Loading...
2007-07-11 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/11/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING JULY 11, 2007 INDEX Site Plan No. 57-2005 Northeast Dining & Lodging 1. Tax Map No. 296.18-1-6 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 07/11/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING JULY 11, 2007 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY THOMAS FORD DONALD SIPP TANYA BRUNO THOMAS SEGULJIC STEPHEN TRAVER ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER FIRTH-MATT FULLER STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY NORTHEAST DINING & LODGING SITE PLAN NO. 57-2005 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT th MR. HUNSINGER-As people recall when we discussed this, I guess it was June 26, and we talked about the applicant providing us with a letter and/or an agreement that we could the consider this evening and make sure everyone was on the same page in terms of where we are with the Site Plan for Northeast Dining and Lodging. I guess I’ll just open it up to questions or comments. Matt, I don’t know if there’s anything you wanted to say before we start with any questions or comments from the Board? MR. FULLER-No. Mark and I had talked about it after the last meeting, and he sent me what he wrote down as the details and Jon’s got them all in his letter. Procedurally where we are now, we did file the appeal. So what we would likely do is, if this is something that meets with the Planning Board’s approval, we would draft up Jon a stipulation to discontinue the action, really bind both the applicant and the Board to this decision, because we don’t want to lose that ability to appeal. If they pull the rug out after the deal is entered into, then we’d be left without an appeal. So we’re going to avoid that by entering the stipulation. We’ll send it to the Judge. I don’t think the Judge would have a problem with it. MR. LAPPER-No. We’d agree to do that, too. MR. FULLER-The parties agree to it. That essentially would lead to us withdrawing that appeal. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions or comments from the Board? MR. FORD-And if that were not the case? MR. FULLER-If what were not the case? MR. FORD-What you just described. MR. FULLER-If we didn’t agree with this? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. FULLER-Then we’d go ahead with the appeal. We’d perfect the appeal. MR. HUNSINGER-Don, I know you had done that research on the retaining wall. Do you think this is consistent with? MR. SIPP-The only thing I found, which is what I e-mailed out. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/11/07) MR. SIPP-Was two references, one in April and one in June, to what C.T. Male said th about the wall, and I assume everybody got a copy. On April 14, Comment Number Fourteen, regarding the retaining wall design, we understand that this design is not complete. Comments pertaining to the retaining wall concept are provided below, and then the third page, we generally concur with the modular block retaining wall proposed for this site to be constructed given the site parameters present. We would like the st opportunity to review the final design, given the site conditions. On June 1, C.T. Male, and this is really from, both of these are signed by Jim Edwards. The typical section detail for the retaining wall provided in the most recent plan shows a set of modular block type system. This type of wall can be constructed on this site provided that the foundation be undercut and control structurally fill be placed in accordance with the geotechnical report. Finally, the final design and details of the retaining wall should be included in the proposed penetrations for the storm sewer outlets. That’s all I can find on that wall. MR. HUNSINGER-Those comments in particular were consistent with the concerns you were expressing at the last meeting. MR. SIPP-I also, I don’t know why I didn’t think of this last time, is that I’m pretty sure that the footing for this has got to go below frost level, and if you take what I’m thinking for the USGS soils, this is a high content clay which is only about 3200 pounds per square foot that it’ll support. Gravel or sand will support 10, 11,000. So, I mean, the weight of this thing has got to be taken into account, as to how big this footing is going to have to be, and the depth of four, four and a half, five feet to get below frost line, because if you get any heaving, then our stormwater system may be in a lot of trouble. MR. LAPPER-That’s our intent was in Number Three, which was what you mentioned last time, to cover that by submitting the plans for the retaining wall to the Town Engineer for review before it can be constructed. MR. SIPP-Now, when you say reducing by locating catch basin number two as shown on the attached drawing, the height of the wall would be reduced by relocating the catch basin. How much are you going to lower? MR. LAPPER-Let me explain, the best way that they can show everybody. Right now the catch basin is here, and this part of the parking lot is two feet higher, so that it sheet flows into that catch basin. What the engineers figured out, when we said find a way to reduce the height of the wall, was that if the catch basin gets relocated over here, and then it gets piped into that to hook up with that catch basin right in with that one. It doesn’t require so much slope to get to here than it does to get to there. So in order to do that we can take two feet off, as I explained in the letter, from the whole Quaker Road frontage and all the way back to here, which is what