Loading...
2007-10-23 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2007 INDEX Freshwater Wetlands 2-2007 Robert Reid Tax Map No. 297.6-1-6.1 1. Site Plan No. 17-2004 Adirondack Sports Complex 2. MODIFICATION & RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 309.5-1-3.11 (Cont'd Pg. 21) Subdivision No. 17-2006 Theodore Rawson 3. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 300-1-20 Subdivision No. 10-2007 Gary Markwell 37. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 309.18-1-18 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 50-2007 The Glen @ Hiland Meadows, Inc. 49. Site Plan No. 53-2007 Richard Solomon 56. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-14 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. o (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2007 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THOMAS SEGULJIC, ACTING CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY DONALD SIPP THOMAS FORD STEPHEN TRAVER TANYA BRUNO MEMBERS ABSENT CHRIS HUNSINGER SENIOR PLANNER-STUART BAKER TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER FIRTH-MARK NOORDSY STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY FRESHWATER WETLANDS 2-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED ROBERT REID OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION LOT 48, SECT. 4 ROLLING RIDGE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND GRADE/FILL REAR YARD INTO WETLAND BUFFER AREA. FILLING AND GRADING ACTIVITY WITHIN A WETLAND BUFFER REQUIRE A WETLAND PERMIT FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE NONE WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A DEC WETLAND GF-19 LOT SIZE 8.24 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.6-1-6.1 SECTION 94-5 MR. SEGULJIC-I believe there's a request for tabling? MR. BAKER-That's correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Is there a date that they wanted to table to? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, they said November, but we've already missed the application deadline for November. So it's going to have to be December. MR. BAKER-Yes, the resolution you have tables it to November 20th. MR. SEGULJIC-I got an e-mail from Chris saying something, we're pretty loaded up in November I think he said? MR. BAKER-Yes. We do have a number of items already tabled to November, I think four items now. MR. TRAVER-Chris had suggested either adding another meeting or. MR. BAKER-November 20th we already have five items. So adding this one make six, which puts you at. MR. SEGULJIC-What's the Board think? MRS. STEFFAN-It goes to December. MR. SEGULJIC-It goes to December? MR. TRAVER-December. MR. SEGULJIC-AII right. Do you want to make a motion? MOTION TO TABLE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 2-2007 ROBERT REID, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) Tabled to the 1st December meeting, which will be the 18th of December, with an application deadline of November 15th for submission of materials. This is being done at the applicant's request. Duly adopted this 23rd day of October, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger SITE PLAN NO. 17-2004 MODIFICATION AND RECOMMENDATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED ADIRONDACK SPORTS COMPLEX AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) M & C VENTURES, LLC ZONING RC-15 LOCATION 326 SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATIONS TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN AND IS SEEKING A PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION BASED ON PERFORMANCE CRITERIA FOR FUTURE TRANSIENT MERCHANT EVENTS SO THAT INDIVIDUAL REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION IS NOT NEEDED FOR EACH FUTURE EVENT. CROSS REFERENCE SP 53-04, AV 65-04, SB 6-04, AV 7-04, PZ 2-03 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 19.42 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.5-1-3.11 SECTION 179-4-020, 179-9-020 JOHN SVARE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. FORD-Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, I wish to recuse myself from this deliberation. One of the co-owners of the complex and I are independent contractors operating out of the same Realty USA office. I don't want any appearance of impropriety, and therefore I will not participate. MR. SEGULJIC-Would Staff mind reading notes, Staff comments. MR. BAKER-Yes. The applicant is requesting two actions from the Board. One the approval of modifications to the original Site Plan approval as outlined in the 8/15/07 letter from engineer Tom Nace. At your September 19 meeting, the Planning Board had requested a copy of the previously approved landscape plan and that the applicant address the outstanding engineering concerns. In his letter of October 5, 2007, actually it was dated October 5, 2006, but it was received on October 8, '07, Tom Nace outlined the outstanding concerns. The following materials were received with this material, the above noted cover letter, stormwater analysis for added parking dated October 2007, SP-1A, modified October 5, '07, SP-4A dated August 5, '05, and SP-5A, which is the approved lighting plan, modified August 10, '05. These materials have been forwarded to the consulting engineer for his review and comment. The lighting levels on the additional proposed parking area seem low. The Planning Board may wish to require additional lighting for these areas. Staff notes that no Uniformity Ratio calculation was provided in the lighting plan. Recommendations, the second item for this application is recommendations to the Town Board on conditions for a blanket transient merchant approval. The Planning Board had asked for a Workshop Meeting with the Town Board to discuss this matter. Staff relayed this request to the Town Board in the attached memo dated and delivered on September 24, '07, see also the attached e-mail of October 2, '07 distributed to the Planning Board by Chairman Hunsinger. Consideration may be given to requesting specific performance standards or thresholds from the applicant in order to better understand the scope of future events at the site. The establishment of finite limitations is necessary so that both the applicant and their agents together with the Town understand the restrictions for such events. For example: minimum and maximum figures for all operational aspects such as parking, patrons, shuttle trips to satellite parking lots, hours of events, indoors or outdoors, defined areas on site if outdoors, lighting, sounds, smells, etc. MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. If you wouldn't mind introducing yourself and telling us about your application. MR. SV ARE-John Svare, Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes. DOUG MILLER MR. MILLER-Doug Miller, Adirondack Sports Complex. Obviously we were a little, trying to pull it together here at the last minute with the item being tabled in front of us. Tom 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) Nace had a public hearing for Moreau for their water district at 6:50. So he was going to be a little bit late to begin with. So, with the item being tabled ahead of us, I'm not sure what would be the proper course here. MR. SEGULJIC-Do you want to wait until later tonight? MR. BAKER-Yes, Mr. Chairman, you can move this down the agenda. MR. SEGULJIC-Do you want to move down the agenda? MR. SV ARE-If it's possible. MR. MILLER-If it's possible. MR. SEGULJIC-We can do that for you. MR. SV ARE-If there's any way we can jump back in when Tom arrives. MR. SEGULJIC-We'lI do what we can for you. MR. SV ARE-All right. Thank you. We appreciate it. MR. SEGULJIC-Do we have to take any action with that, or just move on? MR. BAKER-No, just move on and come back to it when their engineer is here. MR. SEGULJIC-Just move on. Okay. 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. BAKER-Okay. Staff comments. The applicant's engineer submitted revised information on September 17, 2007. The cover letter details the changes that have been made since the Board last reviewed this application in August 2007. 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. No information from the NYS DEC has been submitted to date regarding rare or endangered species on the property. You also have engineering comments dated October 19th. MR. SEGULJIC-Do you want to identify yourself and tell us about your project. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board, Tom Hutchins, here on behalf of Theodore and Kathy Rawson. Ted is with me. We were before you two months ago. We had a number of outstanding engineering comments which we have all addressed. We have made minor modifications to the plan in addressing those comments, as well as some of the public issues that were brought up. We've done our best to, we've relocated one house. There was a concern about visibility from a southerly neighbor, and we've relocated that house as far as we could within the existing lot configuration away from that parcel line, and we've left an uncut area against that parcel line. With regard to endangered species, we have been in contact with DEC, and we did receive a letter on the Karner blue issue that we just received on October 19th. MR. SEGULJIC-So we have not received that? MR. HUTCHINS-You have not received that. We received it October 19th, three days ago. MR. SEGULJIC-How long is the letter? It's one page. MR. SEGULJIC-Stu, would you mind reading that into the record. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. BAKER-Certainly. This is a letter dated October 19, 2007 from Kathy O'Brien, Biologist with the Endangered Species Unit, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, address to Mr. Ted Rawson. "Dear Mr. Rawson: As you requested, I visited your proposed subdivision property on West Mountain Road in Queensbury to look at the potential for the presence of wild blue lupine, the only food plant of the endangered Karner blue butterfly and threatened frosted elfin butterfly. As I had indicated to you, at this time of year lupine is very difficult to identify in the field. Most plants have completely dried up and very little is left above ground to find. What I did do was look at the soil and the other vegetation on the property and look for areas that were relatively open versus shady. There are a few open areas on the southern part of the property that looked to me to have the potential to support lupine. These places are dominated by little bluestem grass and have relatively few other grasses. These areas are located adjacent to the backs of houses to the south and run up a slope to an area where some digging had occurred in the recent past (see enclosed map). No other areas on the property seemed to have the conditions that would support lupine. The fact that lupine was found on the Hayes and Hayes property to the south of you and across West Mountain Road both north and south of Potter Road increases the probability of the presence of lupine in other areas in the vicinity. The likelihood of the protected butterflies being present would depend on how much lupine, if any, was present. Lupine itself is not a protected species, rather it is protected when the protected animals that live on it are present. A survey at this time of year cannot determine the presence of either. I will say, however, that the total area that seemed suitable on your property was, overall, rather small, and would suggest to me that if lupine were present, it would not be present in large numbers. If you have any other questions regarding the Karner blue or frosted elfin or their habitat please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Kathy O'Brien Biologist I, Wildlife Endangered Species Unit" MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Well, we'll get back to this issue then, I think. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. The other issue with regard to the City, we have made contact with the City, and I have a memo with five suggestions as to what I consider minor modifications or adjustments on the wastewater system location on that Lot Three, all of which I can do. They're not reflected in the revised plans as I received this after the submission day, but would you like this to read in or copies of it? MR. SEGULJIC-That's your response? MR. HUTCHINS-No, this is the City's response. Staff had requested comments from the City, and this is what I have. I didn't receive it before submission day. MR. SEGULJIC-And since you got that memo, you've made changes to the plan that we haven't seen? MR. HUTCHINS-I have not made the changes suggested in this memo because I received it after submission day. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Well, what's the Board think? MR. FORD-Let's wait until it's had an impact on the plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I think we should see what they have to say. It's just my opinion. MRS. BRUNO-It looks relatively short, as well. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, just have Stu read it into the record, and it'll just give us information to ask questions. MR. BAKER-This is a memo dated October 4, 2007, to Marcia K. Perdue, 5 Sagamore Street, Glens Falls, from Steve Gurzler, PE, Regarding the Rawson Subdivision review, July 16, '07 versions "Drainage swale cannot be constructed in a manner that reduces the earthen cover over our raw water main to less than five feet. Extreme care should be taken working in the area of this main due to its advanced age. Septic tank must be located further from the raw water main, minimum of 10 foot from easement line. Piping between the septic tank and the leach field must be continuous, with no joints, such as high density polyethylene pipe, SDR 21 or thicker. Provide a minimum of 18 inches of vertical separation between the septic tank effluent pipe and the water main. Provide a minimum of 10 feet of horizontal separation between the subsurface absorption field and the water easement. Provide the Water & Sewer Superintendent with a revised set of 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) plans for review. The City of Glens Falls Water & Sewer Department must have a minimum of 48 hours notice before any work is performed in the vicinity of our raw water main." MR. SEGULJIC-From what I hear, that seems very manageable. MR. HUTCHINS-I've been through the plans, and I believe they're all manageable. Where we're a little bit stuck with this project is this is a Department of Health jurisdictional subdivision, and we need to submit the subdivision to Department of Health for review on the wastewater side. Department of Health generally likes us to have preliminary support from the locality, and that's where we're a little bit in a quandary. I can address all of these. My ideal scenario would be that I could submit to the Health Department with these items addressed on that set of plans. At the same time they could go to the City and we could initiate that process with the Health Department. We still have to come back before you in a Final, and frankly there will probably be some further adjustments or modifications to the plans through the Health Department process. So we would like to be able to get that process rolling. However, there's obviously not a whole lot we can do on the endangered species. MR. SEGULJIC-Getting to the Vision Engineering letter, Comment Two, could you cut to the chase on that for me? MR. HUTCHINS-He's questioning the means I used within my model to determine a time of concentration for the runoff from that model of an area on the side of the hill, and what he's saying, the total flow length of 50 feet for the northern water shed, that's a question of the methodology I used in the model. We have discussed it, and I think it's reasonable. He has another way he would do it, and I will modify the model to his way, but when I do that, it's going to, I'm conservative. It's going to present less of a runoff impact to the site when I modify that model because it's going to increase the time of concentration off that watershed, if that makes any sense. MR. SEGULJIC-Where is the swale that he's speaking of? MR. HUTCHINS-The swale runs, the diversion swale runs directly through the project, if you look at the grading plan. What there is is there's a, there's a drainage area uphill of this property that during high runoff conditions, and particularly over the last few years it has been modified. During high runoff conditions, we get a fair amount of drainage running basically through the, bisecting this parcel right now, and initially Dan had questioned the diversion that I had developed, and I re-worked that a little bit, and I think it's a better. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Excuse me. It's the one known as existing drainage to be diverted to new drainage? MR. HUTCHINS-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-And it's really a wet weather, it's a wet weather drainage thing. It's dryer somewhere, I don't know if it's dryer. Is it dry now? MR. SEGULJIC-So the way it looks, it just ends on Lot Six? MR. HUTCHINS-What I did, right now, it ends, right now it disappears on Lot Six. There's no, remember there's no culvert under the road. There's nowhere for it to go. The soils are extremely permeable and it disappears. What I did is I re-routed it the other side of the road and ran it into a big, long infiltration trench that does have an overflow off site. MR. SEGULJIC-So you'd have still this swale open on Lot Three. MR. HUTCHINS-Right. It runs right down the parcel line, and then it wraps to the north of the cui de sac. MR. SEGULJIC-And then you're going to wrap it around the cui de sac. MR. FORD-On the west side? MR. HUTCHINS-No, on the north side. Would you like me to put one up? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, could you show us. MR. HUTCHINS-Sure. MRS. BRUNO-When you say across the road, it's going across West Mountain Road. MR. SEGULJIC-We see it now. We've got it. We're a little slow on the uptake. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. Right now, Tanya, there's no outlet to it, and I've put it into a generously sized infiltration trench, and in my opinion there will continue to be no outlet, but in the event there needs to be, there is one now. MR. FORD-Four feet wide. MR. HUTCHINS-I don't remember how long, but it's pretty long. MRS. BRUNO-What do these double dashed lines indicate going across West Mountain, right at the end of Potter Road, it's right at the end of your eight inch? Is there an existing culvert? MR. HUTCHINS-There is an existing culvert at the northern corner of the property, yes. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-And that's the culvert that handles the runoff from the mountainside pond on the northerly parcel. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thanks. MRS. STEFFAN-Is the Hayes Western Reserve park property up the hill from this? THEODORE RAWSON MR. RAWSON-It actually L-Shapes. It goes up, goes around behind this parcel. MRS. STEFFAN-And there's a pond up there, isn't there? MR. RAWSON-There's, what it is is like a runoff. He put several runoff ponds, actually they flow south. They don't flow east. They flow south. MR. HUTCHINS-Right. He put three ponds up there. MRS. BRUNO-Stu, could we see, maybe you were just about to do that, the GIS of that area? MR. BAKER-I've been trying to pull it up. We're having network difficulties right now. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thanks. MR. SEGULJIC-There was the buffering you increased. That was on Lot Five I believe. MR. HUTCHINS-That was on Lot Five, and as you see, I moved it just about to the setback line on the other side. MR. SEGULJIC-Now you're calling that proposed limit of clearing, correct? MR. RAWSON-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Shouldn't we call it like a no cut zone. Does that make a difference? MR. HUTCHINS-I would do that. I don't know how much. Yes, I would term that, you don't have an issue with that, do you? MR. RAWSON-No. MR. HUTCHINS-No, I would do that. To the setback line? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess what you're calling the proposed limit of clearing, should actually be referred to as the no cut zone. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I don't have a problem with that. MR. SEGULJIC-Anybody have anything else? Mr. Traver? MR. TRAVER-No. My only question was the numerical error that you. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Mrs. Steffan? MRS. STEFFAN-One of the things that concerned me was that on Lot Three, obviously there's a bit of a pitch there, and we don't have a stormwater plan for the driveway runoff that might come off of this. In my experience on the Planning Board, when there's a driveway that has a slope like this, oftentimes in the winter if there's a rain event or borderline rain, freezing rain event, the water will sheet off of the driveway and ends up, like for example on this cui de sac could be an icing problem. MR. HUTCHINS-Part of the way I have handled the overall stormwater design is to mandate by the SWPPP that the residences themselves and the driveways have individual plans done for each lot, and we really don't know the, particularly the configuration of the houses, and how the drives are going to be. These are all boxes that are basically the same, and nobody wants to build square houses anymore. As part of the plan, we have required that each lot have an individual plan done, okay, so that in doing that you look at the driveway, and you look at the house, and you, on this particular site, you do your best to infiltrate it all, because it infiltrates well. So, it is part of the plan. We didn't show it on every individual lot because it's going to change, and I don't know if that answers your question or not. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, well, that has a lot to do with the site development if it's a blacktop driveway or if it's stone, and the permeability of those things. One of my concerns on any of the developed lots in the area that are built on slopes is that there is driveway runoff and a lot of folks, they invest a great deal of money in the home and then when it comes time to do the finish work on the driveway, that doesn't get allocated the appropriate resources and then that's not finished and then there's all kinds of consequences. There's all different kinds of runoff. There's siltation. There's all different kinds of things that happen as a result of that. So that's why I asked the question, and on that lot in particular because there is such a slope there. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Ford? MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Sipp? MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Why don't we open it up for the public hearing. Anyone wishing to comment on this application? If you could come forward and state your name. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GARY THORNQUIST MR. THORNQUIST-Hello. Gary Thornquist. I live on 10 Western Reserve Trail in the Western Reserve subdivision. I haven't, unfortunately, been able to look at the revised plan. So I don't know, the house was moved, I guess, affects what I brought up at last meeting, which was the view of the mountains and the obstruction of a house directly behind my house. My concerns remain with the runoff situation. When these houses are built, they all will have backyards. So even though it is sandy soil now, my concern is that once people have finished back yards, you can't control how far they finish them. Our subdivision is lower than this subdivision, especially, there's a house being built right next to me now which is on Lot Three of Western Reserve. They're actually putting a basement window in it. There's a big bowl in the bottom, at the back of the house that they're building, and it is downhill from this subdivision, and once that gets finished off as a backyard, the water will run right down into our subdivision. My concern still remains of the water coming from that subdivision into our subdivision, not so much as how the stormwater's been handled going down their driveways into their drainage. It's more of the backyards coming, that borders our subdivision that my concern is, and I don't know 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) whether that has been addressed or not. The assumption is, even though these are large lots, that someone may finish their backyard completely, may clear cut the trees, and that in a frozen ground situation or in a, you know, finished backyard situation with grass, that the water will run into our subdivision, and my concern remains that our subdivision can't handle anymore runoff than it's handling right now. It's not designed to handle any additional runoff. There are water and puddling issues throughout our subdivision now. So that's my concern. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So we can have the applicant, if there's anything else, we can have the applicant respond to those. Anybody else? Okay. If you could put your plan on the easel and show what the no cut zone looks like, and then would you discuss the stormwater runoff. MR. HUTCHINS-Where we're talking is this on Lot Five. Here's the building setback over here, and previously the house was located closer to the buildings. I moved it, I believe I moved it 12 feet, but I'm going by memory there. I moved it as much as I comfortably could within the confines of the lot layout. I've swaled down here and I've swaled this way. If somebody does something with their backyard here, we're showing clearing limit to the setback line, which we have no problem declaring it no cut, within that setback line along here. In general, what one would do with this lot is most likely driveway, you'd run trench along this low side of the driveway, direct all that there, and the house you would probably want to trench across the back and direct any roof runoff into the ground back here. Again, that's based on a square house. MR. SEGULJIC-So you are making provisions for the runoff potentially going to the south, putting a swale? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. We're swaling it around this way and we're swaling it this way. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-And as long as what comes off the house isn't allowed to run directly over there, which it can't, (lost words) then. MR. SEGULJIC-You just said something, as long as the house doesn't, did I miss the rest of it? MR. HUTCHINS-As long as the runoff from the house and the garage isn't directed this way. MR. SEGULJIC-Can we put a note on the plans saying the runoff from the house is to be directed toward the north? MR. HUTCHINS-Certainly. MR. RAWSON-That would only make sense. I mean, this is a raw piece of land right now. I don't know how much somebody's going to actually take the level of it down. I mean, but I would naturally, I wouldn't think somebody would make a runoff towards, I mean, he's right. They've got all the water they need. They don't need anymore. I mean, I wouldn't direct it that way. I wouldn't want anybody to direct it if I was living in this house. MR. HUTCHINS-And in the revision of the diversion, it's also directing any of that uphill runoff further away from the southerly subdivision. MR. SEGULJIC-So, to clarify. On Drawing, Layout and Utilities Plan where you have the proposed limits of clearing. Can we change that all to no cut? MR. HUTCHINS-That whole setback along Lot Five? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, along the whole development. MR. HUTCHINS-Along Lot? MR. SEGULJIC-Five and Three, and Two, where you have the proposed clearing limit. MR. RAWSON-Three is across the back. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. HUTCHINS-Three is adjoining Ted's property. That's to the north. I don't have a problem with the whole southerly. We can make that work. MR. RAWSON-Now how wide would a no cut be? MR. HUTCHINS-Twenty feet. We're saying to the setback which is 20 feet. MR. RAWSON-It doesn't bother me. Twenty feet's fine. You can go around the whole thing if you want. MR. FORD-What you're suggesting is anything outside this line is no cut. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MRS. BRUNO-Right. MR. FORD-That's different from their interpretation. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. What I'm saying is on that sheet you have a proposed limit of clearing, all the way around the site. Can we turn that into a no cut zone? MR. RAWSON-That's what I said, no cut from the property line in. Is that what you're saying? MR. SEGULJIC-No. If you look at your Layout and Utilities Plan drawing. MR. HUTCHINS-You're saying across the back as well? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-Instead of terming it clearing limit, term it a no cut zone? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, because I've come to learn that means (lost words). MR. FORD-That means anything outside that dotted line would be no cut. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay, that's outside the clearing limit. Okay, yes. The clearing limit as shown on this drawing. