Craig Brown has done a follow up visit to the property since this e-mail. MR. SEGULJIC-There’s pictures associated with that, I believe. MR. BAKER-Yes, there are. I don’t know which properties these pictures go with. thth Although this is, again, the July 12 e-mail. On the July 13 e-mail there are pictures that are presumably of the Rosen property. I haven’t been out to the site. So I can’t confirm these are of the Rosen property, but that’s what Mr. Chanese states. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s the first notice that we’ve had of that. MR. CIFONE-Nobody’s stopped by or said anything to us. MR. O'CONNOR-We have siltation fence up and we have hay bales up. MR. SEGULJIC-They’re not working. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I don’t know that, Tom. MR. SEGULJIC-We have pictures here sent by Mr., I’m not sure of his last name indicating they’re not. I’d like to point out, under 147-10, Erosion and Control Measures, it says Temporary erosion control shall be provided for all disturbed areas in accordance with New York State….temporary erosion control measures shall be maintained continuously. Apparently something happened. MR. CIFONE-Can I see the picture? Nobody’s stopped around and said anything to me. MR. O'CONNOR-This is not an enforcement proceeding, that I’m aware of. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m requesting it become one. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I understand that. MR. SEGULJIC- I see a number of violations here. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I would request that we table the application. We’re getting off into left field. I’ll talk with Counsel and see what the problem is. I’m not aware of what took place in 2005 with regard to the permits. I know the last time we were here we talked about that, and we asked Staff to investigate that, and no communication was had with me as to whether they found something or didn’t find something, and I don’t think Staff did that. You apparently found that on your own. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I have no problem tabling this, and I’ve got to say, I have a problem in getting new information the night of a meeting, too. I hadn’t seen these pictures or made note of these e-mail either until this evening. MR. O'CONNOR-I know how it comes if I offer the new information, but apparently it may be different if you offer the new information. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I think the same rules should apply, and I think, Mr. Seguljic, when you’re going to present evidence and information like this, you should share it with the rest of the Board. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, as I was directed, when you get information from the public, you forward it to Staff. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s exactly what I did. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) MR. SEGULJIC-Staff is then supposed to forward it to us. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So the issue is with the Staff. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BAKER-I was unaware that this e-mail had been sent. It was addressed to Pam Whiting, who stuck one copy in the project file, and to Tom Seguljic. I hadn’t seen that until today. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Because what had happened is I got it and there were a number of other people that got it, and I said, you should still send it to Staff. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I apologize for singling you out. Obviously, the same rules apply, wherever the information comes from. MR. CIFONE-All those pictures weren’t of the Rosen property. That real dirty one is not our property. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I was wondering the same thing. I was trying to look to see where that could be. MR. CIFONE-The last one where it’s all muddy, that’s not the property. It’s the last page there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the last one, there aren’t docks that are that close together. That’s not underneath the boathouse. MRS. BRUNO-We have a public hearing scheduled? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We do have a public hearing. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s still open. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we do. We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here that wanted to address the Board on the application? I will open the public hearing. Did you want to come up, ma’am? If you could just state your name for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN KATHY BOZONY MS. BOZONY-I’m Kathy Bozony from the Lake George Association. Some of those photos are the Long’s property, and some of them are down at the Rosen. Al Chanese lives between the two properties. So I’m sure, you know, you can identify which ones are which, but regardless, there has been exposed dirt there for a long time, and a couple of things I wanted to comment on tonight were the actual site plan that was submitted with the buffer strips. I would like to give to the Board some additional suggestions about the buffer stripping. What they’ve presented here is excellent. There are a lot of areas that really need some sort of rain gardens and/or more permeable vegetation than a lawn that is, I’m presuming, will be lawn on this entire parcel. This parcel is 21,000 square feet. The house is 6100 square feet. So you do calculate it as a 31% FAR. It was never brought before the Zoning Board for that FAR calculation. Now, granted the additional square footage has been added across the road at a later date. The building permit was signed on November 3, 2005. In the building permit that I looked at today, with both Chris and Dave, the infiltration for the absorption field for the septic is still on this current parcel. I don’t know where it’s going to actually be per the site plan that was presented for this project, the sidewalk and the boathouse. It looks like it’s across the road. When I asked both Dave and Craig today, they said, no, it hasn’t been changed. It’s on this parcel, this 21,000 square foot parcel. So, I mean, again, this is an old issue, but that FAR calculation should have been, at least from what I’m looking at, should have been brought before the Zoning Board for a variance, and at a later date, this other parcel, they’re calling it 260 Cleverdale instead of 262. I don’t know what it is. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) So I would like to present to the Board and to the applicant additional areas that I think are really necessary on this parcel, because there’s very little, it’s a very small parcel for this 6100 square foot house, and where the beach is, that’s understandable that they want a beach. I would say behind the beach you put some sort of infiltration with a, I’ve just kind of circled where I think additional gardens and vegetation should be planted, as opposed to having just grass there, and I’d like to give this to you and have you look at that. At the end of the driveway, perfect opportunity for a rain garden there. One of the things that I really wanted to share with the Board tonight, and with the applicant, is a product that was presented at the Lake George Watershed Conference. A company, and I don’t know the company. They do not have a site as a demonstration project yet in the Lake George area or this area. So I’m working with them to try and get a couple of demonstration projects. This is a product called Flexi-Pave, and, you know, I’d like to share it with you, if you want. The interesting thing is, if you open the cover, and you see, they’re holding this pavement, and the water’s going right through it. So it’s a much better product than a stamped concrete, which I thought I saw on the drawings, and/or permeable pavers that often get clogged. Again, we do not have an actual project here, but there are several I have in mind. He did tell me, and I was asking for a price quote per lineal foot, or however this is actually sold, and I never got the quote today. I asked him to please leave me a message, and I never got it. So he did tell me it’s a lot less expensive than stamped concrete. So, something like this is, and they make it for, it’s ADA accessible. It exceeds their qualifications for disabilities. So Mrs. Rosen’s wheelchair would be fine on it. There are, you know, this is not a very attractive color, but it comes in a lot of other colors. I would just like to propose this to the Board, so that we can all start looking at products like this. We talk about permeable pavers, but they often don’t work that well. MR. HUNSINGER-What is it made out of? MRS. BOZONY-It’s made out of recycled tires, with aggregate, and it’s made right on site. It’s poured right on site. It can be poured at a 90 degree temperature day or a 20 degree or 20 below, I think it says. It’s a very interesting product, and again, I really would like to start proposing this for use around the lake, but I would ask that you look at what they’ve submitted for their buffers, which is excellent, excellent use of plantings, and possibly require more because they do not have, they really have a very large house on a very small piece of property, as much natural infiltration that we can get would be really beneficial. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. BOZONY-Sure. Should I give this, should I just share it with you? I’m just proposing that some of these areas really need a lot more. I don’t know if that’s a retaining wall there. What is this right here, that line? It’s a silt fence. Okay, but anywhere, you know, around the house, around here, to keep it so that you really have full coverage throughout. What you want to do is if you don’t have, if you have minimal space, you want to put an enhanced buffer in so that you put more vegetation and get it to do a better job if you’re limited with space. So if there’s a beach there, you put your buffer on either side. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else that wanted to address the Board on this project? I will leave the public hearing open. The applicant has requested we table the application. Would someone like to put forward a tabling resolution? Was there anything that you wanted to add, Mr. O’Connor, before we entertain a tabling resolution? MR. O'CONNOR-No. I should add for the record, just so there’s no question and fact later. My understanding that to get the building permit the Town asked that all three parcels be combined on one deed, and they were done that. I, in fact, recorded the deed. These properties were bought in a manner so that they were preserved as three separate parcels. You could have three separate houses on there. It was between the husband and wife an one of the children or maybe two of the children, and before the building permit was issued, they were requested to show that all the parcels had been put in either Agnus Rosen’s name, I forget at the moment, or the husband and wife, but in the same joint ownership, or the same form of ownership, so that they would lose their grandfathering as pre-existing lots. So I don’t think there’s an issue at all with regard to the Floor Area Ratio. In fact, I think their lots are, their construction is much less than what they would be permitted to have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you have a, would you be willing to put in some additional plantings as suggested? 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) MR. O'CONNOR-We use, I’ll have to ask the clients. I’m not putting them in, to be honest with you. You gave us a dimension, and we took the plants that were offered by Mr. Sipp and incorporated them into it, and I think, as was said, it’s an excellent plan. I’m not sure what additions Mrs. Bozony has suggested, truthfully. I’ll talk to Mrs. Rosen and see. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-And can I ask the Town to find out where they’re at with regard to the issues that Mr. Seguljic raised? MR. FULLER-I think the Zoning Administrator is going to have to make that determination. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. FULLER-Ultimately it’s not for any of us sitting here to decide. MR. SEGULJIC-As far as? MR. FULLER-Violations. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess the first question is, they have an existing permit? The permit’s expired. MR. FULLER-Again, all those need to be addressed. MRS. STEFFAN-But they’re not for our conditioning. That’s enforcement. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, can we determine that there is a stormwater permit in place? MR. FULLER-Sure. MR. SEGULJIC-I think we’d like to determine that. Number Two, we’d like to have a determination on the adequacy of the existing, or the temporary stormwater controls, because they don’t appear to be functioning properly. MR. O'CONNOR-I would object to that. I think that’s outside of this application. MR. FULLER-I think ultimately that whether or not there are violations or the existing, if they haven’t acted in accordance with the previously approved stormwater plan, that’s an issue that needs to be dealt with. MR. O'CONNOR-But outside of this application, I believe, is my position. I don’t know if you agree with it or don’t agree with it. MR. FULLER-We’ll take that into account. MRS. STEFFAN-So I don’t put anything in the motion about permitting. MR. FULLER-His question was do we have a valid permit. I think that’s a question that can be answered. MR. SEGULJIC-Beyond that, has a valid permit been in place during the construction. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 20-2007 AGNUS J. VINCZE-ROSEN, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: th This application is tabled to the August 28 meeting, with an application deadline of rd August 3. With the following conditions: That the applicant amend the plan to indicate the size of the rain garden depression/volume, and to indicate that the garden will be stone lined, or to obtain a Vision Engineering signoff. That the applicant will consider additional plantings on the site, and the third condition is to determine if the project permitting is current, up to date, and valid. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) th Duly adopted this 17 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2007 SKETCH PLAN SEQR TYPE UNLISTED GARY MARKWELL AGENT(S) LELAND JAROSZ OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A, SR- 1A LOCATION 61 TWIN CHANNELS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 4.3 PARCEL INTO TWO (2) LOTS OF 1.2 & 3.1 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 35-07 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 4.3 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.18-1-18 SECTION A-183 LELAND JAROSZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. BAKER-Yes, I can. The applicant’s requested waivers from the following items, Two-foot contours, well and septic information, property location and width, property arrangement size and dimensions of the new lots to be created, grading and drainage, as well as a requested waiver from Preliminary and Final Stage review. Information required in Sketch Plan that wasn’t provided was Areas of existing vegetation, including trees greater than 6” diameter breast height and areas within the floodplain. Staff recommends that the Board allow the applicant to combine Preliminary and Final approvals into one submission, but certainly those shouldn’t be waived, and that the combination only be allowed if all the information required for proper review is submitted. Just an additional note on the waiver request from the contour. A quick review of the slopes on the property using the Town GIS shows that there are slopes over 15 and 25% on the area of the new lot. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. JAROSZ-Hi. I am Leland Jarosz. I’m the prospective buyer, and this is Mr. Markwell, the property owner. We have a lot of issues. I’m trying to figure out where to start. Okay. I’m going to start with, they’re talking regarding areas in the floodplain. It is marked on the survey map. Approximate location, and he has a note. MR. BAKER-You are correct. I apologize for the error. MR. JAROSZ-All right. As far as the trees. He had marked the trees, but this is heavily forested. You can look on the GIS. Basically it’s all treed all the way up, the whole property is treed. Right off Twin Channels Road, where he shows the markings, and all the way up it’s all treed. It’s heavily forested there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JAROSZ-All right. Now, this all started up over the Twin Channels Road. We had to get a variance. That’s all Mr. Markwell does, and I want to purchase the piece of property. He wants to keep the back property and another piece on the river which adjoins other property that he owns. We are addressing, all right, on Number F, applicant has requested a waiver from Preliminary and Final Stage review because there are not proposed developments of the lot being retained by Mr. Markwell. The plan submitted with this application indicates otherwise. We never wanted to put a house. Mr. Markwell has never wanted to put a house up on top. Mr. Brown stated that we had to show a proposed house. The survey was denied four times. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you understand why? MR. JAROSZ-No. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll explain it very easily. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) MR. JAROSZ-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Once you create a separate lot, you have the right to put a house on it. So that’s why, in order for us to consider the subdivision, you have to show the ability to put a house on the lot, because once this Board approves any subdivision, you can then go down to the Community Development Office and take out a building permit to put a house up. MR. JAROSZ-But doesn’t the building permit also, if the lot is not buildable, the building permit takes care of all that, doesn’t it? MR. HUNSINGER-Not necessarily. Not necessarily. MR. BAKER-Part of the intent of Subdivision Regulations is to make sure unbuildable lots aren’t created. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes, it’s the other way around. So that’s why you had to show a lot on that site. Even if you have no intention, the ability down the road is still there. MR. JAROSZ-Okay. I understand that. Now, with the septic, we were told we needed an engineered septic. Now how do you do an engineered septic on 3.1 acres when you could build up on top? You’re talking 500 feet here. An engineered septic would not, if I built up here, and I had the septic down here, an engineered septic would be a waste of money because you would have to have the engineered septic where you built the house, correct? Within the vicinity. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. JAROSZ-So why was I told you have to have an engineered septic? The land is big enough where it’s not going to encroach on any of the neighbors, no matter where you put the septic in, unless you put it, you can keep it 100 feet from the property line, and it’s not going to get near anybody else’s well or anything like that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess that begs the question of what are you going to use the lot for? MR. JAROSZ-The lot is basically going to stay empty until someone decides to buy it or Mr. Markwell decides to build on it, if he should, and then the regulations are going to, you’re going to have to follow whatever regulations the Town of Queensbury, the Building Department says. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we can’t create a lot unless it’s buildable. MR. JAROSZ-Okay, but now what about the septic? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it includes the septic. MR. SEGULJIC-Does it have to be engineered, or does he have to just show that you can install a septic? MRS. BRUNO-Well, in order to show that it can be, you’ve got to have your test pits. MR. SEGULJIC-You just have to have your test pits to show it can be done. You don’t have to design the whole septic. MR. JAROSZ-We were told you had to have an engineered septic, which you’re talking a lot of money that. MR. HUNSINGER-That is a lot of money, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Is that correct? MR. BAKER-I don’t believe an engineered septic is part of our, data to show that it would support it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. You have to show that it would support a septic. MR. JAROSZ-Well, I know people that are in the septic business. A perc test. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. JAROSZ-That would be no problem. I was never the fact that just do a test pit. No, you have to have engineered septic. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JAROSZ-Which is you’re talking a lot of money. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s a huge difference. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess that’s a clarification that we’d need to. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. JAROSZ-And the other part is you can’t do an engineered septic on 500 feet. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, part of the issue may be that it’s identified in the Staff Notes that there are slopes on the property, and based on the GIS report that came back to us, that identified that there are slopes greater than, you know, between 15 and 25%. You’ve also got an area where the slopes are greater than 25%. MR. JAROSZ-But these are at the edges of the property that go to his adjoining property. MRS. STEFFAN-That may be one of the reasons why they required that, and for example in area where there’s bedrock or where there’s very poor drainage, that’s one of the reasons why the Community Development Department might have asked for an engineered septic because if there are site restrictions. MR. JAROSZ-Well, this is, the perc in that whole area is excellent, on Big Boom and Twin Channels. You’re basically, you have very porous, sandy soil. MRS. STEFFAN-And unfortunately one of the things that’s happened in the Town of Queensbury, as it’s continued to develop, is that we can no longer take people’s word. MR. JAROSZ-Well, if they told me I had to have a perc test, I know three or four septic people that I work with, and that will do it, with no problem, but when you’re talking engineered septic, now you’re talking big money, and where do you do the engineered septic? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, I was going to ask, maybe it’s because of where you showed the potential house location. MR. JAROSZ-We were told that you had to put a potential house. So we just put a potential house. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I’m saying, maybe it’s because of where you put it. MR. JAROSZ-There is no large slope here. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I don’t know, can you shed any light on that, Stu, at all? MR. BAKER-I guess all I can say, I can’t speak to what he was told by other Staff, but the application materials for Sketch Plan level clearly don’t require an engineered system. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. BAKER-In fact, perc test isn’t even required until Preliminary. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-And I believe you only have to show that there is a spot that he can do it, and not a specific spot. MR. BAKER-That’s correct, and part of the purpose of showing the existing on site septics and wells within the 500 foot radius is indeed to show that there is space to put. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) MR. JAROSZ-So do we have to show the neighboring septic in that, even though this lot is large enough to hold the septic and system and well without encroaching on any, no necessary variances or encroaching on any of the neighboring properties or wells? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you have to show that you have the minimum separation between your well and other septics and between your septic and other wells. MR. JAROSZ-But the lot is large enough. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if the lot’s large enough, then you just. MR. SEGULJIC-You just need to pick that spot and demonstrate that you can do it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, exactly. MR. JAROSZ-But the spot that’s picked there is large enough for. MR. SEGULJIC-So you just have to be able to show that there’s no wells within 100 feet and no septic, the septic system has got to be 100 feet away and that that has adequate soils to sustain a system. MR. JAROSZ-So basically, where it is right now, it doesn’t matter where the neighbor’s septics or wells are, because it’s far enough away where this house is proposed. MR. SEGULJIC-I believe you are correct. You just have to be able to show you can sustain those systems on your lot, within the requirements of the Code. MR. JAROSZ-Okay. So I would need a perc test. MR. SEGULJIC-I believe so. MR. HUNSINGER-You didn’t need it for this evening, but you’d need it to go to the next step. MR. JAROSZ-To go to a further step. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-But without knowing where your neighbor’s well is, that this piece of property, even though you do have a large piece of property, it’s narrow, and if, for example, the neighbor’s. MR. JAROSZ-No, it’s not that narrow. It would support, with the well in place, it falls within all criteria of Queensbury and the State of New York as to distance from, if the neighbor had his well on the edge of the property here, it would still, you could put in the septic, it would be 100 feet from the well. Mr. Markwell owns all the rest over on this side, which is all vacant land. So you don’t have to go to the neighbor’s site at all. MRS. STEFFAN-You just have to identify it on the plans. MR. JAROSZ-It’s identified. MRS. STEFFAN-That it will not encroach on anybody’s wells. MR. JAROSZ-Yes, it’s identified as, you know, the make believe house. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s on the Tubbs property, though. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s the concern. MR. JAROSZ-There should be no concern because Mr. Tubbs’ property is far enough away. If his well was right on the border line, we would still be far enough away to do the septic properly. MRS. BRUNO-Not necessarily. If you had your septic right in the middle of your piece of property. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) MR. JAROSZ-Well, it’s labeled that the septic will not be there. With the proposed house, that it would be away from, it’s over 100 feet away from the. MR. HUNSINGER-See how there’s a little sliver, there’s a circle around your proposed well location? There’s a dotted circle. MR. JAROSZ-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-That circle goes onto the lands of Robert N. Tubbs. If his septic happened to be within there, within that area, then you wouldn’t be able to put your well there. Do you see what we’re saying? MR. JAROSZ-Then the well could be moved. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. JAROSZ-Over, the well could be moved over and stay within the. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So that’s all you need to do then is move your well location so that it doesn’t, so that that circle doesn’t go onto your neighbor’s property. MR. JAROSZ-So I need another survey now? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you don’t need another survey. You just need another drawing. You just need to change the drawing. MRS. BRUNO-You just need to adjust this one. The surveyor needs to go back and adjust the drawing. Either that, or locate on the adjoining property where their septic is. So you’ve got two choices. If you can prove that where the septic, your location is right now isn’t within the 100 feet, you could do it that way, but it sounds like you don’t want to. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, his property is 181 feet wide. MR. SEGULJIC-And you thought this was going to be easy. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, certainly there’s the ability for him to locate the wells. That’s not an issue. MR. SEGULJIC-Do you understand what we’re getting at? MR. JAROSZ-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-You just have to show us that this site is buildable, even if you don’t plan on building on it. MR. JAROSZ-It’s a terrible way to do business, because of the variance. If it wasn’t that 20 feet, and that’s an issue also, because the County states that there’s 49.5 feet, and if you talk to a County engineer, he says because of use, that no one, they have the right to use the right of way that was never taken because it was, because it has been used in the past. MR. BAKER-What right of way are you referring to, sir? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. JAROSZ-The road, Queensbury states there’s only 20 feet of roadway. They never took right of way. The County says there’s 49.5 feet. MR. BAKER-So you’re talking about the Big Boom Road right of way. MR. JAROSZ-Yes. MR. FULLER-Or Twin Channels, which one? MR. JAROSZ-Twin Channels. (Tape turned) …okay, where are all the surveys on everybody’s land, where are the pegs, the survey pegs? They don’t come up to the road at 20 feet. They’re back at the 49.5. They come back from the center of the road 10 plus the. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) MR. FULLER-Again, if it’s a highway by use, only the actual occupation of the road is a highway by use, regardless of 189 which says three rods. If it was never accepted as dedication, and it’s a highway by use, only the part of the road actually occupied. MR. JAROSZ-But if the Town wants to do something on that land, they don’t have to go to the homeowner. MR. FULLER-They have to go to whoever owns that land. MR. JAROSZ-No one owns that land. Who owns that land? MR. FULLER-Somebody owns that land. There’s no land that’s un owned. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. JAROSZ-Well, the surveyor said he couldn’t find out who owns it. MR. FULLER-I know I’ve had those discussions in the past. It’s an untruth that there’s un owned land. MR. JAROSZ-Well, who owns the land? MR. FULLER-Ultimately, if no one else lays claim to it and it’s abandoned, it’s the State of New York. MR. JAROSZ-All right. So what do I have to do? MR. HUNSINGER-No, again, you need to show, on this plan, that the lot being created is a buildable lot. MR. JAROSZ-Now, Mr. Brown stated, I asked him if I could shorten this process, do, you know, this should have been a simple matter, which is blowing up into a, and he stated no. I came in with a site plan and looked at me and he said, you know, we probably really didn’t need this, after I spent another couple hundred dollars, and had the surveyor come. What do I have to do? This has been going on for probably nine months or better. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. JAROSZ-I would like to purchase the land. Mr. Markwell made some money. He would like to continue on with his life, and we’re just stonewalled. Do I need the site plan? Could I go into the rest of it, and do I have to do the signs, subdivision signs when it’s not really a subdivision? All this kind of stuff. It should have been just, like they said in the beginning. If the road wasn’t there, it would have been just a simple office procedure, signed, over. MRS. STEFFAN-Unfortunately you will have to go through signing it, because subdivision requests, and that’s the zoning in the Town, which is the law of the Town. MR. JAROSZ-Well, I can get the signs up. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you will have to place the signs on the site, and we go out and do site visits and we will look for it and Staff will look for it, too. MR. JAROSZ-So do I have to continue with this? MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not sure what you mean by that. MR. JAROSZ-With the site plan? MR. BAKER-The subdivision application process? MR. JAROSZ-No, can I go to three and four together, which he suggested? MR. SEGULJIC-You mean Preliminary and Final? MR. BAKER-Preliminary and Final. MR. JAROSZ-Yes, Preliminary and Final, or do I have to continue with the site plan? 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) MRS. BRUNO-I think you’re confusing just some of the vernacular. I think you’re saying, can you continue with the Sketch Plan and then do the second two together? MR. JAROSZ-Could I do the two together, but can we not have to do this? MRS. BRUNO-The drawing and the update with the surveyor? Is that what you’re asking? MR. JAROSZ-Would it go into this part, or do I still have to update the well thing? MR. SEGULJIC-If I’m correct, Mr. Chairman, the next time you come back could potentially be Preliminary and Final. MR. JAROSZ-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-The information, the location of septic system and well, the fact that there’s no other wells around, gets put on the map, and with whatever other information’s required, we can go to Preliminary and Final hopefully in one step. MRS. BRUNO-Well, I’m not sure that Mr. Brown, Staff maybe could correct me. I’m not sure why he said that we may not have needed the site plan, because for any subdivision we need the plans. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we need the plans. MR. BAKER-I can’t speak to that. MRS. STEFFAN-The other thing is, based on the GIS that was provided to us in the Staff notes, it talks about, given the slopes on the property, the Board may wish to require detailed plans for the new proposed building site. We do need to see the slopes noted on the plan, because this becomes a document in the Town. If this one came back, you submitted plans to us, and we approve the subdivision. MR. JAROSZ-Does he have to do it in two foot intervals, or? MRS. STEFFAN-Based on the amount of slopes on the property, I think that that’s a good recommendation. MR. JAROSZ-If someone came out and looked, the slopes are behind the house going up where the lot is going to divide. The slopes are all in front of the property that I’m buying going to the river. Those are the major slopes. The top part doesn’t have any issues. The biggest slopes are off to the left where they took the sand for the Northway, but it’s at the edge of the property, which you would not build there. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m just thinking out loud here. Can we just get a survey of the area that would be buildable? We don’t need the entire site, just to show that it is buildable. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it has to accurately the site. Obviously there’s been a lot of stuff that’s been going on there, and, you know, Stu asked for the vegetation, and there is some vegetation noted, but one of the things that Mr. Jarosz just said is that there’s vegetation all over. That’s not indicated here. MR. JAROSZ-Mr. Brown said that you can just show, to show where it is. If he went out and did every tree all the way up, it would be full of trees. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess what you’re saying is, you show trees here. You’re saying all the way back is trees? MR. JAROSZ-All the way back, and the other thing, I did about roadways and stuff. There is no road going down in there. This is a driveway going down in, and it says about, you know, roadways and all that. There are no roadways on this lot, and there aren’t going to be any proposed. You’re talking subdivision, but this is an old driveway that went down in. It’s not a road. It’s not a proposed road or anything. MRS. STEFFAN-So on the lot that you’re buying, there’s no house currently. You want to build a house? 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) MR. JAROSZ-No, the house, I’m buying the house. He’s keeping the back, but there is no road. There’s no proposed subdivision for roads. MRS. STEFFAN-So you’re buying both the lot and the house. MR. JAROSZ-One hundred ninety feet on the river, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. JAROSZ-Mr. Markwell’s keep 310 feet on the river, along with, he owns over to the south of this. MR. BAKER-Legal counsel just pointed out another issue that I missed in my review of this plan. If you look at it closely, it’s showing the lands to be conveyed to Mr. Jarosz of two separate parcels to be retained by a Mr. Markwell. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. BAKER-One of those parcels shows a potential house location has the frontage on Big Boom Road. The other has river frontage, but would be left without any road frontage, and would be effectively landlocked, and certainly the Board can’t approve the creation of a landlocked parcel. MR. JAROSZ-It’s not a second parcel. He’s keeping this with this parcel. MR. BAKER-That’s correct, but they’re separate deeds. So Mr. Markwell would actually need to combine those two parcels in order to avoid the creation of a landlocked parcel. MR. FULLER-That would be my question, Mr. Markwell. Just to give clarification and explain to you, how did I just come to this when I asked the question, but you own these two parcels right now that we’re looking at, right? Your one deed references Book 964, Page 101. That’s the parcel that you’re subdividing. Your other deed reference is Book 1084 Page 250. Now, the concern is that you could, if this scenario were approved, you could sell off all of these lands that are Book 1084, Page 250, okay, separate, without any other approvals from the Town, separate from the remaining holdings of the lot you’re subdividing from Mr. Jarosz. In which case all that you have, if you look at your subdivision