you’ll look at, and that will knock that down by about two feet. MR. FORD-So that’ll be showing how much, Jon? MR. LAPPER-The highest part is eight feet, and this would bring it down, the highest part would be six feet. It undulates because of the wetland and the existing conditions, but the highest part along that whole section would be six feet, which is 25% less. A lot of it you don’t see because there’s weeds and things growing in the front anyway in this area, but just in terms of what you requested, that was the best way that we could do it. It doesn’t change impervious. It doesn’t change the stormwater. All it does is change the location of that catch basin so that it makes into a filter system. It was a good change. MRS. BRUNO-Jon, I just wanted to say that that was actually one of the reasons why I had voted against the SEQRA, and just for your information, down the road, in our Code, in terms of the height of the retaining walls next to wetlands, something that I think has been overlooked during the past years. You see it around up Bay and everything, that that’s something that, just to let you know it’s something down the road that I’m going to, will stick to. MR. LAPPER-I’ve certainly studied that section of the Code, and what I can say in terms of the history is that that section was in the shoreline regs, which originally only applied to lakes, ponds and streams, and when the Code was changed it applied to wetlands, and the intention of that was that on Lake George you can’t put in cinder block because your neighbors who are, you know, buy Lake George frontage don’t want to look at concrete block, and that’s why it has to be either timbers, which is kind of questionable, or faced in stone. I mean, it wasn’t intended that a wetland, at the time that the law was put in place, it wasn’t intended because it wasn’t the law that you’d have to face in stone 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/11/07) something that faces a wetland which by definition nobody’s welcome in a wetland. So nobody can look at it. I mean, the way the Code reads now, it’s in that section, and that section applies to wetlands, but it only talks about, that particular paragraph says alteration of wetlands. So I mean, because that’s talking about, alteration of shoreline, excuse me, and if you’re altering, it’s really dealing with walls that are right on the lake, or in this case. MRS. BRUNO-But it could be argued, though, that, especially as it’s happening more and more around Town, that you not only have the aesthetic affect of, or aesthetic influence, or lack of the aesthetics, in terms of the height, you know, if you start getting many of these walls, and I think there’s a certain level of control that that gives, in terms of affecting the wetlands. In other words, if we’re saying that we can only have, what is it, the 18 inches or 24, I meant to bring my book with me this evening, that, you know, that that helps minimize the effect on the wetlands around Town, and especially with what we’re seeing as, you know, Dan is doing this study on Meadowbrook and all that kind of thing that all of our wetlands are becoming more and more full of water because of the development in the area. So it’s just, it’s a manner in which we can kind of control overdevelopment as well. I understand what you’re saying about the lake. I’ve had clients on the other side of the lake, in Lake George, that just go ahead and do what they want and Lake George tends to kind of just, but, you know, we’re concerned. MR. LAPPER-Well, Tom and I talked about it at the last meeting. I mean, I terms of the theory behind it, a wetland can be protected with a stone wall because you don’t have any runoff into it. It directs the water the other way, and probably, you know, if the 18 inch rule applies, what you probably wind up with is that you have steps, you know, so I’m not sure if there’s a great policy. Obviously controlling development is one of the things that the Code does, but, I mean, in this case, we think that the retaining wall helps protect the wetland because you don’t have any water that’s running into the wetland. It’s all going into the filter system, but, you know, it’s a philosophical point. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and the example that you used in the past, I think correctly so, is the Lowe’s development. Before Lowe’s went in and put in the fill and the retaining walls to control that runoff, all of the runoff from that site was just going right into Halfway Brook, uncontrolled. So it can be used as a vehicle to improve stormwater runoff, and improve the quality of the wetlands. So it really depends on the specific application and situation. MRS. BRUNO-Right. I guess all I’m saying is like, you know in the past, I just remember that when I was reading that part of the Code there were a number of people that said, oh, I never noticed that, and I guess I’m just bringing it forward, maybe taking too much time from this evening’s discussion to just point out that it’s something to be concerned with, definitely on a project by project basis. MR. SEGULJIC-So I understand this. One, two and four look fine. There’s the only one I have concern with, and the thing is the approval of the building plans. Because what’s going to happen is the wall’s going to get designed, all of the plans are going to get submitted for approval, and they’ll be (lost words) the test pits in the area of the retaining wall to ensure structural integrity and it’s designed accordingly. Assuming everything’s fine, then building permits will be issued and it’ll get built from there. Administratively, though, we agree to these conditions, I assume we’ll do a vote tonight, if we vote tonight, we authorize, we approve the plans with these stipulations, you write up a stipulation agreement, the stipulation being that if anything here is violated then the appeal goes back into place, I guess. MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-We’re agreeing that we have to do what this says, and that’s the terms of the approval. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, because my only concern is that just making sure that there are test pits and borings done in the area of the retaining wall to make sure it’s going to work. The other thing is that if the design changes at all, so that the footprint changes, so then we go into the wetland. MR. LAPPER-If the design changes, we have to come back to the Planning Board. That would be a site plan change. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess what’s the threshold for a design change, a foot movement? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/11/07) MR. FULLER-It’s any movement. MR. SEGULJIC-Any movement. MR. FULLER-Any change to the site plan would require. MR. SEGULJIC-Anything at all. MR. LAPPER-Yes. We’re standing by, there’s nothing that we know that we can’t build what’s here, and whatever the engineer wants, in terms of how big the footings are, whatever, you know, we’ll submit an engineered set of plans and he’ll mark them up and tell us what he wants us to change. MR. FORD-When in the process do the borings take place? MR. LAPPER-Well, right now, I mean, we’ve got borings all over this site for the geo report, but I mean, if the engineer says we need more, you know, if he wants them every 25 feet or something along the wall, we’ll do whatever he wants. We’ll submit what we think is reasonable to start, you know, with an engineered plan for the wall. We’ll submit it to him. That has to happen right up front, when we submit the building permit application. So that’ll happen, you know, within a month. NIRAL PATEL MR. PATEL-Within a month, and, Tom, to address your concern, I’ve talked to my architect, engineer and everything. I have a 40 year lease here, and I understand the improvements that I’m making on the site, while in many sense is maybe not conventional, I need to make sure I’m protecting my investment, too, and I wouldn’t want to build something that’s going to collapse or do anything, five years, ten years from now either. So I understand your concern, but know that’s even more of a concern of mine as an operator, to ensure and protect my clients. MR. LAPPER-But they’re protected by the Town Engineer. So we’ll submit. MR. SEGULJIC-And I’m glad to see you reduce the wall to two feet. MR. LAPPER-Yes. We didn’t know, when we left last time, if that was possible. We told the engineers to find a way, and this is what they came up with. MRS. BRUNO-That’s great. MR. FULLER-The one thing I had, and just a comment here, would you like the comment added in there with borings and tests done as required by the Town’s Engineer to ensure that the appropriate footings? MR. SEGULJIC-I think that would be appropriate. MR. LAPPER- We have nothing wrong with that. We’ve already done them. MRS. BRUNO-I’m just curious. This is probably something I could have asked earlier, but I think one of the reasons why you were drawn to this piece of property was because corporate had thought that that was a good location. Is that correct? MR. PATEL-Traffic counts, yes. MRS. BRUNO-Did they ever actually physically come? MR. PATEL-Yes. I’ve brought them up here about three times. The first place I brought them to was Lafayette, and it was just, you know, off the main access. They were worried about the single lane road, and what that would do for traffic leaving, and they said you’ve got to really be on a four lane highway. MR. LAPPER-Across from Queensbury Central. That lot was available. MR. PATEL-Yes. So they came up three times. MRS. BRUNO-I’m just curious, because sometimes they don’t come out and they look at a map and, oh, that looks good because it has a four lane highway and, you know. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/11/07) MR. PATEL-No, they were definitely there. As a matter of fact, he was up here I think in August, the Director of Real Estate with Golden Corral, Incorporated. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thanks. MR. FORD-Refresh my memory, Jon, if you would, please. How many test borings have there actually been so far? MR. LAPPER-We done borings all over the place, a lot of them geotechnical. I think if we open up the site plan it will show that the soil. MR. FORD-Of late? Or were these previous borings? MR. LAPPER-No. There was a previous, there was, we obtained a geotechnical report from a number of years ago, because Applebee’s had looked at this site before they worked a deal with Lowe’s developer, and then the Town Engineer, in our review, said we would like this to be updated. So we had Chazen go do an updated soil report that included new borings. So that was done within the process last year. MR. TRAVER-So it’s a combination of some new and some old? MR. LAPPER-No, we had to really re-do them, because that’s what, yes. MR. PATEL-I think Fred Dente went in, in the Fall of ’06. MR. FORD-And do you recall the number? MR. LAPPER-If you want to look at the plan, Tom’s got it. It should be right on, the grading plan should have. MR. SEGULJIC-The grading plan. MR. LAPPER-If not, it’s in the stormwater report. MRS. BRUNO-Tom, what is that set dated? MR. SEGULJIC-9/22/05. MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s the first date. See that, there’s a little gap in the middle, revision date. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I see 6/14/06, and I will admit it. I grabbed the wrong set. MR. LAPPER-There’s probably a sheet with test boring results. If it’s not on this set of plans, then it’s in the report. MR. SEGULJIC-Are these the latest plans I have? MR. LAPPER-Yes. If it’s not on the plan, then it’s in the geotechnical. Test pit logs and general notes. Here is it. MR. HUNSINGER-While that information’s being looked up, is there any other questions or comments from members of the Board? I’m not sure we ever, as a Board, got copies of the actual, of all that or the actual borings. MR. FORD-I couldn’t recall, that’s why I asked. MR. LAPPER-The Gifford Report, it’s the original submissions. MR. HUNSINGER-It was talked about, but I don’t think I actually have the test results in here, or the reports. MR. TRAVER-Those earlier test sites would be reviewed by the engineer when he makes his determination whether there needs to be additional ones I’m assuming? MR. PATEL-I think it’s likely that there will. MR. LAPPER-He already looked at them and required it. I know I’ve got them. I just have so much stuff here. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/11/07) MR. FULLER-Even if it wasn’t in there, you certainly don’t want to disturb the wetlands. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? So what would be the next step? MR. FULLER-Well, if these are acceptable, then what we would do is have a motion to authorize the Chairman to sign this stipulation to be drafted by Counsel that incorporates these conditions in satisfaction of the litigation and then permits us to withdraw the appeal once that stipulation is entered into and binding. What we would do is Jon and I would work together to draft it, have you sign it. It’s going to be almost verbatim, just with that one change we just talked about, and then the legalese that we need after, so it has the legally binding effect, then he and I would hammer that out, get it to you to sign, and we would submit it to the Judge to so order it, and then that would be as good as a judgment, essentially. MRS. BRUNO-What would happen, as they’re building the wall, if they do come up with issues that make it impossible to build it? MR. FULLER-Then they’d have to come back. MRS. BRUNO-They’d have to come back. MR. TRAVER-Hopefully that would happen prior to construction. The idea is that they would design it before starting to actually build it, so that. MR. LAPPER-Right, absolutely. In my condition I said that, before any construction, we’d have to have the engineer sign off on the design. MR. TRAVER-Right. So if they ran into a problem, it wouldn’t be during construction. It would be in the design phase, and then we would redress the whole issue. MRS. BRUNO-But that could potentially end up killing the whole project if. MR. LAPPER-There’s nothing so magical about a retaining wall. It just has to be done right. I mean, I have the (lost words). MR. SIPP-Engineer’s don’t always. MR. FULLER-Well, your point is well taken. They could find something. The borings are going to be in areas. They’re not going to be every foot along the way. MRS. BRUNO-I was just curious in terms of, you know, I’m not a legal person, you know, where that exactly leads us in terms of the documentation, going through this evening, and from the last meeting. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, Jon, you located the borings? MR. LAPPER-What I’m looking at is the SWPPP. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I didn’t see it in there. th MRS. BRUNO-Is that the one dated revised March 8? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. BROWN-Jon, do you know when it might have been submitted? We kind of have these in monthly order. MR. LAPPER-No, but I’ll find it. MR. SEGULJIC-In some ways it kind of becomes moot because you have to (lost words). MR. LAPPER-That’s right. Your engineer will tell us what, yes, what he wants to see. Whatever’s reasonable is fine. I mean, if he wants us to do a bunch of borings, we’ll do a bunch of borings. So if that condition protects you with that additional sentence, that’s fine. MRS. BRUNO-I have the original right here from ’98. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/11/07) MR. LAPPER-That one with our original submission. MRS. BRUNO-Right. MR. LAPPER-It might have just been in Chazen’s response letter. th MR. SIPP-2006 Lighting and Retaining wall cut sheets, dated March 6, stormwater pollution, lighting and retaining wall cut sheets. th MRS. BRUNO-On May 15 we got a letter from Chazen, and one of the comments was that the geotechnical recommendations will be incorporated into plan set. MR. LAPPER-They are. Tom and I were just looking at, they’re on the plans. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. All right. Thanks. MR. LAPPER-Part of the answer here is that six feet of material is being removed and replaced, and so the only thing we’re really talking about is the footing you’re asking about, because everything else is going to be new soil, and the footings will have to be excavated in order to pour concrete, crushed stone and concrete footings. What I’m looking at is talking about soils reports that relate back to that Gifford study, and the type of soil wouldn’t change. It’s a question of whether the depth to ground water would change. The type of soils wouldn’t change. This talks about those tests in the SWPPP. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? Any questions, comments from the Board? Do you have a resolution ready, Gretchen? Not to put pressure on you. MR. FULLER-Because that gets back into your, the criteria that you go through on a site plan and everything, but since this is a resolution resolving outstanding litigation, I wouldn’t go through all that again. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. FULLER-It really doesn’t apply now. You’ve already rendered a decision. It was challenged. You decided to appeal. This is in satisfaction of that appeal. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I think we’re ready, too. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. MOTION REGARDING SITE PLAN NO. 57-2005 NORTHEAST DINING & LODGING TO APPROVE THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OFFERED BY NORTHEAST DINING IN THE JULY 10, 2007 LETTER FROM JONATHAN LAPPER, WHICH WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO A STIPULATION ACCEPTABLE TO COUNSEL FOR BOTH PARTIES, AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO EXECUTE THE STIPULATION AND AUTHORIZING COUNSEL TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL UPON EXECUTION OF THE STIPULATION AND AS MAY BE DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY COUNSEL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th Duly adopted this 11 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Any discussion? MR. SEGULJIC-Is that, from what you’ve heard, does that say what we want it to say? Okay. MR. FULLER-Yes, like I said. These specific conditions are going to get into the stipulation, as modified by that sentence that I had added on, and as far as the legal portion of it, you know, we’re going to be sure that, if this thing doesn’t work, then the appeal goes forward. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. FULLER-And that’ll be, you know, part of the stipulation. I think Jon understands that, and the applicant understands that, is the Planning Board did have concerns, still 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/11/07) has concerns. These conditions that they’ve offered are aimed at addressing those concerns. If, for some reason, these can’t be met by the applicant as they’ve offered, then those concerns of the Planning Board remain and the appeal should be heard. MRS. STEFFAN-Sounds good. MR. FORD-I’ll vote in the affirmative, then, accepts those conditions, and in essence approves the project for initiation. MR. FULLER-Approve that in settlement of the litigation. MR. FORD-And I’ll vote in the negative with the vote to perfect the appeal. MR. HUNSINGER-Any further discussion? Barring none, if you could call the vote, please. AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-The motion carries. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I just want to thank the applicant for coming back to the Board and giving us the opportunity to work this out. I think it’s been very helpful, and I think. MR. LAPPER-Well, we appreciate that opportunity also. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, I think the one change we came up with this evening, I think, is something that benefits everybody and really in the spirit of cooperation. MR. LAPPER-We want you to have confidence that it’s being done right, and so any reasonable condition like that makes you comfortable and we’re happy to offer it. MR. FORD-The effort was really appreciated. MR. PATEL-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other business before the Board? Is there anything we need to discuss before our upcoming meetings this month? MRS. BRUNO-Is drive around this Saturday? MR. HUNSINGER-Saturday. Yes. I didn’t get a chance to e-mail out. MRS. BRUNO-I won’t be able to make it. MR. FULLER-I have one comment, it’s on Irish Bay. Coming back from the Fort Ann Planning Board, they just wanted me to relay back to you and remind Jon that the applicant was going to copy Fort Ann on its submissions to Queensbury, and they didn’t, they don’t have that. So Fort Ann is kind of in the dark right now and they’re very concerned about that. MR. LAPPER-What happened was that we just made, we just did some significant changes because of what the Planning Board wanted. MR. FULLER-I know. I think what they want is just to be kept up to date as to those changes that are going on. So if somebody could get them up to speed. Obviously I did, but they want to know, for the record. MR. LAPPER-What the Planning Board should know is that after your recommended denial of the variances, we completely changed the plan to eliminate the variances that you didn’t want by reducing one lakefront lot and changing the configuration, so that it’s essentially compliant. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/11/07) MR. FULLER-Yes, that was my only update on that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-So now that we have that set of plans, we’ll make sure that we get that to Fort Ann as well. MR. SEGULJIC-Any idea when that’s going to come back? MR. LAPPER-I saw an e-mail that they’re working on it, the LA Group’s working on it. MR. SEGULJIC-So maybe next month? MR. FORD-A month, six weeks? MR. LAPPER-Well, what happened was, after we went to the Planning Board for recommendation, we went to the Zoning Board with a new set of plans that accommodated your wishes and the Zoning Board sent us back to go make some additional changes. So we’ve got to re-submit to get on the Zoning Board’s agenda and then we’ve got to come back to you. MR. SEGULJIC-And it goes on. MR. LAPPER-Yes, thanks everybody. MR. FORD-Thanks, Jon. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. SEGULJIC-I was just going to ask about Hoffman. MR. FULLER-That actually is a good question. I’m glad you brought it up. We did have a conference with, actually, I would make a motion to go into Executive Session to talk about that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th Duly adopted this 11 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MOTION TO COME OUT OF SESSION, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th Duly adopted this 11 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. SEGULJIC-The Lake George Watershed Conference. MR. SIPP-The Watershed Conference, yes, and there’s a lot of good material. There’s some good speakers. I started to reproduce it and then I thought, well, I haven’t got enough paper, but I also spoke, this week, to Kathy Bozony. She’s working with us, Tom and I particular, because that’s who we met up with first, on the CEA’s, and she put in a nd written commentary on the CLUP at the last Town Board hearing, July 2, and the th comment period was left open. So Monday night the 16, if anybody has any comments, you’re welcome to go and either submit an oral or a written report, recommendations. I stressed the CEA’s, to the point where I said I would like to see in the new 179 a 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/11/07) separate section set aside with all the rules and regulations for CEA’s, so that you don’t have to keep leafing through 40 pages to find out what is forbidden or permitted in a CEA, and the Town Board seemed to agree that there needs to be some work on that. They’re very receptive to anything that will help the septic systems. I don’t know if you’ve seen some of the recommendations that when a piece of property changes hands the septic system must be inspected, and if it’s not up to snuff, the seller must bring it into compliance before the property can be sold. That’s going to be one of the recommendations in the new regulations. MRS. BRUNO-Is that only in the CEA, or across the board? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s only in the CEA. MR. SIPP-Only in the CEA, and the definitions of CEA’s needs to be straightened up. Some maps have different. MR. FULLER-The Lake George CEA is the basin. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. FULLER-It’s the basin, right? MR. SIPP-It extends down. MR. FULLER-Yours? There’s a bunch of different ones. MR. SEGULJIC-If you look up Lake George CEA, there’s three different definitions. MR. HUNSINGER-In the Town Code? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, technically it’s designated by, correct me if I’m wrong, it’s designated by the State. They punted it to the Lake George Park Commission, and they have overall authority over it. It says within 500 feet of the lake. MR. FULLER-Right, but, see, that’s the major confusion is that that applies to the Lake George Park Commission. MR. SEGULJIC-The Lake George Park Commission extends all, I mean, the Lake George CEA, according to the Lake George Park Commission, goes out at 149. The Lake George Park Commission extends up into, up French Mountain. They’re two different boundaries. MR. FULLER-Yes, but, see, that’s the designation of a CEA comes out of SEQRA, believe it or not, and then that CEA designation applies to that agency, the Lake George Park Commission. It doesn’t apply to us, unless somehow they get involved, believe it or not. So we, if we’re going to use that designation, we need to designate it. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, Queensbury, on their maps, designates it as within 500 feet of the lake, and then within 100 feet of the 400 foot contour. MR. FULLER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-But in talking to George who did the maps, I said, how’d you come up with this. He said by interpreting what he got from the Lake George Park Commission. So there’s. MR. FULLER-It’s all over the map, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s all over the map. MR. FULLER-And that’s why is because any agency under SEQRA is authorized to designate a Critical Environmental Area, and so that’s what the Lake George Park Commission does, but some people get the assumption that because it’s designated by them, it’s designated for everybody, and that’s not the case, because it just applies to them, unless they somehow get involved as an agency. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, because the Town Code, there’s a separate definition. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/11/07) MR. FULLER-Exactly, and that one applies just to the Town, but it doesn’t have any relation to the Lake George Park Commission. It’s your own definition. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SIPP-That’s what I asked for Monday night was that we define these because like Sunnyside there’s a fight here and where it’s 100 feet or 50 feet from the lake, and Glen Lake is 100 feet, and Rush Pond is whatever somebody wants to make it, I guess. MR. HUNSINGER-I thought in the new, in the proposed Comprehensive Land Use Plan we resolved those issues? MR. SIPP-Well, they didn’t seem to think so Monday night. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I’ll have to go back and look at my notes. Because I remember, maybe you weren’t at the meeting. MR. SIPP-There were several comments on this, different maps delineating different areas. MRS. STEFFAN-I thought we did that, because we talked about we specifically were on the Hudson River property and said, no. It had to be the same. MR. HUNSINGER-No. Hudson River doesn’t apply. It had to be either Lake George, Glen Lake or Rush Pond. I think those were the only three, and I thought we had a, we came up with a common definition for each of those three. MRS. STEFFAN-We certainly talked a lot about a lot. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I don’t remember what the resolution was. MR. FULLER-Well, I can tell you, too, I’m Counsel to the LGA, and I’m working with Kathy on CEA’s. We’re going to actually meet next week. MR. HUNSINGER-Don, I appreciate the update, because until I had spoken to you, I didn’t know that the public hearing was two weeks ago at the Town Board meeting, or I would have been there. MR. SIPP-Well, if you want to go Monday night, in fact, they applauded you and you and the members of the PORC Committee for the amount of work that you put in and what you came up with. I don’t know how many people, every once in a while I come across it when I’m looking for a ballgame, Channel Eight, but, you know, there’s a way for people to keep up on what’s going on in the Town and maybe they do. The other thing, anybody interested in any of that, this is on buffers, which Kathy is going to speak about or has put in a written comment on Monday night. I think there are some on the Board who are not too happy with buffers, and plant, herbaceous or trees or whatever. MR. FORD-The designation of them or recommendations? MR. SIPP-Well, my recommendation is it has to be at least a 15 foot buffer on the property, and if it can’t be extended full across the property edge to the lake, then it must be made up in some other way, and I give an example of a 100 foot lakefront, a 15 foot buffer is 1500 square feet. If you can’t get 1500, what’s left over must be planted somewhere else on the property in order to soak up additional water, and it seemed the Board, the ones that were accepting of this, seemed to think that this is something that should be put in to the regs. I also, and I didn’t get too much on this, I thought maybe (lost words) said that there should be no pesticides or herbicides used in this area except by a licensed applicator, and a licensed applicator, if the older sprays are used as a lawn, could lose his license. There have been several cases of it in New York State, on lakes, which this has happened, and maybe this will keep this down, but you can’t stop these people from going to the hardware store and buying Scotts by the ton and dumping it on. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SIPP-And, outside of soil testing, there’s no way to cut down the phosphorus either. MR. FULLER-There’s a weight out of the EPA that you may find might make it’s way to Lake George, and it’s TMDL, Total Maximum Daily Loads. They do it on a lot of rivers, 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/11/07) and what you do is you establish a baseline of amounts of a given substance that can be in the water, like a lot of rivers they’ll do phosphorus, nitrogen, things that come out of sewage treatment plants, and if you exceed that TMDL, then certain regulations kick in from the State and Federal level, and that is something that may come up with the Park Commission is that a TMDL may be established for Lake George which would, Number One, be a massive undertaking because it’s expensive. MR. SIPP-It wouldn’t be hard to do if somebody would hire an outfit to spot check, and you can tell a lawn which has been fertilized. MR. FULLER-Yes, because once you get TMDL’s, if you get to July in the summer, and those limits are starting to be exceeded, then just like you said, then agencies start identifying point sources and where they’re coming from. MRS. BRUNO-Is that something that RPI’s water? MR. FULLER-Their freshwater. Yes. MRS. BRUNO-Yes, that they could do. MR. FULLER-It is, just to prove it, though, to set that base TMDL is just a very, very expensive proposition, because it takes a lot of science and a lot of testing throughout the lake. MR. FORD-So there are protocols that have been established elsewhere to follow? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, it’s very site specific. MR. FULLER-Absolutely. Incredibly site specific. MR. SIPP-You know what’s happened in Florida is they’ve banned all phosphorus fertilizers except for agricultural land. So if you put any phosphorus fertilizer on your lawn, and they catch you, you’re in jail because they’ve had so many algae blooms in their inlets there. MR. FULLER-That’s a TMDL. MR. SIPP-Which is killing the tourist trade from the fishing and the swimming and so forth. So they’re pushing this. Martin County, which is just above Palm Beach, has been hit badly and they really went after some people up there, golf courses included, and really laid some fines on them. MR. FULLER-Well, Craig can tell you. We’re working, the Town is one of the MS-4 municipalities locally, and some time this year, or in the next year, we’re going to be working to get an Illicit Discharges law adopted. If you’ve been down in the Zoning Office you’ll see the signs they’ve got down there about, you know, clean your car and your lawn, don’t put fertilizers down, because if that stuff starts getting washed into the Town’s stormwater system, then the Town is going to be required by DEC, that’s all coming down from the Feds, but it’s going to be required to go after people that are doing that. Kingsbury is, they’ve already adopted theirs. I’ve worked with them on it. MR. HUNSINGER-So the day’s coming when you can’t wash your car in your driveway anymore? MR. FULLER-Exactly. In Kingsbury you can’t do it right now, and the reason is, I think everybody would agree with me, is eventually it’s going to get to a point where DEC’s going to start doing grab samples on, or requiring towns, probably, to