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Does anybody else have any issues or comments? How does everyone feel about our friend the blue Karner and the lupine? MR. FORD-I think we can't address it at this time. That's basically what the letter is saying. They couldn't determine it. I'm sure we can't. MR. SEGULJIC-She gave and then she took back. MR. RAWSON-Well, she actually states at the end that if it was, it's such a small area that, you know. MR. TRAVER-It sounds as though the area he's talking about is Lot. MR. HUTCHINS-It's Lot Six, primarily Lot Six. MRS. BRUNO-When do you intend to break ground? MR. HUTCHINS-Well, I don't know that that's determined yet. I think we would be willing to reserve Lot Six. MR. RAWSON-I wouldn't have a problem with waiting on Lot Six, if you wanted to wait until May on that said lot and say, that lot you can't do anything with until she checks it. I haven't got a problem with that. I'm not trying to do anything to the butterfly. MR. SEGULJIC-I don't know if we can do that. That's a great idea, but I don't know if we can do that. Does everyone? To give Preliminary approval, to make an action, we have 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) to go through SEQRA. Can we break out, and I think I know the answer, that area where she's talking about and segment that? MR. NOORDSY-That letter refers to just a small area of the site. MR. TRAVER-And for that specific reason, for the specific reason of waiting until the season permits a study of this. MR. NOORDSY-Did she indicate that it's only one area where there's a possibility? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. The map I gave Stu is her map. MR. RAWSON-She states right on the second paragraph of the last sentence, she states that no other, she doesn't feel that any other area with the Karner blue. MR. NOORDSY-The area that she refers to, can you identify what lot or lots that is? MR. RAWSON-That's Number Six. MR. NOORDSY-Can you just have a prohibition against the sale of that lot until that investigation has been completed? MR. RAWSON-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-Can we get through SEQRA then? Because we can't do Preliminary. MR. NOORDSY-You can go through SEQRA, but any approval you're going to give would have that condition, that Six would not be. MR. SEGULJIC-Six not be disturbed until, that is a possibility then. MR. NOORDSY-I think you can give an approval with that condition, that that lot couldn't be sold until you get your investigation approved. I wouldn't do SEQRA just on that. I would do the SEQRA indicating that there's this one potential area and this is how we're going to deal with it. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, flesh that out for me. MR. NOORDSY-AII right. I mean, you're going to identify this as a possible impact, and the way that you're going to mitigate against that is to impose this condition. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Right, a small to moderate impact, for example. MR. NOORDSY-So that the way you, what I suggest is that the way to deal with it is to impose this condition. MR. SEGULJIC-Does everybody understand that? MR. NOORDSY-They way you would deal with that, and we'll have to look at the documents that you've got there, but the way I would deal with it in your resolution is we, the way we're mitigating that possibility habitat being there is to not allow a sale of that lot, until they have the investigation and a clearance for it. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. MR. NOORDSY-I wouldn't separate SEQRA for just that one lot. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. MR. NOORDSY-You're doing SEQRA for the whole subdivision, identifying that concern, and showing this is how we would deal with it. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Mr. Traver? MR. TRAVER-Yes. I was just going to say. I don't know if we can define it as small to moderate. I think we can just say there's an unknown amount which we'll address in this way. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MRS. STEFFAN-Well, you know, I'm looking at Kathy O'Brien's words, and that last sentence, the total area that seems suitable on your property is overall rather small and would suggest to me that if lupine were present it would not be present in large numbers. MR. RAWSON-I talked to her on the phone. What she explained to me, in order to support a colony, it has to be in large numbers. Now I'm not saying that it, I don't know. I mean, that's why I had her come up and look at it, but this is her word, you know, and I talked to her and she said, you have to have a lot of plants in order to support a colony, not taking it lightly, by any means, but. MR. SEGULJIC-But by setting aside Lot Six, until later, you're okay with for now? MR. RAWSON-Yes, as long as I can. MR. HUTCHINS-We're okay with doing that. MR. RAWSON-I want to continue, you know. MR. SEGULJIC-There was a map, a figure attached to the letter? MR. FORD-Not only can there be no sale of that, there can be no development. MR. NOORDSY-I was going to say, no development, right. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, and before we get to, we have to be back here again anyway before we get to that point, but what we want to be able to do is advance the process now. MR. SEGULJIC-So in looking at that map, it is on Lot Six, then? MRS. BRUNO-Were any of the other Board members on the Board when Hayes and Hayes came forward with their? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-Do you recall how prevalent the lupine was on theirs? MR. SEGULJIC-I remember it was a small, it was a relatively small area. There was a lot in the corner that was set aside, if I recall correctly. MRS. BRUNO-Do you remember which corner, near this? MR. SEGULJIC-The southern end, I think. MR. HUTCHINS-It was at the southern end. MRS. BRUNO-The southern end, so it's the other side. TOM NACE MR. NACE-For the record, Tom Nace, Nace Engineering. As far as I remember, there were three plants, and they were in the southeastern corner of the property. They were protected and set aside. I don't know whether they've propagated or not. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So are we comfortable with moving along then? MR. TRAVER-Yes, under those. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Is everyone comfortable with going forward with SEQRA, then? MR. NOORDSY-The letter and attachment don't specifically identify it as Lot Six. MR. HUTCHINS-No, they do not. We're saying it's primarily Lot Six, based on her map. MR. NOORDSY-Hers just identifies the whole subdivision. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. HUTCHINS-No, hers identifies the red circle on her map as the area she's talking about. MR. NOORDSY-Okay. MR. RAWSON-This is the subdivision right here. It goes here and goes straight down. She is saying right here would be, the cui de sac comes in here, and then One goes like this, or actually Six goes like this. Five goes back here to the corner, and so on. MR. NOORDSY-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So, could Staff verify it for us, that it's Lot Six? Can you verify for us that that is Lot Six, the area of concern? MR. BAKER-Lot Six, and, yes, it looks like the majority of it is Lot Six, perhaps, and a portion of Lot Five. There's no scale indicated on the O'Brien map. So that's just my educated opinion, I guess. MR. FORD-For the record, this is one of the things that I object to with having received material which we've not had an opportunity to analyze prior to the meeting, and accept that during the applicant's presentation. We've refrained from doing this in the past, and I think with good reason. We cannot, now, identify clearly, nobody on this panel has ever even seen that map, for example. I've got a problem with it. MR. BAKER-Yes. I haven't seen it until this evening. MR. FORD-Exactly. MR. SEGULJIC-So if we said Lot Five and Six. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. I expect to have this issue resolved about the time we have the other one resolved. MR. SEGULJIC-How does everyone feel about going forward? MR. NOORSDY-And you could have her identify specifically the area, the dimensions of that area that she's talking about. MR. HUTCHINS-I don't know that she will, Mark. MR. TRAVER-I think she can. She kind of stated that in her letter, just a general area. MR. RAWSON-Yes, she said south towards the houses, and that's where Five and Six are. MRS. BRUNO-Are you going to be able to go ahead with your grading of the road and leaving that side without there being too much erosion or an issue in that respect? MR. HUTCHINS-Well, we'll really have to, at least in my mind, I expect to have that all resolved before we actually build the road, but I want to be able to move this process forward and get to the Health Department. MR. RAWSON-I'm just trying to move it forward. It's not like I'm going to start out there with a shovel tomorrow. MR. SEGULJIC-Preliminary approval, and then you have to go to the Department of Health to get approval, then you have to come back to us. MR. HUTCHINS-Department of Health, and then we have to come back, and there'll be, no doubt, some modifications to show you at that point, but they generally don't like to look at plans unless you have Preliminary approval, and that process can take some time as well. MRS. STEFFAN-The SEQRA questions regarding this, will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species. Examples: Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat, and I think the important word there is significant. Based on her input, she's not indicating it's 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) significant. Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes, and then other impacts. MR. SEGULJIC-Is everyone comfortable going forward? MRS. STEFFAN-Based on Kathy's letter, I would go forward. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Let's go forward with it. MRS. STEFFAN-How does everybody else feel about it? MRS. BRUNO-I think as long as we put the caveat in the resolution, it should be fine. MR. FORD-I have a concern that we are opening up Pandora's Box, not on this project, but on future ones. MR. SEGULJIC-Don, are you comfortable with this going forward? MR. SIPP-Well, if we can delineate it in such a way that. MR. SEGULJIC-As I understand the applicant has agreed that they would allow that, any development of Five and Six would not be, Lots Five and Six would not be touched until that issue is resolved. MR. HUTCHINS-Until we have her take a look at it. That's fair. MR. RAWSON-Until it's resolved, yes. MR. SIPP-Even though it may not be the whole area. MR. RAWSON-Well, if it touches a lot, I don't have any control over that. If it's a little bit of Lot Five, it's still on Lot Five, right? MR. SIPP-Right. MR. FORD-And your road will come right to the edge of Lot Five and Six. Correct? It will abut Lots Five and Six. MR. RAWSON-It will abut. MR. FORD-So there will be construction there, construction of a road abutting Five and Six. MR. RAWSON-Abutting Five and Six, yes. MR. HUTCHINS-I mean, realistically, until that issue is resolved, it's not going to make sense to go forth and build this project. MR. RAWSON-Right. There's really no sense in me developing this whole thing if I've got to wait on two lots. All right. I mean, I've got to wait on those two lots. What I want to do is just be able to go forward. I'm not saying that I'm going to go out at the end of the year or January or February or March even and start grading and, you know, pushing all the dirt around. I just want to be able to move forward with the process here, so I don't have to wait further on down the line. That's why I'm trying to get this done. I'm not saying that I'm going to go out there and start moving the heavy equipment and building a road. MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, keep in mind that this is Preliminary review, and the Board can do a conditional Preliminary review, being very specific about the items you will require to be addressed before Final approval will be given. I believe the Subdivision Code allows up to a year after Preliminary approval before a Final application has to be submitted. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So that would provide time to clarify the questions remaining. That will give you adequate time to clarify the questions. We're going to put the conditions in, for example, Lots Five and Six be addressed. You have one year to come back before us and get Final approval. It's just a clarification of what we've been talking about. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. FORD-Does that allow them to construct roads on this site? MR. BAKER-They can't do any site work until Final approval is granted. MR. HUTCHINS-We can't do anything until we have Final approval from you. MR. SEGULJIC-But we're hung up because we can't take an action until we do SEQRA. That's where our hang up is. Okay. So I get the sense the Board is comfortable in going forward with SEQRA. Correct? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN- Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or or quantity? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Proposed action would change flood water flows. MRS. BRUNO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-No. Proposed action may cause substantial erosion. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Proposed action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Proposed action will allow development in a designated floodway. MRS. BRUNO-No. It depends on what the incompatible definition is for the previous. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the questions would be small to moderate, potential large or can impact be mitigated by the project change. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. TRAVER-I think it's being mitigated by the stormwater runoff plan. MRS. BRUNO-Yes, I think so, too. MR. SEGULJIC-So we'll say it's small to moderate, then. MRS. BRUNO-Right, small to moderate, with that. MR. TRAVER-And mitigated. MR. FORD-Able to be mitigated. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. FORD-Potentially. MR. SIPP-Maybe. MR. TRAVER-Potentially. MRS. STEFFAN-Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Small to moderate? MR. FORD-Unknown. MR. TRAVER-Unknown. MR. NOORDSY-I think what you could do here, if you wish, is on the first and second example indicate potential large impact, I realize it's small, and then in Part III of the EAF, you can indicate what your mitigation is, which is the imposition of the conditions. MRS. STEFFAN-But do we have to describe what those are? We don't know what those are because we're not sure. MR. NOORDSY-What, the mitigation measures? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. NOORDSY-The mitigation measures would be the imposition of the conditions of no development until that issue is addressed. MR. SEGULJIC-So, what we'll say is potential large impact, then, yes, potential large impact? MR. TRAVER-I think it's an impact that we can't quantify. MR. NOORDSY-Yes, I don't even know if the letter even justifies large. MR. RAWSON-Well, her statement? She says rather small. MRS. BRUNO-But then if you look, would the large be, would your return on investment turn it into being a large? I don't know if we want to look at it from that perspective or because it's just SEQRA we don't. In other words, if it turns out that you can't build on Five and Six, it turns into something that you may not be able to do as a whole, as the whole project. So do we look at it from that perspective, or only strictly from the environmental? 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. SEGULJIC-That's only environmental. Only what's here. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. That makes it easy that way. MR. FORD-The reason that DEC was involved here was that we stipulated that at the previous meeting, and now we are trying to pussyfoot around this letter, which is non- conclusive, and I go back to my concerns about doing exactly that. MR. TRAVER-However, that will be replaced by a letter which will be conclusive before anything further is done. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. We are responding to the letter. She's only identified along the southern border which has been identified on Lots Five and Six, and only areas that even potentially have rather small areas potentially. MR. TRAVER-But before we do anything on Final, Tom, we will have a letter, in advance, which will give us the missing information. That's my understanding anyway. MR. FORD-I guess I would have felt more comfortable with it had I had it in a timely fashion prior to the meeting. That's when we should be receiving these materials for our consideration. MR. TRAVER-Well, I agree. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, well, it's not a perfect process. That's a problem we always face. All right. So what do we want to do here? Say small to moderate? Is that what everyone wants to do? MR. FORD-We don't need to make it more imperfect. MR. TRAVER-That sounds like the best, yes. MRS. BRUNO-Sure. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it is small to moderate based on the letter that was supplied by Kathy O'Brien, and since we will be putting conditions on the Preliminary approval and we can still control the process that way. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Mr. Sipp? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Ford? MR. FORD-I feel more comfortable with that explanation. Thank you. MR. NOORDSY-Yes. I think your condition isn't no development. It's no Final approval. MR. SEGULJIC-No Final approval. Okay. All right. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. SIPP-No. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Based on the input of the Board and the question to Question Eight, Letter A and B identifying small to moderate impacts, and the Board's decision that those can be mitigated by the Planning Board imposing conditional approvals on the project, then I will make a motion for a Negative SEQRA declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 17-2006, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) THEODORE RAWSON, 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. Duly adopted this 23rd day of October, 2007, by the following vote: MRS. STEFFAN-Based on the input of the Board and the answer to Question Eight, Letter A and B, identifying Small to Moderate Impacts, and the Board's decision that those can be mitigated by the Planning Board imposing conditional approvals on the project, I will make a motion for a Negative SEQRA Declaration. AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So now what conditions does everyone see we need? MR. TRAVER-Well, we have the no cut. MR. SEGULJIC-We need the clearing limits on the Layout and Utilities Plan, proposed clearing limits identified on the Layout and Utilities Plan be identified as no cut zones. MRS. BRUNO-We need the note on Lot Five to indicate that the stormwater runoff from the house should be directed to the eastern, northeastern portion of the site, for protection of the Hayes properties. MRS. STEFFAN-I put away from the southern border. MRS. BRUNO-That works, too. MR. TRAVER-And we have recommendations from the City regarding the right of way. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. To address the Vision Engineering, didn't they address all the Vision Engineering comments? MR. SEGULJIC-No. Number Two, I think, is still outstanding. MR. SIPP-No disturbance on Lot Five and Six. MRS. BRUNO-Did we decide that we needed a special note for Lot Three? No, that was fully covered on the SWPPP, in terms of stormwater off the. Did you say that, Gretchen, 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) that we were going to have an extra note for Lot Three to ensure that when they do the individual stormwater drainages? MRS. STEFFAN-No. Mr. Hutchins said that that was included in the Stormwater Prevention Plan. MRS. BRUNO-SWPPP. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-But we can't table this to a date because it's out in the future, out in the Spring. We can't table this to a specific date because we don't know when they're going to be able to address the habitat issue. MR. BAKER-If you wanted to table the Preliminary review? You're looking at conditional approval. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, sorry. Thank you for that. MRS. STEFFAN-Mark, just a question. When we do the motion, when it comes to the SEQRA Declaration, it said that we've adopted a Negative SEQRA Declaration. So I'd put with conditions, or is that an appropriate terminology, or do I just? MR. NOORDSY-Yes, with the condition being that your Final approval is contingent upon resolution of the butterfly issue. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and I actually have that as a condition. So that will be clarified at the bottom. Okay. Let's give this a try. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 17-2006 THEODORE RAWSON, 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 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. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/21/07 tabled to 10/23/07; 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 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) 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 PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 17-2006 THEODORE RAWSON WITH CONDITIONS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five a Negative SEQRA Declaration with conditions, and this is approved with a condition that these issues must be addressed before the applicant can submit an application for Final approval: 1. A City of Glens Falls signoff regarding acceptable methods for building over the water line easement. 2. That the applicant will change the proposed limit of clearing, please reference the Layout and Utilities Plan. Those clearing limits will become no cut zones. 3. On Lot Five, the house roof runoff will be directed away from the southern border. 4. Because of the possibility of lupine on Lots Five and Six, no site development can occur until a lupine presence can be identified and presented to the Planning Board. 5. The applicant must address the Vision Engineering comments outstanding. Duly adopted this 23rd day of October, 2007, by the following vote: MR. FORD-Can I just ask for a clarification of the interpretation that no development means no development on this site. Is that accurate? MRS. STEFFAN-On the entire subdivision. MR. FORD-Correct. MRS. STEFFAN-That's not what I meant. I put that in the context when we had talked about Lots Five and Six no site development could occur, but actually because we've said that these items have to be addressed before the applicant can come back for Final approval, then in essence we've said that. MR. TRAVER-And the applicant has indicated that shouldn't be an issue. Right? MR. RAWSON-You lost me somewhere. MR. HUTCHINS-Right. In essence, if you're conditioning Final approval on the endangered species issue, then the discussion on Lots Five and Six doesn't really matter because we can't do anything until we have Final approval. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. FORD-On Five and Six or? MR. HUTCHINS-Anywhere. MR. FORD-That's what I wanted to clarify. We've got it. Thank you. AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. RAWSON-Thank you. MR. HUTCHINS-We appreciate it. MRS. STEFFAN-See you in the Spring. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I'd like to call back Site Plan No. 17-2004 for Adirondack Sports Complex modification. MR. FORD-I'm recusing myself for the aforementioned reason. MR. SV ARE-Can we inquire as to Mr. Ford's recusal? We didn't hear the reason. MR. FORD-I stated it before. I don't want any, even the slightest appearance of impropriety, and one of the co-owners of the Sports Complex is also an independent contractor where I work at Realty USA. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. The floor is yours. MRS. BRUNO-May I ask one question before we go on of Counsel? What type of vote are we looking for, just a recommendation so that doesn't require numbers from the Planning Board in terms of their being a majority vote or anything like that? MR. NOORDSY-You would need a majority of the entire Board. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. BAKER-You're doing two things here. One, you're approving an amended Site Plan, and the second is you're making a recommendation to the Town Board on a set of performance or threshold criteria that you think would be appropriate for a blanket, as it were, Transient Merchant permit, and what it would mean is if subsequent Transient Merchant applications were determined by Staff to be within those threshold criteria, that application would not be referred to the Planning Board. It would only be addressed by the Town Board. MR. SEGULJIC-Do we divide this into two components? MR. BAKER-Yes, you should. MR. SEGULJIC-The Site Plan first, and then we'll talk about the Transient issue? MR. SV ARE-Sure. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Let's do that. MR. SV ARE-First, I certainly appreciate your indulgence for waiting to be here. If we're going to do the Site Plan first, then I'd turn it over to Mr. Nace who's going to be discussing that. MR. NACE-Okay. I guess we're really here to answer questions. I think we've addressed all the engineering comments that he had. I think the only other Staff comment that was left was regarding the light levels in the back west side of the Dome, where there's some off pavement parking used only by employees and only during special events, and we felt that the lighting back there was sufficient for that type of use. That will not be an open to the public area during any events, and I think the Town Engineer, if you read his comments, kind of agreed, that even though it doesn't meet the minimum light levels in the Town Code, based upon the actual use, proposed use of it, it would be adequate. So I'm here to answer questions, if you've got any. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess, one issue is lighting levels. How does everyone feel about that? MRS. STEFFAN-I'm okay. If it's low lighting levels, I'm happy with. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, less is better. MR. TRAVER-I think in this case it's the perfect situation. It's better to have them on the low side than on the high side. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now the other issues. Now isn't there also the parking, we're here to approve the parking? Is that also an issue? MR. NACE-Okay. You want a rundown of what the, since it has been a while, I'll give you a quick rundown of what the modified Site Plan issues are. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. NACE-There is, well, let me do it with the plan in front of me because that's easier. Okay. I've kind of clouded up the areas where we've changed. We've added gravel parking on the outside of the main parking lot to the east of the Dome. We've striped some, four additional parking spaces beside the vehicle airlock. We've added eight employee parking spaces on pavement at the south end of the Dome. We've added 18 off pavement event only, employee only parking places to the east of the Dome. We've added new pavement parking areas, or parking spaces at the northwest corner of the parking lot north of the Dome. We've, instead of cross striping some of the paved no parking areas in here, which we thought, or that Doug thought might be kind of unsightly when it was all done, he's added no parking letters or no parking words painted on the pavement, instead of the cross striping. We've added 25 overflow off pavement parking places to the south of the southern Lacrosse field, and I might point out the original approved Site Plan had a note on it, and we had discussed this with the Planning Board during the original approvals, that for events we would have overflow parking on the grass. So even though we've kind of shown them here because this is the way, if we can organize it and make it most efficient, the off site parking places have always been a part of the original approval. We've also indicated a trailer storage area for vendors during events, and we've, instead of reserving this just as blank space waiting for the second Dome to occur, if it ever does, we've instead, Doug instead put a softball field in here to be able to use that area. Also, after looking at some of the landscaping that was originally proposed and seeing how things fit after the Dome was constructed, Doug is requesting a decrease in the amount of landscaping provided, mostly in buffer areas along the southern and western side of the Dome where there is a lot of existing buffer, treed buffer, and also a slight reduction in number of street trees down along the entryway, mostly to fit these in with the sprinkler pattern that he utilizes with the fields. That's in a nutshell. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Any comments from the Board? Everyone all set? MR. SIPP-What happens to the snow, where do you plow it? DOUG MILLER MR. MILLER-We push it wherever we can. Last, obviously the Valentine's Day storm this past winter was probably one of the more significant snowstorms we've had in quite a while, and we are able to contain everything on site. The area to the west, towards the Northway, has a very large stormwater detention channel around that, and we've pushed a lot into there. We can push a lot, that area takes the most snow of anything. We've had it stacked about 14 feet high. A lot of snow gets stacked on each of the islands and to the north of the support building. MR. SIPP-Do you use salt? MR. MILLER-Do we salt? Very limited. More for pedestrian safety or public safety when they're walking in and out of the building. I had more problems last year with cars that wanted to park along of the pavement and kill some of the grass from the salt that was on the vehicles when they came in. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So just for clarification, your new proposed plan is going to cut into the prior, the no cut zone that was established prior. MR. MILLER-No, no cutting's been changed. MR. SEGULJIC-No cutting's been changed? MR. MILLER-We're not changing any of the cut lines. We're not cutting anything new. MR. SEGULJIC-Not where that temporary trailer storage? MR. MILLER-No, that's all there now, that's all existing right now. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. MR. MILLER-All we did on that, as Tom said, was just to kind of identify any parking that we have off parking or have identified off pavement, we were previously approved for in the original Site Plan. We're just kind of indentifying it now. It makes it a little easier when we've got people parking vehicles, particularly for large events, to know how that should be set up, how best to set it up. So that's all that was for. MR. SEGULJIC-AII right. So does anyone have any comments at all? Do we have public comment? Is there a public comment on a modification? MR. BAKER-I believe the public hearing was left open, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So does anyone wish to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MRS. STEFFAN-Well, we've already done SEQRA on it. MR. SEGULJIC-We've already done SEQRA, right? MR. BAKER-This is previous SEQRA actually, yes. There is one additional comment that was submitted by the Fire Marshal that I'd like to read into the record. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. BAKER-This is dated October 22nd, addressed to Chairman Hunsinger from Michael Palmer, the Fire Marshal, "Mr. Hunsinger: On 9/24/2007 I submitted a review of the proposed plan for the above facility which would allow a master template submittal for non-sporting events. The template represented the worst case scenario, and proposed that if all other intended events fell within the framework, a full Planning Board review would not be required. I raised several issues in my review, related to the site and these types of events. My intention was never to derail such pro~ects, but to keep in the forefront a need for a long term traffic. On Friday, October 19t , I had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Doug Miller to discuss my concerns. He brought to light some aspects of his proposal that I did not have available to me previously. After a lengthy discussion and review of the complete proposal, I am confident that Mr. Miller has satisfied my concerns, and is fully cognizant that efforts must continue to find a long range solution to the parking and traffic issues for the site. I would hope that my correspondence would put to rest any concerns and allow this project to receive the approval of the Planning Board and move forward. I would be happy to answer any questions or concerns from the Board. Respectfully, Michael J. Palmer, Fire Marshal Town of Queensbury" MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. I guess the only issue I have is one of two comments. There's one outstanding issue from Vision Engineering. MR. NACE-What he's talking about is these parking spaces here and the circulation for fire access. Originally we had five here. After I looked at it, we reduced it down to four, and he's questioning at four do we still have adequate travel width through here. The ring access width is 20 feet wide, as required by Code, and if you a drew a line straight from there to there, for truck travel, we have, from the end of this parked car here out to that we have 22 feet. There's adequate travel space. MRS. STEFFAN-So it should be indicated on the travel (lost word). MR. NACE-You can condition that. I'll mention that on the final plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and get the engineer's signoff and we're all good to go. So with that I'll close the public hearing. MR. BAKER-That's correct. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. SEGULJIC-And SEQRA's been completed. MR. BAKER-SEQRA was done with the original 2004 approval. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So the only condition we would have then is the signoff from the engineer. Anything else? MR. NACE-Excuse me, Stu, should they reconfirm that there have been no significant changes to change SEQRA? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. BAKER-I don't know that that's required, but you could make that part of your motion for approval, acknowledge that there's no significant change that would affect the previous SEQRA approval. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. The motion actually makes. Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 17-2004 ADIRONDACK SPORTS COMPLEX, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes modifications to a previously approved site plan [see staff notes below] and is seeking a Planning Board recommendation based on performance criteria for future Transient Merchant events so that individual review and recommendation is not needed for each future event. 2. A public hearing is scheduled for 9/18/07 and 10/23/07, 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 comply with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code, 5. 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, 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, 8. If applicable, Item 8 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 MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 17-2004 ADIRONDACK SPORTS COMPLEX, 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, this is a modification, so the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the proposed modifications do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and therefore no further SEQRA 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) review is necessary. This is approved with the condition that the applicant receives Vision Engineering signoff. Duly adopted this 23rd day of October, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now on to the second issue. That was the easy one. MR. SVARE-Thank you. Now just by way of background, the reason we're here again is because Section 160-8 of the Code concerning the Transient Merchant and Plan and application in our opinion is broken. This has created an undue hardship for businesses in the Town, and we're here based on the Town Board's recommendation to try to amend that and try to fix that. So at our last meeting, September 18th, the Board had requested guidance from the Town Board on this issue. Our client set a letter to the Town Supervisor stating just that, stating that a joint meeting may be required, and requesting a joint meeting. In response, Supervisor Stec responded, I don't see what the confusion is. We simply want the Planning Board to review and set their approval parameters for a generic, not specific application, as these are essentially the same from the exterior of the Dome, really just hours and parking issues, and what Mr. Miller has come up with is a very sound, generic plan based on the model of the boat show, and specifically all events occurring within the Dome and support those building at the Complex, and all parking be confined to the parking areas at and around the Dome, the Morris Field parking lot, the West Glens Falls Tech Meadows Field and the West Glens Falls Fire Station, and the plan that was submitted had the application of the boat show and had all these specific parameters with it. You've seen the comments of the Fire Marshal, and I would just reiterate that Mr. Palmer notes that I am confident Mr. Miller has satisfied my concern and is fully cognizant that all efforts must continue to find a long range solution to the parking and traffic issues for the site, and he goes on to note that Mr. Miller has fully responded to him and that Mr. Palmer is on board with this plan. So, I guess that we, at this point, based on the Supervisor's comments, we'd really like to see this move forward. It's created unnecessary burden on the people who are trying to do business here in the Town, and I guess, Doug if you want to make some further comments, I'd be happy to answer questions. MR. MILLER-I think it's important to make sure that, for the record, our application is asking for, at the request of the Town Board, a generic approval for events that fit within the Town Code. One of the Fire Marshal's concerns was how will he be notified so that he can start the inspection process, because he inspects everyone of our events before they occur, and part of what he wasn't aware of is that we still have to submit a Transient Merchant application. It won't require a Site Plan unless we're doing something outside of that Town Code. It won't require some of the more detailed Site Plan issues unless it's outside that template, but we still have to provide the information from the show promoter, details about the show, letters from the off site parking facility we would use to support the use of those sites. So, all of those things still will need to be submitted. His other comment, one of Mike's other comments was what if they don't have parking? Somebody, maybe Staff, I think you made the comment, that, well, maybe we should get a long term approval. Nobody's going to give us a long term approval. All the approvals will be on an event by event basis. We still have to submit that Transient Merchant application on an event by event basis. What this generic approval will allow us to do is to shorten that process from, which is a minimum 60 days, and for a show promoter or event promoter to, some for the boat show we're a year in advance, but for other events that we're doing, like the Fine Art Show this Fall, or this Summer, that was only 60 days ahead of time that we really got all the issues worked out so we could have that event, but now she needs another 60 days to potentially get the Transient Merchant approval, so then she can let the vendors know, yes, we can have the event. So it's a very long drawn out process, and actually she did start back in March of this year, but it took until August before we got the approvals. It's just a step to shorten the approval process. We'd like to talk about other issues with the Transient Merchant process, but that's a different subject. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So. MR. MILLER-So I guess questions. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. SIPP-This document which I'm looking at right here, which is blanket. MR. SV ARE-Okay. That was what we had to submit for the boat show, and the fine art show and the Adirondack Living show, and the AKC dog show. We had to submit that every single time, and that's the step that the Town Board would like us to try and shorten somewhat. MR. SIPP-I'm starting on Page Five, which is a pre-submission conference, which outlines not a heck of a lot. You've got a lot of things that would be repeated if we're talking about the same spot all the time. MR. SVARE-Exactly, and that was exactly the intent at the Town Board was to try and stop repeating that. If we come outside the Dome, if we have tents set up outside or do other things that are outside of this framework, then we need to go through the entire process from A to Z. MR. SIPP-So for the boat show you'd have to go through it because of the parking being off site. MR. SV ARE-Part of the blanket approval was to include and encompass only the three parking spaces that we mentioned, which were the Morris Field, the West Glens Falls Fire Station and the Glens Falls Tech Meadows. If we need something else, beyond that, we need to come back to this Board for the entire process, because we've gone outside that template. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then. MR. SVARE-And if the Tech Meadows park is no longer available to us, which very likely could happen in the not too distant future, we wouldn't be able to do the event, or we'd just find some alternative site, and again, that would trigger the requirement for us to come back before the Board and submit the entire process, or go through the entire process. MR. SEGULJIC-And so for each event you have to go to the Morris Field, West Glens Falls Tech Park to get approval? Not within the plan, but. MR. SVARE-Yes, if we want to utilize their parking. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. So you have to go talk to them anyway. MR. SVARE-Yes, we have to submit each time to the City of Glens Falls to use the Tech Meadows site. We go to the fire station and meet with their Board each time to get approval to use their site. We meet with the Facilities Director and the Athletic Director of Glens Falls to get approval to use their site, for each event, and they will submit a letter to us that would be part of the application for each event that would be submitted to the Town. MR. SEGULJIC-And then what triggers the Fire Marshal, again? MR. SV ARE-The submission of the application. MR. SEGULJIC-The submission to the Town Board triggers the Fire Marshal to do a review to make sure everything's okay. Okay. So at these events lighting doesn't change, your traffic. You submitted a traffic plan, shuttle buses. All the activities are going to occur inside the Dome. If anything occurs outside the Dome. MR. SV ARE-We're outside the scope of the Town. MR. SEGULJIC-Outside the scope. So the noise shouldn't be an issue under this proposal. You're not going to affect stormwater any differently. Okay. MR. SIPP-So if we can eliminate some of these pages, like 11, 12, probably 10 also, because they would be almost the same for every. MRS. STEFFAN-We're just making a general recommendation. MR. SIPP-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-I don't think we have to make a motion on this. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. SIPP-Page 11 goes through the Site Development Data. MR. SV ARE-Correct. Once we've done this, why should we have to re-do it is kind of the thought process. We're not changing anything here. We're not changing anything in the checklist. We're not changing anything in the SEQRA Short Form. We would have to submit the signature pages, the vendor information pages, which would be Pages 8, where it's got TBD, Pages 10, and the signature page which is Page 15, at a minimum, and then also the shuttle map and the letters of approval from each of the off site parking vendors. MR. BAKER-Let me offer a suggestion, if I may. MR. SEGULJIC-Please do. MR. BAKER-And, Doug, tell me if this would suit what you're looking for. One of the sheets you submitted was the event parking and traffic plan, which lays out the off site parking spots where parking for attendees would be allowed, and then the order of parking and bus service. If this were to, if the items laid out in this were set as the minimum criteria, would that work for you? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. BAKER-Where you'd have to document that, yes, you have permission to use all these, yes you have, you've rented the appropriate bus facilities and they've agreed to work the event. One of the things you also have included in here was a letter from the nearby self-storage unit, authorizing the storage of trailers there. Would you want that included as well? MR. MILLER-For the boat show they store their boat trailers there, where they unload their boats. MR. BAKER-Okay. Are there other items you would want included? MR. MILLER-I don't see any others. I just want to be sure that everybody's looking at, the one that says blanket Transient Market/Transient Merchant Market application approval request is sort of a generic one that we would fill out and add to. The one that's further in the packet, there's a sample application completed, and this was for the boat show. So it actually, I don't know, Mr. Sipp, if you were looking at that one or not, but that one towards the back is basically a repeat of what's in the front, but it has everything that we've had to submit, including the letters of approval for the off site parking locations, which are towards the back. It concludes this drawing which we are required, by Planning Staff, to develop to show, justify how many cars we could fit over at Morris Field in the area we were looking to use, not Morris Field, Tech Meadows. Those are the things that I think, yes I think we'd want to have in there as is the blanket approval, the template, so to speak. MR. SEGULJIC-So what they're looking for from us is a recommendation, for example, stating that so long as the applicant submits the following information as part of his Transient, the Planning Board is fine with that. MR. BAKER-That's correct. MR. SEGULJIC-So we should identify the type of information that should be submitted. MR. BAKER-In excruciating detail, yes. I thought it was going to be easy. MR. TRAVER-We could use the template. MR. BAKER-Yes, why don't we start making a list. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I think we do have to do it in detail. I mean, when this Site Plan came in originally it was for a sports complex. I mean, many of us looked at that plan for, you know, the kinds of things that you were looking to do, soccer fields, ball fields and those kinds of things. We didn't anticipate that you would be doing some of the things that you're doing. MR. SV ARE-I don't want to correct it, because that was, I mean, we've gone back through the minutes and we've gone and actually we've pulled them up in the Town 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) documents that we did talk about doing four to six events of this type per year, and we're doing four right now. MRS. STEFFAN-Did you specifically list boat shows, dog shows, art shows? MR. MILLER-I think we may have at that time talked about boat shows because we were already in negotiations, prior to putting a shovel in the ground, with the folks from the Eastern Marine Trades Association. Exactly what type of events? No. Beyond that we didn't identify, but we did talk, and it is in the minutes. In fact, Mr. Stec references that in one of his letters that, yes, this was something that was talked about during all that preliminary Site Plan approval process. So it wasn't something that is new, but it is something that was, it wasn't the main thrust of all the conversations and discussion. The dome was the major thrust. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and the neighbors were concerned about the parking. I mean, there was considerable public comment about some of the traffic flow and the parking. MR. MILLER-Actually there was very little. In the six public hearings we had, we had two or three, and they needed to see where the Dome was located. One concern was about the situation of the location of the Dome and I can remember in three or four cases, people from Hidden Hills came up. We actually stopped at one of the meetings, brought them up, the Planning Board allowed us to bring those people up, showed them the layout of the site. They said we're fine. We have no problem. MRS. STEFFAN-Wasn't your application the application where the folks, I think it was in Hidden Hills, came with a petition? MR. MILLER-No. Absolutely not. That may have been the hockey rink, which is in the corner, but it wasn't for ours. There's been no petitions of any kind. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I might be confusing it with another application, then. MR. MILLER-Yes, let's make sure we're clear on that. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So why don't we go through and make a list of the items we need that would need to be included. You started a list. So why don't we start with that. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. The list that the Staff came up with was minimum and maximum numbers for parking, patrons, which of course in your plan it's 250. That's what you're approved for, 250 people. MR. MILLER-If I could back up just for a second, I think the petition you're referring to was for the storage units across from Hidden Hills. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. What I was talking about a little earlier. Okay. MR. MILLER-Yes. I just want to get the right one on the record. Because you never know who reads them later and how it can get misconstrued. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Patrons, shuttle trips, satellite parking lots, hours of events, whether the events are indoors or outdoors, and defined areas on site that will be used. I got that list off the Staff Notes, identified those as approval parameters. Minimum/maximum numbers for parking, patrons, and according to your drawings you have a capacity of 250 max are allowed in the Dome at one time. MR. MILLER-The facility has a capacity of 901 occupants, both the support building and the Dome, because we've got the entire support building. We put, vendors are in the support building. We use the back room, the multi-function room, for a restaurant. The entire building is utilized. MRS. STEFFAN-I thought I got that right off the plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I remember there was a discussion about that last time. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Shuttle trips. MR. MILLER-That was out of the Fire Marshal's comments. He thought that this was just for the Dome and not the entire building. He did not have this packet when he was 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) commenting. That was where he said he was, basically he had one coversheet, he said, and that was it he said. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we have parking, patrons, shuttle trips, satellite parking lots, hours of events, whether the events are indoors or outdoors, and then define areas that are to be used. MR. SEGULJIC-Anybody else have anything? MR. SIPP-Is this beyond the scope of this, as to whose insurance covers what? In other words, on the school bus, obviously the school is covered. If somebody had, the bus is in an accident, somebody is hurt, then it becomes the school's responsibility, or the person that hired the bus? MR. SV ARE-I know this was raised last time, the last time we were here, with Mr. Fuller. I guess the comment last time was in a lawsuit everybody is going to get sued that can be sued. MR. SIPP-Yes, that's what I mean. MR. MILLER-We don't contract for the bus service. The event promoters contract for the shuttle service. Non-profit organizations only can utilize the facilities of the school, if the school wants to contract with them. If it's a for profit organization, for example, the Adirondack Living Show, was not allowed to use the school's buses for shuttles because they're a for profit organization. They contracted with Upstate Transit, and Upstate Transit provided the vehicles and drivers. MR. SIPP-How about somebody, some kid climbs up on a boat and falls off and breaks an arm? MR. MILLER-All the vendors, all the exhibitors and the show promoter are required to provide a certificate of insurance. MR. SIPP-Do they have to send you a letter stating this? Should that be included in this? MR. MILLER-The contract spells that out, that they have to provide that. MR. SIPP-Who is responsible for cleaning up the parking lots? MR. MILLER-We take care of, in the contract it spells out that we take care of the normal daily type of trash and refuse removal, and the show promoters are required to leave the site in the same condition it was when they arrived, and we have a security deposit for most of the events which allow us to then recover our cost if we have to take care of them. I don't want it looking unsightly. MR. SIPP-Now, this may have nothing to do with it, but I saw an advertisement in the paper from DEC for removal of soil for Luzerne Road site because of PCB's, and it gives me a good clue that they're talking about that high tech field. MR. NOORSDY-Right next to it. MR. SIPP-Right next to it, to the west. MR. NOORSDY-Yes, there's a site that the State acquired. I just happened to hear the DEC representative describe it, but that was, I don't remember the source of the contamination, but it was dumped upon for many years. MR. MILLER-If you're going in the direction that where we're using it for parking, if there's a PCB contamination issue, are we parking on that? Is that the direction you're going? MR. SIPP-Well, I didn't know where, I know that there was, at the time, concerns about PCB's being dumped on that field, but in what? MR. MILLER-It's more to the west where they've been doing some core sampling over the course of the last year or so. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. NOORDSY-There's a separate site owned by the State, that's subject to the clean up. MR. MILLER-Which is not where we park. MR. SEGULJIC-Clarification. So we come up with this list, correct me if I'm wrong, but within the boat application, you identified 868 parking spaces, if I'm understanding this correctly. So what we should do is sayan event within the umbrella of 868 parking, requiring 868 parking spots or less to meet this envelope? Is that the detail we need to go into? MR. MILLER-On this page here, is that the one you're referring to? It identifies 116 at the Adirondack Sports Complex, plus 84 off pavement. I would want to amend that to our new number that we were just approved for in the previous resolution, which is now, Tom, correct me, I think it's 224. There are 68 paved parking spaces at Morris Field. The City of Glens Falls Tech Meadow site, we had 500 plus unpaved parking spaces, for a total of 868 at that point in time, which was more than adequate for the boat show. At the Tech Meadows site alone, this drawing that we've had to supply, identifies 850 by itself. So I would prefer to include that 850. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Excuse me for one second, but is that what we're looking to do? MR. BAKER-Yes. That's exactly what the Town Board's looking for. MRS. STEFFAN-But then, I mean, the Town Board wants us to set the parameters for them, and then they can do the yea, nay? MR. BAKER-Exactly, and the result would be, in subsequent Transient Merchant applications, if they submit an application that meets these defined parameters, the application would require Town Board review only and no review to the Planning Board. It just tightens up the process. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Then why can't we just tell the Town Board that it's reasonable for you to use the prior templates, you know, as long as the applicant is falling within the same events that they've done before, what's the problem? Anything that falls outside of that needs Site Plan Review. MR. BAKER-You can do that. What I'd recommend is define, you know, list the elements of previous approvals that fit. Having, you know, X number of parking spaces available off site, having a shuttle service in place, and documented to be in place, to serve those off site, having an off site place for boat storage. MR. MILLER-When that's determined to be needed. MR. BAKER-Yes, as determined for need, that type of thing. MR. MILLER-The one question I've got, we identified parking spaces, which is not something that is requested as part of the Transient Merchant application. Are we getting into an area, am I having to provide things that aren't required? Does the Adirondack Balloon Festival have to tell how many vehicles they're going to park or how many people are coming in there? I don't want to have my hands tied. MRS. STEFFAN-No, but at the same time, they have a lot more capacity than you have at your site. MR. MILLER-Correct, which begs the question, it's a much greater impact on the municipality, on the Town and on the residents. Should there be delineation of what's being done there? MR. SEGULJIC-Why don't we just try and come up with a list, spend a few minutes doing that. Like for example, in your plan here for the boat show, you identified 868 spaces. What would you like to see? MR. MILLER-Our new number that we have for the site, on site, because obviously the. MR. SEGULJIC-Just the total, between your spot and Morris Field, the City of Glens Falls Tech Park, just so we can keep this thing rolling. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. MILLER-Okay. Let me total up some numbers while you go on. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Then we would want documentation for available shuttle service. Now we get into how are we going to know if it's adequate? I mean, I'm not a traffic engineer. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. I don't think the Town should be regulating that. That's a customer service issue. MR. BAKER-Document that the shuttle service. MR. SEGULJIC-Will be provided. MR. BAKER-Will be provided. MR. SEGULJIC-Then we should also have signage. MR. TRAVER-I wonder if we might also want to make recommendation that these parameters be reviewed on some periodic basis. MRS. STEFFAN-Absolutely. MR. SEGULJIC-Just, but let's just get through the parameters first. Let's concentrate on that. We have enough trouble doing that. Does anybody, all events need to occur inside the building, inside the dome. Provide evidence that off site trailer parking is available if required. Do we have to say Fire Marshal review, or is that already triggered? MR. BAKER-That's already done. MR. SEGULJIC-If everything's happening in the Dome, noise should not be an issue, then, I assume. Should we get into signage, saying that they have to have signage posted at the Dome saying there's auxiliary parking lots and shuttles provided? MR. BAKER-Doug, has that been a previous requirement? MR. MILLER-I'm sorry. I'm getting questions in three different ears here, and I've only got two. MR. TRA VER-Signage, with regard to parking, signage at the Dome with regard to off site parking, was that a requirement? MR. MILLER-It has not been a requirement, no, but prudently we do it. MR. BAKER-But it's been something you've provided. MR. MILLER-We do it for traffic control, because the last thing I want is traffic control issues. MR. SEGULJIC-So we'll say that signage at the Dome, signage at the entrance. MR. MILLER-Well, we put signage on Veterans Road indicating that the shuttle parking is available at the Tech Meadows site, Fire Station if we use that. We also have a signage the end of Veterans Road indicating that shuttle service is available at Morris Field, and then we also have a sign usually at the Dome, at the entrance to the Dome, indicating that off site parking is available this way. MR. SEGULJIC-AII right. So at the entrance to the Dome we should have a sign. I don't know, should we get into excruciating details as to where a sign should go? MRS. STEFFAN-No, but there is another signage issue, any of the promotional signage that goes up for anyone of these events needs to be taken down 48 hours post. Actually there's two signs, and I don't know if they're still, but up until about three weeks ago, one for that art show was still at the Price Chopper in front of Mohan's, and there was another one on Main Street, purple and white. MR. MILLER-Okay. Perhaps that's something I should add to the contract, then, that, because I don't even think about things that are that distant from our site. I worry about that corridor for shuttle traffic flow. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. BAKER-Tom, responding to your question should you recommend specifics on where the signs should go. I go back to Gretchen's earlier statement, that that's really a customer service issue. If the Town Board finds that that's an issue, they're certainly going to raise it. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. BAKER-But if you don't feel it's necessary to list it as one of the criteria, don't. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. SIPP-If you were to get into sound or smells, if you were to have a four wheeler or a snowmobile. MR. MILLER-We wouldn't do anything that's got engines running in the Dome, because. MR. SIPP-Well, what about outside? In other words, if somebody hires an area to test out, people to test run on. MR. MILLER-Keep in mind what our original request was that we want, this is for things that are happening inside the Dome. Once we take part of the event outside the Dome, we're outside the template, excuse me, we're outside the framework of the template we're asking for. I'd like to include that, but. MR. SIPP-Well, when they say smells. MR. MILLER-Where do we go with that one? If we bring the Taste of the North Country into the Dome, do I have to? MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Lighting, for example, no increase in lighting. MR. MILLER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. No increase in radiation. MR. MILLER-I hope not. MR. SEGULJIC-The only thing I have is the lighting so far, and listing hours of events, but we can't put any restrictions on that. MRS. STEFFAN-Hours of events. MR. SEGULJIC-Just list hours of events. MR. MILLER-That's part of the application. So the Town Board will review that. MR. SEGULJIC-So we're just going to go through our Site Plan Review criteria. They're not going to affect design standards. They're not going to affect site development. Stormwater you're not going to impact. Lighting, you said no increase in lighting. Landscape design. Since most people park in the parking lot we'll be okay. Environmental wetlands, noise, air quality, aesthetics. You're not going to affect any of that. Neighborhood character. You've made conditions to get everybody off the road hopefully and into various parking lots. Involved agencies. MRS. STEFFAN-No monster truck shows coming up or anything? MR. MILLER-We do have landscaping for the home shows that go on inside the Dome. MR. SEGULJIC-That's inside the Dome. Signage. All right. So maybe what we should do is we'll read down what we've come up with, and see what everybody's impression is. MRS. STEFFAN-Parking. You did come up with, 868 was the number we had. You were coming up with a different number. Mr. Miller, do you have a different number for the parking? MR. MILLER-If we put, all our spots total up, with the new numbers, to 1342. I would rather leave that. We won't go that high anyway. That's why for the boat show we used a lower number, but I'd rather leave that number for the Town Board, based on, you can 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) set a max. If you want to set a max at 1250, I'm fine with 1250 for a max. I have 901 in the Dome, but with people traveling back and forth on buses, we'll never hit it. MR. SEGULJIC-Why don't we say 1250. MR. MILLER-Sometimes what we get are vendors that may park off site. Some of those sites, a lot of, for the one show most of Morris Field, the sites were used up by, they put their trailers there. I ask them not, I suggested he not. I suggested a different place, but that's where he wanted to use it. It's his event. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. MILLER-So didn't utilize Morris Field for customer parking. So, I just want to make sure, we're chewing up parking spaces for trailers. So that's why the number may be higher than what we can actually have. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, they should provide documentation that there is shuttles available. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we talked about parking. If they utilize their ancillary lots, they can get up to 1250 parking spaces, and I put a little asterisk. This may be reduced if satellite parking is not available. That way if any of the satellite parking that you would utilize is not available, that number will obviously change. MR. SEGULJIC-But what we're going to say is that they need to provide. MR. NOORDSY-This is the maximum. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. You need to provide the letter of approval from those various lots. So we're saying that this. MR. BAKER-Do you want to set a minimum number of off street parking spot required as well? MR. MILLER-Yes. Some of us, we don't need any off site parking. MR. TRAVER-Do the letters of approval that you obtained list the number of spaces at their respective locations? MR. MILLER-They have not. MR. TRAVER-They have not. MR. SEGULJIC-Why don't we say, a maximum of 1250 with documentation indicating that 1250 spots are available. Wherever you get them from. MR. MILLER-We are identifying the places, actually, I like your statement, wherever you get them from. I like that language. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, what difference does it make where he gets them from? MR. BAKER-The point is, he should document where it's from. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, he has to document that he's getting them, but I mean, if he ends up finding spots in Corinth, and he's shuttling people over, it doesn't make any difference to us, so long as he documents that he has the spots that he's asking. MRS. STEFFAN-If we start to go back to the purpose of this whole thing, it's really about event management, and so, you know, the Town is just looking for an understanding of what the applicant is going to do and how it will affect the Town, and that's the same kinds of things that we look at with Site Plan Review, and it's traffic and it's noise an it's impact on the community. So if we think about it from that context, what is the Town Board looking for from us. We've identified the hours of the events. We don't have an issue. MR. SEGULJIC-No, but they have to identify the hours of events, is all we're saying. We're not going to limit their hours. MR. TRAVER-That's still going to be on their application. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So we're just looking at the Site Plan Review stuff. MR. MILLER-We may have some events that run from noon to eight p.m., and others from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., but those hours have to be identified on the application, which will still have to be reviewed and approved by the Town Board. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I'm feeling a little pressured and a little uncomfortable right now with all the debate that's going on, and I don't know whether we need to do this right now, but could we come up with this list by the next Planning Board meeting? MRS. BRUNO-I'd like to make a statement along that, I had pre-written it up, and the statement that I'm about to make is in no way directed toward the applicant. You've been diligent in your preparation and you've been patient with the Town. It's more for the record. I'm disappointed in Supervisor Stec's response to the Planning Board's request for a workshop with the Town Board. I was the initial member to request this workshop, and I would like to repeat my intent for the suggestion. It was not based on confusion. I would prefer to have been actively engaged in discourse with the Town Board regarding the eight pages of Transient Merchant Local Law. By making these recommendations without clear interpretation of the Law it may, and I stress may, cause a disservice to the applicant before us and to the Town of Queensbury, and I think that as Mrs. Steffan just indicated, it's quite a lot, and if we had gone forward with the workshop, we wouldn't feel quite so pressured, and I think it would have been easier for all of us involved. MR. SIPP-In addition to that, I would like to add that when this was brought up before the Town Board, the Town Supervisor said it doesn't take a rocket scientist to do this, intimating that we weren't bright enough to get it done, we had to have it with them, and that does offend me. No reflection on you, because you're caught in the middle. MR. MILLER-We are caught desperately in the middle. MR. SIPP-But I wish to put that on the record and let Mr. Stec chew on that a while. MR. MILLER-And we're caught desperately in the middle because this has gone on since almost two years now, and we've got. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. We'll come up with a list, and what we'll say is, this is the blanket Transient approval. So long as the event does not exceed 1250, a requirement of 1250 parking spaces, documents, approval of the use of the various parking lots, off site parking will be provided. No increase in lighting on site, events to be conducted indoors. Documented space for trailer parking if required. MR. MILLER-If required? MR. SEGULJIC-If required. MR. MILLER-Okay MR. SEGULJIC-Documentation that shuttle services available will be available to the off site parking. MR. MILLER-If necessary. MR. SEGULJIC-If necessary, and list of hours of operation. MRS. STEFFAN-Signage. MR. SEGULJIC-And signage be provided indicating that off site shuttle parking is available. MR. MILLER-Now that list of items is what we are to provide with each application, is what you're saying? MR. SEGULJIC-That's what I understand the Town Board wants from us. Is that correct? MR. BAKER-That's my understanding. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. SEGULJIC-When I look at Site Plan Review, those are the only, I mean, they're not going to affect stormwater. They're not going to affect landscaping. They're not going to affect site development. I mean, just quickly. We have design standards. They're not going to affect that. We have site development design. They're not going to affect that. Stormwater sewage design. Well, that's a good question. Your septic system can handle all these people? MR. MILLER-We haven't had any problem with events we've run so far. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. That was a bad thought on my part. You're not going to affect lighting. You're not going to affect landscaping. Not going to affect, wetlands, noise, air quality, aesthetics, neighborhood quality, so long as you keep everyone off the roads, and everything's indoors. I mean, that's up to the Town Board to decide if they can grant you, that's the information we're looking for. The Town Board is also the Health Department. So we'll let them sort that one out. Anything else? MRS. STEFFAN-Promotional signage has to be removed within 48 hours. MR. MILLER-Gretchen, what's the current status on, and maybe that's got to go back to Stu, on signage? For the sign requirements, did you want for the parking and that sort, that'll be just part of our event operation? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. There are Codes, we have Codes on signage. MR. MILLER-So it's the normal sign application process. MR. BAKER-For event signage? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. BAKER-I'm not sure what paperwork is required for event signage at this point. MR. MILLER-Because we'd have to follow whatever. When you say 48 hours, I mean, we've still got to follow whatever the, I didn't know if there was something different when you said the 48 hours? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, at this point, it's just a recommendation. MR. BAKER-Well, it goes without saying that any applicable laws, you know, local laws, they'd be held to. MRS. STEFFAN-Like, I know that there's a statute or criteria for political signs, and once the election's done, you have so many days to get rid of them, and I don't know if that's a Town Ordinance. MR. MILLER-Is there a dumpster large enough for all of them for all those this year? MR. SIPP-That's in the sign law, yes. Temporary sign. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, and I don't know that off the top of my head. MR. MILLER-Yes, and we're aware of that. I didn't know if there was something different. That's why I was asking the question. MRS. STEFFAN-I actually thought that 48 hours would be reasonable, because if you were going to have an event the following weekend, the old signs would have to be picked up and new signs would have to be. MR. SEGULJIC-AII right. Is everyone comfortable with this? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-It seems to me that's what the Town Board wants is a recommendation as to what the envelope would consist of, what information they want. So, what shape does this take, this recommendation? MR. BAKER-I would put it in the shape of a resolution, a resolution to recommend the following minimum criteria for. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. MILLER-For generic approval. MR. BAKER-Yes, for a generic transient permit, transient event permit. MR. TRAVER-And I would like to raise, again, Mr. Chairman, the issue of periodic review of this. I know the whole idea is to avoid, you know, review with every event, but I do think that these parameters should be evaluated on some basis, annually, bi-annually, something. MR. BAKER-Well, I think it's safe to say that if the Town Board felt these parameters weren't working, they'd certainly say so and look for additional review by the Planning Board. The Town Board would still have the authority, at any point, to say these parameters aren't working, to throw them out and go back to the system that's in place now, where they refer most every transient permit application to this body for review and comment. MR. MILLER-And correct me if I'm wrong, the Town Board would receive Staff comments on our application? MR. BAKER-That's correct. The applications would be referred down to Staff and the Town Board would ask Staff, do these meet the Planning Board criteria. MR. TRAVER-What about public review? MR. BAKER-Public review? I believe there's a public hearing process by the Town Board. So there is public comment. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. Is this specifically for the Adirondack Dome or? This recommendation is specifically for the Adirondack Dome? MR. BAKER-This is specific to this property, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So I think that we should add change in ownership of the facility would trigger revisiting this process. MR. SEGULJIC-But once again, there'd be a different person coming in and the Town Board has, at that time, they're just overlapping. Each time they have to go out and get the parking agreement. We're not giving a blanket approval. MRS. STEFFAN-But I don't think that that's what those letters say. They have an ongoing agreement. MR. SEGULJIC-They don't have an ongoing agreement. MR. MILLER-No, there's no ongoing agreement. Each one is event specific. We get those from those off parking sites. MR. BAKER-So the next boat show they'll have a letter from the City of Glens Falls saying we authorize the Dome to use our property for parking at this particular event on these dates. MR. MILLER-Exactly. The letter that's in this sample one, or I should say sample one that we had last year says we can use it for those dates. MR. SEGULJIC-AII right. Everyone comfortable with that? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So I'll make a motion. Are you in agreement with these, what we're saying so far? MR. MILLER-Yes, and I think the parking, I just want to make sure we're clear, the parking up to 1250, as needed. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MR. MILLER-Okay. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD THAT TRANSIENT MERCHANT PERMITS FOR THE ADIRONDACK DOME INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: 1. Up to 1250 parking spaces be provided. 2. Provide documentation of off site parking lots. 3. There will be no increase in lighting on site. 4. All events will be conducted inside the Adirondack Sports Complex. 5. If required, documentation for trailer parking will be provided. 6. Documentation that shuttle service is available will be provided, as needed. 7. A list of the hours of operation. 8. Promotional signs will be moved within 48 hours. 9. Signage at the entrance to the Adirondack Dome property will indicate that off site parking is available. Duly adopted this 23rd day of October, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Bruno ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Hunsinger MR. SEGULJIC-I'm sorry about that painful process. MR. MILLER-This was actually the easiest of the five. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2007 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE GARY MARKWELL AGENT(S) LELAND JAROSZ OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 61 TWIN CHANNELS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 4.3 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 2.5 & 1.2 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 4.3 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.18-1-18 SECTION A-183 LELAND JAROSZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, would you like me to go into Staff comments? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, please. MR. BAKER-Okay. Just a refresher for the Board. You have already seen this for Sketch Plan Review, at which time you agreed that you'd consider doing both Preliminary and Final approval concurrently, which is the intent of their application this evening. Waivers requested at this point include two foot contour intervals. The applicant continues to request a waiver from the 2 foot contours requirement. Areas of slope over 25% have, however, been provided on the plat submitted. Clearance Limits. The applicant also requests a waiver from showing clearance limits around the proposed home location on the 2.5 acre parcel to be retained. Information needing correction. Note #11 on the plat states that the property is zoned WR-1A. This is incorrect; the property is zoned WR-1A and SR-1A. The zoning boundary line should be shown on the final plat, and note #10 should be amended. Other items. As requested, the applicant has shown that the 0.58 acre portion of the parcel will be combined with the adjacent lands that he also owns. MR. SEGULJIC-The floor is yours, if you'd identify yourself and tell us about your project. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. JAROSZ-Okay. My name is Leland Jarosz, and I am representing Mr. Markwell, the owner of 61 Twin Channels Road, and myself regarding the two lot subdivision. MR. SEGULJIC-Any comments at all about the application? MR. JAROSZ-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I'll open it up for questions from the Board. Mr. Traver, do you have anything? MR. TRAVER-On the two and a half acre parcel, do you plan any future additional structures or development? MR. JAROSZ-Mr. Markwell is keeping that .25 acres, and at this time he has no plans. MR. TRAVER-We're going to want to look at Site Plans for any future buildings or any development you might propose for that piece of property. You understand that. MR. JAROSZ-Yes. He's aware of that, that he would have to comply with the existing laws of the Town of Queensbury. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. TRAVER-There's information from the Town Engineer regarding test pits and perc tests that were conducted. Have you seen that letter from the Town Engineer? MR. JAROSZ-Yes. I have. No, I haven't seen the Town Engineer's reply to that. MR. TRAVER-There apparently was submitted an unofficial test pit, and I'm referring to the letter from Vision Engineering dated October 21, that there was historical data for tests that have been submitted of the general area, but the Town Engineer is recommending, and I suspect that this Board will require that these perc tests and so on be conducted by a licensed engineer, to verify conditions. MR. JAROSZ-I think what we, at the Planning Board, I think in the minutes that they allowed us to use. MR. TRAVER-Are you speaking about the Zoning Board, perhaps? I don't believe this Board has reviewed this. MR. JAROSZ-When we did the Planning Board. MRS. BRUNO-In July. MR. TRAVER-Okay. My apologies. I had forgotten that review, that we discussed this project in July, and at that time, it was not required that you have this updated information. MR. JAROSZ-We agreed that I would not have to have an engineer because of the expanse of the land and I got Ivan Bell to come out, who has done a lot of work within the Town, and they dug the hole, and he put what was found, and. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, those are my two concerns. Thank you very much. MR. JAROSZ-Thank you, sir. MR. SEGULJIC-Mrs. Bruno? MRS. BRUNO-I think everything's been covered. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Stu, the applicant hasn't seen the Vision Engineering letter, can you please read that for them. MRS. BRUNO-I have, actually, an extra copy. MR. BAKER-A copy should have been sent to them. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. TRAVER-It's actually dated October 21. MR. BAKER-Well, that's true. That may be the problem, and I should note that the engineering comments were later than usually this time, due to illness on the part of the engineer. It's a letter addressed to Craig Brown, Zoning Administrator, dated October 21, 2007, as stated. "As requested, I've reviewed the documentation you forwarded to me regarding the above referenced project. Included in the documents submitted to Vision were Site Plan Survey Drawing dated 9/15/07 and miscellaneous application data and forms. Based on my review, I offer you the following comments. The applicant has stated in a letter dated September 14, 2007 that no building improvements are proposed for the subdivision. However, with the subdivision, the newly created lot will have the potential for future construction or development. The Planning Board may consider Site Plan Review to be required for any future project to address stormwater sewage creating, etc., on the 2.5 acre parcel. If future residential construction is anticipated, then the proposed Site Plan should include and submit provisions for sewage and on site stormwater mitigation including erosion and sediment control, site testing design and details. An unofficial test pit and percolation test submitted by the applicant verified historical data known of the area. However, proposed septic and stormwater designs and investigative work should be completed by a licensed professional in accordance with Town Code." MR. SEGULJIC-Mrs. Steffan, do you have anything? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, based on this letter from Vision Engineering, they're looking for a bit more data than the current subdivision application provides, and so I'm reluctant to move forward with those comments that are here. MR. JAROSZ-Could I make a comment, please. Should someone go to develop, they would have to comply with all of the Town of Queensbury. They just couldn't go in and building. MRS. STEFFAN-One of the reasons why you go through Site Plan Review is so that we don't allow someone to subdivide a lot that may not have the potential to be built on at some point. MR. BAKER-I'd like to point out to the Board that typically Site Plan Review is not required for the development of individual lots created per an approved subdivision. So what the engineer is suggesting here is a bit above and beyond what's been the norm. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess further, we usually don't see two lot subdivisions. Do we? MR. BAKER-You do see them on occasion, especially if it's an amendment to a previously approved subdivision. A lot of the two lot subdivisions are done administratively. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. Okay. MR. JAROSZ-This was because of the variance. It couldn't be done administratively, because of that roadway. MR. SEGULJIC-Another bureaucratic snafu. MR. JAROSZ-Yes. So otherwise it would have been a. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Mr. Sipp, do you have anything? MR. SIPP-Well, I want to clarify on these clearance limits. You're asking for a waiver from showing the clearance limits around the potential housing location on the 2.5 acre parcel. Is that that circle? This lot, this 2.5 acre lot. MR. JAROSZ-There is no clearance being done. That house had to be placed there. They said, it's a make believe house. MR. SIPP-I know, I realize that potential house, but. MR. JAROSZ-No one is building there, and again, I would say it would have to go through the Town of Queensbury. Whoever would build there would have to make application and start all over again. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. SIPP-But is this lot completely treed now? MR. JAROSZ-Basically, yes, sir. MR. SIPP-And you're asking for a waiver from clearance limits. MR. JAROSZ-Just a technical waiver because it's, nothing is going to be done and nothing can be done without approval of the Town of Queensbury, should somebody start a building process. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, clearing limits, no, they wouldn't get caught up. MR. JAROSZ-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Sipp, you're asking for clearing limits on the site. Is that what you're saying? What would you like to see for clearing limits? MR. SIPP-Just this area that's shown as blocked in, or like (lost words). That's a 25% slope. MR. JAROSZ-Can I come up there, please. MR. SIPP-This area right through here, it's the only area that has a 25% slope. We don't know what the slope is over here, but you want a waiver from clearing limits on this particular lot. MR. JAROSZ-Maybe it's the wrong thing to say. It's, if a house got built, it would have to, you just couldn't waive clearing limits. MR. TRAVER-So you really don't need the waiver on the clearing limits. You're saying you really don't need the waiver on clearing limits because you're going to have to come for Site Plan Review, correct? MR. BAKER-No, construction of a home does not require Site Plan Review. MR. SEGULJIC-For clarification, once we give them approval, then they can build the house. They're not going to be back. Because there's some confusion, they have to go get a building permit, which is going to be different, but there won't be any discussion about clearing limits. MRS. BRUNO-Right. MR. BAKER-Subdivision review is the only opportunity for public review of clearing limits on lots. At the building permit level, it is not even a consideration, unless it's a lot, you know, that's part of a previous approval they look for the clearing limits previously approved, but if none are specified, none are going to be required. MR. SEGULJIC-If I could ask, what are the setback requirements for a lot like this, 20 feet? MR. BAKER-That is in the SR-1A portion of the property. Thirty feet from the front, ten foot minimum from side, with the sum of both sides being equal to or greater than thirty feet, twenty feet from the rear. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Sipp, I believe you were alluding to the fact you wanted to see some clearing limits? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Twenty feet around the site? MRS. BRUNO-Around the house, you mean? MR. SEGULJIC-No, around the edge of the property. Let's propose some, if you would like to see something. MR. SIPP-Well, at least 20. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. SEGULJIC-Do you understand what he's asking? We're saying around the edge of the site, along your property line, leave 20 feet of the trees. MR. JAROSZ-Yes, we would agree to that, sir. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-Do you recall the last time that we tried to keep a margin like that and how thin it ended up seeming? MR. SEGULJIC-So what are you proposing? MRS. BRUNO-I'm just concerned, no, thin being that the buffer is thin. I'm concerned that that actually, you know, you'll end up with just a small margin, a 20 foot margin around the entire. If someone were to clear to the maximum that we were allowing. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So would you like to see more of a buffer? MRS. BRUNO-I'd like to see more of a buffer in the front, and/or back. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. What would you like to see? MRS. BRUNO-I would like to see it called out more like 30 feet around the house. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. That gets tough, because you already have a road. You have a septic system. MRS. BRUNO-The developed area. MR. SEGULJIC-Are you saying 30 feet around the boundary? MR. SIPP-See, on what would be the southeast boundary, there is a 25% slope, and 20 feet in, doesn't protect that slope completely from the road. MR. SEGULJIC-So what would you like to see? MR. JAROSZ-I agree. I don't think anyone would build that close. So, you know, a further boundary at that. MR. SIPP-Well, I would say a no cut zone in anything above 20% slope. GARY MARKWELL MR. MARKWELL-Really, I'm not following you entirely. MR. JAROSZ-Where the boundary is, from the lot where the house is, the slope, they want a 50 foot cut, no cut, at the ridge, where the trees are, not cutting the trees for 50 feet, you know, where that old cabin is, in that area. It would be 50 feet from the slope. MR. SEGULJIC-Fifty feet from this line back. MR. MARKWELL-Going? MR. JAROSZ-Going towards Big Boom Road. MR. SEGULJIC-It would be right there, which is your 25% slope anyway. Right about here. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. JAROSZ-As far as the frontage, if he wanted to put a house, he wouldn't have to, on Big Boom, would that be required, a barrier up at the road there, if he wanted to put a house close to the road like in line with the other houses to his right? MRS. STEFFAN-Is this property all wooded, the property that Mr. Markwell will retain? Is that completely wooded? MR. JAROSZ-The majority is wooded, yes. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. FORD-Is there a public hearing? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Why don't we move this along and does anyone wish to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PAT TUBBS MS. TUBBS-I'm Pat Tubbs. I have the lot next door, and I don't know what's going on because I just got in Town, so I just got the notice yesterday. So I thought I'd come to the Board and find out what's going on, but I guess my concerns are, you've got two people here that want to build. There's a small house on the bottom, which might not stay there. They might bring it up to the top, or he might build at the top. So if you're subdividing, there's going to be buildings going on. So do they have to come and get a permit to find out where they're going to build these places? Because I don't want it that close to my house, and have to contend with a septic system, and the land goes down. So where are they going to put the houses? And, right now, I have a nice view of the river. So is the one down at the bottom going to build a house tall enough so that I don't get a view anymore? So I guess I'm worried about the septics going in, where the houses are going to be, and exactly what are they going to do? That's my only comment. I don't know what they do from here or whatever. I just came up from North Carolina and got the notice yesterday. MR. SEGULJIC-What they want to do is there is one lot now. They want to subdivide that lot into two lots. Therefore they have the potential to put one house on each lot. MS. TUBB-Right, but the lot next to me is a hill. So it comes like this. So where are they putting it and where's the septic and all that. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, what they need to do to us is to put a proposed spot. It doesn't mean they're going to build there, and that's why I need help from you. Because if they have to get a building permit. MR. BAKER-At the time they apply for a building permit, they would need to show that they've got the required separations between their well and adjacent septic systems, between their septic system and adjacent wells. The building would also have to meet the minimum required setbacks for that zoning district, which on the side lot line is a minimum of ten, a total of the two sides being thirty feet or more, and it would have to be 30 feet back from the front line, in this case where that new lot, that would be Big Boom Road. MS. TUBBS-And I don't know if a lot of the, right now it's a dead end street, which we'd all like to probably keep a dead end street, because, you know, it's hard to get two cars down there to begin with. So if he's going to build up here, is there going to be a road going up somehow and in so that we need another road going in, or what are they doing about access to the other lot? MR. SEGULJIC-That would come off of Big Boom Road. MR. BAKER-That would be a private drive. MS. TUBBS-Definitely? MR. SEGULJIC-So Twin Channels Road would just stay a dead end. MS. TUBBS-It's going to stay that way. MR. SEGULJIC-Now can they take Twin Channels and run it up through the other lot? MR. BAKER-That would require revised subdivision approval. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So they can't do that until they come back. MR. BAKER-And they're not proposing that at this time. At this time what they're proposing is that the new lot would be accessed via a private drive off of Big Boom Road. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MS. TUBBS-Okay, but where the houses are going to go we're not sure, and if I lose my view to the river, that's unknown. MR. BAKER-At this point, that's correct. MS. TUBBS-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-I would think it would be unlikely that they would take Twin Channels Road up to the proposed new lot because, you know, the slopes in that area are 25% or greater. MS. TUBBS-My end is high. I'm up high. So mine goes up and around. So if they really wanted to, they probably could. MRS. BRUNO-If I remember correctly, part of what we had stated was that the two pieces of property, Mr. Markwell's larger piece of property, that would be to the southwest, and his smaller piece at the end of Twin Channels will be combined into one, okay, if this subdivision should go through. Are you asking if it's a potential that Twin Channels will go through that entire large property? In other words, are you asking by future subdivision? MS. TUBBS-It can be done. Yes. It can be done, which is, I don't think the road would hold it. I mean, you can't get two cars down it now. MRS. BRUNO-I was just wondering if you had known that the two were planning to be combined? Like Mr. Baker said, I can't speak to what the future is or to what the applicant has in mind, but I just wanted to be clear. MS. TUBBS-I know they're building two things, but I don't know if there's any rule and regulation saying, you know, do I build this house that's high, and everybody on my side loses the view? Because we look right up the river. We can see right straight up the river. If he builds a house high enough, we lose our views. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, if I'm understanding how this is configured, the proposed lot's house would be built above yours. MS. TUBBS-Well, it has to be. MR. SEGULJIC-It has to be. So the only thing that would happen is there's the existing house below you. MRS. BRUNO-If that were to be replaced. That's not what they're proposing, is it? MR. SEGULJIC-No. They just showed us, it's an existing house that they have. MRS. BRUNO-But it is a potential within what we're. MR. SEGULJIC-No, we're not looking at that now. You mean could it happen? MRS. BRUNO-What I'm saying is whatever we say tonight, we're not putting a restriction on that. That's something that could come before us. MR. SEGULJIC-Can we put a restriction on an existing lot by the river? MRS. BRUNO-No, I'm just trying to clarify in my mind that really it leaves it open so that. I think I'm a little confused, as well as the public here, that we're really not. MR. BAKER-Keep in mind, the maximum building height allowed in this zoning district is 40 feet as well. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So it's already restricted. So if there is an existing house, and they change it, then they can only go 40 feet. I don't know what it is now. MRS. BRUNO-Thanks, Stu. MRS. STEFFAN-Is the current house one story or two? 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MS. TUBBS-One story. Two stories would just take away the views from us. So I don't know what they're doing. I know they're going to each have a house. So how they're going to do it, I have no idea. MRS. BRUNO-It sounds like he's going to have an answer for you in a few minutes. MS. TUBBS-I had the letter sent on the 16th, and because I'm not in town, I just got it the other day. Is there any way if things are going on in the neighborhood it gets to people sooner than one day? MR. BAKER-Ma'am, was it sent to a local address or an out of state address? MS. TUBBS-Out of state takes five days, but I mean, we do have people up here that live here and go down south for the summer, or for the winter and come back in the summer. So if anything's going on in people's neighborhoods they've got like two days to figure out what's going on. So I don't know if that's possible. I don't know if anybody else has ever said anything about it, but it does take longer to get to people out of town. Okay. Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Thank you. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Anybody else wish to comment? Okay. MR. JAROSZ-May I interject? MRS. BRUNO-Absolutely. MR. JAROSZ-That the 50 foot barrier that was agreed to at the slope would probably, is probably going to take care of the whole problem. I don't think she's aware where that 50 feet would start. Because her house is down below here. The 50 feet is way above her house, and that would be the wooded area, which should take care of, you know, would keep any house away from hers. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Jarosz, are you planning on knocking the house down and putting a new one up? MR. JAROSZ-Possibly, but I'm not looking at a large two story house. I'm 60 years old. So I'm not looking to climb. MR. SEGULJIC-Is that within the realm of this application, though? MR. BAKER-No, this application is simply the review of the proposed subdivision. MR. JAROSZ-I don't know. MR. SEGULJIC-The lot that's created. MR. BAKER-The lot that's created, yes. MRS. BRUNO-That was more an answer to the lady's question, which also for clarity, that doesn't mean that he won't be able to in the future. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Ford, do you have anything? MR. FORD-Thank you for clarifying where that fifty-eight hundredths of an acre went, because when I did the math, it didn't add up to 4.3. It's going to be a part of who's lot now? MR. JAROSZ-Mr. Markwell's. MR. FORD-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Anybody else? The issues I've seen are they requested no cut zones, and addressing the engineering letter, which to me the engineering letter really isn't that 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) much. I mean, when you go to do your, install your septic system for your new house, you have to do your test pits, provide that as evidence to get the approval. Correct? MR. BAKER-That would be addressed at the building permit stage. MR. SEGULJIC-That would be addressed at the building permit stage. So to me, this letter is really moot. MR. BAKER-I think the primary point of the consulting engineer was that the test pit information that was provided was not done by an engineer. It was done by a septic installer, but he did acknowledge that the results provided for that test pit are typical for that area. At the point where a home is proposed, the septic system would have to be designed by the engineer, and that would be based on a test pit done and observed by the engineer. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. So, as far as I see it, we have the no cut zones of 20 foot along the east and west boundaries, and 50 foot along the southern boundary. MR. JAROSZ-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And addressing the engineer's letter, which is really, will take care of itself. So we don't have to address the engineer's letter. We grant the waiver for the two foot contours. Any comments? MR. FORD-The real hoops to be gone through will occur when they want to build. MR. JAROSZ-Correct. MR. FORD-They'll be addressed at that time. MRS. STEFFAN-Staff also identified that Note 11 on the plat states that it's zoned Waterfront One Acre, and it's incorrect. MRS. BRUNO-And I apologize. I'd like to strike my statement to the public. I just realized that I had the owners of the two properties reversed. So, I was assuming that the one at the end of Twin Channels was going to hook up with the larger 10 acre, and that's why I was saying that would all become. I apologize. I'm looking at it now and realize that I was reading this wrong. MRS. STEFFAN-We have to close the public hearing if we're going to go forward. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. With that, I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. SEGULJIC-Do we have to do SEQRA? MR. BAKER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-It's an Unlisted Action. A Long Form has been provided. MR. SEGULJIC-Everyone comfortable with going forward with SEQRA? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Let's go. MRS. STEFFAN-I thought I saw a Short Form in here, Stu? It was a Long Form? MR. BAKER-There may have been a Short Form with the Sketch Plan, but there was a Long Form provided with the Preliminary and Final application. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. All right. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or or quantity? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? MR. SEGULJIC-No. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Then I'll make a motion for a Negative SEQRA declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 10-2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: GARY MARKWELL, 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 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) 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. Duly adopted this 23rd day of October, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NOES ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. SEGULJIC-Good luck. MR. JAROSZ-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-I'm sorry, we didn't do a motion yet. MRS. STEFFAN-Now we have two motions here. We have one for Preliminary Stage and we have one for Final Stage. MR. BAKER-Yes, and I think if you're so inclined, you can combine those into one. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2007 GARY MARKWELL, 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 4.3 acre parcel into two lots of 2.5 & 1.2 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/23/07; 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 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) 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 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 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10- 2007 GARY MARKWELL, 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 a Negative Declaration. This is approved with the following conditions: 1. That the plat is corrected. Note 11 on the plat states that the property is zoned Waterfront 1 Acre. This is incorrect. The property is zoned Waterfront 1 Acre and Single Family Residence One Acre. The zoning boundary line should be shown on the final plat. Note 10 should be amended. 2. That there be no cut zones designated on the plat, 20 feet on the east/west boundaries, and 50 feet on the southern boundary. 3. That the Planning Board will grant the applicant a waiver for the two foot contours. Duly adopted this 23rd day of October, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. SEGULJIC-Now, there you go. MR. JAROSZ-Okay. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 50-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED THE GLEN @ HILAND MEADOWS, INC. AGENT(S) DAVID WENDTH OWNER(S) BEECHWOOD, INC. d/b/a EDDY PROPERTY SERVICES & GFH RESOURCES ZONING PUD LOCATION 39 LONGVIEW DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF TWELVE ADDITIONAL INDEPENDENT LIVING APARTMENTS AND RELATED SITE WORK. THE PLANNING BOARD HAS BEEN ASKED TO REVIEW THIS APPLICATION AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGARDING THEIR CURRENT VIEW OF AN AREA VARIANCE APPLICATION. CROSS REFERENCE AV 34-07 WARREN CO. PLANNING LOT SIZE 45 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.8-1-3 SECTION 179-12 DAVID WENDTH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. SEGULJIC-If you could introduce yourself and tell us about your application. MR. WENDTH-Sure. My name is David Wendth. I'm a Senior Project Manager with Northeast Health and the Eddy. With me tonight, behind me is Nick Norton. He's the Facilities Manager at The Glen at Hiland Meadows. Also with us tonight is Len Angerame from Angerame Architects, the project architect, and also in attendance is 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) Tom Hutchins who's been involved in the stormwater management design. Would you like me to begin? MR. FORD-Before the applicant begins, Mr. Chairman and fellow Board members, I have a concern that we're addressing this application in as much as we, in order to be consistent, we are awaiting the Town Board study of the Halfway Brook watershed, and how the development may affect the previous Hiland, our PUD, and I don't really understand why we would be proceeding with hearing this application while we are awaiting the results of that study. MR. BAKER-Because you're not being asked to approve a Site Plan with this application. You're being specifically asked to provide an advisory opinion to the Zoning Board, as part of their ongoing review of a variance application. So while this does have a Site Plan application number, the resolution that should be considered tonight should be an advisory opinion to the Zoning Board, rather than, I see that a typical approval resolution was attached to Staff comments, and that was in error. The resolution this evening would be an advisory opinion to the Planning Board. The Planning Board typically does not approve Site Plans until a property complies with all zoning. If variances are needed, the property does not yet meet that criteria. MR. FORD-And our advisory would be for what purpose? To advise them on what? I'm offering you the advice right now that we would not be considering it until we've received that report. MR. BAKER-If that's the comment that this Board wants to forward to the Zoning Board, that's fine and appropriate, but what the Zoning Board has said is we're reviewing the project for variance applications. We want to know what the Planning Board thinks before we, the Zoning Board, make a final decision on this. MR. FORD-Well, I've just stated my opinion. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and just to clarify in particular they're looking for the setback relief of 3.1 feet. MR. WENDTH-It's also the parking. MR. BAKER-And the parking. MR. SEGULJIC-Also the parking. Okay. All right. Well, I think we should at least hear the applicant and then go from there. MR. WENDTH-Thank you. As we all know, based on the previous discussion, we were referred here by the Zoning Board of Appeals for consideration of an Area Variance, and basically to initiate this review, we filed with you folks on September 11th, and our assumption coming here also was that potentially we can initiate the Site Plan Review process, knowing full well that tonight's more just the introduction, and at some point we'll be back to you. Having said that, just by way of background, because many of the faces here I don't recognize when we did the original project, but back in October 2001, Glen @ Hiland Meadows opened its project on the 45 acres that are located near the intersection of Haviland and Meadowbrook Road. The project, at the time, included 62 independent living apartments, 18 cottages, and a 44 bed assisted living project that's licensed by the Department of Health, New York State Department of Health. Project plans that were approved by the Town in January 2000 included areas of future build out, and if you go back to those minutes, you would see that we were asked what is going to be comprised of these build outs, and at the time we could not give clear direction because we didn't know where the market was going. Today we do, and really what we're doing is just fulfilling the original intent to increase independent living apartments, because where we sit today, we're seeing consistent demand for additional independent living apartments on our campus. So we're back before the Board as promised in 2000 to initiate that process. (Lost words) will include a bedroom with den, and also have patios and/or porches, depending on whether it's first floor or second floor. The location of the project is off our south wing in the southeast corner of the main building. The proposed addition reflects the original intent of the approved site plan and really maintains the architectural style and massing of the building. Our site improvements that we are looking at in regards to this project simply add proximity parking for these future residents near their apartments. Stormwater management system's been designed to direct water to the existing detention basin located in the southeast corner of the property. The good news that I'd like to share with the Board tonight is Hiland Meadows has already sold 100% of these apartments to seniors who are looking to move in to the 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) community, and these residents, or future residents, are really looking for our construction schedule so that they can begin planning to sell their homes and packing up and downsizing as the case may be. As mentioned, regarding the Zoning Board process, we have been an ongoing Zoning Board agenda item. We first appeared before the Board on May 23rd. We were tabled in August pending Town Board review of the Hiland Park SEQRA issue as well as this Board's review of the Area Variance, and I'm scheduled to appear tomorrow night before the Zoning Board, really to give an update, but also I'm hoping that this Board can provide input for the parking variance this evening. The parking variance, I just want to run through that real quickly, information that I know I had provided, but also give you a sense of where we're coming from, and then I'll turn it over to Len to review the plan. Glen at Hiland Meadows, as approved today, where we sit today, not considering this project, has, there are 130 parking spaces. That's 1.23 spaces per dwelling unit. Based on a recent parking study that we've just completed, this past, earlier this year, we are seeing averages of 40% vacancy rates, that's 52 spaces at any point in time. The residents at The Glen are strongly encouraged to only have one vehicle on campus. A significant majority of residents comply with this request. When I say significant, three out of the 62 apartments have two vehicles. Otherwise, everybody has one or no vehicles. Further, we have scheduled transportation on the campus, the campus bus or car at all times for the residents. The parking vacancies rates and proposed added parking is supported by the Creighton Manning letter, which I know I copied you all in our submission. Parking spaces that are being added, as I previously mentioned are proximity parking spaces for future residents. We want to allow them to have spaces near the addition, so when they're coming back from the grocery store you're not having an elderly individual walk a significant distance to get to their apartment, and really when I look back at the previous Planning Board minutes, in particular October 26,1999, the existing parking was approved based on our experience in operating these types of facilities. I think if you read those minutes you'll see clearly there was an understanding from this Board at the time that, you know, this is a different animal than what the Town had seen at the time. Even though the Code was the Residential Code of two spaces per dwelling unit, you know, they recognized that in our operating, the Eddy's operation of retirement communities in the greater Capital District and now certainly here, we know the number of spaces we need to make a project work. We believe today that ample parking does exist on the campus as evidenced by the 40% vacancy rate, which we see. With the new project, the Code would require us to add, above and beyond what we are planning, 34 additional spaces to meet that two per dwelling unit Residential Code level. This actually equates to 53 additional spaces above and beyond the 130 we have today. We're only looking to add 19 spaces, again, proximity spaces, keeping the space to dwelling unit at 1.26. Again, it works. We've got ample space for, you know, holiday seasons, what have you, events when people are coming to our campus, and we really believe that if we're held to the two space per dwelling unit Residential Code, we're going to end up constructing asphalt surfaces that will just sit there. We would rather see green space on the campus maintaining and maximizing green space on the campus. Although on our plans we do, have identified a land bank, if you will, for additional parking if we ever did need it, that we are setting aside space that we wouldn't develop. If we find that demand changes down the road, we're able to, you know, basically develop additional parking, bring it up to the two spaces per dwelling unit and move on from there. So, I guess where I stand right now is I'm requesting this Board's consideration of the number of parking spaces that we are planned, so that we can move forward with the zoning process, Zoning Board process and continue this project along its path, because as I mentioned, we've got residents waiting, wanting to move in, wanting to know when they need to start preparing to sell their houses, what have you. That being said, I'd like Len just to walk us through the plans so you can see the plans itself, and certainly if you have any questions or comments, we can address them. MR. ANGERAME-Basically the new addition, which is located in the rear of the building, is designed as part of the original Master Plan, when we designed the original building, and as Dave had mentioned, includes six apartments on two floors. The apartments are designed, again, to blend in harmony with the existing building. As you can see by the elevations here, that we are tying, this represents the existing structure, and these are our new addition of apartments. The only change with these apartments versus the original design is the addition of the balconies and patios that are incorporated under these elements, but basically we are incorporating the same vinyl siding, same roofing materials, so that the new addition blends in harmony with the existing. The floor plans basically are just, you know, as David mentioned, one bedroom den units, again, very similar to the existing plans. There have been some tweaks in them, based on past experience over the existing building, but in general they're very spacious units, provide a lot of natural light and ventilation, and are very marketable, as they have sold out the project already. The site itself basically is adding additional parking along this area right 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) here where there's currently existing parking, and down on this lower quadrant here is the additional 12 spaces that David was talking about as a land bank for future parking. There'll be some new landscaping added around the building and around the perimeter of the structure itself. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, where is the land bank for future parking? MR. ANGERAME-Right down here, in this lower quadrant. MR. SEGULJIC-In that area. Okay. MR. ANGERAME-Currently there's an existing parking garage right here, and there is an existing parking right in this area here now. MR. FORD-What you have before the ZBA is what and where? MR. ANGERAME-Basically it's this area right in here, is where we want to add our new parking. MRS. BRUNO-You also have a setback of three feet. MR. ANGERAME-The setback here is, yes, we're currently like 3.1 feet over the setback line. MRS. BRUNO-Those bedrooms that are at the end of the building, what is their approximate square footage? Because it looks like, also what is the slight extension or bump out that you have? I'm wondering if that's just the three feet. MR. ANGERAME-No, the three feet actually incorporates more of the building. MRS. BRUNO-Does it? MR. ANGERAME-The bedrooms themselves are basically, they're actually the same size as the current units, and from a marketability standpoint, they feel that it's necessary to maintain that size. They're not overly large. I don't know the exact square footage, but they're probably in the range of 170, 180 square feet. MR. FORD-The apartments themselves are of what square footage? MR. ANGERAME-There's a variance of like 900 square feet to 1,000 square feet, depending on the unit. Again, these are not larger than what the existing was, and from a marketability standpoint, realizing we can't go smaller either, realizing that people are coming from large homes. It's a big adjustment for a resident coming in to downsize, and based on the experience, and we've done several projects with Northeast Health, these apartments are actually not what we consider as enormous by any means. MR. FORD-One bedroom plus den? MR. ANGERAME-Yes. Basically, you have, as you come in, you'll have a kitchen area, and it's more or less like a great room concept. So you'll have living area, dining, and then a small open den area over here with a bedroom being located here. In this case, in the E Unit, you come in to a kitchen/bedroom and then living room with a den area at the end. MRS. BRUNO-I think I read somewhere that this particular footprint was already approved in the original? MR. ANGERAME-This is part of the original design, yes. MRS. BRUNO-Right. MR. ANGERAME-And actually we have shortened it up slightly, because in the original design, the Building Code required us to have an additional stairway, and now with the new Codes and the fact that we're fully sprinkled and full accessibility, we were able to even shorten it up slightly. MRS. BRUNO-So you're actually asking for less relief than you would have been previously? 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. ANGERAME-Based on our original design, yes. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So, if I understand this correctly, there's two things going on here. You're actually looking for a reduced amount of parking. Is that correct? MR. WENDTH-That's correct. The Code would require us to put in I believe it's 183 parking spaces. At the end of the day we're only looking to have 149, and again, our justification, from a Planning Board standpoint, is it's prudent planning, in that you're not j just building spaces because a Code says to build spaces. Rather we are putting the land bank there if we ever needed it, but really we are putting spaces in, adding spaces, so that, for this wing, we have the right compliment of parking spaces in number to the apartments in that area, because, again, you're talking elderly folks who have to go from their car to their apartment, and with three, four bags of groceries, that becomes an arduous task. MR. SEGULJIC-So, Stu, this is considered a dwelling then? This is classified as a dwelling for parking, because that's the one that has two per dwelling unit for parking. MR. BAKER-Well, this is part of the Hiland Park PUD, which is it's own separate zoning. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, but the requirement is two parking spots per dwelling. MR. BAKER-That's correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. BAKER-That's the standard. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and they're asking for the 1.26, which is a good thing. MR. BAKER-This is one of the rare occasions where they're asking for permission for less rather than more. MR. WENDTH-And it's also, I know I gave you a copy of their letter and they cited several, you know, standards nationally, and we're falling right in line with, nationally, what municipalities are seeing for these type units. MR. SEGULJIC-And the other thing, as far as the three feet goes, where I think we're going to get hung up what Mr. Ford alluded to in the beginning. There's issues with Meadowbrook. MR. WENDTH-We understand that with the Town Board there's issues with the whole SEQRA review. There's two elements which we were basically tabled. One was what we're speaking about tonight, the other deals with the Town Board's review of SEQRA. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now, Stu, with regards to this recommendation, is there public comment there? MR. BAKER-It's at your discretion. MR. SEGULJIC-Anyone here wish to comment on this application? MR. BAKER-I believe this was advertised as a public hearing. So you should probably open it up. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Mr. Sipp, any comment? MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Ford? MR. FORD-I've made them. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Mr. Traver? 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. TRAVER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Tanya? MRS. BRUNO-I'm fine. MR. SEGULJIC-Mrs. Steffan? MRS. STEFFAN-I'm comfortable making a recommendation to the Zoning Board. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So we have to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board. Who would like to put that motion forward? MRS. STEFFAN-Actually it's an advisory. So do we have to have it in the form of a motion, Stu? MR. BAKER-It would probably be appropriate. Then they'll know that it's the consensus of the Board. MR. SEGULJIC-So you don't expect many changes, right? MR. WENDTH-I do note that I know one of the drawings, when I went to make the copies for you folks, I grabbed my set of drawings and for whatever reason at some point prior, you'll see my handwriting on them. So we'll have to replace those when we come back to you. MRS. BRUNO-We'll overlook that part. MR. WENDTH-Okay, thank you. MRS. BRUNO-Unless it's comments about, you know, the members. MR. WENDTH-No. MRS. BRUNO-Stu, do you know if the ZBA is now aware of the study that Dan Ryan's been looking at? MR. BAKER-Yes, they are. MRS. BRUNO-They are? Okay. Because Mr. Abbate has said, well, in the meeting minutes it said he wasn't aware of what we were referring to in terms of the watershed developments and all that, and do you know what Dan's schedule is for that? MR. BAKER-Well, he presented some draft findings to the Town Board at last night's meeting, actually, last night's Workshop meeting, and I think he indicated that he looked at a final report to the Town Board within a few weeks. MRS. BRUNO-How did they receive what he had? Did they give him feedback? MR. BAKER-They did. This was done in a workshop. MRS. BRUNO-In a workshop. Thank you. MR. FORD-Help clarify for me as to what the recommendation and how it impacts the whole process of reviewing the PUD relative to the new report which is forthcoming, as I understand it, very shortly, the preliminary draft is already completed on it. MR. BAKER-That's correct. MR. FORD-Therefore, I'm unclear as to what our action, as the potential, how it could be impacted, or what we're attempting to do, rather than simply waiting until we have that report, which is, would be consistent with how we have acted before, in this corridor. MR. BAKER-Well, again, you're being asked, at this point, not to issue a decision on a Site Plan application. You're being asked to offer an advisory opinion to the Zoning Board. So I would say that has no impact on the Town Board's SEQRA issues. MR. SEGULJIC-So our recommendation will not have any impact upon our potential future approvals. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. BAKER-That's correct. MRS. STEFFAN-Stu, this will be typed up, or the resolution that we make tonight will be typed up and submitted to the Zoning Board tomorrow night? MR. BAKER-It will be forwarded to the Zoning Board, yes. MR. WENDTH-If I may, I know that we had some discussions with the Zoning Board, and that's what prompted their thought process of bringing this to you folks. Don't know the history of it. You may, but apparently at some point in time in the past, I believe it was the K-Mart project in Town, K-Mart came in with a plan for a certain number of spaces, and what we gleaned from the discussion back in May was that, you know what, we, the Zoning Board, should have listened to the applicant. Today we're stuck with this enormous parking lot, apparently that doesn't get used, and asphalt can become unsightly over a period of time. So, having said that, they wanted your opinion. That's why we were encouraged to come talk to you, your opinion from a planning standpoint, versus the Code review and balancing and weighing the facts. MR. FORD-Going back to the point, there must be an assumption, if we're ready to make a recommendation on reduced parking, then there already must be an assumption that this structure is going to be built, and that there will be additional parking to accompany that structure, and this report, as I understand it, very well may impact that very decision. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, but if the report comes back that any impervious surface has an impact on potential flooding, then we can look at this harder from that perspective, but at this point we're just making a recommendation. MR. FORD-Which seems premature to me. MR. SEGULJIC-Less parking spaces are better. It's just a recommendation. MRS. STEFFAN-The Zoning Board can allow the variance, but the Planning Board will have the will have the approval (lost words). MR. SEGULJIC-And I believe the applicant has heard us loud and clear that we're very concerned about stormwater due to the impacts on Meadowbrook. MR. WENDTH-We are aware that there is an ongoing issue regarding the whole PUD and the SEQRA process. We've been very patient with the Town for this. Again, what we're trying to do is I'm trying to, I've got residents that are looking for when they can start planning to move, and I'm just trying to facilitate the process from my standpoint. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. Is there a motion prepared? Should I close the public hearing for this or leave it open? MR. BAKER-That's a good question. I would close it. Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Because according to what was advertised. MR. BAKER-It was advertised as a Site Plan Review. What the Zoning Board had actually requested was an advisory opinion. Again, the Planning Board typically doesn't do Site Plan Review until a project is in compliance with the zoning, and that won't be true with this until the Zoning Board has rendered their final decision. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So even though we will see this Site Plan and it will be the same number. MR. BAKER-It'll be the same number. You'll have a new public hearing. That's correct. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we're just closing it on this one. MR. BAKER-You're just closing the public hearing on the advisory opinion, not on the Site Plan, and you may want to make that distinction. MR. SEGULJIC-I'm closing the public hearing on the advisory opinion, not the Site Plan. MR. BAKER-On the advisory opinion, yes. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD IS PROVIDING AN ADVISORY OPINION ON SITE PLAN NO. 50-2007 THE GLEN @ HILAND MEADOWS, INC TO THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: The Planning Board would be in favor of setback relief and reduced parking from the number set forth in the original Planned Unit Development. Further, at the October 22, 2007 Town Board Workshop, it was stated that Dan Ryan, Town Engineer, will likely finalize the Meadowbrook Road study, which will likely require a Long Form SEQRA review. Duly adopted this 23rd day of October, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic NOES: Mr. Ford ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Thank you. MR. WENDTH-Just, if I may. The SEQRA and Dan Ryan, who I believe is the Town Engineer, what they are looking at, you mentioned Full SEQRA. Would that be, are they considering it on a case by case basis, do you know, I mean for each project going forward? MRS. STEFFAN-Based on the discussion that was done last night, that I heard last night, they would be looking at doing Long Form SEQRA's on projects within this area. MR. WENDTH-Okay, on a case by case basis. So like for our project we would. MR. SEGULJIC-But that's getting sorted out, I believe. So it's an advisory opinion. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. Last night they were talking about it in the context of a draft. MR. WENDTH-Okay. Thank you very much. I look forward to working with you guys in the near future. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 53-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED RICHARD SOLOMON OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 67 KNOX ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 3102 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. PROJECTS CLASSIFIED AS MAJOR UNDER THE TOWN STORMWA TER MANAGEMENT [C H. 147] REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA LAKE GEORGE CEA LOT SIZE 0.45 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-14 SECTION 179-4 RICHARD SOLOMON, PRESENT MR. SEGULJIC-Stu, if I could ask you a question, why was a Stop Work Order issued for this? Subject to the Stop Work Order on site grading activity. MR. BAKER-The Stop Work Order, as I understand it, a Stop Work Order was issued because Staff came to the understanding that the project should have had a Stormwater Management Permit, as per Chapter 147, and that hadn't occurred. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Thank you. MRS. BRUNO-Well, I guess we can ask the applicant. I had a couple of questions there, too, but we'll let the process start. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. If you could identify yourself and tell us about your project. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. SOLOMON-Okay. I'm Richard Solomon. I own the property. I live on Assembly Point. This is Ed Esposito, engineer who is (lost words). ED ESPOSITO MR. ESPOSITO-We have the removal of the Stop Work Order on the building. I know a member of the planning council was there earlier. A little overview. We do have a valid building permit to construct the property. The plan has not changed substantially, and we did begin the site work. In fact we had a Phase I stormwater management plan for a 10 year analysis and it's my understanding that the Building Department had received certain calls, which triggered the full review as a Major. So since that time we did resubmit, and I just unfortunately got Vision's response to the project at 3:30 today. However, I would like to comment on anyone of those points regarding the content of his comments, and this is the project. It involves a third of an acre. It's a single family residence. We didn't think, you know, that it had so much controversy, but I would like to submit that I feel we do have a Town, a good stormwater management plan. In fact, the essences of the original plans are what's protecting on rains like this evening. We have sediment controls in place. They're all working, and to further submit that we did have Dan Ryan look at the comments, and I'd like to maybe touch on a few of, what was a concern of his. Never at any point did we intend the project to be a DEC full SWPPP submission with staging and some of the elements that he's called to. We'd be happy to look at separating our sheets, but being a single family residence, we didn't feel we have one site plan. It has not changed. We have erosion controls, and we have some retaining walls that he tells me are out of scale. So we would like an opportunity to resubmit to Dan and perhaps write a cover letter, but to make the Board feel more comfortable with what we've submitted, we have various different plans I'd be happy to walk you through. There's some catchment areas. Dan referenced these areas. We have six sub catchments, the last one being protecting the lake, and we've analyzed for water quality and quantity, to the Town standard for a 25 and extended detention and all these things for 100 year storm which are now in this, during this review, being stored in a hard pipe system. It's not an infiltration system. We do have the stone traps down at the lake that could easily revert to landscaped areas, and we have also to submit, along with the removal of the Stop Work Order, the revised disturbance area that was given to Craig some time ago, when it went from a minor site application. We demonstrated at certain points that we were still less than 15,000 square foot, and on behalf of the applicant, we're still maintaining we're less than 15,000 square foot, and on behalf of the applicant, we're still maintaining we're less than 15,000 square foot of disturbance. The original plan, with the home, septic domain, with respect to the property disturbed, approximately 12,800 square feet. Inadvertently the site contractor, in the demolition and removal of the original camp that was down around the 50 foot line, he had removed another 1860 square foot, which we're now adding to that disturbed area. Rosenberg's property, there was some dispute of, I guess originally there was a shared driveway condition. It's been restored. They have a full agreement. A handshake agreement, it's not a full easement review, but nevertheless, they have a shared driveway agreement that was consistent to the original site conditions. So, all in all, these three items add up to less than 15,000 square feet, and, you know, some further discussion of the letter review from the Town Engineer, we would like the opportunity to resubmit with him, if he feels that our report needed to be modified in any way and updated. He had certain comments with regard to the mottling of the site, that we'd be happy to answer every item, and if there were any specific concerns that the Board had, on anyone of those items, I would like to answer directly this evening. Our goal for this evening is to, as Craig Brown had stated in his letter, that he's removed the Stop Work Order on the construction of the building. However, no further work on the site may be performed until the Planning Board has reviewed and approved your site plan review application. This is very important to the homeowner. Winter is coming up. It's been an inconvenience for the neighborhood, having the site Stop Work Order. We'd like to vegetatively cap and continue. The lower area has been sodded. We've got, you know, some work begun. Back up again on the building. The whole project laid at a standstill for two months this season, and lost some very precious time. So we're trying to recapture what is the essence of what we're being required to do? Well, we're looking at a Town rated stormwater management system, and a waste treatment field that has had permits at some point. We have updated these. We feel we could deal with anyone of your Town Engineer comments. We have a current Site Plan, a current stormwater management plan. It's in effect. We feel we have a good well engineered septic design within the Town standards and very consistent with Appendix, the 75-A, Department of Health Code. So we don't feel there is any wrong doing on our behalf. We have our lake protections. We'd be happy to add additional plantings in good faith along the, which was consistent to the original application for the neighboring, for the buffering, the evergreens and any specific comments the Board has, but if there is any way that this 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) Board could take some action in response in working with your Town Engineer, and looking at the forecast earlier, I heard that your schedule in November and going on through December, and seeing as though we need to button this property up, and we feel we have a plan to do so, if given the opportunity. So whatever stipulations we put on the developer and the homeowner, we're very welcoming to the fact, and I think that's consistent with the Town Building Department and Craig's comments that we would like to get going and finish that property up and do a good job, and if there's anything I could volunteer this evening, answer questions, and so forth, we would like to open this up to the public at this point. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. You had indicated you had a Phase I permit initially? MR. ESPOSITO-Yes. We have a building permit and a site permit and a septic permit. MR. SEGULJIC-What is a Phase I permit? MR. ESPOSITO-Well, our initial stormwater management controls was not the full stormwater management plan. It was a single family home. It was done for a 10 year storm analysis, which required sodding the lower section so if any of the upland property was, there was some filtering mechanisms. So we had stone armoring at the swales to slow down the runoff, and it's working that by the time it gets down to the lake, everything is filtered through the sod. MR. SEGULJIC-What is a Phase I permit? MR. ESPOSITO-Well, Phase I is the building is raised. MR. SEGULJIC-So you never had a Phase I stormwater permit. Because the only thing that's a Phase I stormwater permit is actually the MS-4's. So you didn't have that. MR. SOLOMON-No. We had a building permit. MR. SEGULJIC-So you had a building permit. MR. SOLOMON-We disturbed less than the 15,000 square feet. MR. SEGULJIC-Your building permit has nothing to do with the stormwater. Are you familiar with Chapter 147? MR. ESPOSITO-Yes, I am. I have it. MR. SEGULJIC-That's what the Town Engineer is referring to, is 147. MR. ESPOSITO-Yes. We have that. We've submitted to him. We have some discrepancies. MR. SEGULJIC-So why do you think it should be a Major Project? You're saying you think it should be a Major. MR. SOLOMON-We don't, sir. MR. ESPOSITO-We don't think it should be a Major. The Zoning Officer. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Can I point out a few things why I think it should be major? You're in a CEA, and Number Two it says if you take a 100 foot line across the center of the site and your slope exceeds 15%, you become a major project, and in your notes yourself, you say yourself, the site, the existing slopes running from 14 to 22%, and when I drew the line across the center of the site, you are 20%. Therefore you're a Major Project. MR. ESPOSITO-Okay, but when we looked at. MR. SEGULJIC-Do you understand what the implications of a Major Project are? MR. ESPOSITO-And that's why we're here. MR. SEGULJIC-And you also indicated you have stormwater quality and quantity data? MR. ESPOSITO-Yes. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. SEGULJIC-What sampling data do you have? MR. ESPOSITO-We have the HydroCad analysis that was prepared and submitted, again, I don't know what Dan had received. We were pooling a lot of material, too, but this was prepared on August 14th, that did the mottling for the runoff for the total site. MR. SEGULJIC-And you had also indicated your stormwater controls are functioning? MR. ESPOSITO-Well, we stopped work on the site two months ago. MR. SEGULJIC-So you stopped inspecting everything? MR. ESPOSITO-Well, no, we have the silt fence installed, the sod installed, but we haven't been able to install the stormwater chambers that were proposed in this design. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I was there this morning. Your silt fence along the lake has a hole in it for beginners. Now when you install silt fence, what are you supposed to do? MR. ESPOSITO-It's supposed to be dug in. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. The silt fence below the house was not. MR. FORD-How about frequency of inspection? MR. ESPOSITO-Well, again, you know, when we were last at the property was with Craig and Dave Hatin. MR. SEGULJIC-So you're not doing inspections? MR. ESPOSITO-Well, I don't. MR. SOLOMON-I've been up there, and there is one low place, and I was going to repair it this weekend, where we've had a pump in there placed over, by the hay bales, so that we could pump water up an water the sod so that we could stop runoff and keep the sod (lost word) and that somehow or another had pushed down that section of the. MR. SEGULJIC-No. There's a hole in the fence, and your applicant indicated everything's functioning correctly, and Number Two your silt fence was not installed correctly, with the house, and Number Three, the silt fence along your northern boundary is not installed correctly either, and Number Four, 147 states that after I believe it's, you can't leave, once you stop work in an area for more than seven days, you have to stabilize it. The whole upland portion of your site is exposed soil with leaders exposed. You have evidence of erosion there. You're in a CEA. MR. ESPOSITO-Well, again, we were told to stop work on the site. MR. SEGULJIC-So does that mean stop inspections of stormwater controls? MR. ESPOSITO-Well, any recommendations were made. MR. SEGULJIC-Did they say to stop inspections? MR. ESPOSITO-That was our understanding. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. ESPOSITO-And we have a proposal, a game plan to put the pipings in, put the gutter and downspouts leadered to an underground chamber design, and limit the proposed runoff to the pre-development condition. MR. SEGULJIC-These are your plans that you submitted to us? MR. ESPOSITO-Yes. That's one of them. There was a sub catchment analysis with the full drainage report that had proposed that, you know, all the erosion controls. Currently, nothing's been done in two months on that property. They just began working on, you know, completing the shingles and hanging the doors and windows per the Building Department, but unfortunately it's true. The whole upper portion of the site should be vegetatively capped prior to winter. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. SEGULJIC-Prior to winter? Prior to any rain event. I believe it states after seven days of no activity, and you just stated you stopped activity there two months ago. So it should have been vegetated a long time ago. MR. ESPOSITO-The current plan has the silt fence, and I saw the hole in the fence, and I saw the owners put the blocking and the hay balings in front of it. The hay baling has some growth on it. There's a sod section with a swale that virtually stops anything from getting to the lake currently. The upper portion of the site needs to be healed over and managed. They had some additional silt fence, I agree. It needs to be managed. We equated that any of this effort of ongoing work is viewed as disturbance that we were to stop work, and that this is what we need to do. If any way possible we could proceed with the management plan we've got with the critiques that we've got, we have a plan to do from the upper portion of the site, after the driveway is re-graded correctly and piped to the underground chamber, that would cease any further runoff from even approaching the sodded area. So, I know, you know, I'm very, I take, you know, your comments to heart, that if there's a hole in the silt fence and, you know, I know the owners need to, you know, start work, and this should be policed. I agree wholeheartedly, but we have a plan that we would like to proceed with, and I would like to see that we could work directly, you know, through the comments of the Town Engineer, and hopefully gain merit with the Town to complete this, on the right footing. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, there's a lot of issues. I mean, I'm concerned that you got a building permit, first of all, without this being, as I understand it, you got a building permit without this being reviewed for a stormwater permit. Is that accurate? MR. BAKER-That's my understanding. MR. SEGULJIC-Which is just wrong in the first place. This only got caught after the fact, and now you're coming in for past sins. I mean, I've noticed like 17 different problems on your site. Does anyone else have any comments? MR. SOLOMON-If I may, we met with the Zoning Department and the Building Department when we applied for this application and said is there anything else we need to do. We turned in all the paperwork and we started work. I mean, I don't know how. MRS. BRUNO-What year was that, last year? MR. SEGULJIC-It's an ongoing issue. MR. SEGULJIC-I think, as a Board, I think what my personal opinion, the first thing we need to do is, the applicant submitted a Minor Project, under 147. MR. FORD-I think it has to be designated Major. MR. SEGULJIC-I think it has to be designated Major, for two reasons. One, you're in a CEA, which I don't notice on any of your plans. Do you know what a CEA is? MR. SOLOMON-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And Number Two, because you exceed the 15%. MOTION THAT SITE PLAN NO. 50-2007 RICHARD SOLOMON BE CONSIDERED A MAJOR STORMWA TER PROJECT, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 23rd day of October, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. SEGULJIC-That means you have to follow all of the requirements under 147 for a Major stormwater project. One is you can't have infiltration of stormwater within 100 feet of the lake. There is a number of requirements in here. The other one is that any area from which natural vegetation cover has been either partially or wholly cleared or removed by development activities shall be re-vegetated within 10 days of substantial 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) completion. So, one of the other conditions I think we have to put in here is they have to have the place stabilized by tomorrow. Who knows what's happening there tonight because you have a hole in your silt fence, and you've improperly installed silt fences on your site. Anybody else? MR. SIPP-Well, that hillside between the house and Knox Road has got to be stabilized quickly. I mean, you're not going to get too much grass to grow this time of year. So I would say that you're going to have to go to some erosion type matting, in order to stabilize that slope. That's quite steep, going from 362 at the top down to 347 at the bottom. You've got a big slope there that's got to be stabilized. There's gully erosion in it already, and it's got to be stabilized. The sod is good, but it's not going to be the end all. You need more buffering the lakeside in order to pick up what the sod is not going to pick up. I think the stormwater will work, as it was explained to me this afternoon, but I'd like to see our engineer take a look at, a hard look at that, because you've got an awful lot of roof area there and you've got an awful lot of water coming off that roof that's going to be, has to be taken care of. I am very concerned about what's happening on this lake where people are getting permission to build houses that are too damn big for the lot, and this is another example of us being shut out completely from the planning and the oversight of some of these buildings. I don't know how they figured Floor Area Ratio, but it's got to be up in the 30% area. Because in the basement there's a living space that opens out onto the lawn in the front. The two story is completely to the point where there is a bedroom, I believe, over a garage over the rest of the house, and it must be four to five bedrooms in this house. It just gets to the point where all of a sudden we're involved here for somebody else's, their mistakes, and I'm getting a little sick of it. Now, we're not going to ask you to tear the house down, but some body's got to get a handle on this whole thing here, some place along the line, and I don't know what Department it's going to be, but, you know, we can't, the fact, if this hadn't occurred, we'd never know this house was being built. We don't take a journey around and see who's building houses lately. I just am totally appalled at what we're getting ourselves into without any oversight, and this should not have been carried on this long. This should have been taken care of months ago, and you've got a terrible slope to the shoreline. I hope your septic system works, because if it doesn't, you're in a lot of trouble there. I assume this is, the septic system is set up for a four, five bedroom house? MR. ESPOSITO-Yes, four bedroom. MR. SIPP-The sod looks good, but that's not a complete filter. I talked, this afternoon, about no fertilizer being used, no nitrogen, no phosphorus fertilizer. Keep that from running into the lake. You're still operating on a 10 or 11 % slope from the house down to the lake, and if we're not going to be informed about this stuff, fine, but don't come and somebody can't come to us and say you take care of it from here on because we screwed up, and I don't care who this gets back to. I just am appalled at the lack of forethought here in getting this thing done. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Ford? MR. FORD-I have nothing to add at this point. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Traver? MR. TRAVER-I think basically it's a situation where we've got to try to stabilize what's there and then, you know, get some plans to the engineer so he can comment. I mean, you go through the letter and it's please clarify, please clarify, and I really don't think that he had an opportunity to evaluate this situation. So I think the first step is some kind of tertiary plan to stabilize the situation and then come up with some kind of a plan to solve the issues, which means that our engineer has to have a fair opportunity to examine. MR. SEGULJIC-Mrs. Bruno? MRS. BRUNO-I agree with both Mr. Sipp and Mr. Traver. MRS. STEFFAN-I think that the, I am not an engineer, and so I think at this point probably the best thing that we can do is to take the Vision Engineering comments and see if the applicant can address those. I mean, that's the best place to start. MR. SEGULJIC-Have you done any test pits on site? 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. ESPOSITO-Well, we had Brian Fear do the original septic, which was a conventional system. It was re-tested, and obviously the home's dug. So when we witnessed the soils there were all fantastic for drainage and septic. So we feel safe with. MR. FORD-So the answer to the question is no? MR. ESPOSITO-I didn't dig test holes. We witnessed the excavation for the building, and we had test pits specifically for septic. So, you know, I wanted to talk to Mr. Ryan about his requirements deep tests when we were at various different plateaus with testing all the way through. MR. SEGULJIC-So how can you show that the stormwater system is going to work if you don't have any test pit data? MR. ESPOSITO-Well, I could tell you, at three inches per hour, we've had a, or three inches per minute, rather, we had a 20 inch per hour assessment for the stormwater, but we went with ten inches per hour, which is even more, twice as conservative, that those soils would take up the storm, and given the fact it's a hard pipe system, it's being stored in detention. Hydraulically when it's being released we're confident that the report stands and that we could, I don't think we're on any bad assumptions with the report that what we've got. So we have an engineer's report that states no fertilizer, and, you know, pretty much according to the Town standard. So I don't, it's embarrassing that, you know, it got to this point, but when we were all called to do the best we could, this is where we are today with it. MR. SEGULJIC-So could you, how big is the house, area wise? MR. ESPOSITO-It's approximately a 1600 foot footprint with a garage, and it's 3100 total, with the garage and all the rooms entirely. MR. FORD-Give us living space, square footage. MR. SOLOMON-3105, with the garage. MR. ESPOSITO-That's with the garage. That's not living. MR. SEGULJIC-So you have, what, like four bedrooms, and a living room? MR. SOLOMON-A master bedroom, and a living room, well, a great room, a kitchen and a great room. Master bedroom downstairs and three bedrooms upstairs. MR. SEGULJIC-There's no den, recreation room, anything like that? An attic. MR. ESPOSITO-Well, the attic's over the garage, but it's consistent with the original building application. MR. SEGULJIC-How tall is the ceiling in the attic? MR. SOLOMON-It's a second floor living space, there is no attic. MR. FORD-Over the garage. That's an attic. MR. ESPOSITO-It's a full height storage area. MR. FORD-What is full height? MR. ESPOSITO-To the peak, the ridge is 20 feet. MR. FORD-From the floor to the peak. MR. ESPOSITO-It's an eight foot high, full height. MRS. BRUNO-Are the windows egress? MR. SOLOMON-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, because what I'm getting at is you have to include any, when you size your septic system, are you familiar with the red book? 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. ESPOSITO-Yes. MR. SOLOMON-It's sized. MR. SEGULJIC-You have to include any space that could be used for living space, like anything that could be used for bedrooms, dens, attics, anything like that. So one thing we want to see is building plans. So we can be comfortable that there's nothing else that's going to be included. The other thing is, under 136-8E, it says septic tank must be below finished grade, within 50 feet of the installation. As I look at your plans, below your septic tank, the grade is much lower than the septic tank itself, within the 50 feet. So I don't see how you're going to meet that requirement. You have to have the three feet of usable soil. I have no evidence of that on these plans. MR. ESPOSITO-It's a pump system. It's pumped up to the field that was a tested field, the four foot. MR. SEGULJIC-I see no, there's nothing on here. MR. ESPOSITO-I could give you the plan. MR. SEGULJIC-I'm appalled at our Building Department personally. If we could open up the table for public comment. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, we did receive three pieces of written correspondence regarding this application. I'll read them whenever you think it's appropriate. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Whoever wants to come up first. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. I'm a resident in North Queensbury, and truly it is appalling that this project has progressed to this point before we become aware of the real problems, and I can recall early on when the site was being cleared getting telephone calls from some of the neighbors, taking a look at it and having long discussions with Mr. Brown about the situation, and being assured that everything was okay. It met all the parameters. I didn't look into it in depth, but I was concerned about it, and back in those days, those early days of this project, we were not very aware of the requirements of the CEA. It was still something being debated in this Town government. So now that's come into focus. If this project was on this list at the time it started, it wouldn't have been in a CEA, because the Staff wasn't recognizing it as a CEA. The project before you tonight is a site plan. It's not a stormwater management plan. It's a site plan, and a stormwater management plan is a part of that. So I think you have to take a broader look at this thing than you've been discussing up to now. As far as site plan goes, have you folks visited this site? You've driven on Knox Road, have you? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-What do you think of that road? Knox Road, believe it or not, is a dedicated Town road, okay. A three rod road was dedicated there when Paul Knox brought on the Knox subdivision in 1993. The Town took land, has a deed to the land. The developer never improved it. That's what you have there today. Now by rights, what we should have is the Fire Marshal being called upon to take a look at the emergency access here, but he doesn't do this sort of thing unless he's specifically requested to do it. Mr. Hatin takes care of it. The Fire Marshal takes care of only commercial property. So there's another failure. This road is woefully inadequate for the development that's going around in that area. The other thing, if you see that area, there is a lot of development going on, and it has evaded the review of this Planning Board, all of it has. None of it has been before the Planning Board because, Number One, no appreciation that it's in a CEA, and just overlooking a lot of details. I think when you get that subdivision plat map out and take a look at the actual layout of Knox Road, you may find that some of the setbacks aren't correct, but it should, I don't know how, I haven't seen the site plan drawing, but I wouldn't be a bit surprised if you just measured it from the edge of the road where it is now, and not where the deeded property line is. As far as the whole project and the thing that concerns me the most is the water, the 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) wastewater and the stormwater. We're trying to handle these two infrastructure items on the same piece of land that has relatively poor soils, relatively shallow depths, very steep slopes, and as I heard before, it's just not going to work. It's just not going to work. They're talking about retaining walls and this. I don't know if those things have been properly designed and keyed and put in. You start infiltrating wastewater behind a retaining wall, all of a sudden you've got saturated soils and you've got yourself a dam. I don't know if it's designed properly, but this project needs to have a serious, serious look taken, from a site plan approval point of view, not just stormwater. Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. Come on up. CHRIS NA VITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-If I could hand out literature. MR. SEGULJIC-Certainly. MR. NAVITSKY-And just one set of photos. Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. I'm passing out a letter with some comments I'd like to put into the record. The Lake George Water Keeper was notified of the clearing on the property in late May of '07 and forwarded photographs to the Town of Queensbury on May 25th regarding the compliance with stormwater regulations. At that time I was informed by the Town that they had no problem with the proposed construction and clearing limits and the stormwater plan was covered. The stormwater plan and report submitted does not comply with Town Code. For example, the applicant's engineer incorrectly analyzes a two year storm event, from what I saw in the report submitted, to determine the required volume based on flow rates. Additionally the corresponding plans are difficult to read at best, and it's difficult to determine the actual system proposed. Item Two I think you covered regarding Major stormwater. Item Three, in the information submitted, the applicant's engineer utilizes runoff coefficients which indicate runoff in post development conditions will be less than pre-development conditions in non-pervious areas. It's very hard to comprehend that a forest with mature pine trees will produce more runoff than a completely cleared and stripped property compacted by construction equipment with two inch turf installed. Four, the application states the runoff from impervious area will be treated by a vegetative filter strip on the quote lower undisturbed portion of the site. First, the lower portion of the site has been completed disturbed and altered. For a proper functioning vegetative buffer strip, the following must occur. Sheet flow is required for the filter strip to maintain a velocity low enough to properly treat stormwater. The plan proposes concentrated flows in two discharge points. Slopes should not exceed two to five percent to maintain a velocity low enough to allow sediments to be removed. I have slopes, the existing slopes are up to 18%. It's very important to have infiltrative soils which are not present. The site soils have been completely stripped and compacted with construction equipment. In addition, turf has been applied which has very shallow roots and will not provide sufficient infiltration capabilities for treatment. Five, there's been no calculations provided regarding the reduction of flow volumes as required by the Town Stormwater Management ordinance. In fact, they just added they were going to put in a large pipe which will not infiltrate stormwater, which is what your ordinances require. So that needs to be addressed. Six, the plan proposes to direct runoff onto adjoining properties without any management, creating erosive conditions. Seven, you've already addressed this. There's no soil investigations, deep test pit or percolation. Eight, regarding the on site wastewater treatment, 136-9B states that no sewage disposal fill may be placed within 200 feet of the shoreline of Lake George. The system proposes the installation of a retaining wall to support the absorption field, and that's about 160 feet, I believe, from the lake. 136-9C says no leaching facility will be permitted within 200 feet of the mean high water of the lake. The percolation rate is 0 to 3 minutes. According to their plan, the percolation rate is three minutes. 136-10B(2) states that allowable natural grade for slope for built up systems shall be 10%. Up in the upper area, near the Knox Road, that's a 30%, and they actually cut and fill that system. So I'm not sure how that's going to work, and also the absorption field should be 20 feet from a dwelling, and they propose, I believe, 12 feet, and you've also talked about the lack of showing where the percolation and deep tests pits are. So in closing, this is a project where the activities performed by the applicant would not have been permitted by this Planning Board, a clear cut of a mature forest along Lake George, complete failure to properly address stormwater management. Complete failure to properly address erosion and sediment control and the development of a site which cannot provide adequate wastewater treatment. The project has impacted the water quality of Lake George through sedimentation, increased nutrients from clear cutting and removal of soils, all impacts on adjoining properties. I do believe the DEC had visited the site, because there was complaints, and there was a consent order, I believe, which 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) promulgated the installation of turf. It's hard to understand how the Town can allow a project to proceed to this point by being informed as early as late May. There's been substantial completion of the project, and the Planning Board should review the application as if there's been nothing constructed and determine how the site can be developed within the Code. It should not be pressured by potential economic concerns from an applicant who should have been aware of the land development process. Also I think they may need a DEC SWPPP because it discharges directly to an impaired water, which is Lake George. So there should be a DEC SPDES Permit also. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. A question for you, Mr. Navitsky. You're saying that before the site development, that site was treed? MR. NAVITSKY-Yes. There was substantial forest on it. There was, obviously, some structures on there, but it was, I mean, you see the size of the trees on either side, and that was fairly consistent. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Anyone else wish to comment? BOB GLANDON MR. GLANDON-My name is Bob Glandon and my wife Vicky. We own the property immediately to the south of this, and we are one of the impacted areas. To the question as to the size, the real estate brochure for this says a 3500 square foot, including basement, nine foot ceilings. It has a first floor master suite with slate bath, there's one. Two bedroom, two bath up, plus a bonus room. So there's two more plus maybe another one, and then there's an additional bedroom bonus room over the garage with the bath. So the one over the garage you were asking about, so you've got probably six bedrooms and I look at it at the 30% coverage also. The main part of the house is 1500 square foot in the basement, 1500 on the first floor. The second floor has a little bit of a dormer area that takes some off, but that's 4500, and then you have the garage wing, and when you look at coverage, you've got to add the garage. I assume you do because you have to add a standalone garage. So you've got 770 square feet on that floor, and then another 770 above it, with the eight foot ceilings in the bedroom. So you're at 6,000 square feet. So, at a bare minimum, the Town should get more money for its building permit because I guess it's done on square footage, but in terms of the site erosion, and maybe I could talk to that plan, if I could, because we're getting much more erosion now than is necessary. What's happened is that the building was overbuilt. It's well over 28 feet above the ground, but through some fancy footwork, they're trying to get that covered, and they're adding dirt to do it. So on this side here, on the north edge, the grade outside now is being called out for 347, yet the original grade, running right through it, is at 340. So that north wall, you bring up seven feet, and there's a basement well window here and even call that a window well. That's now been bricked in because they've got to cover it with dirt. If you cover that, if you bring that up to 347, then from that point up you've got your 28 feet. So that gives you the legal building height. The trouble is, that's seven feet above the natural grade, and the zoning codes require you to use natural grade or fill grade in a cut, and that's so, back and hill on a cut, so what they've done is they've pushed out fill to the outside, and that's what these two wing walls are for, on both sides, is to build that dirt up. Without this wing wall, it would just all flow down. So the normal grade would have come right down here. There would be no flow to the north. The same thing here. The normal grade would have come down. We would not have dirt coming into our property, and it's already coming in. These bales that are here are virtual bales because they don't exist. We have mud that has come out across, has run down at least 15 feet into our property, down along this back addition. The front of our house is 100 years old, and it's on piers, and if this continues to flow down through there, I guess I'll be in front of you for a building permit to replace my structure or something, but this has all been done. These walls, these wing walls that go into the side yards, they're nine to ten feet high. They extend twenty feet out at a forty-five degree angle. So they're eight feet from my side yard, eight feet from this side yard, and from the lake if you were there, you saw them. They're huge monstrosities, but that's all to pick up this grade right here, to get the building height measurement. I'd rather, if you're going to leave the building, let it be as tall as it is, but get rid of this grading and 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) stuff because that's causing more problems in terms of what it pushes off on either side. These wells that are here are four feet deep, to catch water. This one is already covered with dirt because it's been washing down into it and it's filled it. So if a four foot deep rock pit is supposed to catch water, maybe it will, even if they dig it out right now, maybe it will then, at the start, but within 10 years the water will be running right over it. So it's just an ongoing concern that I have, and being on our side, we're seeing the same thing in terms of the flooding over to our side. The back end of the lot, where you were all talking about the septic, that, as you all saw, has eroded considerably. They've got 33 feet there. You're supposed to be 10 feet from the road, with your septic, 20 feet from your house. That leaves you three feet. It's all fill. So there's no way that any perc test was done there because that land did not exist. That's all fill on top of what had been a very steep drop off. We cross country ski in the wintertime around here, and that was one of my favorite downhill slopes right there. It was a lot of fun to make that one without falling. So what you've got there is a septic field that doesn't have the right amount of ground. It's going to have this 10 or 11 foot high leach field, excuse me, retaining wall that the leach field's just going to come through the drain hole. So I think we've got a problem with that septic. I would suggest, since you said solutions, if you took the two car garage, what should have been done from the start is that these walls on the east side and this north side here should have been concrete, and instead of this horrendous cut that's in there, the dirt should have just come down. Why not have that garage buried and have a retaining wall that came straight out from the garage? Then you'd have a much kinder slope up there. You'd have more dirt to deal with for the septic. If you really want to get a little more space, you can do that, just make those into a concrete wall instead of a frame wall, better yet, take out one car out of the garage there, and cut 'er back. Then you'd have plenty of space for your septic, and I'd be fine with you taking the roof down to get back down to 28 feet, too, but I guess maybe we don't close all barn doors after the horses are out. The side yard encroachment, that's the other point. The wing walls are now going to also have a staircase coming down them. Stairs are allowed in side yards to have access to a basement or a first floor. That's normally a few steps up or maybe a five foot out, you know, kind of a like a bilco hatch down into your place, not a grand staircase that travels 25 feet and has two landings and a concrete pad down at the bottom of it to also cause problems with absorption. I guess that's all I had for you. I appreciate you taking the time. If you've got any questions, I used to be, in my youth, I guess I still am a mechanical engineer, and I used to be a consultant engineer. So I think I know what I'm talking about, and since I designed sewage waste treatment, I know a little bit about septics. So, thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. Anybody else? PETER BROTHERS MR. BROTHERS-Good evening. Peter Brothers. I won't add too much more because it's late at night. I'm very concerned about t he lack of standards that this Town has for various projects, and specifically speaking I see different projects getting approved around our area where we live, and there might be minor projects, such as whether it be just a small storm shed or gazebo, or maybe a septic tank on a huge lot far, far away from the lake, you know, 300 feet, and the people that come before here, they get thrown to the wolves. Not necessarily you folks in particular, but anyone within the Town I'm saying, and then you have other projects where you have some of the most egregious situations and they just get to walk right through the process. Something is wrong, and I think there needs to be something addressed. Craig Brown, Dave Hatin, they keep on just issuing these permits for various projects, and another one is specifically 208 Lake Parkway. I've talked a lot about that, and, you know, this person had no hearing before you, the Planning or Zoning Board. Maybe the regulations didn't require it, go by this place, and quite honestly it's an eyesore, and, I think that we really need to give serious consideration for future proposals that come before this Board. I'm not saying that the property owner doesn't do anything because that would be really penalizing, but I think you want to have Codes in place where people are able to do what's reasonable, but I think, you know, maybe tonight or another certain application such as this one on 208 Lake Parkway specifically, you can see, you don't even have to be an engineer, I don't think, to see what is reasonable and unreasonable , and sometimes the approvals are based sometimes on whether it be, not necessarily in this case per se, but you've seen it in other cases where it's sometimes a well known politically connected attorneys coming and certain people buckle to the pressure, and I think of course that happened specifically on a previous project also, you know, the Barrington Devine project on Assembly Point was one of them, and a couple of members I think on this Board, you know, got pressured into voting in favor of that, but, that being said, I just would like to see some changes or just something that's reasonable for everyone. You're not going to make everybody happy. We know that, but I think you can have some kind of plan in 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) place to address situations. It's not fair necessarily to the property owners. They come in and they have certain projects that come before these Boards and they present something that's reasonable and they get denied but other projects, you know, that are just really out in the stratosphere even just, I think we've got to have some fairness, and that's all I've got to say. MR. SEGULJIC-AII right. Thank you. Quick comment. It's getting late. MR. FORD-And we've got letters. MR. SEGULJIC-And we've got letters. MR. SALVADOR-Just an item I forgot the first time, and I've mentioned this to this Board before. One thing that's lacking in this project I believe is the fact that they require a water well. The Residential Building Code of the State of New York that was put in place in 2003, which our Town has adopted requires a source of water, and I'm reading from Chapter 26 of the Residential Code of the State of New York. Sources of water, dependent on geological and soil conditions and the amount of rainfall, individual water supplies are of the following type: Drilled well, driven well, or dug well, in accordance with the applicable New York State Department of Health Regulations. Individual Sewage Treatment System. Individual Sewage Treatment System shall be constructed in conformance with the provisions of Appendix 75A of the Department of Health Administrative Rules, Regulations, etc. Our Chapter 136 nods to Appendix 75A, but it's a zoning tool. It's not a sanitary code. Appendix 75A is a sanitary code, and we just don't, you talk about bedrooms. What's the definition of a bedroom? It should be defined in our Code. Then we all play by the same rule book. You have one coming up before the ZBA shortly, and it may come back to you. They have a den in the basement with a private bath. That's not a bedroom. So we need these definitions. Everybody plays by the same rules. We all know what we're talking about then. Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. You have some letters. MR. BAKER-The first letter we have is from the Glandons, and Mr. Glandon covered most of the points. Would you like this read into the record? I can distribute copies to the Board, if you'd prefer that. MR. GLANDON-I think I covered it, but it's long. MR. BAKER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-We appreciate the comments. MR. BAKER-That was received on the 22nd. The following two were received this afternoon. The first was from Thomas West of the West Law Firm in Albany, addressed to Chris Hunsinger, Chairman of the Queensbury Planning Board. "Dear Mr. Hunsinger: We represent Bonnie Rosenberg who is the owner of 73 Knox Road, which is the residence immediately to the north of the property that is the subject matter of this application. We are unable to attend your meeting this evening, but ask that this letter be read and entered into the record of this proceeding. We understand that the applicant has filed certain site plan documents that show the driveway for the applicants proposed site plan extending onto the property of Mrs. Rosenberg. As of this writing, the applicant has no legal right to use any portion of the Rosenberg parcel. Although we are currently in negotiations with the applicant concerning a shared driveway arrangement, we have not been able to reach an agreement concerning those issues. Until such time as there is an agreement concerning the shared driveway, it is improper for the planning board to review any plans that depict any part of the driveway extending onto the Rosenberg parcel. On the basis of the foregoing, we respectfully urge you to adjourn the public hearing and to require the applicant to file plans and supporting documents that do not depend upon any use of the Rosenberg parcel before any aspect of this application is reviewed by the Queensbury Planning Board. Very truly yours, Thomas S. West" The second letter also received this afternoon is from Dr. Carol Collins of 35 Knox Road. "Dear Members of the Planning Board, I have asked Stuart Baker to read my comments tonight as I am dealing with the flu. I wish to thank him for communicating my concerns. Earlier this year, a hillside of soil was removed from the Solomon Development on Knox Road. Having grown up on Knox Road, I am familiar with the steep slope, and large mature trees that once characterized the homestead. Earlier this summer, trucks began carving the hillside at an extraordinary pace and the removal of tons of soil caused me to contact the town with my concerns and photograph the site. I also contacted Stu Buchanan, Regional Director of the NYS DEC at the time and he assigned a case 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) number to the site. The devastating impacts of these kinds of development on the lake needs to be quantified. Review of the project as a major project also needs to consider the original site conditions and opportunities lost for mitigation. Additionally, the Town of Queensbury and towns around the lake with APA approved plans should review the guidelines of the APA for building on steep slopes. The removal of tons of soil from the Solomon site will and has - undoubtedly contributed significantly to the nutrient loading and eutrophication of the lake. I have made preliminary calculations using soil sorption coefficients for several forms of phosphorus, nitrogen, calcium and some heavy metals to determine these loads to the lake. If neighboring properties and other steep slopes around the lake were able to be built out in this way, I can conservatively estimate an increase of 20% additional load of phosphorus compounds to the lake. This amount would easily change the trophic status of the lake. Unfortunately, this conservative estimate is just that. More likely, nutrients normally adsorbed by these extirpated soils, would contribute an additional 50% loading to the lake. I am asking the town's engineering firm to do these calculations and present them to the Board so that the Board can consider these impacts to the lake as they make their decisions. So how do you, as a Board, possibly review a stormwater plan that cannot even begin to meet the requirements of a major project? The site was changed so significantly that nutrient removal cannot approach values that may have been possible without the loss of the hillside. I would strongly review any and all assumptions and calculations provided by the applicant. The Board should also consider restoration of the site to predevelopment conditions as an alternative and change the planning policy on hillside carving for the future. Thank you for the opportunity to address the Board. Very truly yours, Carol D. Collins, Ph.D. 35 Knox Road Lake George, NY 12845" MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I have a question for Staff. As I look at this information, the stormwater permit was signed on the 16th. I guess it was issued on the 16th, September 16th. Then we got the engineer, Vision Engineering comments were addressed on October 20th, okay. The stormwater regulations state that, under 147-13, it says no stormwater permit shall be issued unless the Town of Queensbury makes the following findings. One is that the project meets the design requirements and performance standards set forth in this regulation. How could our Zoning Administrator or building permit person issue a permit that then our Town Engineer comes up with a three page letter of comments on that obviously the permit didn't meet the requirements? MR. BAKER-Obviously I can't answer for other Staff. MR. SEGULJIC-Should the Board pass a motion to get an answer on that? Because apparently they're issuing stormwater permits that don't meet the requirements and the regulation says they have to meet the requirements before a permit is issued. What can we do about that? MR. BAKER-I've already sent a note to Staff that they'll want to listen to the tape of this particular application. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Another issue is, I'm sorry to take up everyone's time. 179-6-060 talks about cutting restrictions. The site beforehand was vegetated. That's my understanding. Is that accurate? MR. ESPOSITO-There was structures on it. MR. SEGULJIC-Were there trees on the site? MR. ESPOSITO-Yes. Not fully wooded. MR. SEGULJIC-But there were trees on site? MR. SOLOMON-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. 179-6-060, are you familiar with that? MR. ESPOSITO-No. MR. SEGULJIC-It deals with cutting restrictions along the shoreline. It says, in the case of shoreline of all lakes, the following standards shall apply. Within 35 feet extending inland from all points along the mean high water mark, no vegetation may be removed. It's been implied tonight that you removed vegetation in that area. MR. FORD-Can we get a response to that observation? 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. ESPOSITO-Sure. At the time, the owners began this application in '05. So it's true that no one, there was no immediate immediacy at the time, but there were demolition plans. There was a camp, you know, located in that area and at that time, there was no large trees removed down in that, we're looking at the 50 foot buffer. There were pines up on the hill that altered the character of that slope. There were pine trees that were removed in the vicinity of the footprint. MR. SEGULJIC-So your statement is that no large trees were removed. MR. ESPOSITO-No, anything at the property buffers, the large trees on the perimeters, were maintained. The trees were removed for the new building footprint. The old campsites and the garage were demolished. So that did alter the change in the site. The stormwater management plan that we're looking at now assumes that everything is vacant green, and we would like, thank you very much to everyone, you know, for your comments, but we would like the opportunity to respond to your Town Engineer, come up with an appropriate septic field, which we feel we have, those were good modifications as far as, you know, the garage wall being changed and giving more area. We would like to become responsive to that, that the site, you know, will become stabilized as immediately as the owner can do that physically possible. So what we're altering is if we took a snapshot before and we look at what we're doing now, we would like an opportunity to respond. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Stu, when is that picture from there? MR. BAKER-That's from 2004 aerial photography. MR. SEGULJIC-That seems pretty treed to me. So, what the Code goes further to state is, under 179-6-060B(3), Re-vegetation. "Where a shoreline lot owner violates the shoreline cutting restrictions, the Zoning Administrator shall require total re-vegetation so as to create a buffer strip area which is in compliance with this section." I'm not making any of this up. So we need that 35 foot back from the lake re-vegetated. You need to submit a plan for that. It goes on further to state, "A vegetative recommendation can be made by the Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District, if requested by the Zoning Administrator." So we're requesting the Zoning Administrator request this. As a matter of fact, I think it will be part of our motion. MR. SIPP-Mr. Chairman, I spoke with one of these gentlemen this afternoon and requested that they have a buffer area, or a plan for a buffer area ready to go, and I said I would give to him tonight some of the recommended plantings that should be in that buffer area. We're looking at 35 feet back from the lake edge, in which you have recommended trees, shrubs, ground cover, ferns, so forth. If you need help with this, the Lake George Association stands ready and willing to help you out and do this. I think you people are caught in the middle, and I'm sorry to have, you know, this come to this, but I think that you weren't given direction and direction, oversight has been pretty lax, and I think a lot of things have just been pushed off and not done correctly, and here's a chance to redeem some of this by doing the right thing, at least beginning, and I would like to see those mats on that slope as soon as possible. MR. ESPOSITO-I agree. MR. SIPP-I don't think you're going to get any grass to grow, but at least that will hold, and I assume that the Town plows the snow right down the hill on that site, and that's where it's going to go when they turn around and come back, it's going to go right down that hill right towards the garage. So I think you're definitely going to need something there to hold that slope through the winter. MR. FORD-I haven't said much up to this point, but I want to get your impression. You've been doing a lot of listening in the last hour or so. What can be done with that structure? Granted we've got a lot of land that we're concerned with, and erosion and so forth. I want to hear your ideas on the structure itself and the potential for modification thereof. MR. ESPOSITO-Well, I know that everyone, you know, the owners have their opinion. I know it's a task incomplete, which is probably worse than, but if we could have further discussions with the neighbor to see the stone facing on the walls. There is grading, there is no landscaping done virtually. I agree with the decision to have the front garage revert to some type of foundation where the fill could be placed there. I saw the slope before, and I see what it is now, and I think, you know, all is not lost. I would like, you 69 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) know, the opportunity, once again, to help improve the site elements. As far as the building, the owners can comment on that, if the garage physically changes in any manner, but the peaks were all well established. I think the original plan, like I say, put it in the perspective of two years ago. I can't blame Craig or Dave. We were looking at a minor application, and it began, as everyone became better informed, it changed before my eyes. So if you ask me how the best possible vision, it has to, we have to be on notice and made accountable for the improvement. I, for one, I can't, you know, wish the structure away. I think it's a good looking building, and I think if some realistic, tangible things, as far as the visual amenities, and I could see the scrub vegetation that was three feet high there, the honeysuckle and some wild vegetation. I mean, we could, I think, re- plant that, but a lot of it around the immediate lake frontage is pretty kept as it was. I was told, I missed that opportunity to see, you know, there was a problem with the site excavation. He did get carried away. So I think the owners have to be made accountable to restore that, but, yes, building related, there's only a handful of things I think we can all pick on, but site wise there's an abundance of things, and we'll, as you say, begin with the Town Engineer's response, and do the best we can, you know, because I don't think it's a bad property. I'm sorry to hear the personal comments, but they're not unnoticed. Thank you for the neighborhood criticisms, but I can't blame Building Department. Eyes wide open, that was the application at the time. That was the same scale of the building, same elevations, the same site plan. The only thing that's changed, I think, is the retaining walls and switching to an Eljen septic design that was more an unconventional system, but Department of Health recognizes that also. MR. FORD-So there were no modifications in the original structural designs? MR. ESPOSITO-No. The wing walls that Bob had mentioned were all there, except they had stone face. There was six different versions that I've seen of the stairs and keeping it off the wing wall. Maybe that's something, you know, if it's going to be a direct insult to you, maybe personally some things could be made. AUDIENCE MEMBER-The original wing well was like two feet high. This is now 10 feet high. MR. SOLOMON-The original was always nine foot. MR. FORD-So that's a modification in the original plan. MR. SOLOMON-No, the original wing wall was that high because of the elevations and that is what they approved, and believe me, if I would have know there would be this much grief when I went to the Building Department to get a building permit and gave them all the plans and everything I wouldn't have been involved in this thing. We presented a plan to the Building Department. We gave them, you know, the footprint of the lot and everything. They approved it. We've stuck with everything. Those wing walls were part of the original application and approval, okay. MR. FORD-In their exact current dimensions? MR. SOLOMON-Within six inches of height. MR. ESPOSITO-It was always a walkout basement, and actually the owners, you know, consulted with the Building Department and said, well, do you want to revert this to windows and have not walkout, because, you know, to me it was a basement, but if there's allowance in the Code and we look, I'm sure the owners would elect to limit the development on the interior to four bedrooms. That's what the original home was. They're not trying to get cute, but, you know, these are all issues that. MR. FORD-Well, talk about being cute, you're talking about a structure or a bedroom now we find with a bath over the garage, and you refer to it as storage. MR. ESPOSITO-The original building plans had that room as storage MR. SOLOMON-No, it was a bonus room, sir. It's a bonus room. MR. FORD-I heard it referred to as storage. You don't put a bathroom in something to store things in. MR. SOLOMON-In a storage room, I agree, but it was, on the plans it was called a storage room. 70 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. ESPOSITO-Well, I think the owners are electing to call it what it is and build what it is, and build no more and define what that is, publicly, at this point. MR. SOLOMON-But, you know, I'm sitting here and I'm saying, you know, I applied for a building permit for a structure. It was approved. We went exactly by what they approved. Now, if there are modifications to be made that would make everybody happy, and, you know, be able to work this out, the thing is, nobody will tell us, do this and this will be okay or do that and this will be okay, or, you know, put up a wall where we want to put up a retaining wall and then put the matting down that he's referring to. They told us two months ago, when we wanted to do something, you can't do anything more and you can't touch anything. Now we have the one neighbor to the south who I had told personally that as soon as I had a chance, I would take care of the runoff to his property, and I would put some trees there and do whatever was necessary to stop, you know, the runoff, and I did say that to you, and then all of a sudden they came down and they gave me a Stop Work Order and I said I promised the guy next door I was going to do that, and they said, if you do, we're going to fine you. So at that point there was nothing I could really do. To this day I say I told you personally that I would fix it, I'd repair it and do whatever was necessary to take care of it, but when they told me I couldn't do anything, it kind of made it hard for me, too. MR. FORD-Okay. MR. ESPOSITO-Well, I'm sensing that, I'm hearing things for the first time, and I can. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, the Codes haven't changed, okay. The Codes haven't changed since you started this project. It's your responsibility to know what the Codes are. It's also the Staff's responsibility to highlight them to you. MR. SOLOMON-Nobody's accusing you of making anything up. What I'm saying to you is if you go to the departments who are responsible for issuing permits within the Town, they're the ones that I thought were supposed to inform you of what can be done, what cannot be done, what kind of a structure should be put on the property and what shouldn't, and when you get it back from them and it's stamped and it says, okay, this is what you're allowed to do, and then you do it, and then you end up here, it's kind of strange. MR. SEGULJIC-I would go back to the Staff and talk to the appropriate Staff, because it is an issue. It is an issue. MR. SOLOMON-I mean, if I came in here and you said to me, this is something that wasn't supposed to be done. It says so in black and white right here and you shouldn't have done this. It's in black in white. You broke the rules and you did this and that and the other thing, you know, I would deserve what I'm getting. MR. FORD-Well, somebody on Staff recognized the fact that there needed to be a Stop Work Order issued. MR. SOLOMON-Only after other people started to complain to them and so on. It wasn't that we had done anything different than they had said we could do. It's that all of a sudden other people are saying they shouldn't be doing that. We hadn't varied or gone anywhere off of the path that they had instructed us to be on. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Does anyone else have any comments? Okay. I think we're ready for a motion. All right. This is what we have for our motion. I'm just going to list down the conditions right now. The first condition would be install fabric mats on slope along Knox Road by October 24th, and stabilize the remainder of the site. Address Vision Engineering comments, submit a re-vegetation plan in accordance with in 179-6- 060. Comply with Chapter 147 Stormwater Requirements as a Major Project. Comply with Chapter 136, Sanitary Standards, as well as the individual residential wastewater treatment system design handbook. Submit building plans. What we want is the inside rooms so we can see exactly what's going on. We would like to have cuts of the site, pre-development and post-development. We'd like to know the amount of fill you're bringing on site, and any fill you bring on site has to be of equal or lesser nutrient value than the existing soil on site, and when I say that, I mean, a pre-development existing soil. So we don't mean the soil that was brought on site for the turf, because that's nutrient loaded, and I'll bet you it's from Washington County, and a farm, loaded with nutrients. Provide us with FAR calculations. We need a Fire Marshal review of the site for site access. Is there anything I missed? 71 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. SIPP-Re-vegetation should be of indigenous plants. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, he has to submit the plan. Did I miss anything? Can we let that stand as a motion? MR. FORD-Can we give some consideration to modification of that structure? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, we don't even know what it is. We don't have plans for it. I mean, do you have something in mind? MR. TRAVER-They have to submit a plan. I mean, we've got to see a plan, and then. MR. SEGULJIC-We have no idea what the building area is. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. FORD-You can start with a plan. We'll get to the building through the plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2007 RICHARD SOLOMON, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: For submission of the following information: 1. Install fabric mats on slopes along Knox Road by October 24, 2007, and stabilize the cleared areas of the site. 2. Complete daily inspections of on site temporary stormwater controls. Stormwater inspection records are to be available on site as well as submitted to the Planning Staff once per month. 3. Address Vision Engineering comments. 4. Submit a re-vegetation plan in accordance with 179-6-060. 5. Comply with Chapter 147 Stormwater Regulations as a Major Project. 6. Comply with Sanitary Standards of Chapter 136, as well as individual residential wastewater treatment system design handbook. 7. Submit building plans. 8. Provide cuts of pre-existing and post development conditions. 9. Provide the quantity of fill and the nutrient quality of the proposed fill. 10. Provide FAR calculations. 11. Have the Fire Marshal review site access. 12. Provide visual impacts from the lake. 13. Provide two foot contours of the site. 14. Provide test pit data in all areas of proposed stormwater controls and septic system. Duly adopted this 23rd day of October, 2007, by the following vote: MRS. STEFFAN-Contours? MR. FORD-We've got the structural plan in there, right? That's in there. MRS. STEFFAN-Contours? MR. SEGULJIC-Also provide two foot contours of the site. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic 72 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you for your time. MR. SOLOMON-Okay. Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-AII right. One last thing. One last quick order of business. This is a resolution to close what I foresee and I think others foresee as a loophole in 147. So if you could all read it and we'll make a motion. MR. FORD-I sure would appreciate getting these before five of twelve. MR. SEGULJIC-Sorry. MR. FORD-I mean, you want us to study it. MR. SEGULJIC-AII right. We'll do it next time. Does everyone have a problem, or just Tom? MRS. BRUNO-I'm having trouble soaking things up right now. MR. SEGULJIC-AII right. We'll do it next time. MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, we still have the agenda scheduling for November to discuss as well. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. BAKER-We have, we already have 11 items over three meetings scheduled for November. MR. SEGULJIC-Eleven items for three meetings? MR. BAKER-Yes, that includes the Special Meeting just for Schermerhorn on November 1 st. MR. SEGULJIC-So five on the other two. MR. BAKER-Actually we've got to bump that up. It'll be 13 items over three meetings, and if we do that, that will bump four items that were submitted onto the December agenda. Alternatively we could try to, if the Board preferred, we could try to schedule an additional meeting to try to address those, if you'd rather not bump them until December. MR. SEGULJIC-What kind of projects are we looking at? MR. BAKER-Sherwood Acres Final, Final Subdivision, amendment to a commercial parking lot, Brennan Final Subdivision, Whalen Final Subdivision, Fedorowicz subdivision. I'm not sure what stage that's at. MRS. STEFFAN-I personally would rather move them until December. It's Thanksgiving. It's an extra meeting already, and the Schermerhorn one on the 1st is going to be a lot, and that's next week, to prepare for, and, you know, this is just taking way too much time. MR. FORD-To what extent is the Chair of our committee participating in the development of the agendas? MR. BAKER-Pretty much daily communication with the Zoning Administrator. MR. TRAVER-I think it's an issue not so much of numbers of applications, but the effectiveness of the Board, it's really the nature of the hours that each meetings last. So that if we can structure, and Chris and I were talking about this a little bit. If, you know, we could do things like try to make a good faith effort to make the schedule for a given meeting such that we would not start the review of another application after 11 p.m. 73 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/07) MR. BAKER-There's actually language in the current Policies and By-laws of the Planning Board that allows you to do just that. I don't know that that language has been put to use in the three years I've been back with the Town. MR. TRAVER-Well, it hasn't because, you know, I mean, we're doing what we can to get through the agenda, but I think, you know, what I'm saying is, in developing the items that are scheduled for a given meeting, rather than say, well, there's five items, if we can think in terms of the nature of the applications and how long they're likely to take. We might have three items one night and maybe seven on another night, and end up getting out of here at midnight. MR. BAKER-Yes. To extent Staff already works with the Board Chairman to do just that, but it's impossible, frankly, to predict the level of public input you're going to get. MR. TRAVER-It is. It's very difficult. In that case, it would be nice if we could err on the shorter side rather than the long side, to make a certain buffer in there, with the understanding that we have the goal of being done at 11, and then if we need to, we can add another meeting. MR. BAKER-Yes. Currently the Planning Board By-laws, Policies and Procedures allow for a maximum of six applications to be reviewed at each meeting. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I thought it was 12 in a month. MR. BAKER-That is 12 a month. That's two regular meetings. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So getting back to the choices we have a fourth meeting in November, which I'm sensing people aren't too hip about, or we kick the things until December. So I say we kick them to December. MR. BAKER-Or add them to the agendas on the 20th and the 27th, and make those longer. The preference I seem to be hearing is bump them to December. MR. SEGULJIC-That four is included in the 12, or it would make it 16? MR. BAKER-Those four would make it, probably make it 17. MR. SEGULJIC-AII right. We'll kick them to December. MR. BAKER-Okay. That is what we will do. December will be 12, unless you add another meeting. MR. TRAVER-Or unless we postpone another thing until December, right? MR. BAKER-I mean, you can table stuff until December, but you'll still be at 12 applications to review. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So I think we're all set. We need a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 23, 2007, Introduced by Donald Sipp who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 23rd day of October, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic NOES: Mr. Traver ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Thomas Seguljic, Acting Chairman 74