Loading...
2007-08-21 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETNG AUGUST 21, 2007 INDEX Special Use Permit No. 15-2007 Boats By George 1. Tax Map No. 226.12-1-1, 37, 38 Subdivision No. 10-2006 John Whalen 3. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 279-1-57 Subdivision No. 13-2006 Thomas Brennan 3. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 315.0-1-12.1, 12.2 Site Plan No. 14-2007 Redbud Development 22. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-7 Site Plan No. 42-2007 Redbud Development 33. Tax Map No. 296.09-1-10, 11 Subdivision No. 15-2006 Legacy Land Holdings, LLC 39. FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 296.15-1-28 Subdivision No. 11-2007 Larry Clute 44. SKETCH Tax Map No. 301.20-1-11, 28, 29 Subdivision No. 14-2005 Hayes & Hayes 47. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 308.6-1-86 Subdivision No. 17-2006 Theodore Rawson 51. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 300-1-20 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 MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 21, 2007 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY THOMAS SEGULJIC THOMAS FORD DONALD SIPP STEPHEN TRAVER MEMBERS ABSENT TANYA BRUNO SENIOR PLANNER-STUART BAKER TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER FIRTH-MATT FULLER STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY th MR. HUNSINGER-The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from June 19 th and June 26. Would anyone like to put forward a motion? APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 19, 2007 June 26, 2007 TH MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM JUNE 19 AND JUNE 26, 2007 MEETINGS, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: st Duly adopted this 21 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan SPECIAL USE PERMIT 15-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED BOATS BY GEORGE AGENT(S) JAMES MILLER, MILLER ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) GEORGE PENSEL ZONING WR-1A LOCATION CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATIONS TO AN EXISTING CLASS A MARINA. MODIFICATIONS TO CLASS A MARINAS REQUIRE SPECIAL USE PERMIT BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING 4/11/07 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 2.77 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-1, 37, 38 SECTION 179-10-10 MR. HUNSINGER-That project was tabled to this evening’s meeting. They did not submit the requested information. We can either table it or we can deny without prejudice, whatever the will of the Board is. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, could you clarify for me the note to the Planning Board from Craig Brown? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I wasn’t clear on it either until this evening, and I asked Staff and Counsel. I don’t know if you want to chime in, Matt on the Use Variance. We had asked the applicant to research that. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And so what they did is they got this opinion from the Zoning Administrator saying they do not need a Use Variance because it’s an allowed use. 1 MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s an allowed use, but it’s still the fact that they want to increase their quick launches they need to get our approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they still need to come through Site Plan Review MR. BAKER-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-It just doesn’t require Special Use Permit. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and we’re still waiting for the other information. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So does it, if we give them a date, what’s the advantage? Any word from them at all? MR. BAKER-There’s been no communication from them at all. MR. FORD-So no request to table? MR. BAKER-Nothing. So it’s at the discretion of the Board. The resolution you have for your consideration tonight give you a choice of table or deny without prejudice. MR. HUNSINGER-See, we had tabled it to tonight specifically, and we left the public hearing open. MR. SEGULJIC-So why don’t we just table it to a non specific date. MR. HUNSINGER-And then the applicant would have to pay to re-advertise. Okay. That’s fine. So I will open the public hearing and entertain a motion to table. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. FULLER-Just one suggestion. Why don’t you put a time on it, table for 90 days, and then following the meeting Staff could follow up with a letter to them just saying that you’ve tabled it and that’ll be the final expiration. If they don’t come in within whatever days. MR. SEGULJIC-So we’ll table it for 90 days from today. Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 15-2007 BOATS BY GEORGE, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: For 90 days. st Duly adopted this 21 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: MR. FORD-Before we vote, could I just ask for a clarification. The 90 day extension, we want to do that as opposed to going to a specific date? MR. FULLER-Just one recommendation. I just didn’t want you to leave it open-ended. MR. FORD-No. I certainly concur with that. MR. FULLER-Just an open-ended date for them to submit the information that was requested within that time. After that it’s deemed denied. MR. FORD-It’s for submission of materials, not the meeting date. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Exactly. MR. FORD-Thank you. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan 2 SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2006 PRELIMINARY SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JOHN WHALEN AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEER VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONING RR-3A, RR-5A APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 40.37 +/- ACRE LOT INTO 5 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 3.5 TO 14.5 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SKETCH PLAN REVIEW: 9/19/06 AV 51-2007 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA LG CEA LOT SIZE 40 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279-1-57 SECTION A-183 MR. HUNSINGER-We did receive a letter this evening. At the request of the applicant, th they would like to table that application until the September 25 meeting. It’s actually only here for Sketch Plan Review. So, I don’t know, do we even need to do a formal tabling? I’m sorry. We did Sketch Plan Review on 9/19/06. I’m sorry. My mistake. Okay. I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a tabling resolution? th MR. SEGULJIC-So, we’ll table it to the September 25 meeting? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-At the request of the applicant. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2006 JOHN WHALEN, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: To our September 25, 2007 meeting. st Duly adopted this 21 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan 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 N/A LOT SIZE 22.50 ACRES; 2.27 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 315.0-1-12.1, 12.2 SECTION A-183 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; T. BRENNAN, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. BAKER-Certainly. Essentially my Staff Notes were limited to a review of issues that were raised by the Board in Preliminary plan review. First was the length of the cul de sac. The applicant did submit with the application approved resolutions for a number of approved subdivisions where the cul de sacs approved in those were in excess of the 1,000 foot limit. The Board still needs to address the request for a waiver on this issue. The stormwater management and engineering comments were addressed largely as the st result of the meeting held on July 31, and the last item I had is related to Karner blue butterfly. The Board had asked the applicant to provide DEC verification that Karner blue butterfly habitat is not present on the site, and we have not received any correspondence from, we had not received any correspondence as of the date of my Staff Notes on that issue. I believe they’ve sent something since, but it’s not specific to the property in general, in that the DEC did not go on site and do a review themselves. They spoke largely in the correspondence about the general habitats for Karner blue in the region of the project site. 3 MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Tom Brennan and Dave Bogardus. I think the main issue that we’re left with is the length of the cul de sac issue that we’ve been discussing for a while, but now we need to address is formally. Since we were here last, Craig Brown made a determination that this does require a waiver from the Board, and we submitted evidence from about four recent subdivisions where it was treated that the area where the boulevard was was not a dead end road. So the dead end didn’t start until the end of the boulevard. We have minutes of meetings where this has been discussed over many years at this Board. So I guess Craig is making a determination that’s different from precedent in this Town. We cited chapter and verse in the Town Zoning Code. So, we can put this on the record, in as much detail as you’d like. I know you have all the submissions. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll open it up for, did you have anything else to add? MR. LAPPER-We did submit a Karner blue letter where the DEC said that this area is not an area that they’ve got listed as a Karner blue. I didn’t think that we were supposed to do anything else, and we have the engineering signoff. So this is really the last issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-Just a question of jurisdiction relative to a challenge to the Zoning Administrator’s determination, and whether that should be before this Board or the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. LAPPER-Well, we submitted it, I mean, I was kind of surprised that the issue’s come up, because it’s obviously been addressed by this Board a number of times. So Craig said that we needed it as a waiver, and we did submit to this Board for a waiver, but at the same time, the Statute of Limitations of 62 days would run on his determination. So we also submitted for the Zoning Board to review that determination, based upon the language in the Code and precedent, and we had to do that because if we didn’t do that, if we had to bring an Article 78 on this issue, we would have been told that we didn’t exhaust our administrative remedies. So that Statute of Limitations was running. If this Board grants a waiver tonight or decides that a waiver is not necessary, then that would moot the Zoning Board referral and we wouldn’t have to ask that question. MR. FULLER-Just to chime in a little bit on that point. I did finally get a memo together. It certainly poses an interesting legal question, because you’re, and I’ve discussed it with Craig, and I did call Jon and discuss it with him to get some background. The question of whether or not it should go to the ZBA on a Subdivision Regulation is an interesting question, because the Subdivision Regulation and the Zoning Code in Town are somewhat intrinsically related, though they are separate Code provisions, and the Zoning Administrator is charged with enforcement and administration of the Zoning Code and, separately, zoning enforcement administration of the subdivision code. That being said, the Subdivision Regulations use the Zoning Definitions. So they are somewhat related. I guess the end all analysis are, and I understood why the applicant chose to file that appeal to the ZBA because certainly that is a risk. If you go by that Statute of Limitations, certainly a judge could say you failed to exhaust, because, you know, if you look at it at a quick glance, I think the assumption is that you have to appeal the Zoning Administrator solely to the Zoning Board of Appeals. However, I think, and my end analysis was, that this is a Subdivision Regulation, and the Subdivision Regulations, believe it or not, were adopted by the Planning Board, with Town Board approval, back in the late 80’s. That’s how Subdivision Regulations got adopted then. The Planning Board drafted them. The Planning Board adopted them, and the Town Board signed off on that adoption. It happened the same day, but the reason I go to that analysis is I think that the question of the, the boulevard question, as I put it in my information to you all, is, I think, a Planning Board question. It’s no different than a Staff Notes question. Certainly I think the logical problem here is if you carry it out a conclusion, if the Zoning Board of Appeals were asked to rule on the applicability of a Subdivision Regulation, then the next step is, well then, who issues the variance on those? Clearly the Planning Board issues the variance on that, but if you’re appealing Zoning Administrator determinations to the ZBA, then one might logically conclude that you’re also appealing his interpretations on Subdivision Regulations as a variance to the ZBA, and I don’t think that’s the route anybody intends, nor do I think that’s what’s provided in your Code. So, I think the end analysis is I think the Planning Board should settle it. The Planning Board should, if that’s how you interpret it, that the 1,000 feet is either from the street, the actual public right of way, or the back of the boulevard, and there’s arguments pro and con on either side of that, I think this Board resolves it, and if in the future we need to, you know, 4 resolve it in the regulations, then we can do that. If it’s something that needs to be clarified, we can do that, but I think, to answer your question, should we be sending this over to the ZBA, I don’t think so. MR. FORD-The Zoning Administrator, however, does have jurisdiction to interpret Subdivision Regulations. MR. FULLER-Well, that’s a good question. Because certainly he’s not without appeal, but ultimately our opinion lies that the questions on the Subdivision Regulations, the applicability of them, are here, before this Board. So any recommendations that he’s making are recommendations to you, Staff Notes and otherwise, it’s a recommendation, and I think you, ultimately, have the authority to say here’s how we’re applying the Subdivision Regulations. MR. HUNSINGER-And really, with all due respect to the applicant’s research, the way that we have always treated this in the past, in fact, I was a little surprised when he started to make the argument the last time that you were here, about where the measurement begins. I didn’t remember that discussion on any other application. It was always, you know, we know it’s more than 1,000 feet. It requires approval, a waiver request, and the Board has granted those waiver requests. MR. FULLER-I think from the Staff Notes side there was a question of whether or not a specific waiver was specifically granted, so as to create that, or to rid yourself of that ambiguity that they’re arguing about. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. FULLER-I think I would tend to agree with you. It just got approved as part of your approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and it’s specifically why I voted against at least two specific subdivisions in the past few years. MR. SEGULJIC-So what you’re saying is that we, in your recollection, we never granted a waiver on 1,000 feet? MR. HUNSINGER-No. We never entered into a debate about where the measurement begins. MR. SEGULJIC-And also, to clarify, we’re supposed to look at it application by application. MR. FULLER-Yes, but certainly, a question like that, of how you’re going to apply that boulevard, that wouldn’t apply case by case. That would be a, here’s how we’re going to do it. If the boulevard is 100 feet long or the boulevard is 400 feet long, we’re going to measure it from the street, which it would then get included in that 1,000 feet, or we’re going to measure it from the end of the boulevard, wherein the boulevard would be excluded from that 1,000 feet. That should be uniformly applied. Then you get a little bit arbitrary. Do you see that distinction? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. FULLER-But certainly, yes, whether or not a waiver should be requested. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t ever recall granting a waiver. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I can certainly understand the applicant’s interest in getting us to make that determination where the measurement begins, but is there any advantage to us in doing that this evening? MR. FULLER-Well, either that or, determining that or discussing a waiver from it, if you do or don’t want to waiver it. Yes, you should do one or the other, discuss where you want to head with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FULLER-Just for the applicant to settle that question. 5 MR. TRAVER-But if we make a determination on where the measurement begins, that’s setting a precedent, whereas if we issue a waiver, that’s a case by case. Right? MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. SIPP-How many feet are we talking about? MR. FULLER-I haven’t seen the map. MR. LAPPER-About 2,000 feet is the total length of this road. MR. FULLER-How long is the boulevard, Jon? MR. BRENNAN-About 1,000 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-I do have minutes of prior meetings where the issue was discussed, and for the four that I cited, I don’t see that a waiver was granted, that it wasn’t required in those, in that case, and just to get focused on Surrey Field, I’m sorry, this is Quincy Lane, which is just next door. When it was discussed, Mr. MacEwan, who was the Chairman at the time, and this is the minutes of 6/03/03. Mr. MacEwan says, let me interject here. I don’t think it needs a lot of response to it because that was part of what we discussed when we had the Sketch Plan and that was a given that we would, considering that was longer than what was allowed by Code, given the fact that we asked for the boulevard entrance to alleviate any potential for, you know, emergency services. That’s why we went that route. So I don’t even really think we need to comment on it anymore. And that was on that specific issue, and I’ve got the minutes of all the meetings on the other subdivisions. So, I mean, our only point is that’s how it’s been consistently treated at Grandview Drive, which is right behind Town Hall, and Surrey Field on Bay Road and Western Reserve off of West Mountain Road, that it was always viewed as, because of the emergency services issue, that if it was a boulevard then there were two roads and I’ve cited the sections of the Code that talks about how you have to have double the width right of way if you’re going to have a boulevard entrance, and so it’s been consistently treated in this Town that you don’t count, you count it from the end of the boulevard, and we’re only asking that this subdivision be treated the same way. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-I am a proponent of consistency. We may be proven wrong in due time, but at least we will have been consistently wrong. MR. SEGULJIC-So what are our choices here? We grant the waiver. MR. FULLER-Certainly the waiver doesn’t discuss where you’re measuring it from. It leaves that question for another day. MR. SEGULJIC-Which is going to come back to haunt us. MR. FULLER-Well, in the interim, we may face that problem. MR. SEGULJIC-We haven’t heard from the Zoning Administrator, however. He just makes his determination but we don’t see his logic. MR. FULLER-I think that should have been in their submission. Perhaps it was. It was to the ZBA. I have that with me. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the letter from the Zoning Administrator says that in the event that a proposed street is in excess of the 1,000 foot maximum length per 183-23 I, a waiver must be granted. MR. FULLER-Yes, his is strictly a black letter reading of the Code. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and I do know that this is one of the issues that came up in terms of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and is addressed differently. It’s more black and white than the way it is now. 6 MR. SEGULJIC-Because my concern is we want to have streets interconnected, and if we, I mean. MR. FULLER-And you can still provide for that. With a cul de sac, you could still, there’s provision in your Code for still providing for a projection, a paper street, into a neighboring property, to a property line to provide for that, and how the Code deals with that is it says that in that event, that the Planning Board finds that that should be done, the cul de sac is still going to be created now to Town specifications, even though some day in the future, if neighboring development takes place, that cul de sac could very well disappear and just become a straight road, and then you just have a boulevard entrance, again, with a straight road into an adjoining development if that were the case. A good idea, by the way, for future development. MR. HUNSINGER-And that’s what we should have done with Quincy Lane, just to the north of this, or, I’m sorry, to the east. MR. SIPP-Has there been any overtures made to adjoining developments about connecting? MR. LAPPER-The problem, it was discussed at the last meeting, but the problem here is that they’re all developed with $400,000 houses. Like it was just said. It would have been better if that was a requirement on the adjacent subdivision, but now it’s too late because all the lots have been developed. MR. SEGULJIC-But there still is a possibility of going through Hudson Pointe. MR. LAPPER-No, because it’s not a road. That’s just a bike path, next door in Hudson Pointe. MR. SEGULJIC-But it could be done. It’s feasible. MR. LAPPER-We have to get out the zoning map or the tax map on the board and take a look at that, but that whole, the area next door, it was originally going to be a road, and the Town Board changed that because it’s part of the PUD, because Hudson Pointe Homeowners Association didn’t want to have access to Corinth Road. They were afraid of extra traffic or cut through traffic. So that was all changed about three years ago, and now it’s merely a bike path to be constructed. So that there’s walking and bicycle access to Corinth Road, but that it’s no longer a road. That’s probably on the map. MR. BAKER-Except I should point out the Town Board did specifically reserve the right to use that as a road in the future. MR. HUNSINGER-They just didn’t require the developer to build it. MR. LAPPER-Could we see that on the board, the tax map? MR. BAKER-You’re talking about this parcel here, right? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. FULLER-I think is it the problem that it’s just joined by a point? That’s the problem. MR. LAPPER-The Homeowners Association was very restrictive. MR. BAKER-The Board has discussed this at the previous meeting. I think my understanding was that the Board was willing to forego the issue of pushing interconnectivity here, since the opportunity at Quincy Lane isn’t there and the Homeowners Association to the south is not interested in providing an easement for such connectivity. MR. SEGULJIC-So this leaves us in a hard spot. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it does. MR. FORD-Between a boulevard and a cul de sac. MR. SEGULJIC-But I guess at what point do we start doing this? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s a good question. 7 MR. SEGULJIC-We could come up with all the excuses in the world not to do it, and you said you contacted Hudson Pointe Homeowners Association. I haven’t seen anyone here from Hudson Pointe Homeowners Association. MR. BRENNAN-They were here at the first meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they were. MR. BAKER-And they provided documentation at the last meeting, as well. It was in a prior packet to the Board. MR. LAPPER-I guess to answer your question, Tom, just like you do with commercial projects where you require an easement for a future connection, you know, obviously it’s best to do that, if there’s a possibility in residential subdivisions, too. For whatever reason it didn’t happen on Quincy Lane. So that’s precluded here, and the Homeowners Association from Hudson Pointe were very vocal that they didn’t want to have any connection, but I mean, in terms of the concept, the theory of why we have a boulevard, what the Board had always discussed was that if there was, you know, the burning car scenario and the road was blocked for emergency vehicles, that is addressed by having the boulevard because you’d have two separate roadways, and so I mean that’s certainly been designed over these years not just to get around the black letter of the Town Code, but also to have this second entrance. So there’s two roadways to get to that point. MR. SEGULJIC-But it doesn’t address the point, we’d like to have more connectivity between developments. We’re going to end up being in a Town of cul de sacs. MR. LAPPER-No. That requires, you know, the first time somebody comes in, if there’s a vacant lot next door, but it’s too late in this case. MR. FULLER-Yes, that, just from the history of the parcels next door, that was likely foreclosed. That opportunity to join them was foreclosed when the Quincy Lane development was approved. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-This subdivision has three fewer lots than Quincy Lane, and it’s about the same length as Quincy Lane, just for comparison. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other outstanding issues that the Board wants to get clarification on? MR. BRENNAN-I can make just one comment on that DEC issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. DAVE BOGARDUS MR. BOGARDUS-Is that we asked our biologist to do that, and I think if you follow that trail of correspondence that you’ll see that we did what you asked us to do. DEC does not make field visits for that type of thing. They only issue those letters which we gave to you. MR. BAKER-The letter from the DEC was received by one of the applicant’s agents on rdth August 3, and it was forwarded to the Town on August 20, and that’s why the Board doesn’t have it before you this evening. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I hadn’t actually read the letter. So MR. BAKER-I mean, I’d be happy to read the cover letter of the DEC letter aloud if the Board would like. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that would be helpful. MR. BAKER-The DEC letter is from Tara Seoane, Information Services in the New York Natural Heritage Program of New York State DEC. It’s addressed to Thomas Ward, of st North Country Ecological Services, dated July 31. Received by North Country rd Ecological on August 3. “Dear Mr. Ward: In response to your recent request, we have reviewed the New York Natural Heritage Program database with respect to an 8 Environmental Assessment for the proposed Land Assessment for Lands of Brennan, Unknown Development Potential, area as indicated on the map you provided, located in the Town of Queensbury, Warren County. Enclosed is a report of are or state-listed animals and plants, significant natural communities, and other significant habitats, which our data bases indicate occur, or may occur, on your site or in the immediate vicinity of your site. The information contained in this report is considered sensitive and should not be released to the public without permission from the New York Natural Heritage Program. The presence of the plants and animals identified in the enclosed report may result in this project requiring additional review or permit conditions. For further guidance, and for information regarding other permits that may be required under state law for regulated areas or activities (e.g. regulated wetlands), please contact the appropriate NYS DEC Regional Office, Division of Environmental Permits, at the enclosed address. For most sites, comprehensive field surveys have not been conducted; the enclosed report only includes records from our databases. We cannot provide a definite statement on the presence or absence of all rare or state-listed species or significant natural communities. This information should not be substituted for on-site surveys that may be required for environment impact assessment. Our databases are continually growing as records are added and updated. If this proposed project is still under development one year from now, we recommend that you contact us again so that we may update this response with the most current information. Sincerely, Tara Seoane, Information Services NY Natural Heritage Program” And the attached information DEC provided provides shaded mapping areas of known ecologically sensitive communities, and it shows the project site as entirely within a pitch pine scrub th oak barrens. Also, with this transmission that our Department received on the 20, was a letter from North Country Ecological Services to David Bogardus of Northeast Land Development Consultants, and they talk more about their review of the property itself, but DEC has not been on this specific site to look for Karner blue habitat, is the bottom line at this point. It’s still the opinion of North Country Ecological Services. I’ll just read th their summary paragraph from their August 6 letter. “As a result it has been determined that any proposed development of the property is highly un-likely to result in any negative or adverse effect upon any endangered/threatened species or rare vegetative community types.” So that’s the conclusion of the applicant’s agent on this, but again, DEC has not done a specific inventory on site. MR. LAPPER-The reason is that this is a vegetated, this is a wooded site. So it’s not suitable for Karner blue habitat, except for Tom’s house. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I know that most of the known habitat is north of this site, not in this neighborhood. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So they recognize that it has the vegetation required, is that what they’re saying? MR. BAKER-Who’s they? The DEC or the applicant’s agent? The DEC is recognizing the parcel as being within a pitch pine scrub oak barrens general ecological community which is known to support Karner blue, but DEC said nothing specific about this project site. MR. HUNSINGER-Talk about hedging your bets both ways. MR. SEGULIC-Yes. I mean, we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t. MR. SIPP-There are two options, Mr. Chairman. Either we stick to the definition made by the Zoning Administrator or we grant a waiver. MR. FULLER-I think the ultimate decision of how that is measured is up to this Board. The ultimate interpretation of how you apply your subdivision regulations is up to you. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it seems as if it doesn’t make sense for us to rush into that decision though since we have the Karner blue issue hanging out there. MR. LAPPER-Well, the issue with Karner blue is this is a wooded site. You can’t have, if you look at that map, that whole side of Town says that it has sandy soils. That’s what they’re saying. I mean, it’s your call. MR. BOGARDUS-The DEC will not make a field inspection for new Karner butterfly. They rely on people like North Country Ecological Services to do that for them, and North 9 Country Ecological Services says in their letter there is no habitat for new Karner butterfly. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, in the past the DEC’s made determinations, I believe. I can’t recall the person’s name. MR. BOGARDUS-I can’t get them to do that. If you read my request, and the response to it is they don’t make site inspections. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, in the past they’ve done site inspections, correct? MR. BAKER-Kathy O’Brien. MR. SEGULJIC-Kathy O’Brien. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, she’s at least provided letters saying, you know, that the appropriate vegetation is not present on the site. I know we’ve seen letters from her in the past. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and you’re stating you cannot get letters from the DEC at all? MR. BOGARDUS-I requested from my biologist to get verification from DEC, and if you follow that paper trail, you’ll see that’s what I asked him to do. They sent a letter to DEC, and DEC sent the information back, which that gentleman over there read to you in full, which says there’s no evidence of new Karner, I don’t want to quote it because I’m not that good at it, that there was no evidence of new Karner blue butterfly habitat. However, there was pine barren scrub oak. I really have no knowledge of what that is. I’m not an environmentalist. It has nothing to do with new Karner butterfly. I have to rely on what my biologist tells me. This is DEC’s letter. We cannot provide a definitive statement on the presence or absence of all rare or state listed species, significant natural communities. This information should not be substituted for on site surveys that may be required for environmental impact assessment. We’ve had an on-site survey by a registered, qualified Environmental Biologist and he says there is none. So I have to take him for that. MR. LAPPER-Perhaps you should read more of the letter than what Stu read, or the biologist. MR. BOGARDUS-Okay. Would you like me to read the North Country letter in full? th MR. HUNSINGER-Is this the letter from May 15? MR. BOGARDUS-It’s a letter from August 6, 2007. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BOGARDUS-Again, the Board does not have that letter because it was received after the application material deadline. MR. HUNSINGER-How long is the letter? MR. BOGARDUS-It’s one and a quarter pages. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. If you could, please. MR. BOGARDUS-Endangered Threatened Species Information – Lands of Brennan – Town of Queensbury – Warren County, New York “Dear Mr. Bogardus: Pursuant to your request, North Country Ecological Services, Inc. (NCES) contacted the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Natural Heritage Office in regards to the potential for presence of Karner Blue Butterflies (Lycaeides Melissa samuelis) and/or any other endangered /threatened flora or fauna species on or within the vicinity of the above-referenced property. Based on the response received from the DEC Natural Heritage Office (copy enclosed) it has been determined that the DEC does not possess any known records of the occurrence of Karner Blue Butterflies or any other individual endangered/threatened flora or fauna species on or within the vicinity of the property. However, the Natural Heritage Database does possess records of known occurrences of two vegetative community types that have been designated as “significant” by the DEC Natural Heritage Office. The two vegetative communities listed include: Pitch pine- scrub oak barrens and Hemlock northern hardwood forest. According to a map provided 10 by the DEC, the Pitch pine-scrub oak barrens vegetative community type is known to occur in sporadic patches to the north and east of the property. The nearest known occurrence of the Hemlock northern hardwood forest is located approximately 0.5 miles to the southwest of the property. Based upon our review of the property, Pitch pine- scrub oak barrens do not exist within the property boundaries. However, Pitch pine- scrub oak barrens vegetative communities were observed by NCES to the east of the property, on the adjacent Sherman Island Power Plant site. The forested uplands found on the property are typical of the southern Adirondack region of upstate New York. Some of the dominant species of vegetation observed included, but are not limited to, eastern hemlock (Tsuga Canadensis), white pine (Pinus strobus), red oak (Quercus rubra), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), sugar maple (Acer rubrum), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and striped maple (Acer pennsylvanicum). The forest is similar in composition to a Hemlock-northern hardwood forest as described in The Ecological Communities of New York State (Reschke 1990). However, the property is not located in any portion of a mapped Hemlock-northern hardwood forest as identified by the DEC. The two vegetative community types have been designated as significant by the DEC Natural Heritage Office because they are either “an occurrence of a community type that is rare in the state or are a high quality example of a more common community type.” The Pitch pine-scrub oak barrens possess a New York State ranking of S-1, which indicates that the community type is critically imperiled. However, Pitch pine-scrub oak barrens do not exist within the property boundaries, therefore, no impacts to this community type will occur by any property development. While a forest community type similar to Hemlock-northern hardwood forests does exist on the property, no portions of any DEC mapped Hemlock-northern hardwood forests exist on the property. The Hemlock-northern hardwood forest possesses a New York State ranking of S-4, meaning that it is not rare and that it is apparently secure in New York. Both of the vegetative communities identified by the DEC are un-listed and non-protected community types and are not regulated by the DEC pursuant to the Environmental Conservation Law. As a result it has been determined that any proposed development of the property is highly un-likely to result in any negative or adverse effect upon any endangered/threatened species or rare vegetative community types. If you have any questions or require additional information/clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me at any time. Thank you. Sincerely, North Country Ecological Services, Inc. Thomas M. Ward Assistant Ecologist/Biologist” MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Does anyone have questions, comments? MR. SEGULJIC-So, in there it didn’t say that the DEC would not visit the site. MR. BOGARDUS-That’s correct. They don’t commonly make site visits. MR. SEGULJIC-That was stated in the letter? MR. BOGARDUS-No. No, that was not stated in the letter. MR. SEGULJIC-And if I’m correct, the request went to the DEC a month ago. MR. BOGARDUS-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-I think it usually takes them a little longer to get out there. I mean, maybe I’m mistaken, but you had stated DEC does not make site visits. MR. BOGARDUS-I asked my biologist if they would verify through DEC if there were any known occurrences of endangered species or flora. They told me that DEC does not commonly go to the sites but will issue a letter, and a copy of that letter was attached to the letter I just read. MR. TRAVER-Didn’t his letter also indicate that DEC had indicated areas surrounding this property was fact considered this habitat? So they must have visited nearby, I guess. MR. BOGARDUS-No. They only said that there was a certain type of fauna, not necessarily conducive to new Karner butterfly. This report gets into just, it goes beyond new Karner butterfly. That’s where we’re getting confused. It goes into some whatever rare type of species of trees, which I’m not familiar with. It doesn’t just address new Karner butterfly. So they’re looking, they’re reporting on everything they know about in their records. 11 MR. TRAVER-Right. I understand that. What I’m saying is it sounds, if I heard you correctly in that letter, as though DEC did so some mapping in the areas surrounding this property and had indicated that there were. MR. LAPPER-Pitch pine. MR. BOGARDUS-Pitch pine scrub oak barrens. MR. TRAVER-Which could have only been done by field studies. MR. BOGARDUS-I don’t know that because I don’t know that. This is the diagram. MR. TRAVER-I mean, isn’t it reasonable to assume that if they declare a certain area as having a certain tree habitat or tree species that someone went out there with a clipboard and looked around and said, yes, sure enough, it’s here? MR. BOGARDUS-You could make that assumption, but you could do an incredibly lot with infrared photography also. So I don’t know that. MR. LAPPER-But your biologist went out and looked for those types of fauna and didn’t find any. MR. BOGARDUS-He took DEC’s report and he looked for everything that they talked about in the reports, that none of that is applicable to our site. MR. LAPPER-He went onto the site. MR. BOGARDUS-On two occasions. MR. HUNSINGER-I know I feel comfortable with the documentation that’s been presented. I can’t speak for the rest of the Board. Okay. What’s the will of the Board this evening? Any other questions or comments? Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the public that wanted to address the Board on this application? I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-And for the time being I will leave it open. Are members comfortable moving forward with SEQRA? MR. SEGULJIC-No, I think we need, I mean, DEC’s been out to other sites. We have a letter indicating there is potential for habitat there. We have to answer the question, is there endangered species present. I don’t have a clear definitive answer on that. MR. HUNSINGER-How do other members feel? MR. FORD-Did we not specify in a previous meeting DEC determination pertaining to the Karner blue? MR. BAKER-Up on the screen you’ll find a portion of the minutes from the last meeting th that was July 17, and the discussion on Karner blue went as follows. 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. Ms. Bitter was the agent for the applicant at that meeting. 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-I think that was the extent of the discussion, too. MR. BAKER-It was. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So we certainly have additional documentation than what we had back in April, but as people pointed out, it’s not the letter from the staff person that we usually get, but personally I’m comfortable with what they provided. st MR. LAPPER-The request was made to DEC, and the letter that Stuart read, July 31, it says to North Country Ecological Services from DEC, in response to your recent request, 12 the DEC database. So that’s, so the request was made to DEC, and they came back with a letter. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And that letter talked about the two plant species and we sent the biologist out to take a look at them. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments on this? Again, I’ll ask members if they’re comfortable with moving forward. MR. FORD-I’ve increased my comfort level. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Sipp? MR. TRAVER-Do you have the letter that this firm sent to DEC to requesting their opinion? MR. BOGARDUS-I’m sure I do somewhere. It might take a little bit of time to. MR. SEGULJIC-I believe it’s in our package. MR. BOGARDUS-It’s a letter that, which letter, sir? MR. TRAVER-The request that was sent to DEC asking their opinion as to the presence of this butterfly. th MR. SEGULJIC-That’s a July 18 letter? MR. BRENNAN-I know the Planning Board has that. MR. TRAVER-We have that? MR. BRENNAN-I believe you do. MR. TRAVER-I have not seen that. rdrd MR. BRENNAN-Yes. It was enclosed in my August 3 submittal. It was in my August 3 submittal to Craig Brown. Would you like me to read it? MR. TRAVER-I do have that, yes. Thank you. I’m sorry. I didn’t recall seeing this letter. MR. SEGULJIC-And then the DEC responded to that letter. MR. BOGARDUS-Correct. Yes. The chain of events is I asked my environmentalist to look into it. He wrote that letter to DEC. DEC wrote him a letter back which I read to you. My biologist wrote me a summary letter back to me, which I read to you. MR. LAPPER-After he went out in the field. MR. BOGARDUS-After he went out again a second time in the field. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and this letter from North Country Ecological Services does not ask DEC to do a survey of the site. It asks to check the existing surveys and their database, right? It doesn’t ask someone from DEC to come and examine the site for the presence of this butterfly. MR. BOGARDUS-As I said, they don’t normally do that when they deal with somebody of the caliber of North Country Ecological Services. MR. SEGULJIC-But I guess we had, in the minutes, we requested the DEC visit the site, or just send a letter? Just send a letter, the minutes we looked at, the minutes you had posted up there before. MR. BAKER-What did the minutes say? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. 13 MR. BAKER-They said usually we get something from DEC confirming those findings. I know in the past applicants have spoken directly to a Kathy O’Brien from DEC who has been known to go on site and look for habitat. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, which would make sense. I mean, it’s been done in the past. MR. LAPPER-Well, why don’t we look at the tabling resolution and just see what was requested. th MR. BAKER-The tabling resolution did not, the tabling resolution from July 17 did not specifically state anything related to Karner blue, but it was an outstanding issue from the discussion of that. MR. HUNSINGER-I think it would have been, if it was in a tabling resolution, it would th have been from the April 26 meeting, which I don’t have here. MR. BOGARDUS-Well, if I could read the paragraph that says, North Country Ecological Services is requesting information from the DEC National Heritage Database regarding the potential for presence of endangered, threatened or species of special concern as well as information on special or unique habitats that may occur within the vicinity of the property, on or within the vicinity of the property. This information is being requested by NCES to assist in the completion of a feasibility study that is being undertaken to determine the development potential of the property, and they responded back that there was no new Karner butterfly or potential habitat for that. So I would have to assume they don’t think a field inspection is necessary when there’s nothing in their database. I mean, if we’re hung up on that, I can beg somebody from DEC to come to the property, but that’s not what they normally do. MR. SEGULJIC-You talk about precedence. I mean, that’s what we’ve asked applicants to do in the past. MR. LAPPER-But that’s probably on a site that has more potential for habitat because it’s not vegetated with trees. As we know, it has to be a sand scrub site and that’s not what we have here. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I’m not a biologist. So I wouldn’t know the difference. MR. BOGARDUS-Well, what little I know about it is that new Karner blue butterfly habitat is mainly confined to meadows and fields, and this is a pine oak cherry beech forest, as the letter states. There is no new Karner butterfly habitat. It’s completely forest. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. In fact, most of the prime habitats are underneath the NiMo power lines. MR. LAPPER-Because they’re cleared. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because they keep the brush cut down. MR. FORD-As part of our learning process hereafter, if we want a site visit by a DEC representative then we better darn well specify that, because DEC responded to exactly what was requested, and that is a search of their database. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. FORD-And this is what they came back with. It was never requested that there be a field study done. MR. BOGARDUS-Well, just to clarify that, Tom, sir, I requested a field inspection, from my biologist, through DEC, and I was told that if there’s no potential, they’re not going to spend their time to go out and do a field study when somebody else like a biologist has already done that. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, to me that makes sense. If looking at their database and their maps and the data in front of them, the information from your biologist, if they don’t feel there’s any potential, they’re not going to go look at it. It would be a little more comforting if they had said, but they did kind of hedge their bet and say, you know. MR. FORD-DEC gave them exactly what was requested, a search of the database. 14 MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, personally, based on, you know, the other projects that we’ve reviewed where we did have Karner blue habitat, I mean, I’m comfortable with the documentation that’s been submitted, but if we’re hung up on that, then we’re hung up on that. MR. SEGULJIC-We requested it from other people. It’s always been a very sticky issue with Karner butterfly. As a matter of fact, the Town paid for a study, Lord only knows where that is, to help us map that out. MR. LAPPER-But it wasn’t in this part of Town. It wasn’t on this property. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, this part of Town wasn’t. MR. LAPPER-It was over by Sherman, that whole area where we created those habitats. MR. BOGARDUS-My client paid for a study done by a firm that DEC hires on a regular basis as a consultant to them. So I have to feel that the people I had do this report are as highly as qualified as anybody possibly can be. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Sipp, are you comfortable in moving forward? MR. SIPP-This has to do with the? MR. HUNSINGER-Just on the Karner blue issue? MR. SIPP-No. This is not, it has to do with the boulevard. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Ford? I’m trying to determine if there’s enough willingness of the Board to move forward with SEQRA. MR. FORD-I’m trying to determine what Don said. MR. SIPP-Knowing what I know about the Karner blue, I don’t think this is the type of habitat that you’re going to find it, but that’s, you know, knowing where they are is much more open. Although it’s treed, it’s more open. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. FORD-So you have a comfort level of moving forward beyond the Karner blue issue? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. FORD-As do I. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Then I will close the public hearing. It’s a SEQRA Long Form. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. SEGULJIC-Do we want to address the boulevard issue before we do this, before we do SEQRA? MR. HUNSINGER-The waiver? MR. SEGULJIC-Right, the waiver. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I see it as a site plan issue, not a SEQRA issue. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Other members in agreement with that? That the boulevard issue is a site plan issue, not a SEQRA issue? MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? 15 MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-The qualifiers. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? Examples would be Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. Construction on land where the depth to water table is less than 3 feet. Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e. rock or soil) per year. Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. Construction in a designated floodway. MR. SEGULJIC-Historically I’ve said no to this. MR. HUNSINGER-Historically we’ve said no to this, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess we could say yes, small to moderate. MR. HUNSINGER-But what’s the impact? MR. SEGULJIC-Small to moderate. MRS. STEFFAN-On what? MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the impact? I mean, I guess we could say that, you know, construction will continue for more than one year. They have provided a stormwater prevention plan that has mitigation measures during construction, but I’m not sure who said yes, and what the issue is. MR. FORD-I don’t think that it’s significant. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s definitely not significant. MR. FORD-But I don’t want to, hereafter, go blindly saying no every time the question is asked. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So small to moderate impact. MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-On which criteria? MR. TRAVER-Well, the only one that could apply would be construction over a year. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-Right. MR. TRAVER-So it would have to be that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-Because this will be phased, correct? MR. SEGULJIC-There’s an area that’s going to exceed 15% I believe, correct? That strip across the middle of the site? MR. BOGARDUS-There are two small areas that aren’t being developed that are, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-The road’s going to go across that, I believe. MR. BOGARDUS-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 16 MRS. STEFFAN- Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or or quantity? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-Apparently not. MR. SEGULJIC-We’re not sure. It appears as if not, but. So I’m not sure how to respond to that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think the documentation that we have is saying that it won’t. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. 17 MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area established pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.14? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then based on your feedback, I will make a motion for a Negative SEQRA declaration. 18 RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 13-2006, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: THOMAS BRENNAN, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board 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. st Duly adopted this 21 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Discussion on the cul de sac. MR. SIPP-Mr. Chairman, I say that for what has taken place in the past, Number One, what did the Committee decide? You said that they basically were going to change the, your Committee on the Land Use. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, of course it hasn’t been adopted by the Town Board. MR. SIPP-No, but what was the? MR. HUNSINGER-I believe the language in there says that cul de sacs cannot exceed 1,000 feet, period, with no ability to request waivers as exists currently. MR. TRAVER-Which still leaves the issue of where the measurements. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it would. MR. SIPP-Well, I would offer this, that we allow a waiver in this case, but we present a motion to cul de sac can be no longer than 1,000 feet in distance, and the Zoning Administrator’s definition that it starts at the public right of way to the end of the cul de sac be adopted and used from now on as the source of measurement and what will take place with no waivers granted from that, from this new determination. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I’m not clear what the last clause was, when you said what will take place from this point forward. That no future waivers would be granted? 19 MR. SIPP-No future waivers would be granted. MR. SEGULJIC-We can’t say that. Correct? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think we can. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t think we can say that. MR. SIPP-Why can’t you? MR. TRAVER-Because then, in effect, we’re deciding where that measurement point is. MR. SIPP-Well, the measurement, if we say the measurement starts at the public right of way to the end of the cul de sac, that’s it. MR. TRAVER-That’s correct, but we don’t need to do that tonight. MR. SIPP-No, no. MR. FULLER-And I don’t necessarily know that the discussions, at least from the minutes I was given, don’t definitively, that that discussion was not definitively had, whether or not, that I could see where that measurement started. I don’t know that you can jump to that. I think my conclusion was more that the waiver was rolled into a past approval. Whether it was, as Mr. Lapper says, whether as he says it was measured from the end of the boulevard or whether it was jus waived, that’s not definitively stated in any of the minutes. It was one or the other, it was rolled into the decision of the Planning Board, and, you know, I didn’t offer any opinion on whether or not I thought the Zoning Administrator was right or wrong. Nor would I. My opinion to you is solely procedurally, where are we and what Board should we be before for this question. We can get into the other discussion of how it’s defined and things after, and I think I could shed some light on that, for a future discussion. MR. TRAVER-All right. I’d be more comfortable with the issue of a waiver for tonight, and leave open this question of where the measurement starts so that we can review that further, rather than set a precedent. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SIPP-I’m agreeable with that, but I think we need to think about making these things that there will be no waiver. So when the next, two years or four years from now, the next Planning Board comes up with the same problem of having 1,010, is that waiverable or not, and if you say no. MR. FULLER-With any land use regulation or anything like that, the applicant constitutionally is always going to be presented with an opportunity to seek a waiver. If it’s in the Zoning Code, it’s a waiver to the ZBA in the form of a variance. If it’s in the Subdivision Regs, it’s a waiver request here. Hard and fast rules get into constitutional problems. MR. SIPP-Yes, but then why have a rule at all? MR. FULLER-Well, that would be some justification for not granting a waiver. MR. SIPP-I mean, it’s a law, but, you know. MR. FULLER-You can always, you have to have a relief valve. I’ll put it that way. That doesn’t mean it has to be granted, but it’s that you present the relief valve for the applicant to apply. If an applicant doesn’t justify or substantiate the reason for the waiver, then you make your decision. MRS. STEFFAN-Did we get a Vision Engineering signoff on this one? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-We did. Yes. Okay. We have at least two members that are comfortable with the waiver for this project. This is for Preliminary. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. 20 MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2006 THOMAS BRENNAN, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; 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. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/26, 6/26, 7/17, 8/21/07; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and 6. If the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOT APPLICABLE 7. 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. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and 8. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 9. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and NOT APPLICABLE 10. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 11. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2006 THOMAS BRENNAN, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five Negative. Paragraph Six does not apply. The Planning Board grants a waiver from the maximum length of a cul de sac, according to, as defined in Regulation A183-23-I-4, and Paragraph Nine is not applicable, the letter of credit. st Duly adopted this 21 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: MR. FORD-Just clarification on that, the wording of the waiver on the cul de sac, that we need to specify any distance involved there or not? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we could specify the section in the Regs that talks about the measurement of a dead end road being over 1,000 feet. MR. SEGULJIC-We’re saying it’s 1,000 feet. We’re granting them the 2,000 feet, I believe it is. So I think it takes care of itself. That’s what you’re getting at. MR. FORD-Okay. 21 MR. SEGULJIC-I guess just a clarification also, the letter, the engineer signed off on this? I don’t see the letter anywhere. There was a letter? MRS. STEFFAN-Stu, do you know? MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Ford has it right there. th MR. LAPPER-August 17. MR. SEGULJIC-Because these came later. MR. HUNSINGER-That was the thing that was, I think it was e-mailed to us. MR. BOGARDUS-But it was very beneficial to have that meeting, and I appreciate it. It was very helpful. We had a good conversation. MR. HUNSINGER-Good. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. FULLER-Did you want the Section? It’s A-183-23-I-4. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. FORD-Thank you. I’m more comfortable with that. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. LAPPER-Thank you, and now we don’t have to bother the Zoning Board with this tomorrow night. MR. BOGARDUS-Thank you very much. MR. FULLER-And at some point later I’d be happy to discuss with you why Mr. Brown was correct. It’s something he didn’t get into in his letter, but it’s the definition of a street. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FULLER-He made the determination in the subdivision, but the definition of a street says anything included in the right of way. So that, and it includes any distance included in the right of way. So if this is going to be a dedicated, even the boulevard, a dedicated right of way, it’s included in that right of way, as part of a street. That’s all. MR. HUNSINGER-Interesting. MR. FULLER-That’s ultimately why I would say he was, Craig’s correct. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. FULLER-That’s why I said it would be clarified very quickly. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. SITE PLAN NO. 14-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED REDBUD DEVELOPMENT AGENT(S) REDBUD DEV. OWNER(S) GREGG BROWN ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 31 KNOX ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RETAINING WALLS AT THE SHORE OF LAKE GEORGE, BLUE STONE PATIOS, LANDSCAPING AND STORMWATER CONTROLS. FILLING/HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SP 44-92, AV 59-96 WARREN CO. PLANNING 4/11/07 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.64 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-7 SECTION 179-4-020 22 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRSESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. BAKER-Certainly. Essentially my Staff Notes were limited to summarizing the issues that were noted in the April 17, 2007 tabling motion, and the applicant’s response to it. A revised landscaping plan has been submitted. Revised plans for the retaining wall have been submitted, as well as revised engineering plans.Test pit results have been provided, as requested. Those are included in the Stormwater Control report. Elevation drawings demonstrating the slope from the house to the water’s edge have also been submitted, and the stormwater control report as required for major projects under Chapter147 of the Town Code has been submitted, and a DEC permit was approved, and submitted as an attachment to the Stormwater Management Permit application. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, with the applicant, Gregg, rather than Craig, Brown, and Jeff Reddick. As Staff said, a submission was made which we believe was addressing all of the issues that the Board requested, and we’re here and we have the consultants to talk about anything that the Board would like to discuss. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything you wanted to add to Staff comments? MR. LAPPER-Would you like us to walk through the site plan? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we’ll leave it up to you. MR. LAPPER-No, I think, we believe that we addressed everything that was raised and we’re here to answer any questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Questions from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Could you explain the stormwater controls? ALTON KNAPP, III MR. KNAPP-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Alton Knapp, III, with Stormwater Compliance Solutions. We are the consulting firm that designed the stormwater management plan for the site. To reiterate your question, you had, you wanted clarification on the type of practice? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, the stormwater, what you’re going to be doing for the stormwater controls. It appears as if the driveway is going to a drywell. Is that an infiltration? MR. KNAPP-Yes. Based on the soil data that was obtained, all the stormwater management practices are infiltration practices. The driveway drains to an underground infiltration unit, and the impervious area, the patio, drains to infiltration trenches. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. KNAPP-Yes. For the record, the proposed impervious area is a reduction from the existing for the project. MR. SEGULJIC-Have you done anything with the existing residence? MR. KNAPP-No. We didn’t propose anything new for the existing residence. The current structure does have infiltration drips drips, if you will, around the perimeter of the building. So water quality volume, or your first flush volume, is being treated, through infiltration. MR. SEGULJIC-So you have the dry land blue stone patio which is all on the lake. That is new, correct? MR. KNAPP-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And that’s having infiltration, correct? MR. KNAPP-Yes. 23 MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then the patio to the south of the house, that’s also having infiltration along the trench, I believe? MR. KNAPP-Yes, all of the blue stone patio is done through infiltration trenches. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then you also have, if you could clarify this for me, it looks like you have a drain to the south of the turn around portion of the driveway. MR. KNAPP-Yes, that’s correct. It’s in the low point of the turn around, and from there the stormwater is conveyed to an underground infiltration chamber. MR. SEGULJIC-Now that’s in the grass, it looks like, as opposed to on the driveway. MR. KNAPP-It is in the grass portion of the lawn, yes. Under the Design Manual, the New York State Design Manual, infiltration practices really shouldn’t be put under impervious area, simply from the fact that if they need to be maintenanced, obviously it reduces the cost of that. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess I’m getting at the catch basin that’s off of the driveway. That’s where you’re going to collect the stormwater. MR. KNAPP-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And that is going to be directed to the chamber. MR. KNAPP-That’s correct, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So all the stormwater that collects on the driveway is going to go through the catch basin? MR. KNAPP-It is either collected through the catch basin or would be directed, if you observed the grading of the driveway, it’s either collected in the catch basin or it is sheet flowed from the crown of the driveway over the infiltration basin, which will then perc through and into there. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. Just a couple of questions. Did you look at Chapter 147? MR. KNAPP-Yes, I did. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Well, and this is, this project is considered a major project. MR. KNAPP-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And if I’m correct, your 147-9-B-2-D, it says, infiltration devices for major projects shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from the lake, and you have infiltration, several infiltrations, one’s within 50 feet and one’s probably within 60 feet. Their main chamber, I believe, is over 100 feet from the lake. MR. KNAPP-Yes. The main infiltration chamber that collects the drainage from the driveway would be on the outside of the 100 foot buffer. MR. SEGULJIC-But the dry blue stone is infiltration. You can’t have that within 100 feet as I look at 147. MR. KNAPP-Could you re-state that number. Based on the site plan that was presented and the proposed project, the location of the blue stone would, and if you are going to provide any type of treatment, it would be relatively impossible to do anything other than infiltration, and it would be impossible to provide any type of practice outside that 100 foot buffer since down gradient. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I’m just quoting the regulation, and it says you can’t have infiltration within 100 feet of the lake. MR. LAPPER-The only choice then would be not to infiltrate it. What Alton was saying is that if you have a site that slopes towards the lake, you can’t pump stormwater away from the lake. So if you’re doing any development within 100 feet of the lake and you want to infiltrate it, so that it doesn’t sheet flow into the lake. 24 MR. SEGULJIC-Well, you have to have stormwater control, but it’s saying you can’t use infiltration. I don’t, personally I don’t think a lot of people understand these regulations. I don’t myself, but you have to have stormwater control, and it says you can’t have infiltration within 100 feet of the lake. Did you sit down with Staff and go over these regulations? MR. KNAPP-I talked with Craig Brown briefly. It was off the record and wasn’t documented, and spoke with him. We did not address that particular issue during our conversation. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I’m confused now, too, because if that were the case, if you can’t have any infiltration devices within 100 feet of the lake, that would also then mean that you can’t have any development within 100 feet of the lake, because you wouldn’t be able to provide for stormwater controls. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess. I’m just quoting what the regulations say. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I know. MR. SEGULJIC-Another issue is the permeability calculation, which I don’t believe is provided. If I’m correct, zoning requires 65% permeable. You only have 62%. MR. KNAPP-I’m sorry, could you re-state your question? MR. SEGULJIC-Permeability calculations. I don’t believe you had any. MR. KNAPP-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-But when I did it, I came up with, after development, impervious is .25. Pervious is .28, and I came up with 62% permeable, when you’re supposed to have a minimum of 65%, and you’re only at 62% or so. MR. KNAPP-Based on what was provided to me, I think Jeff from the Redbud Development could address that question better than I can. MR. LAPPER-Tom, that’s also a net increase, as was mentioned in our opening, increase in pervious surfaces from what’s there now, more pavement is being removed than what would be there afterwards. So that may justify that, because it’s grandfathered with more than what’s proposed. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, once again, you’re required to have 65%. You’re only at 62%, I believe. That’s something that we need to address. MR. LAPPER-Jeff, can you address that? If you want to go on, he’ll give you an answer. MR. SEGULJIC-Now also on Drawing L-7, it’s unclear to me, this picture shows a canopy of the two hemlocks next to the wall. Note the proximity to the house. Are those trees going to be cut down or something? On Drawing L-7, there’s a note below the picture that says this picture shows a canopy with the two hemlocks next to wall. Note the proximity to the house. Are you going to be cutting those down or something? JEFF REDDICK MR. REDDICK-For the re-construction of the wall at the lake. MR. SEGULJIC-So those are coming down? MR. REDDICK-Correct, based on DEC. MR. LAPPER-DEC required it, but there’s re-vegetation, new landscaping plan. MR. SEGULJIC-So those are the only two trees that are going to be cut down. So, I just don’t think the project complies with 147, Major Project. Because if you go on further, it talks about erosion control. If I’m correct, as far as I can see, some of the drawings are small, so I really couldn’t tell. Do you have plans in place for mulching when you grub an area? You have to recover, within 24 hours it says, under 147-10C. MR. KNAPP-Correct. It’s required to be stabilized, because of the zoning district. 25 MR. SEGULJIC-Within 24 hours. MR. KNAPP-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Do you have plans for that? I didn’t notice. I mean, I’ll admit I couldn’t read all your notes. MR. HUNSINGER-I think it’s all part of the stormwater control report. MR. KNAPP-It is in, and I’m trying to cite the section. Under Section Seven, entitled Stormwater Controls, Subsection B talks about the erosion controls that will be implemented. There’s a construction sequence schedule provided. Under Section D, Construction Sequence Schedule, Number 3.3, it is stated all areas within 50 feet of shoreline are required to be temporarily stabilized within 24 hours. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. I didn’t notice that, but I believe it’s 500 feet, under 147- 10C(2). Within 500 feet of the mean high water mark of any lake, pond, river, stream, wetland, lowland area, including areas stockpiled with earthen materials which has been cleared may be made or left devoid of growing vegetation for more than 24 hours, and I do realize that this is something that we’re starting to press more and more, but these regs have been around for a good, 1999, eight years I think it is. MR. LAPPER-So that condition in that Section that was cited can be changed to 500 instead of 50. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, well, I guess you should re-visit your stormwater design and make sure it complies with all of 147, Major Project. MR. KNAPP-I was looking for the Section, I don’t know if it’s in the Schedule B where it reads something to the effect that infiltration is the Town’s preferred practice, and if you can’t use it. MR. HUNSINGER-Did we get a sign off from the Town Engineer? We got the letter commenting on the test pit data, but I didn’t see a sign off letter. MR. BAKER-A lot of the engineer’s comments have no specific citations to Chapter 147. MR. HUNSINGER-Did we get a sign off from the engineer? th MR. BAKER-We received comment from August 17. Those weren’t included with the Planning Board packets? MR. HUNSINGER-No. I don’t have it. th MR. FORD-I don’t find it. I’ve got June 15. MR. BAKER-Okay. No, I have a letter from Dan Ryan of Vision Engineering of August th 17, and it reads, “As requested, I’ve reviewed the documentation forward to me regarding the above referenced project” and it does reference Site Plan 42-2007. “Included in the documents submitted to Vision were drawings L-1 and L-2, Site Data and Calculation Sheet, and miscellaneous application data and forms. Based on my review, I offer you the following comments. 1. A simplified stormwater design, applying 1.5 gallons per square foot of impervious is presented in the project calculations submitted for review. Commercial projects, I’m sorry, no, this is Suttons. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. BAKER-Pardon me while I look for the other one. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have other comments, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-It gets into, is a covered walkway a porch? I guess that’s a question for Staff if they have any insight into that. MR. BAKER-I’m sorry, what was the additional question? MR. SEGULJIC-Is a covered walkway considered a porch since it’s attached to the house? 26 MR. BAKER-A covered walkway. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MR. BAKER-I don’t know offhand. That would be a determination made by the Zoning Administrator. MR. SEGULJIC-Because a porch would get into your building area, which would bring you into 136, I believe. MR. LAPPER-Only screened porches, right, open porches don’t count? MR. SEGULJIC-It says any porches. On your drawings I don’t see a 50% reserve area for your septic system, which is required. MR. BAKER-I did not have engineering comments on this Site Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-There was a septic variance when the house was re-built. That’s pre- existing. MR. SEGULJIC-When was that granted? MR. LAPPER-Ten years ago, ’97. MR. SEGULJIC-A variance from? MR. LAPPER-It should be in the file. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess I’d like to see what that variance is from. MR. LAPPER-I didn’t bring my whole file. Stu should have it. MR. BAKER-I’m trying to pull that up right now. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. KNAPP-While we’re doing that, can we back up to the impermeable area? I’m not sure how you’re coming up with the calculations in achieving or coming up with 62%, when I believe that my math is giving me around 75% permeable area. MR. SEGULJIC-There was, on your, in the SEQRA Form, it says after completion, roads, buildings, other paved surfaces, .25 acres, and then other lawns and landscaping, which I assume would be pervious areas, at .38, which my math could be wrong. MR. LAPPER-Jeff was looking at the Site Development sheet. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, that Site Development Data shows 25% non permeable. Tom, can you tell us where you are on the SEQRA Form? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m on, I’m sorry, Page Three A Site Description 2, Total Acreage of Project Site .63 acres. MR. LAPPER-Yes. The correct information is on the Site Development Data Sheet. Tom is correct that under the Site Description in the SEQRA Form it was filled out at 25%, and it should be, the size in acres. We have it in square feet because the Site Development Data is under square feet. So the total impervious would be 7,011. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re saying the total impervious is 7,011? MR. LAPPER-It’s 7,011 square feet. MR. SEGULJIC-Total impervious? MR. LAPPER-Impervious, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set for now. 27 MR. LAPPER-So the issue that we still have open is the infiltration within 50. MR. SEGULJIC-No, I would say all of 147. You need to go back and look at 147 for a large project, because I think there’s other things in there that I didn’t hit on. I know there’s other things I didn’t hit on. Okay. MR. KNAPP-Could you be specific on some of those other issues? MR. SEGULJIC-It’s not my, well, I think it would be best if you met with Staff and went through what 147 states and comply with 147, Major Project. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that was why I was asking if we had a sign off from the Town Engineer. That’s exactly why I was asking. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-And apparently we do not. MR. SEGULJIC-And the Town Engineer should understand that this is a large project under 147. MR. HUNSINGER-And they say that in their Stormwater Management Plan, Tom. MR. SEGULJIC-They do, but they didn’t address a lot of the issues. I cited several that they did not address. MR. KNAPP-Based on what’s cited in Chapter 147, providing treatment for disconnected impervious areas would almost be impossible and make sure that they are compliant with the regulations. MR. SEGULJIC-Therefore the project itself might not be allowed. I’m just stating what the Code says. I’m not making any of this up. MR. LAPPER-Again, this is a reduction in impervious surfaces from what’s there now. That’s a good thing. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments from members of the Board? MR. SIPP-I’d like to go to the Landscaping Plan, L-3. Along the upper side, you have a rather impressive list of plants. As far as I can see, three fourths of them go around the house and very little goes along the lakeside. You’ve got a list of trees, shrubs and perennials, which amounts to a considerable number of each, but for a greater share of them, most of them are planted around the house, along the property line, and very little of this goes along the lake as a buffering action to prevent erosion into the lake and to reduce the amount of runoff of fertilizer, other plant materials into the lake. Area north of where the proposed wall is going in, that space in there approximately 20 feet, there’s no buffer at all. Also south of where the other wall is to the steps to the dock there is no buffer. The existing plantings along the shore, you have no listing here of what’s in there, what that is, and there’s quite a space between there and the property line to the south that has no buffer whatsoever. Most of, a lot of this planting is perennials which have not, do not have deep roots in order to intercept the runoff. The shrubs, as I said, a good share of them are planted around the house, not along the lake. MR. KNAPP-If I can address that. Starting at the north edge of the property, between the north edge of the property and the walls that are there, that area is going to remain undisturbed and it’s currently a large mulch bed. We are, with existing hemlocks, which is all going to be, remain undisturbed, and it’s indicated by a sort of large amoeba shaped lines. Once we’ve reached the wall, and we continue from the wall across the existing deck and then reach the existing boathouse, we’re providing for all new plantings within that area, which the majority of which are some ground covers which are going to help to control the erosion, shrubs and perennials, and large trees, then we reach the boathouse, and across the boathouse and the existing dock, that area we have some existing plantings in there, but that area is essentially all boathouse, across the deck, and then once we reach the far side of the, the south side of the existing deck, the existing plantings that are there to remain are all essentially honeysuckle. We also would like to note that, as shown on the Stormwater Management Plan, L-4, there are significant areas that are to remain undisturbed during construction. 28 MR. SIPP-That, I assume where you have on the south side of the property existing trees to remain, there’s no variety listed there. Species. MR. KNAPP-We don’t have each individual one labeled, but we have white pine, we have birch, and we have cedar. MR. SIPP-White pine, birch and cedar. In other words, this gets very little sunlight until late afternoon. MR. KNAPP-Much of it is actually high canopy, whether it’s from deer, I’m not sure. MR. SIPP-Well, between this existing planting, which you say is remaining, and the, going to the south, to the property line, there’s nothing there. MR. KNAPP-That area currently is lawn, is going to remain lawn, and undisturbed. MR. SIPP-Well, lawn does not soak up runoff. Grass roots of three inches does not take care of, you’ve got a fast slope here going from the house to the water line. Along the contour lines you’ve got a drop of approximately five feet, so then fifty. MR. KNAPP-Again, we’re working with the existing conditions on the site, and we’re trying not to disturb the site. MR. SIPP-Yes, but you’ve still got a slope. Even where you don’t disturb, you’ve still got a slope that approaches 10%. We need a buffer along this lake to prevent runoff. MR. SEGULJIC-We’re attempting to clean up the quality of the lake, which has been degrading, by requesting buffers along lakefront. MR. LAPPER-So the only place where there’s not going to be a buffer where the site hits the lake is that small area on the south side. Everywhere else is planted. MR. SIPP-Not between the new retaining wall and the north end. There’s nothing on that lakeside there. MR. LAPPER-On the north end there’s the existing planting, the amoeba shaped planting bed that’s existing with hemlocks, all the way to the north property line. MR. SIPP-Well, that’s not good enough. You’re going to get erosion through there. As I say, a good share of these shrubs which you have listed here, 55 in number, I count somewhere in the neighborhood of 38 are planted not near the lake but around the house, up along the property line. The Siberian spruce ends up way up in the east side of the property. They’re not doing the job of protecting this lake, and I would like to see much more in the way of buffering, at least 10 foot in width along the edge of this lake, in spots all along. Your timeline on Page Eight and Nine of Stormwater Management, buffer or plantings are not even mentioned in this timeline, when they would be installed and of what kind. If you go to Page, in the back of this stormwater control, Page 3.33 and 3.34, where you talk about, you’re going to be using sod to replace the grass that is disturbed, right? MR. KNAPP-Correct. MR. SIPP-On Page 3.33, under Site Preparation, Number Two, soils shall be tested to determine the amounts of amendments needed. Commercial fertilizer at 20 pounds of 5/10/10 or equivalent of commercial fertilizer. I would like to see no fertilizer used here at all, particularly no phosphorus fertilizer, and as minimal amount of nitrogen. MR. KNAPP-As a response to a comment from the last meeting, it was noted, or possibly noted by the Board, that fertilizers been used on the property. It’s been determined by the homeowner that no fertilizer is applied to the lawn in any, way, shape, and they also conceded that they will not apply fertilizers to the property in the future. They have no intentions and no desire to do so. MR. SIPP-Well, I’m glad to hear that. On Page 3.34, some recommendations there for sod maintenance of cutting two to three inches. Three inches is a better height to maintain, with no removal of the cut grass. Let that stay in the sod so that it tends to absorb water and break down to provide nutrients for the remaining grass. Number Four under Sod Maintenance, again, talks about fertilizer, which I hope we will not have to worry about. Number Five, weed control, herbicides. If you’re using these references 29 from Cornell University, I would look at the date they were published, 1994. Since 1994, a lot has been learned about herbicides and pesticides that they didn’t know in 1994, and if any herbicide or pesticide is applied, I would like to see it done by a licensed professional, not the homeowner or some gardener, but a licensed professional, because these things, particularly herbicides, are deadly to fish. Pesticides are better than they were in 1994, but not. MR. KNAPP-If we could back up to your note about the February 1994 report at Cornell Cooperative Extension, it states right here that it was revised in January of 1999. MR. SIPP-Well, that’s still eight years ago. Since then, some of these herbicides, namely grass and broad leaf killers, combine Roundup for one is deadly to fish. So they’re applied, and with a flash thundershower, a lot of this ends up in the lake. MR. KNAPP-Part of the purpose this was included was a DEC spec. MR. LAPPER-Standard specifications for stabilization with sod comes from DEC. That’s a specification from DEC. That’s why that was included. MR. KNAPP-As part of the plan, and as one of the practices included use of sod. MR. SIPP-They’re saying applying sod to the lawn out here, not next to a lake. MR. SEGULJIC-You should customize it to the site. MR. KNAPP-Yes. Right. It is specific to the plan, but not to the site. MR. SEGULJIC-And the problem is, once we approve, if I’m correct, once we approve the Site Plan, essentially we’re approving the stormwater plan, and then they’re saying you can use all the fertilizer you want, and on the other hand we’re saying not, contradictory to the site. MR. SIPP-Well, getting back to the plantings, I would like to see more of the shrub type plantings along the edge, particularly in the areas where there is no plantings as of now. I mean, these ground covers are nice, seed them and snow on the mountain and things like that, but they don’t have deep roots, and this is what we’re looking for to intercept these materials before they get into the lake. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? I guess we have one. When you address the Board, if you could state your name for the record. We do tape the minutes, and if you could address your comments to the Board. If you have questions of the applicant, we will get those answers for you. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GARY HOBBS MR. HOBBS-Good evening. My name’s Gary Hobbs. I’m the attorney for David Brown. David Brown is the adjoining owner to the south of this property, the subject. He is also the brother of Gregory Brown. Just historically this property was, at one point in time, owned by their father and conveyed to both of them. In 1992 is was divided into two pieces of property. At that point in time, an easement for parking purposes was granted to David Brown on this subject property. So there is a deeded easement for parking that is specified as to its location by a filed survey map. Mr. Chairman, I did provide you with nd a letter. I don’t know if you saw it or had an opportunity to review it, dated August 2 that outlines some of the issues that we have here. I also provided you with, at that point in time, a copy of Mr. Gregg Brown’s August 9, 1996 deed from himself to himself and his wife. That deed specifically says that it is subject to the parking easement in favor of the lands owned now or formally by David M. Brown, which lands are located southerly of the parcel herein described. Said parking easement shall afford David M. Brown, his heirs, successors and assigns, meaning and it’s not just a personal easement to him, it is a permanent easement, the right to enter upon and park, not to exceed two vehicles in and upon the parking area as more particularly shown and delineated on the survey map first above stated. That survey map was the 1992 survey map which I provided to Chairman Hunsinger in my letter, the issue that we have is that the proposed planning as it is presently before the Board actually proposes a significant change in this parking easement, this deeded parking easement. It eliminates approximately one-third of the 30 deeded easement in its entirety, which would then become grassy area, and proposes what you’ve called the turnaround, which obviously would not be a parking area. I also enclosed a copy of an e-mail letter from Gregg Brown to my client, which indicates that he confirms that the parking places historically identified, meaning those two parking places of my client, would no longer exist after I complete my new driveway and garage. We have been negotiating, or attempting to negotiate, some sort of a resolution which would involve a conveyance of a small piece of property to my client, so that there would be, he would have his parking spaces. We obviously don’t have that agreement yet. We’re hopeful that we can come to an agreement regarding that. However, that agreement’s not before this Board, and this Board is now faced, at some point in time, with approval of changes to a driveway that would greatly affect, as it’s presently planned, my client’s parking space. The other problem with the agreement at this point in time is that it would obviously be subject to, even if there is a conveyance of a small triangular piece of property from Gregg Brown to David Brown to give him his parking, it would require possibly subdivision approval or approval of the boundary agreement by the Town of Queensbury and the Adirondack Park Agency or at least a review of that by them, and certainly we don’t want to give up our deeded right or the possibility of some day obtaining a piece of property or possibly not obtaining that piece of property, depending on what happened with the APA and the Town. So our request, I think, is simple, is that in considering this application, you need to consider the rights of the adjoining landowners that if there’s going to be an approval, and David Brown does not object to the majority of the rest of the proposal here which has no effect on him. He has concerns and objections over anything that would violate his deeded parking easement, but if there is an approval, or consideration of approval of this proposal as it is now written, that it be subject to a fully executed agreement with David Brown that provides for appropriate disposition of this parking easement, so that the rights of the adjoining landowner and his brother are then protected in this case. Otherwise, I mean, an approval here and suddenly the driveway is being ripped out two days later is going to result in unfortunate litigation between brothers, something that we’re trying to avoid. I would have liked to have reported we have an agreement and we’re satisfied, but unfortunately we just haven’t had the opportunity to do that yet. MR. HUNSINGER-Just for the record, and for the benefit of the public, that letter that you sent was given to Staff as part of the public record on the file, and if you had not shown up tonight, it would have been read into the public record. MR. HOBBS-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So the Board knows as well. Thank you. MR. HOBBS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone else who wanted to address the Board on this application? I will leave the public hearing open. I think we’re moving towards a tabling resolution. MR. LAPPER-Before we do, I’d just like to address the parking easement issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead, please. MR. LAPPER-The plan, at a minimum, shows a relocated parking easement area, and we have made a proposal in writing to do a small triangular boundary adjustment, because it would be preferable to have the neighbors parking on his own property, rather than on this property, but we don’t know if that’s going to be acceptable, but in terms of the deed covenant, this property is burdened by a parking easement for two cars, and as we’ve reconfigured it, it would still be burdened by that. We view that as an entirely private matter between two parties, and if Attorney Hobbs wants to have a judge make a declaratory ruling on that, that’s totally appropriate, that’s fine, but it’s not something that the Planning Board has to address because it’s in the deed covenant that it’s subject to that easement. We recognize that. We’ll provide it, and if we can work it out with a boundary adjustment, that would be preferable. We’ve offered, in other words, to convey property so they would own it in fee rather than just have an easement, which you would think would be a good offer, but we don’t know how it’s going to work out, but I would just offer that we certainly will address all the issues that Tom raised tonight, and the landscaping changes, and that’s appropriate, but the private deed covenant is not something that it’s appropriate for the Board to regulate. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I would look to Town Counsel to provide us guidance on that. 31 MR. FULLER-These come up every now and then, and in short Attorney Lapper’s analysis is correct. Private deed restrictions don’t influence the Board’s decision, and it’s been repeatedly held, and you couldn’t deny or condition something based on those private easements, though certainly it could come into account for an impervious area calculations and things like that. That would be appropriate because it’s included in those calculations, but a private deed issue, and it comes up every now and then. We’ve seen them before, and how I generally characterize it is I create a box, a four corner box, and you need a yes in your title and a yes under the zoning or subdivision or site plan regulations, whatever local law, Town requirements require, to be able to do what you want with your property. If you had a deed restriction that said no commercial use, but the zoning allowed it, the Town couldn’t deny it because of that, because it complied with the Town zoning. A deed restriction would, in essence, overrule that, but that would be a private issue between the two parties. So if there’s a dispute going on between them, they’re correct. That is a private issue for them not here. If it gets into the calculations and the things that we need to consider, then it could flow into what we’re doing, but, you know, as far as conditioning things about a private resolution to a private issue, I would hesitate to encourage you to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. I think there’s at least three outstanding issues. I’ll just run them quickly by the Board for comments or additions. The first one is a statement that there be no use of fertilizers or herbicides, specifically in the stormwater management plan, that the applicant would provide additional plantings, and I don’t know, Mr. Sipp, if you had some very specific recommendations or not, and then finally the Vision signoff, and if in that signoff they could specifically address the Chapter on Stormwater Management in the signoff letter, Chapter 147. MR. TRAVER-I think with regards to the buffering, the Lake George Association has a lot of information available on their website, lakegeorgeassociation.org. They’ve recommended plants. MR. SEGULJIC-And I would just like, to me I think it’s important that we clarify that the project comply with 147 Major Project, and that the Town Engineer, when he reviews it, understands that. Then also the applicant indicated they’d provide us with a copy of the septic variance. You indicated you could provide us with a copy of the septic variance. MR. LAPPER-Yes, we’ll get that. The Town should have it, but we’ll get it. MR. SEGULJIC-Then if you could also revise the SEQRA Form, A-2, which has the acreage, the incorrect acreage, I believe. MR. LAPPER-Just in terms of the issue with the Town Engineer, we submitted, of course, on time for the deadline, and we did not receive a Vision letter which we’d expected at least to get with the Staff Notes. So I don’t know what happened. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I don’t know, either. Any other issues that we need to address? Do you want to make the motion, Tom, or do you want me to? Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 14-2007 REDBUD DEVELOPMENT, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: th Tabled to the October 16 meeting of the Board, pending submission of the following documents: 1.A statement that there will be no use of fertilizers, herbicides, or pesticides. 2.The applicant shall provide a copy of the septic variance. 3.The applicant shall revise SEQRA Form A-2. 4.The applicant shall provide additional plantings, and we would encourage them to reference the Lake George Association for the specific application of plantings. 32 5.That the applicant obtain a signoff from Vision Engineering, and in that letter that Vision Engineering specifically review the project in accordance with Chapter 147 as a Major Project. st Duly adopted this 21 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know how soon that you could get information in? th MR. LAPPER-I would expect that we will certainly attempt to submit by September 15 and be back in October. th MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll table it to the October 16 meeting of the Board. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan, Mrs. Bruno MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, gentlemen. SITE PLAN NO. 42-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED REDBUD DEVELOPMENT OWNER(S) DONNA SUTTON, SUTTON PROPERTIES, LLC ZONING HC-MOD LOCATION 1066 ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 1,187 SQUARE FEET OF PATIO RETAIL AREA. EXPANSION OF A RETAIL USE IN THE HC-MOD ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE MANY WARREN CO. PLANNING 8/8/07 LOT SIZE: 6.98 ACRES; 1.02 ACRES SECTION 179-4-020 MICHAEL BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. BORGOS-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. BORGOS-Yes. I’m Michael Borgos. I’m here on behalf of Donna Sutton and Sutton’s Properties, LLC. I’m here with Sutton’s CFO, Tom Dartus, and Eric Rosetti from Redbud Development. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Could you summarize the project for us. MR. BORGOS-What we’re hoping to receive approval for here is an expansion of the retail use at the furniture store. In the recent years they’ve started carrying some outdoor patio furniture lines, and they’d like to be able to showcase them appropriately, with a nice patio setting. That’s what is being proposed here to the, at the front of the store, as you’re looking at the store on the right hand side, which is the southern end of the building, if I can, I’ll let Eric go through the plan in just a moment. Actually, I’ll let him go through it now and then we’ll address some of the Staff comments. So, Eric, if you can walk us through the landscaping plan. ERIC ROSETTI MR. ROSETTI-Sure. Essentially what we’re proposing is 1187 square feet of brick pavers. There’ll be a walkway from the existing concrete entranceway over to the patio area. This patio area will be connected then to an existing concrete, which is now used as their display area, concrete pad. At the front of the patio there will be retaining walls, basically two sided walls with pillars with blue stone caps. This aerial will provide for a built in barbecue area and also a fire pit. The fire pit more or less is for decoration. It’s going to be one of the items they’re looking to retail, and then it will also provide them with an area for displaying their furniture. MR. BORGOS-Some of the Staff comments that we saw here, I want to point out that there is no proposed additional lighting. There is a lamppost identified on the plan. That’s an existing lamppost. We’re not proposing anything additional. So we have not provided any cut sheets for lighting. The location of the existing water and sewer services are to the north end of this building, far removed from this project, and none of the area that’s going to be disturbed with the construction of the patio here is going to be anywhere near the water and sewer lines. I think that Vision Engineering identified that 33 they would like to have some more detail with regards to the infiltration areas. I don’t know if Eric would like to comment on that at all. MR. ROSETTI-The only thing that I’ve had a chance to look at was there was a comment about for a commercial site being based on three gallons as opposed to the 1.5 which we initially did. I re-visited that, and what I came up with as a solution was instead of one four by eight diameter drywell, was adding a second and actually stacking them to provide with, let’s see here, it would give you a total of 4,010 gallon capacity, and currently, with what we have, it would be 3,561 gallons, and that would give us in excess of 449 gallons in the proposed system. The only other thing that I needed to address was I guess some grades on the strip drains showing how they’re going to all drain into the drywell. I did not get a chance to go back and do that, but obviously we can do that fairly easily. MR. BORGOS-Does the Board have any questions that we can respond to? MR. HUNSINGER-Questions from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-The only thing from me is you have the drywell that’s on the drawing. So you’re just going to make that deeper, then? MR. ROSETTI-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re proposing four foot by eight foot. So four foot deep, I assume. So that’s going to be eight by eight now. MR. ROSETTI-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-There’s enough capacity there? MR. ROSETTI-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If there’s no further questions from the Board, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here that wanted to address the Board on this application? If you could just state your name for the record, and address your comments to the Board. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED LINDA MC NULTY MRS. MC NULTY-Linda McNulty, 14 Twicwood Lane. We’re right in back of the Suttons property. My husband and I are both interested in knowing whether there will be any additional clearing of the property, as far as trees go, for additional parking around the back of the buildings. The other consideration, there is a light on, I’m not sure whether it’s the furniture store property or on the Toy Cottage property that shines right into our family room when the leaves are off the tree. It would be nice if something could be done with that light while they’re doing other stuff on the property. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re not sure which building the light’s located on? MRS. MC NULTY-No. It’s either on the edge of the furniture parking lot to the rear of the Toy Cottage property, right in the borderline area there. They have it on a timer, and we lucked out last year because we had the storm that wiped out the power for a while. So they never reset the timer on it. So it didn’t come on until well after we went to bed. Otherwise it hits us right in the eye while we’re sitting on the sofa watching television. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes. Good evening. CHARLES MC NULTY MR. MC NULTY-Just a quick comment. Charles McNulty, 14 Twicwood Lane. It strikes me kind of ludicrous that if we’d had the time we could have come into the Planning 34 Department today or sometime, requested to see this file and take a look at it, and it probably would have answered some of our questions about where the patio’s going to be located on the property. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. MC NULTY-It would have been a lot easier to go on the website, but all these applications for both your Board and the Zoning Board are password protected, and that’s something I don’t understand. I wanted to go on record. It seems kind of silly to me to password protect it on the website, and yet it’s public information that I can walk into the Planning Department and ask to look at, but I think that’s the basic question, specifically where this patio area is going to be located. If it’s going to be in front of the buildings, on the Route 9 side. MR. HUNSINGER-It is, yes. MR. MC NULTY-And not displace parking to some other location, then we probably don’t have a problem with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? If you could come back to the table, please. MR. BORGOS-If I may address Mr. and Mrs. McNulty’s comments. First of all, I’d like to invite Mr. or Mrs. McNulty to contact Mr. Dartus, Tom Dartus, at the store. He’d be happy to go outside with you and identify the lighting question, figure out a way to re- adjust it or do a cut off shield so that it’s not a problem. They can take care of that for you, and, yes, of course, all this is on the Route 9 side, as addressed by Mr. Hunsinger. There won’t be any tree cutting. In fact, this is a beautification. This will be enhancing the aesthetics of the site. We’re not going to be displacing any parking as a result of this. There’s more than adequate parking as it is and the hope is that this will make the site more attractive. MR. SIPP-You’ve got two existing maples you’ve relocated to the west side. It says strip drain, and underneath that, existing maples, two, relocated here. Where are they relocated from? MR. ROSETTI-Essentially they are five to six feet behind the location that they’re shown on the plan. So they’re not moving very far, but it was just, we had to move them enough to get the space that we, to make it reasonable for what we were trying to accomplish. MR. SIPP-What’s the caliper? MR. ROSETTI-They were two to three inch. MR. SIPP-But no other trees would be cut or removed. MR. FORD-Or added. MR. ROSETTI-No, none added, only shrubbery and perennials would be added. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from members of the Board? I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted action. They did submit a Short Form. MR. SEGULJIC-Are you ready? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I’m ready. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. 35 MR. SEGULJIC-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“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. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“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. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. 36 MR. SEGULJIC-Therefore I motion for a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 42-2007, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: REDBUD DEVELOPMENT, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board 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. st Duly adopted this 21 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. With regards to a motion, do we have any conditions? MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, we really don’t have a final signoff from Vision. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess first of all, are we ready to make a motion? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think that’s really the only outstanding issue. I mean, it sounds like they’ve reached agreement on what needs to be done. They just don’t have the final signoff, and I guess I would ask Counsel if we were to make a condition that they contact the neighbors, the McNultys, to address the light issue I mean, that certainly wouldn’t be inappropriate. MR. FULLER-It wouldn’t be inappropriate, and they’ve expressed that they’ll do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. BORGOS-That’s fine with us. No problem. MR. HUNSINGER-I think there was a, and I don’t recall, it was years ago there was an issue with one of the lights and I thought it was maybe behind the Toy Cottage as well. So it’s not even a new issue. 37 MR. SEGULJIC-So we’ll just call it the light issue, lighting invasion issue, the lighting issue? Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s light spillage is what it is. MR. SEGULJIC-Light spillage. It’s the light spillage issue. MR. HUNSINGER-And that way if it’s not addressed to the satisfaction, then there’s recourse. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-You could always contact Staff. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 42-2007 REDBUD DEVELOPMENT, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of 1,187 square feet of patio retail area. Expansion of a Retail Use in the HC-Mod zone requires Planning Board review and approval; and 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/21/07; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 6. 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. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 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 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 9. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 10. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 42-2007 REDBUD DEVELOPMENT, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Number Four complies. Number Five negative, and with the following additional conditions. 1.That a final signoff be obtained from Vision Engineering, the Town Engineer. 2.The applicant contact Mr. or Mrs. McNulty to resolve the light spillage issue. st Duly adopted this 21 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger 38 NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. BORGOS-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2006 FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS, LLC AGENT(S) JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING PO LOCATION BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 26.15 ACRE PARCEL INTO 17 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 20,000 SQ. FT. TO 85,402 SQ. FT. NOT INCLUDING RESIDUAL WETLAND LOT #17. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 10-02; 4/17/07 SKETCH WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 26.15 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.15-1-28 SECTION A-183 TOM JARRETT & MICHAEL BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. BAKER-Okay. Staff comments on Legacy Land Holdings. The applicant is seeking Final subdivision approval for the proposed subdivision. The applicant is scheduled to appear before the ZBA for Area Variances to allow the lots with frontage on Walker Lane to have vehicular access off of an extended Baybridge Drive. The subdivision currently before the Planning Board appears to be the same as was approved during Preliminary Stage review. Proposed lots would have vehicular access off of Baybridge Drive. The proposed multi-use path lighting and street landscaping are shown on the Final Stage subdivision plat. The applicant is in the process of preparing a Map Plan and Report for the proposed sewer district extension to serve this property. Staff suggests that the applicant provide proof of approval of the proposed sewer district extension prior to signature of this plat by the Planning Board Chairman or prior to the issuance of a building permit for any of the proposed lots within the subdivision. In regards to the proposed road construction/extension multi-use path lighting and landscaping shown on this plat, Staff suggests that all street construction, landscaping the proposed multi-use path and street lighting be installed prior to the acceptance of the extended Baybridge Drive right of way by the Town Highway Department. Staff also suggests a condition of any approval that any light fixtures will be inspected for compliance with the approved plan by Planning Staff prior to installation. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. BORGOS-Good evening. Michael Borgos here for the applicant, Legacy Land Holdings. I’m here with Dan Valente, principal in that, and Tom Jarrett, from Jarrett- Martin Engineers. We’re happy to report that the Zoning Board granted the variance we sought last week. So in essence they agree with your plan and everybody’s happy with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Do you have any problems with the conditions suggested by Staff? MR. BORGOS-No, we do not. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. BORGOS-We have one thing to address. MR. JARRETT-The Town Engineer issued comments that we received on Friday and we turned around a response letter which I think you have a copy of in your package, dated th August 17. One of those comments suggests that we modify our note on the plan where we said there should be no basements due to shallow groundwater. The Town Engineer wants us to say there shall be no basements, and no crawl spaces. Dan would like the option of possibly considering crawl spaces. They’re commercial buildings. He can build crawl spaces above the groundwater without any difficulty, and he wants that option. We’re coming before you for site plan review later for those lots anyway. So you would have the option of reviewing that detail. So we’ve said in here we would change it, but we’d like to discuss that with you and we’d like to get some leeway on that option. 39 MR. HUNSINGER-What would be the advantage of a crawl space, storage? MR. JARRETT-Utilities, basically. MR. HUNSINGER-Utilities, yes. MR. BAKER-Just a quick comment. The note that the applicant is referring to, the th engineering response was received by our Department on the 17, but after the packets had gone out to the Board, thus they were not distributed to the Board. MR. FORD-We don’t have them. th MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that comment is in their letter dated August 14, too. It’s in their th letter dated August 14. MR. JARRETT-It’s in the Town Engineer’s letter, but not the response, and we responded to it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’m sorry. MR. JARRETT-We responded to it. We would agree to it, but we wanted to discuss it with you. th MR. FORD-Okay. That was dated the 17, correct? MR. JARRETT-Yes. th MR. BAKER-Yes. They’re response was dated the 17. It was not distributed to the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-That we don’t have. Yes. How long is your response letter? It’s more than one page. MR. JARRETT-There’s actually three comments that are germane, and they’re not that long to deal with. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Mr. Valente, you had a comment? DAN VALENTE MR. VALENTE-Yes. Generally my thought process is, especially for smaller offices, dentists, what have you, a lot of the mechanicals go down below, certain, you know, vacuum systems, anything like that. The whole area is going to be elevated. We’re not going to be digging down in the ground there at all, other than just scraping the surface, putting footings there and then elevating the buildings. That’s the whole vision of what we’re going to do there. Obviously the new road’s going to be elevated. So everything else has to come up with it to meet. So we’re not going to be going down. I just want to be able to have that flexibility. Otherwise we’re going to end up with a larger footprint possibly than we actually need, just help service somebody properly. MR. FORD-It’s good that we had it clarified, because the traditional thought process would be that that crawl space would be below level. MR. VALENTE-Right, and generally the whole area there with the high water table we’re obviously well aware of that. We generally just scrape the surface, the topsoil, get it off the ground, put footings there, do a frost wall or four or five foot wall, and then fill around it. So we’re not digging down at all. We’re actually elevating the whole area, to help promote the drainage. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what’s the feeling of the Board? I mean, if that’s the case, I certainly don’t see a problem with crawl spaces. MR. FORD-As long as we can stipulate that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-No crawl spaces below ground level. 40 MR. VALENTE-No. I did exactly that over for Cottrell Dental. He has like I think a five and a half to six foot crawl space below that structure. He is in obviously a very high water table area. So we did put sump pumps in to make sure he stayed dry. He has had no water at all. MR. HUNSINGER-Wasn’t there a flooding issue over there, too, though? MR. VALENTE-Yes, and he never got any water in there. That’s when, I think, Halfway Brook actually backed up. MR. HUNSINGER-Overflowed, yes, it backed up. MR. VALENTE-And went all the way, it was into his parking lot, but he never had water in his crawl space. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board from the applicant? MR. SIPP-I’d like to compliment them on their sign, and their multi-purpose walkway and surface area. I think that’s a very good idea and will work well. I think we ought to clip that page and show it to other developers as what can be done, and provide walking bicycle pathways that are not as rigid maybe as a poured sidewalk. I think you did a good job on that. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So where do we go from here? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was going to say, technically we don’t have a signoff from the engineer. MR. JARRETT-One comment was regarding the notes on the plat saying that we will. Do you have your copy of the letter? One comment was regarding the notes on the plat that would condition the ownership of the common features of the subdivision, the multi- use path, the lighting, the road, or not the road, but the sewer systems, those kinds of things. We’ve modified that note. So that is, I think, straightforward. Another was regarding the shallow groundwater on the property, which we’re explaining that we’d like to show you the option of doing a crawl space or a slab on grade later on when we come to Site Plan Review, and you would have the ability to review that and so would the Town Engineer at that time. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. JARRETT-And lastly, another comment was regarding building the access to the stormwater ponds. At the time we build the road and the stormwater ponds, we’d put that on the drawing. That’s a fairly minor point, and the last one was regarding the traffic study completed by Creighton Manning, and I’m not sure, but I think there’s some confusion on the part of the Town Engineer exactly what that study reported, but we’ve provided the quotes from the study in the response letter. I can read our quotes if you wish. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I wasn’t sure what he was getting at in his comment either. I mean, because your study was pretty straightforward, I felt anyway, saying that at some point in time a light may be warranted there, and, you know, it’s up to the County and the Town to do that. I mean, really he’s sort of reiterating what the report said. MR. JARRETT-Yes, and that’s what we’ve done in our response letter. MR. HUNSINGER-Is everyone else comfortable with that? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-No public hearing is required since we already approved Preliminary, and you said you were okay with the Staff recommendations. MR. BORGOS-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So what are our conditions with this? 41 MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the three comments from Staff, the approval of the proposed sewer district extension prior to signature, or prior to the issuance of any building permit for any of the proposed lots. That all street construction, landscaping, and proposed multi-use path and street lighting be installed prior to the acceptance of the extended Baybridge Drive right of way by the Town Highway Department, and that all light fixtures will be inspected for compliance by Staff prior to installation, and then just final signoff from the engineer, noting that we may consider crawl spaces. MR. JARRETT-Right. I would appreciate that in the motion, because my letter states that we would defer to his note, but I’d like it noted that we would have the option to come back to you. MR. SEGULJIC-So, say that again? MR. HUNSINGER-Final signoff from the Town Engineer, but noting that we may consider crawl spaces on individual buildings during site plan review. MR. SEGULJIC-That the Planning Board may consider? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Crawl spaces, final site plans. MR. HUNSINGER-On, yes, individual site plans, individual buildings. MR. SEGULJIC-Individual buildings. MR. HUNSINGER-During site plan review, subject, of course, to the engineer’s review and concurrence. MR. JARRETT-Right, and we will show you a grading plan at that time that shows you that elevation. MR. FORD-Can we add above grade? Could we add above grade? MR. JARRETT-The crawl space would be above original grade, is that what you mean? I think that’s a reasonable condition. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Just a clarification, Mr. Chairman. On the motion prepared by Staff. There’s a Number Eight and Nine. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, yes, Eight would apply. MR. SEGULJIC-Eight applies, but then Nine would not? MR. HUNSINGER-We haven’t talked about it. So I don’t, I think it would just. MR. SEGULJIC-Because the way I read it, if Eight applies, then Nine does. Do we want that? I don’t think we do. MR. HUNSINGER-No. I don’t think we need a letter of credit. MR. SEGULJIC-So we’ll say Nine does not apply. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2006 LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS, LLC, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of a 26.15 acre parcel into 17 lots ranging in size from 20,000 sq. to 85,402 sq. ft. not including residual wetland lot #17. Subdivisions of land require Planning Board review and approval. 42 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/26/07, 7/24/07; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and 6. If the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 7. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 8. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 9. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and NOT APPLICABLE 10. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 11. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2006 LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS, LLC, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Four complies. Number Five Negative, and Number Nine does not apply. In addition, the following conditions will apply. 1.The applicant shall provide proof of the approval of the proposed sewer district extension prior to signature of this plat by the Planning Board Chairman or prior to issuance of a building permit. 2.That all street construction/landscaping, proposed multi-use path and street lighting to be installed prior to the acceptance of the extended Baybridge Drive right of way by the Town Highway Department. 3.All light fixtures shall be inspected for compliance with the approved plan by Planning Staff prior to installation. 4.That final signoff by the Town Engineer will be obtained, and that the Town Engineer will note that the Planning Board may approve above original grade crawl spaces during individual building site plan approval. st Duly adopted this 21 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. 43 MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much. MR. VALENTE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes. SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2007 SKETCH SEQR TYPE UNLISTED LARRY CLUTE AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-20 LOCATION HOWARD STREET & GENEVA DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 7.98 ACRE PARCEL INTO 20 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 12,462 TO 15,524 SQUARE FEET. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 7-1992, AV 52-2007 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 7.98 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.20-1-11, 28, 29 SECTION A-183 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; LARRY CLUTE, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-So we have a lot of notes and old meeting minutes, and I’m not sure where you want to start. MR. LAPPER-Yes. I guess we’d just like to start conceptually and try and explain what it is Larry has in mind. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could first identify yourself. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper and Larry Clute. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-The Staff Notes are pretty thorough, and also the parts of the Master Plan are applicable. What happened here is that when this subdivision, Geneva Estates, was originally approved, this was a one acre zone, and now it’s a 20,000 square foot zone. So the approximately 10 acre parcel that was left unbuildable at the time was done because that was required to get the density for the ten lots that were constructed, and those are all 15,000 square foot lots. So the first thing we’re here to talk about is just the density issue, and as part of this subdivision process, we’re going to be asking the Board to consider granting the right to develop that area that was forever wild. Usually that would be something that would be a pretty big lift that we’d be asking for, but in this case, there are some pretty compelling reasons why that needs to happen. That land is the farthest thing from being forever wild. It’s an area where there’s bonfires and ATV’s, a real dangerous place because people just use it to party, and at the Zoning Board meeting, the Zoning Board was generally favorable, but they wanted to hear from you first, which we’re not expecting to happen tonight. We’re just expecting to start the process, and let you look into this some more, and we’ll come back next time, but the neighbors were there from Queen Victoria’s Grant, which is to the north, from Geneva Estates, which is to the west, and other sporadic neighbors in the general vicinity who were all talking about the problems with what’s there now, the existing situation, that there’s this kind of out of the way, undeveloped area that people are abusing, and that, plus the fact that the zoning has changed, are two good reasons, we hope you’ll agree, ultimately, to develop this into single family homes on lots that are similar size to what’s there, to what Larry’s already built, and certainly when we get to public meetings we’ll have the neighbors come in to put that on the record. I don’t know if, because it’s a Sketch Plan, if you had, your caravan, you’ve been out there to take a look at this area. MR. HUNSINGER-We didn’t go on, we went individually this month. MR. LAPPER-Okay, and I don’t know, Larry was thinking that if you went out there you might go to the edge of the road and not actually go and take a look at what this property is, what Stu just put up, but it’s a real problem that that’s sitting there vacant. So we’re just, he’s done a lot to clean up that area, to, you know, improve, he’s built some nice homes on the east side of that, in an area that’s very, very mixed, and needs to be brought up in character, and this is a proposal to try and continue that process. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up for comments from the Board. MR. FORD-I’m aware of the difficulty in that area, and I think Mr. Lapper’s characterized it very accurately. MR. SIPP-The area to the north and to the west slightly is Queensbury Forest? 44 MR. LAPPER-To the north is Queen Victoria’s Grant. MR. CLUTE-Yes, northwest, bordering Queen Victoria’s Grant, is Queensbury Forest. MR. SIPP-They had, at one time, many water problems, flooding basements and so forth. Is that consistent with what you’ve found in this area? MR. LAPPER-That was solved a few years ago by the Town Board when they had to put in a drainage pipe. MR. SIPP-Does that condition exist off of that property? MR. LAPPER-Are there stormwater problems in your area? MR. CLUTE-I haven’t experienced any water issues with any of the homes that I’ve built within that neighborhood there. I was actually, I built a few of the homes in Queensbury Forest under Joe Ammerati, to be honest with you, and most of the water problems were to the furthest west of the subdivision. So obviously as it progresses further east, and down to this particular neighborhood, the water table must be further down, because I haven’t run across any water. It’s truly all beach sand. It drains extremely well. MR. LAPPER-But what I recall, and I was representing Queen Victoria’s Grant at the time that, for the purpose of conveying a stormwater easement to put in underground pipes to bring the water into the watershed area. There was a comprehensive engineering study done and to my knowledge, yes, they did alleviate the problem. MR. SIPP-All right. Good. Have you approached any of the surrounding areas about walking bicycle paths connecting with you, such as Queen Victoria’s, whatever they call it. MR. LAPPER-Right now the last thing that the people at Queen Victoria’s Grant is for anyone to have access from this lot to their common property. They’d like a wall. MR. SIPP-What about areas to the south? MR. CLUTE-Areas to the south of the property, being Eisenhower and Dawn Road, as well as Leo Street, to be honest with you, that’s right, that’s where I live. I live, personally, on Dawn Road, and so not just that particular area Geneva Estates. I’ve re- developed, I guess for lack of a better phrase, Eisenhower, Dawn Road, and to be honest with you, everybody’s in favor of the continued re-development, so to speak, and not just those streets to the south, the east as well. Howard Street, there’s a few residences there that are definitely in favor of the re-development, and then Lancestire Drive, which is further east yet, those neighbors would like to see re-development as well. MR. SIPP-How about as far as Arbutus. MR. CLUTE-That far down we haven’t really gotten comment, Wintergreen, Arbutus, Lupine, but Heresford and Lancestire, which is directly adjacent or parallel to Howard Street, those neighbors would. MR. LAPPER-I’d like to point something out from our earlier discussion tonight. One of the main benefits here is to take Howard and to connect it to Geneva. Right now, in order to get to Geneva, there’s only one way in from Sherman, Leo, and this would make it a loop. By connecting Geneva to Howard, you would then be able to enter either from Howard or Leo. So it would have that benefit, that obviously the Code is in favor of, or the Comp Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-I wanted to comment on that. I think it, I like that aspect of the plan. I think that’s real positive for that whole neighborhood, to connect those two streets the way you have proposed. Yes. My only concern is the size of the lots, and, you know, if it’s, you know, 2,000 square foot lots, I mean, I don’t know what that would do to the development plan to make the lots a little wider. I mean, obviously you’d have fewer lots. MR. LAPPER-You mean 20,000 versus 15,000. MR. HUNSINGER-Twenty thousand. I’m sorry, what did I say? 45 MR. LAPPER-Yes. The reason why Larry’s asking for 15 is because that’s what Geneva Estates is, and that’s the character of most of those lots and, you know, this is not an area where you’re going to build big fancy houses, but an area where you’re going to build nice, new, clean, affordable houses like he’s been building, and that’s purely the reason. I think the difference is whether he would get 15 lots or 21 lots. Is that correct? MR. CLUTE-I’m not sure exactly. I think it is 15. If you went with the 20,000, it’s 15, and then as Matt has laid it out, he’s put it down to 21. It doesn’t seem significant, but to be honest with you, with the affordable housing, it can be a dramatic difference, but, you know, I guess the point of not only last week with the Zoning Board, but being in front of you today, is the open discussion and trying to move forward with. They were concerned as well with the lot sizes. It’s not just Geneva Estates, to be honest with you, that’s at 15,000 square foot. Queensbury Forest is all 15,000 square foot, Heresford Drive, 15,000 square foot, Eisenhower, Leo, Dawn, that whole area is 15,000. So that’s why the 15,000 was initially picked, but there’s definitely a cost benefit, too, obviously. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. CLUTE-The more lots, the lesser the expense so to speak. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes, six more houses does pay for the same stretch of road. MR. CLUTE-Yes, it does, and when I get into the affordable numbers which, if indeed this were to come about, you’re looking at a $140 to a $180,000 product, it makes a significant difference, but again, open to suggestion and a dialogue for sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and well, that’s the purpose of Sketch Plan, sort of off the cuff comments. MR. CLUTE-Absolutely, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-It makes sense to me. I just want to see what the public’s going to have to say about it. MR. LAPPER-Well, procedurally, and you tell us how you want to handle it, and we’d have no problem if you want to have a public hearing first. We can’t submit for Preliminary until we deal with the Zoning Board, but we would have no problem, if you want to get the public in here at the next meeting, and call it Sketch, and schedule for public hearing to get comments, and the neighbors will come in and talk about it, before you make a recommendation to the Zoning Board. Whatever the Board wants, we just want to open a dialogue. MR. HUNSINGER-That might make sense, but, I mean, if you expect positive comments from the neighbors. MR. LAPPER-Yes, we do. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-So we could do it at Sketch, and then you could make a recommendation, after you’ve heard from the public, to the Zoning Board to talk about the variance, and then we’d come back with a Preliminary after we were at the Zoning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes, I think that’s a good approach. MR. SEGULJIC-I need some clarification. So this is deeded forever wild, open space? MR. LAPPER-It’s not forever. It was a cluster subdivision at the time. So in order to get the density, because it was one acre zoning, he can only get 10 lots, but he did a cluster. So the 10 lots were on 15,000 square foot lots, the 10 houses on 15,000 square foot lots. So this had no more, it had no more density with it. All the density was used up. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. LAPPER-So it had no development rights, but it was never deeded. Nobody wanted it. The Town didn’t take it. MR. SEGULJIC-So it was never deeded. 46 MR. LAPPER-It was never deeded. Larry owns it, and he’s since bought a few little pieces to square it up and connect it to Howard, another acre and a half, but the interesting thing there is that zoning has changed and now there is density because it’s in a 20,000 square foot zone. MR. SEGULJIC-So essentially there’s a remnant left over from a past development? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-That now has. MR. LAPPER-And if this was something that would be suitable for a park, then we’d be asking you to give something up, you know, in terms of forever wild, but under the circumstances with the zoning changed, and the fact that it’s a mess, you know, we think it’s a pretty good argument. MR. CLUTE-And when the subdivision, and I’m going on my recollection. I didn’t do the subdivision. Charlie Diehl did. It was a cluster subdivision, and the Town was actually supposed to take the balance of the property and keep it as open space. The Recreation Department kicked it back and said they wanted no part of the property, and hence that’s how it’s in my possession. So as far as the open space, nobody wanted it as open space, I guess. MR. FORD-Well, those who are using it now wanted it as open space. Well, it brings a whole new concept to forever wild. MR. CLUTE-Yes, exactly. Exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? MR. FULLER-One comment I had. Procedurally, to get into a public hearing, they should probably submit for Preliminary, and get it on for a public hearing, because there really is no public hearing on a Sketch. MR. LAPPER-Can we submit for Preliminary without a variance? MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Fine. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I was wondering the same thing, because until you submit for Preliminary, there’s no notification to the neighbors. MR. BAKER-That’s correct. MR. LAPPER-Has Matt done test holes yet? MR. CLUTE-I believe he has, but we. MR. HUNSINGER-And of course you’d have to put the sign up, and, you know, the whole bit. th MR. LAPPER-Yes, of course. So if we have all the information we’ll submit by the 15 and hopefully get it on for a public hearing in October, and if we don’t, then we’ll get it in October for November. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any final comments from the Board? MR. LAPPER-And we’ll just table it at the Zoning Board until after you’ve made a recommendation. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Sounds good. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. CLUTE-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2005 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED HAYES & HAYES AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-1A 47 LOCATION LUZERNE ROAD, NORTH OF LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A CLUSTER SUBDIVISION OF A 23.16 ACRE PARCEL INTO 18 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.34 ACRES TO 9.23 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE REVISED SKETCH REVIEW 8/22/06 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 23.16 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.6-1-86 SECTION A-183 JON LAPPER & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Summarize Staff comments, Stu, please. MR. BAKER-Okay. This is the Preliminary plan review of the proposed subdivision. The Board may recall there’s been two prior Sketch Reviews on this particular parcel by the applicant. I did outline some of the missing information. The authorization from the owner has been provided. I made a note of the waiver requested, which the Board would need to specifically address in any resolution, any approval resolution on this matter. I had additional comments about the stormwater drywell inlet distances, and also noted that the applicant should include a note on the final plat stating that there will be no further subdivision allowed on Lot 17 and 18, as that density is being used along the road, and that’s also in line with prior discussion between the Board and the applicant. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-For the record Jon Lapper with Mikki Hayes, Tom Center and Tom Nace. We’re doubling up on engineers. We just received the comments today from Staff, which are fine, and the engineering comments which are very thorough, and our sense there’s really virtually nothing that we have a problem with. It’s just going to take a bunch of work to make a lot of changes. So we really need to resubmit to address the engineer’s comments and clean up this list. If there’s anything specific that the Board would like to talk about, we’re here and ready. Otherwise we’d like to just go and make changes and resubmit in September and come back in October. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-Good plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Any potential in the future of interconnecting? MR. LAPPER-Interconnecting? MR. SEGULJIC-Interconnecting in the future? Something we should think of now? MR. LAPPER-I’ll take a look. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s no place to connect to. MR. LAPPER-There is a stormwater interconnect that we’ve been asked to address. TOM NACE MR. NACE-There are really no other large parcels, undeveloped parcels that would make any sense to connect to. The only undeveloped land is to the north on the east side of our property, and that area is where we’ve proposed the two large estate lots because of the wetland issues, and I think those wetland issues would preclude any interconnection in that area. Off to the west, where we do have our proposed cul de sac road, I don’t really see any parcels there that are sizeable enough for or undeveloped at this stage that would warrant, you know, interconnection. MR. HUNSINGER-I think in the past when this property was here for Sketch Plan, we looked at trying to access Dean Road somehow, but there’s really no way to get there. MR. LAPPER-Mikki should address the stormwater issue. MIKKI HAYES MR. HAYES-Also we’ve been asked by some members of the Board, or the Town Board, as most of you probably know there’s some drainage issues with Michaels Drive, and they’ve approached us to get an easement to help take care of some of the drainage 48 problems on that lower section. That’s up for them. Tom’s had more interaction with those guys. MR. NACE-I think what is being explored, and I met with the Town Engineer out on the site to take a look at it, but the Michaels Drive area is right here, and it is relatively high, compared to the area out here on Luzerne Road. So what we were looking at is being able to take some sort of an under drain from this area, bring it back through the back end of the Michaels Drive, I forget the name of the owner, Baker I believe owns this property, and across Mikki’s property, across part of the two estate lots, and out to Luzerne Road to interconnect to an existing storm system that’s already in Luzerne Road. MR. SEGULJIC-What are the Lands of Vance currently? MR. NACE-Excuse me? MR. SEGULJIC-The Lands of Vance, are they, to the north? MR. NACE-The Lands of Vance, directly to the north? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. NACE-Mikki, do you know, offhand, what is on there? I think from what I remember there’s a couple of pastures, some horses and a. MR. HAYES-There’s a home and horses on it. MR. SEGULJIC-I could agree all the other parcels probably would not get subdivided, but maybe the Lands of Vance would. MR. NACE-Which ones? MR. SEGULJIC-The Lands of Vance ones in here? MR. NACE-Would it get subdivided? I think if you get back in, as you go off the back end of Mikki’s property here, it gets lower and wetter off to the north, and my guess is that to subdivide this would probably not be in the cards. MR. LAPPER-That’s the wetland that we’re trying to stay away from. MR. SEGULJIC-There was a comment earlier during the past application who said there was some provision about putting a paper street, someone else mentioned that? MR. LAPPER-It means to show it for future connection on the plat. MR. NACE-On this application? MR. SEGULJIC-No, no, no. MR. LAPPER-No. Earlier this evening, on another application. MR. SEGULJIC-We kind of put ourselves in a box in an earlier application. Trying to think forward here. MR. LAPPER-We can look into that Vance lot and see what the story is with wetlands. MR. SEGULJIC-If that were to be developed, you could come in on Dean for that one. MR. LAPPER-How many acres is that piece? MR. BAKER-The Vance lot? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. BAKER-That’s 4.92 by the assessing records. MR. LAPPER-We can take a look at the hydrology. MR. SEGULJIC-You understand what I’m trying to look at. 49 MR. LAPPER-Yes, of course. MR. SEGULJIC-And I guess how would we put that in a motion? MR. LAPPER-We’ll come back and have an answer, and if it’s dry then it makes sense. If it’s a wetland, then it’s probably not going to make sense, but we’ll come back and talk about it. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. BAKER-Well, I can tell you right now that the GIS data we have is showing some wetlands on the Vance property right here, and again, this is just what our GIS showed. You may recall that this is what the GIS showed on this subject property, but the actual on site mapping showed more extensive wetlands. MR. LAPPER-More extensive, exactly. MR. BAKER-And that’s often the case. We use the GIS data we have as an indicator that there’s wetlands there. It’s not necessarily an accurate portrayal of how large or small that may be. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the real lot to connect into Dean Road is the small lot that’s to the west of the Vance property. MR. FULLER-Yes, the potential for a paper street, if I can steal your arrow for a second, is in this area. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that small lot. MR. FULLER-If it’s feasible or not. MR. LAPPER-Yes, we’ll look at that. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here that wanted to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing and we’ll leave the public hearing open. I guess if there’s nothing else, I will entertain a motion for a tabling resolution. Table it until October? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s going to be addressing? MR. LAPPER-The engineering comments, the Staff comments. MR. FULLER-You should pick a meeting. th MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it was October 16. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then review. MR. LAPPER-The possibility of interconnect to the north, a paper street. MR. SEGULJIC-Why not say possibility of interconnecting to adjoining parcels. How’s that? MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So I’d like you to look at each of the parcels. Do we have anything else? Okay. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2005 HAYES & HAYES, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: 50 For the October 16, 2007 meeting. To address the engineering, staff comments, and review possibility of providing interconnects to adjoining parcels. st Duly adopted this 21 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: MR. FORD-Just a question, if we’re talking about adjoining parcels, we’re talking about the potential of 14 adjoining parcels with that wording. MR. LAPPER-Yes, so it should probably be narrower. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s kind of wide open. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I just don’t want them to leave it to one parcel until you know something else is, I can see that the ones to the east are out automatically. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and the ones to the west have frontage on Luzerne, but we’ll have an answer. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. FORD-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other discussion? Call the vote, please. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan MR. LAPPER-Thank you and good night. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 17-2006 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED THEODORE RAWSON AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION 725 WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 8.62 ACRE PARCEL INTO 6 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1.01 ACRES TO 1.84 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AD 5-05; SKETCH REVIEW: 12/19/06 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 8.62 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 300-1-20 SECTION A-183 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, whenever you’re ready, if you want to summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. BAKER-Okay. Staff comments. The stream that crosses the property was neither shown nor discussed at Sketch Review. The stream begins at a pond on the parcel west of the applicant’s adjacent 30 acre parcel. It appears the stream ends proposed building site Lot Number Six, raising the issue of the actual development potential of this parcel. Is there wetland on Lot Six? Does the stream continue off site? Contours indicate that it may be a contributor to Halfway Brook. Staff notes that the stream is labeled as a drainageway on Sheets S-2 and S-3. The Planning Board should give careful consideration as to whether undergrounding a stream beneath a cul-de-sac is advisable. Alternative subdivision designs could result in a smaller section of stream needing to be sent through a culvert. No engineering detail of the proposed culvert is provided. The required 75’ structure setback from stream shorelines must be shown on the plans submitted. The diversion ditch on lot 3 intersects with the stream? Does this have the effect of diverting the stream into the diversion ditch, and consequently the road stormwater management system? The proposed septic field location on lot 3 would require the septic line to go over the City water line within the easement. Staff suspects the City would have reservations about such a design; City sign-off on this proposal should be required by the Board. 51 MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MARCIA PERDUE MS. PERDUE-Good evening. I’m Marcia Perdue. I’m the attorney representing Mr. Rawson, and what I’m going to do is just turn this over to Tom Hutchins to go over some of these issues with you to begin with. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering. This, before I get to the details of the comments, the layout remains largely unchanged from Sketch Plan. We have adjusted a couple of the property lines in a minimal manner in order to enable diversion of a drainage area that I’m going to get to that Staff had also discussed. Beyond that, the layout’s largely the same. Obviously we’ve shown house locations, clearing limits and all the additional information that goes into the Preliminary submission. Much of, actually we received on Friday the Staff comments, and Dan Ryan’s comments, although I did not physically see them until yesterday, and I apologize I was unable to adequately respond, but the staffing notes a stream. We have, since the beginning, I’ve been aware of this condition. It’s really a drainage channel. It’s dry today. It’s dry much of the year, and it does channel runoff from the mountainside and a developed area behind this parcel through this property. If I might, I would step up to the map. Right now from the westerly side of their parcel, this ditch runs down to about here and it stops, disappears, everything works into the ground. As I’ve said, it’s dry now. There is no outlet beyond here. It is a surface and groundwater that runs from back here and dissipates down in this area. Our design shows re-routing that, re-routing that from this point and diverting it along this common property line between these two lots, and then around the cul de sac. We don’t go subsurface with it until down in here, where our intention has been to essentially divert this as, divert it from its current path, but we’re not adding to it, and our intention has been to leave it as much as is, as much in its existing condition as it currently is. In reviewing Dan’s comments, he suggests a watershed analysis or a little more watershed analysis to look at what’s upstream of that, and Teddy and I walked this today, in great detail, and that’s probably not a bad idea, and I’m certainly willing, I’m going to do that, whether you folks ask me to or not, because it’s, in seeing what I saw today, I think it’s a good idea to look at it a little bit harder. Beyond that, I think. MR. FORD-While we’re on this, you will call for that to terminate where? MR. HUTCHINS-In the same area it terminates now, on the southwesterly, I’m sorry, southeasterly most lot. MR. FORD-You’re diverting it and then going to bring it back into where it now terminates? MR. HUTCHINS-Where it now terminates. It’s a fundamental problem because there’s no outlet off the site. MR. HUNSINGER-So it just goes into the ground. MR. HUTCHINS-It goes into the ground. These are extremely permeable soils. If you look at the septic design, I’ve got amended soils for the septic system because we couldn’t get a perc rate to a minute, in a number of tries, and there is no outlet off the site. I have discussed this with, I was with Dan yesterday, and we have discussed this, we were on another site, but we did have some discussion of this, and we concurred that I can look a little bit at the upstream, and just, and run a small model to prove what we have is mathematically feasible, and I’ve agreed to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I know when we looked at Western Reserve, you know, a few years ago, stormwater runoff was a big issue and continues to be an issue in that area. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, it was, and a fair portion of this particular drainage way, the water originates up there. THEODORE RAWSON MR. RAWSON-Really we’re not changing so much the contour of what’s already there, what runs on there right now, it’s going to run the same way. I mean, you go down there 52 and look, you can see where, in the springtime, if came down through, and like he said, it dissipates in the ground. We’re not changing that. We’re not saying we’re going to shift it way down south or we’re going to shift it north. It’s going to stay right there, and where that comes down through there, that is the only one. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-I believe Staff mentioned this originating at a pond. There is an artificial, I guess it’s a pond. It’s a man-made pond up above this property. I looked at that today. This pond discharges to the south. It doesn’t directly discharge to this area, but there is a pond up there and it was created with some of the work that was done on the adjoining property, I guess. I have not reviewed any drainage plan for that property, and I’m not sure if this was part of their drainage plan, but it’s definitely there, and it outlets to the south, completely around this parcel. I do have some, if you’re interested, some photos of this drainage channel I took today, if you want to look at them. I know sometimes you don’t like to get information the night of a meeting. MR. BAKER-For the Board’s information, this is the hydrography data that the Town has. Here’s the pond showing its origin, and here’s the stream coming down to this portion. MR. RAWSON-You’re going across the back of my neighbor’s property. That’s Roger Lebeck’s, that blue line you’re talking about? MR. BAKER-Yes. MR. RAWSON-This is, where the hand is is where we’re talking about right now. This is a little bit, because I had to cut off from here. This right here is the good doctor next door. So this shows, on my property that I’m keeping, okay, but right now there’s a line that goes down through here, okay. This is the parcel we’re talking about, not over here. This is the doctor next door to me, okay. So I have a right of way going right down in here, and this stays with me. This is where I’m going to put a house. This is why I’m doing this, so I can put a house up here. This area is that area. So this doesn’t even come into play. It’s not even close. This area right here is the beginning of this property line, that chunk that the blue line goes through the corner. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. RAWSON-Actually that also does the same thing, it dries up in the springtime. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have anything else you wanted to add? MR. HUTCHINS-No, I don’t believe so. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SIPP-Would you take the topographic map and point out where that stream, you think it originates, this map right here. MR. RAWSON-The one you have in your hand? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. RAWSON-Sure. MR. SIPP-Peggy Ann is, this is Potter. This is West Mountain. Peggy Ann is here. Now you’re talking here, right in this area here. MR. RAWSON-Potter. I’m right across from the end of Potter. So I would be right here. MR. SIPP-Okay. MR. RAWSON-Okay. Because this right here is next door. This is the Western Reserve. I’m right across from Potter, right here. MR. SIPP-Now that shows a stream, the blue. MR. RAWSON-That right there is the blue. That shows a stream. MR. SIPP-And I follow it up, and it does come from a pond. 53 MR. RAWSON-Yes. That is also a seasonal pond. If I was to take you to that right now, you would be able to walk down to it. MR. SIPP-Yes, well, what happens in the snowmelt? MR. RAWSON-They build up water. They also, it has an outlet. That outlet goes down toward my other end of my property. It goes down the other end. It doesn’t drain down this way. It drains the other way, but it is a catch basin. They could say that’s a pond, but it dries up in the summertime. The catch basin in the Spring, it fills up in the Spring, but through the summer, by July it’s done. MR. SIPP-Well, it doesn’t show it draining to the south. It shows it draining to the east, right here. You’ve got a pretty good slope right there. MR. RAWSON-Okay. Well, it also drains this way. It drains both ways. Okay, and this right here that drains down through here that’s showing, is that one that he had on line, the one with the blue line. That’s the one. You see that pond up there? That’s the one he’s referring to. This little one right here is the one he’s referring to, and it runs down, goes across the corner of the doctor’s, and right on to the property. So you’re almost down to the road. MR. FORD-Have you started construction on your new home? MR. RAWSON-No, I can’t until I do this. That’s the only reason why I’m doing it, just so I can provide for my family. I’ve had this on the market over a year, with a house sitting on 8.62 acres. Too much. I mean, I’ve talked to the Town Board and Mr. Boor said that out in California that people give a million dollars for a house on 10 acres of land. Because we were talking about the zoning, the re-zoning, and I said, you know, I’ve had it on there for a year and I couldn’t do anything. So now, in order to do this, I’ve got to go to Plan B. Well, I didn’t want to cram in 8.62 acres, maybe I can cram in another one. Maybe instead of six lots, maybe I can do seven lots. I don’t. All I want to do is put in there enough. This is sufficient for me to go and build my house (lost word) and that’s it. I don’t plan on, I don’t see anything in the near future of developing anything else I’ve got. I just want, just my house, but I have to do this. This is the only way out. I don’t have any other recourse. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I imagine the people that are still here were waiting. I’ll open the public hearing. If you were here earlier, if you could state your name for the record. We do tape the meetings, and if you could address your comments to the Board. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GARY THORNQUIST MR. THORNQUIST-Good evening. Gary Thornquist. I live at 10 Western Reserve Trail. I’m on an adjacent property to this. Basically, my lot is Lot Number Two in Western Reserve, the second lot in. There’s two houses proposed right behind my property, Lot, I guess, Five and Six, according to the plan that I have. My property is the one where one is on each corner of that property. That’s my property there. I’m not opposed to Mr. Rawson developing some part of this property. I’m not opposed to, you know, having any impact on his well being. The way this is proposed now, I do have some issues. Obviously the setback of Lot Number Six is 30 feet off the back corner of my property. I don’t understand why there’d be a 30 foot setback on a one acre lot. I would have to say it might be because of the stream or something requires a certain setback. I don’t know. In addition, there’s been a lot of talk about stormwater runoff. My property is lower than both of these lots, topographically. In the winter thaw, the water will run directly onto my property if there is grass put into these houses, which I assume there would be in back yards. It will run right across my property and right down through to the Western Reserve drainage system which quite honestly can’t handle one more gallon of runoff from anywhere. It is at its maximum at Western Reserve. It’s a very fragile system. I’m sure you’ve heard reports of issues with the drainage system. It’s been torn out and put in several times. It’s adequate. I think it works right now. I don’t think it can handle one more gallon of runoff from any other source whatsoever. I do have a large lake that forms in front of my house in the wintertime when the ground is still thawed, or hasn’t thawed yet, and is not able to drain in because the pond fills up, and, you know, it can’t take anymore water. I currently have no issues with water on my property, but I believe that this development, especially with the way the grade is, will impact my property in a 54 negative fashion, as to water running directly through my property, possibly into my basement. I don’t know, I’m not an engineer, but I’m just looking at the map and seeing that I’m much lower and right now it’s all sand behind my house and the drainage is fine, but you do see, in the wintertime, when the ground hasn’t thawed yet and you get a rainstorm in the middle of winter, you will see the water run through, which I would assume that would happen if there was grass planted. The final issue I have, obviously this does impact the value of my property. There is a view to the mountain off of Lot Number Five that will be blocked by that house, and that was a big selling point obviously, to moving into this subdivision is the views of the mountain of the subdivision. That’s why the houses are more expensive. The lots went for more. I will not be able to see the mountain when that house is built because it is a higher, it’s built up higher, and when you put that extra footage of the house up, it will block the view as well. I don’t know if that’s any kind of, has any kind of bearing on subdivisions. I don’t know if I can even say that, but that’s my feeling is that it will impact the value of my property in a negative fashion. Again, I don’t deny anybody their, you know, to develop that land. That’s fine. It’s just that these two houses in particular, the rest of my subdivision isn’t impacted as much with the rest of the houses, because I don’t think they’ll even be visible, but these two particular houses will impact both my lot. There is a lot to the right of me that’s unsold that hasn’t been able to be sold for some reason. It’s a less desirable lot, I guess, but will become even more less desirable if there’s a house right behind it as well. So, again, the big issue is the stormwater. It’s a real issue over there. When the snow melts, the water runs over there, and you can’t keep it from running, even with the measures that were put in place with my subdivision. They’re barely adequate to handle the runoff. So anyhow, thank you for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? CHARLES BAKER MR. BAKER-Charles Baker. I live on West Mountain Road. My wife’s family used to own this property that we’re talking about, and this drainage that you’re talking about, we have never seen it. That particular brook or whatever you want to call it, has never run all year round. The water that the previous gentleman was talking about is coming through the drainage from the Western Reserve property. That’s, when they put that property in, they kind of siphoned the water off the mountain to that area. That’s why they put the drainage in there, and the water that this gentleman gets in the Spring of the year is coming from there. There is a little water coming from the other, the Rawson property, but there’s no outlet to it. It never has caused any problem. That area has run out onto the West Mountain Road, and last Spring, when we had all the rain, of course I think my wife is 73 years old and she’s lived there all her life and she says she’s never seen the water run like that. So that was a major storm, or whatever you want to call it, and previously it never has happened. It could happen again, of course, but as far as the drainage, I don’t think there’s a problem with it, and I’m for him developing his property. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. BAKER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? I will leave the public hearing open. Do you have any comments about some of the concerns mentioned by the neighbors? MR. HUTCHINS-I’ll touch, I guess, on the drainage issue in general. I guess today in my walk through I became convinced that I need to look at little bit more about what’s going on on adjoining properties to this parcel. We had some feedback from other neighbors earlier in the meeting, that have since left, that also indicated drainage concerns that the neighbors tonight have indicated a concern, and we certainly want to do our best to address them as best we can. Perhaps those houses can be shifted a little bit. I would have to look at that, and as I said, I will research a little bit more on what’s uphill of this, and I’ll probably consult with Mr. Ryan on that and do the best we can to have the best answer we can come up with. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any thoughts on the comment, the concern about blocking the view shed from some existing houses? MR. RAWSON-Well, the only thing, I mean, the grade that is up there now is more or less going to be leveled off, in a sense, so I don’t know how much more, I mean, the neighbor, he has a two story house. I mean, I don’t know how much it’s, I mean, West Mountain is West Mountain. It runs the whole length. 55 MR. HUNSINGER-Right, sure. MR. RAWSON-I don’t know if there’s something actually you want to look at. Because there’s no way that two houses are going to block that whole view of that mountain. If you left them on a pedestal, I’m sure they would. If you built them three stories high or like a big old Colonial, I’m sure they would, but I don’t understand, because the Western Reserve, the road that goes in, goes in at an angle. So you not only, looking out his back yard where the house is going to be, he’s going to look, and if it’s in the way, what’s wrong with this mountain over here? What’s wrong with this over here? I don’t know what, in a sense, that he’s really looking for that, yes, he’s going to have a house in the backyard. I understand that, but, I mean, at the same time, the right for me to build a house. I mean, this gentleman was the first one there. When they built the subdivision, I do believe he was the first one there, and I understand that, and rightly so, and I don’t blame him. I wouldn’t want to stare at a house either when I’ve got a mountain, and at the same time, I mean, I can’t limit, I would love to say, okay, I’ve got a good idea. Buy the whole thing and you don’t have to worry about it, you know what I mean? But I can’t. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I wasn’t suggesting that. I was just suggesting that maybe there’s a certain location that would work. MR. HUTCHINS-I think we’re willing to look at that site location and see if there is anything we can do within the constraints of all the setbacks that we’re dealing with and the fact that the lots get narrower as you move the house closer to the front. I mean, I think we can look at that and see if we can shift things. MR. RAWSON-Right, because now the lot that nobody bought next door to him, he says, well, if you can just move it that way a little bit, I’m good to go. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. RAWSON-And all of a sudden somebody comes in and buys that lot and goes, who put a house in view of my mountain. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. RAWSON-So now I’ve got two acres of land that now I can’t put anything on because the neighbor says that I’m going to block their view. I mean, I can’t, there’s not much I can do. All I know is, you know, the lots are going to be where they are, but they’re not going to be at the height they’re going to be. They’re going to be planed off and they’re going to be a two story house. I don’t know how to explain it more than that. MS. PERDUE-But I think what Tom is saying is you’re willing to take a look at it and try to. MR. RAWSON-Yes, exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. RAWSON-I’m not trying to say that’s written in stone by any means. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-And those are presented as, in my experience, people aren’t going to want to come in and build houses that are exactly that shape anyway. These are presented to prove that there’s a buildable lot with a reasonable sized house. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, yes, exactly. MR. HUTCHINS-And there will be some site specific plans done for each lot that will define all that. MR. RAWSON-But we’ll look at if we can shift it and maybe leave an uncut strip there or something. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s what I was going to say. Look at the buffering. MR. HUTCHINS-Much of it was apparently cut either as part of the Western Reserve property. There’s a cut slope there that’s well on to this parcel that appears to have, and 56 you can see it in the topography, that, and I don’t know if that was always cut like that, Ted, or it’s cut and cleared. MR. BAKER-This is a 2004 aerial photo. MR. RAWSON-See, if you look right here, much of this area, this is a cut slope here, sloping down this way. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s Lot Five. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess if you can look at the grading of the site and buffering, see what you can do with that. I mean, obviously we’re interested in stormwater. MR. FORD-We’ll really be interested in seeing that further analysis of upslope. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I hate to bring up the blue Karner butterfly, but I remember on Western Reserve it was an issue, wasn’t it? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think there were two small spots down on the southern end, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-To help us get through SEQRA, you’re going to have to help us out with that. Because that question comes up. MR. RAWSON-A lot of it that isn’t wooded is my back yard which I mow. MR. HUTCHINS-So we haven’t looked at it, we haven’t looked at all for Karner blue. Is that something that we ought to do? MR. SEGULJIC-As I recall, Western Reserve had it in one corner, if I recall, the southern portion, I think. There was one lot that had to be dedicated to our friend. So we need some information to help us. MR. FORD-More than that, we will anticipate a DEC visit on site. MR. SEGULJIC-That would be great. MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe Staff could look at that. MR. RAWSON-What was that lady’s name again? MR. BAKER-Kathy O’Brien, and if you give me a call at the office tomorrow, I can get you her phone number. Actually, I may have her phone number now. MR. HUNSINGER-Actually, that is the easiest thing is if you can get a letter from her, but I’m trying to remember. I know there was a project relatively in your neighborhood where she said that the potential was there for Karner habitat, but because it was such a small area, that it wasn’t worth considering. Does that sound familiar or Western Reserve? Yes, there was like two plants there maybe, right close to the road. MR. RAWSON-Yes. If I remember, he did studies on it and stuff. MR. HUNSINGER-But a signoff from her would be. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. Yes, I’ll arrange for that. MR. HUNSINGER-I also noticed that the SEQRA form that was submitted wasn’t signed. Is there anything else? MR. HUTCHINS-If it wasn’t signed, I overlooked it. I apologize. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. BAKER-Here’s Kathy O’Brien’s phone number, and e-mail address. The phone number is (518) 402-8864. E-mail address is kmobrien@gw.dec.state.ny.us, and she’s with the DEC Endangered Species Unit. 57 MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else we need the applicant to address, other than the engineering comments and Staff comments? MR. SEGULJIC-The buffering and the grading of Lots Four, Five, Six to reduce visual impact, potential visual impacts. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, I wasn’t alluding to anything specific for them to look at or do, other than to take into consider the neighbor comments. Maybe it’s the placement of the house. MR. HUTCHINS-We’ll certainly re-look at it with that in mind, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-How do we want to say that in the tabling motion, then, to make sure we get back something that’s? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, consider the impact of the view shed. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then also review for endangered species on site. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And then I think the stormwater was brought up in the engineering comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MS. PERDUE-And I see you also have a reference to the easement the City of Glens Falls has? I just got this today. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That was in Staff comments. Yes. Anything else? MR. SEGULJIC-I think that’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to make the motion? MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. As long as you help me out. rd MR. HUNSINGER-Table it to October 23. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 17-2006 THEODORE RAWSON, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: To October 23, 2007. For the following information: 1.Addressing Staff and Engineering comments. 2.Signing the SEQRA form. 3.Review of the site for endangered species on the site and obtain a signoff from DEC. 4.Review reducing potential visual impact to reduce potential impacts on view shed from the adjoining parcel to the south. st Duly adopted this 21 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: MR. FORD-Could we be more specific relative to the endangered species that we want a signoff from DEC? MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-Is that something, if we don’t have that for, I’m assuming with an rdth October 23 tabling motion, our submission needs to be in September 15. Is that right? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. BAKER-That’s correct. 58 MR. HUTCHINS-If we don’t have that information at that time, if it’s in the form of, I mean, because it’s going to be September here real soon. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-And is that something that will have to be in the submission packet for rd us to keep our October 23? MR. SEGULJIC-No, but it is important. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. HUTCHINS-What’s that? MR. SEGULJIC-No, but it’s going to be very helpful for us because we’re going to have a tough time answering the question on our SEQRA form about endangered species. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, but if we had a signoff letter, I mean, you’d look at a signoff letter that we brought in that evening. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Because it’s the yes or no. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MS. PERDUE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Before we adjourn, I had two sort of administrative kind of items. The first is Craig asked me to remind the Board that he tried to schedule a meeting for th September 20, a joint meeting with Town Counsel and the Fort Ann Planning Board for Irish Bay, and he hasn’t heard from members of the Board. MR. SEGULJIC-He hasn’t heard from me. I think I would be fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Does anyone have a conflict with that that they know of? MR. FORD-What night is that? th MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a Thursday, Thursday evening, September 20. MR. TRAVER-It’s all right with me. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If you can’t make it, if you could drop a note to Craig or myself. MR. FORD-I cannot. MR. TRAVER-That’ll be here at seven? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It will be here at seven, and then the other item is just sort of a for your information. The stipulation agreement for Northeast Dining and Lodging was executed and delivered. So, very little fanfare, you know, signed it in my kitchen. 59 MR. SEGULJIC-Craig had also asked for consideration of an additional condition stating that the applicant and Bruce Frank would have a meeting before construction started if I’m correct? MR. HUNSINGER-On Northeast Dining? MR. SEGULJIC-In general with projects. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That was part of the stipulation. MR. SEGULJIC-No, no. I’m talking in general, as part of conditions, that we include in our conditions? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Is that something they’re going to include? Is that something we need to take action on? MR. HUNSINGER-I know what you’re saying. It was an e-mail from Craig suggesting that, before construction begin, the applicants meet with Staff to go over final details. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-In Site Plan, and, I mean, I think it makes sense to make a standard condition. MR. SEGULJIC-I think it makes sense. I don’t think we have to do it on every single project, but it would make sense. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So they’ll just put that, so the plan is they’ll just put that in their, should I call it generic motions and we can leave it in or take it out as needed. Is that the plan? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think that’s a great idea. MR. FORD-It’s a good idea. MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, can you make that change? MR. BAKER-I’m sorry, what is the change you’d like? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it would be a standard condition of approval that we could then delete if we didn’t need it, but it would be that the applicant meet with Staff prior to commencement of construction to review final details. MR. BAKER-Yes. I can certainly add that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So I guess at next meeting, or next month’s resolutions will have that in there, I assume? MR. BAKER-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else to bring before the Board? If not, I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF AUGUST 21, 2007, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: st Duly adopted this 21 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 60 ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 61