do it, grab samples on outfalls of stormwater, and testing it, you know, just like they do with the sewage treatment plant down in the City. It’s a self-reporting mechanism where if they’re over their limits and they’re dumping into the river, it’s an automatic violation, and a violation of about $25,000 a day. So, that encourages the municipality to push back to get compliance, and eventually what will happen, this is years down the road, but the Town will have an idea of where the stormwater upstream comes from, kind of like fingers, into the outfalls, so that if this one fails, the Town will be able to have an idea, okay, we’re going to go back up into these areas and find out where this phosphorus is coming from and this nitrogen, and just like you said, as you go into an area and the grass is all green, well, guess what, we’ve got an idea of where this is coming from. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/11/07) MRS. STEFFAN-I’ve heard that the mini golf places could help them out with that, because they like to turn their water blue. MR. FULLER-That’s coming next year. That’s another thing that’s going to address these outfalls. It’s all required. As an MS-4 we can’t get around it. You have to do it. MRS. BRUNO-Has there been any discussion with Aaron by anyone, from anyone from the Town or local or in the Lake George Park or anything like that that you know of? MR. FULLER-I don’t, but it’s all, through the Watershed Conference, a lot of those, at those meetings those discussions take place. MRS. STEFFAN-What happens, and we just talked about the septics and the Critical Environmental Areas and potentially a person, before they sell their house, would have to make sure their septic is okay. What happens if there’s somebody in a CEA or any place else in Town that has a septic tank that is overflowing and doesn’t, you know, is not working, they should have had it pumped out and they don’t? It’s not working, what do we do? MR. FULLER-Right now it’s a Board of Health issue. MR. BROWN-That’s an enforcement issue. It starts with Dave and the Building Inspectors. They’ll go out and confirm that, yes, it’s the septic. It’s not your gutters that have overflowed, and then it’s, turn the water off. Pump the tank, you know, get a new design, come before the Board of Health and get it fixed, the local Board of Health. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So they can’t live in their house? MR. FULLER-It could get that bad. MR. SEGULJIC-Has it ever happened? MR. BROWN-Sure. MR. FULLER-I have one in right now, I’m dealing with in Bolton. Actually I was doing it today. The Department of Health came in, and actually I’m the neighboring, that reported it, but came in and taped the toilet shut and shut off the well. MR. BROWN-And if it gets to an extreme state, you have National Grid come pull the meter and tag it and so they can’t get electricity. MR. SIPP-Tuesday night, this Rosen case comes up and they took my suggestion and put in a 10 foot wide buffer. The only thing is, I’m not going to be there, and they left a 30 feet opening to get to their swimming access, which is kind of poor. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, Don. I don’t think we can talk about that because we can’t talk about applications. Correct? MR. FULLER-Anything else that may legally come before the Board. You’re right. You shouldn’t debate an application. I wasn’t sure where it was heading. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. You’re talking about the application itself? MR. SIPP-Well, what I’m saying is. MR. SEGULJIC-I appreciate you giving us direction, but I don’t think. MR. FULLER-I would put an e-mail together and have it submitted as a comment. MR. SIPP-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Could he talk to me? No? I never understood that whole open meeting thing. MR. SIPP-It’s something that I started that probably I shouldn’t have, but without any regulations, I opened my big mouth, and this one got followed. I think it can be done. MRS. STEFFAN-We have two meetings this month. How many folks will be at the first meeting of the month? Okay. So four of us. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/11/07) MR. SEGULJIC-That’s okay, right? MR. TRAVER-Whatever happened to the other alternate? MRS. STEFFAN-Barbara. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I haven’t seen her around. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-How about the second meeting? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, that’s what I was asking about, because I could be someplace else, but if we don’t have enough people. Don, you’ll be here the second one? And you’ll be here, Tom? MR. FORD-I’m not sure. MR. TRAVER-I would like to be here. The only issue I might have is they told me for a while I’m not supposed to sit for any length of time. MRS. STEFFAN-I just wondered, because I was going to be in Vermont for a couple of days, and if the second Tuesday, we were going to have enough coverage, I was going to not come, but if we’re too short, I will come back. MR. TRAVER-I mean, I’m going to have e-mail and stuff. I’ll try to keep you up to date as to how I’m doing. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else, any other business? If not, does someone want to make a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE SPECIAL PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JULY 11, 2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Duly adopted this 11 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Traver On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 14