map, the northwest corner of the parcel to be conveyed to Mr. Jarosz, you see that iron rod found right there? The sole connection between the upland lot and the river lot would be that point, which would be equivalent to this. So as this map is set out, the only joining part, you’re in that same scenario we had earlier with the subdivision at Hudson Pointe. The sole access you have is across that pin. It’s landlocked. You two may be cooperative, and it may be fine, but someday down the road, Mr. Jarosz, someone else could own your property. Mr. Markwell, someone else could own your property. They get into a squabble, you’re cut off. So my question to you was would you be merging, and that takes a deed, to merge these parcels, these two parcels that you’re going to be left with, with the one larger parcel to the west? MR. BAKER-Essentially you would be merging this portion here with this parcel. MR. FULLER-So as part of this application, you would be willing to do that, that it would be merged? Now what is does is that no longer is a separate parcel. You understand that distinction is it’s not, even though it shows it on this map, it would forever be merged with that other property, then this land lock issue goes away. MR. BAKER-And again, the reason for this whole concern goes back to the earlier concern we discuss which is the Planning Board cannot approve a subdivision plan that creates an unbuildable lot. That three acre parcel here that you’re proposing to be landlocked, under the Town Zoning Code, a building permit couldn’t be issued because it doesn’t have public road frontage. So, again, this is all for the purposes of making sure that the lands created after this process are all buildable, both from their physical conditions and from the application of the Zoning Code in the future. MR. JAROSZ-All right, but that little piece wouldn’t be buildable anyway. MR. FULLER-That’s fine. Then you end up with a scenario even worse. You end up with a parcel on the tax rolls that cannot be used. It ends up in tax foreclosure. That’s also a concern that goes down the road. MR. JAROSZ-So he would have to take this parcel and take it to his large parcel? 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) MR. FULLER-Exactly. MR. BAKER-Yes. Connect this parcel to here. MR. JAROSZ-Before any of this can go any further? MR. FULLER-It could be part of any Final approval. Actually, if he says right now on the record that that is going to be part of the subdivision that he’s proposing would be to merge that lot with his remaining lands, that’s fine. GARY MARKWELL MR. MARKWELL-No, that’s fine. I agree with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FULLER-You see that concern, though, is that it creates a lot that has no access. MR. HUNSINGER-It would then have to be a condition of any approval. That’s all. MR. JAROSZ-So it would have to be an addendum to the proposal, or in writing or? MR. FULLER-What the surveyor should likely do is, see where he has the part right down by the lake, it says lands to be retained by Gary Lee Markwell? MR. JAROSZ-Yes. MR. FULLER-He could add a note right there that says, and to be merged with the lands in Book 1084, Page 250. Now, the one piece of advice I would give you sitting here is I don’t know what mortgages or anything else you may have on your property. You need to look into that with your attorney, because it may be easy for us to sit here and say we’re going to merge those lots, but if you have mortgages or anything that are on those parcels, that would, it impacts that, because banks start to get nervous when you change their mortgages. Good. That solves that then. MR. JAROSZ-All right. So I have to have this re-done to show where, or find out where Mr. Tubbs’ well is in relation to this. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, his septic. MR. JAROSZ-His septic, or just move the well over closer to the other side. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. JAROSZ-Which is not an issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. JAROSZ-So is this going to hold us up from going to Step Three and Four? MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I’m not sure what you mean by Step Three and Four. MR. JAROSZ-To the Preliminary and Final approvals? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. JAROSZ-So, if we do this, and present it when we present the Preliminary and Final together? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. JAROSZ-All right. MR. BAKER-Here’s my recommendation, sir. Have your surveyor make the changes we’ve discussed to the plan. Give the Community Development Department a call before you make any copies of that revised survey, and we’ll be happy to look over it with you to make sure everything you need is there. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) MR. FULLER-Well, it would be better to do a preliminary conference and have the surveyor come to a meeting. MR. BAKER-A very good suggestion. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FULLER-Ultimately your surveyor should know, has done enough of these to know the exact requirements of the subdivision law. It is straightforward. He should be able to take those comments and the notes and the requirements that are in there and plot all that for you. MR. JAROSZ-All right. I have no further questions. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, the last issue, though, is the contours. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Can you get the two foot contours across the site? Can you get a survey at a two foot contour across the site? MRS. STEFFAN-They’ve got 20 foot contours on here already, some of them. MR. JAROSZ-At probably a great cost, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, actually, they do have the 20 foot contours. They’re just hard to read. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I’m not really sure they’re so light, because they’re there. I mean, there’s like, at the top of the page there’s a 360 foot contour, and then at the bottom of the page there’s some contours. MR. JAROSZ-Like I say, large contours right after the house to the river, and then just north of the house, to the top of the bank, are the big contours. There’s contours to the left of the property where it adjoins, but it’s at the edge of the property, which would not affect any of the building area, and I talked with Russ Howard about it, and he said I don’t see where there should be a problem with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Is it steep closer to big Boom Road? MR. JAROSZ-No. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s where it’s flat, right? MR. JAROSZ-All flat out here. It’s all flat right down to that tree line that you see just north of the house. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, which, if you can read these contours, is really what it says. MRS. BRUNO-Here, I’m going to highlight them, because that’ll show you where the steepness is. MR. JAROSZ-It would be a major expense for him to do the two foot contours. It would h have been a major expense for him to go out, that’s why they did the trees, and I talked with Mr. Brown about that, and he said just show it and explain it to you people, because if he went up, this is basically all treed up through there. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the point of the contours is you have to subtract out excessive slopes from the building lot. You have to have a minimum of an acre, and it’s a one acre zoning. So if you have an acre. I’m on my own here. So I don’t know if the rest of the Board is going to follow me, but if you have more than an acre close to Big Boom Road that’s flat, and you can show that on the map. MR. JAROSZ-The only slope is from the trees basically to the top of the lot here, where they divide. MR. BAKER-I guess I feel at this point I should point out to the Board Number Nine on this current plan, and that notes that the 20 foot contours shown on the map are scaled from the USGS maps. So those aren’t even as a result of on site survey work. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) MR. JAROSZ-But he’s been on site. MR. BAKER-That’s correct, but the contours, he didn’t take the contours from his on site work. His note on the map says he took the contours from existing US Geological Survey maps. MRS. STEFFAN-Which, and would that be the same source as the GIS maps? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. JAROSZ-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-And have been found to be somewhat inaccurate as land bodies change. How often do they update those, every? MR. BAKER-I don’t know. I don’t think there’s been any updates in our region in decades, to be honest with you. MRS. BRUNO-That’s what I thought, at least 20 years. MR. JAROSZ-But they can pinpoint right off the satellites. They can come in on the property. MR. BAKER-They can, but they haven’t. MRS. BRUNO-Right. MR. JAROSZ-But you can come in on the property, even, off the satellite. MR. BAKER-That’s not a service the Town provides. That’s a service. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what if we were just to ask him to depict on the plan the areas where the slopes are greater than 25%? Because that’s what we have done in the past with other projects. I guess that would be your other option, to have him mark on this plan the areas where the slopes are greater than 25%. MR. BAKER-You may want to specify that that determination be made based on on site work. MR. JAROSZ-Okay. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s either two foot contours or show where the slopes are greater than 25%, one or the other, whichever is easier and cheaper. MR. JAROSZ-Okay. It’s late. I know you people want to go home. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we want to make sure that we have everything. MRS. BRUNO-It’s a tough process to go through. MR. HUNSINGER-I think that is everything then. MR. JAROSZ-It’s a terrible process to go through. I’m not going to throw the Town guys in, but they just shook their heads, they go, why. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s the way it is. Anything else? MR. JAROSZ-So I can proceed with the next two steps. MR. HUNSINGER-Preliminary and Final. MR. JAROSZ-And bring this in with it corrected? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. JAROSZ-All right, now on the Preliminary and Final, they talk about roadways again. They talk about drainage. I can ask for waivers on all this? 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/17/07) MR. BAKER-There’s going to be a lot of information requested in the Preliminary and Final application form that isn’t applicable, and Page Three on the form itself, mark not applicable. MR. JAROSZ-All right. Like I say, you know, it’s not a major subdivision. It’s a nothing subdivision. It’s a paper subdivision. That’s all it is. There’s no development being done. There’s no affecting drainage. There’s no tree cutting. There’s nothing. It should have been just a simple, but, you know, we have to go through the procedures. So, okay. I’ll get this changed and hopefully we can proceed. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Thank you. MR. MARKWELL-Thank you. MR. JAROSZ-It tells you the size of the signs and when they have to be posted. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-The Town has a template for you. Stu, the Town has signs for their subdivisions? MR. BAKER-That’s correct. You can pick up a sign from the Community Development Department? MR. JAROSZ-You can? MR. BAKER-Yes, we’ve got those printed out and available for you. You just fill in the information. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and it has to be posted at least 10 days before the meeting. MR. JAROSZ-All right. MRS. STEFFAN-So put it on a board and nail it to a tree. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and we’ll look for it. MR. JAROSZ-Nobody’s going to look at it. MR. HUNSINGER-We will. MR. JAROSZ-You will, because the variance covered so much of this, and we had one person come who was all concerned about the roadways and all that sort of stuff, and when it was explained, they just walked away, shook their head and said why did we get the letter. Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Any other business before the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll make a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JULY 17, 2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: th Duly adopted this 17 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 50