Loading...
2007-11-27(Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 27, 2007 INDEX Subdivision No. 1-2007 Cerrone Builders, K. Kennah, Wm. Joslyn, 1. PRELIMINARY STAGE C. Bishop Tax Map No. 315.5-1-1. 315-1-1, 315-1-4 Special Use Permit No. 54-2007 Cindy & Michael Trombley 19. Tax Map No. 265-1-16 Site Plan No. 55-2007 Kenny Properties/David Kenny 24. Tax Map No. 288.12-1-21 Site Plan No. 56-2007 George Ryan 52. Tax Map No. 266.3-1-9 Subdivision No. 13-2006 Thomas & Lisa Brennan 68. FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 315-1-12.1, 12.2 Subdivision No. 13-2007 John Fedorowicz 70. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 265.-1-19.11 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 27, 2007 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY THOMAS SEGULJIC TANYA BRUNO DONALD SIPP STEPHEN TRAVER MEMBERS ABSENT THOMAS FORD SENIOR PLANNER-STUART BAKER TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER FIRTH-JEFF MEYER STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2007 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED CERRONE BUILDERS, K. KENNAH, WM. JOSLYN, C. BISHOP AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-1A, RC - 3A, WR-3A LOCATION WEST MT & CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 227 + ACRE PARCEL INTO 26 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1.0 ACRES TO 47.13 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 222.2 ACRES, 3.44 ACRES, 1.84 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 315.5-1-1, 315-1-1, 315-1-4 SECTION A-183 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. BAKER-Yes. As follow up to the previous tabling of this application, the applicant submitted additional information, as was requested by the Board, including a visual analysis from various vantage points from the surrounding area. A revised subdivision plat has been included showing no cut zones previously discussed. The applicant has also stated that earth tone color homes would be the only colors allowed for the proposed home. At the previous meeting, the applicant discussed phasing this project by subdividing Lots One through Fifteen now and returning at a later date to subdivide Lots 16 through 25. Staff recommends that the subdivision map be revised to show the land that will be subdivided at a later date as one large parcel as it will remain. The current map shows the full subdivision of the entire parcel. If the intent is to phase this application, the subdivision map should accurately show what is presently being subdivided. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. For the purpose of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent the applicant, and with me at the table is Tom Nace from Nace Engineering, and I think first we’d like to have Tom go over the material that he submitted or answer any questions on the material that he’s submitted to you that you requested at the last meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. NACE-I guess the material is straightforward enough that I simply will answer questions, unless you want me to make a presentation. MR. SEGULJIC-I was just going to say, the visual shows there shouldn’t really be any visual impact. MR. NACE-Not really. The site, all the building sites are on a bench that’s only up a little ways above West Mountain and Corinth Roads, and they’re on a fairly level area before 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) the mountain really starts to rise in behind. So, in that respect, you’d almost have to be up on a mountaintop somewhere opposite them, which there is no mountaintop opposite them to be able to see it in front. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it addressed my concern when you addressed the visual impact. MRS. STEFFAN-Where is the house? At what grade level is the existing house on that? MR. NACE-At what grade level is the existing house. Since we didn’t, that property’s not being subdivided, we didn’t do a topo through there, but it would be approximately the same level as Lot 17, if you look on the subdivision plat. It’s up toward the rear, and the rear end of the existing lots there are approximately the same elevation as Lot 17. MRS. STEFFAN-So that would be about 410 feet, something like that. MR. NACE-Yes, about, let me go to a different map. It’s like 416 feet. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-On your site visual analysis, you’re showing West Mountain, well, three different elevations actually. One it’s less than 400 on Section A. MR. NACE-West Mountain Road? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I’m sorry. I’m looking at Corinth Road. West Mountain Road is shown on Section B. It looks like it’s between 405 and 410. Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, because the elevation at the bottom of the drawing says that, and I think there’s a plotting point next to Corinth Road, and it’s 397 feet elevation at Corinth Road. That’s why I asked where the Pumpkin Farm is. One of the reason I asked about the visual impact is because view sheds are important to me, and especially in that particular area, and I tried to go through and identify, you know, where the no cut zones were, and we’re good with that, but one of my concerns is what happens when you put a house in an area that’s a view shed? Most houses are two stories. Sometimes they’re three stories, but there’s a map, the Scenic Views and Vistas, and this property is right on the edge of the Scenic Views and Vistas Map, and so it kind of, it cuts right in, and so I tried to do some of my own identification about where some of the elevations were so I could determine where the houses would be and whether that falls within the Scenic Views and Vistas, and the way the map, the way the Scenic Views and Vistas Map is written, it’s hard to know exactly where this property falls on it, and it seems to identify that the areas that fall within the areas of scenic value are at the 500 foot elevation. So the subject property is here. MR. NACE-The subject property is here, and across here. The houses are down in approximately there. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, at the lower level. MR. NACE-Okay. See, where the Scenic Views, and this shows what I think my cross sections show, too, is from West Mountain Road it comes up gradually and shelves a little bit flat, or close to flat, and then comes up very steep, and the Scenic Views and Vistas Map shows that the critical area is within that steep band where the ground is steep enough if you clear off an area you’re going to be able to see, from a distance you’re going to be able to see into that cleared area because of the steepness of the land, but where we have the houses, this would correlate, Chris, do you have that other map in here? MR. HUNSINGER-This map? MR. NACE-Yes, the basic underlayment for this map is the same as for this, okay, and I have the, well, this is way up on top, okay. This, right there? MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. NACE-Is that little piece right there. MRS. STEFFAN-Correct. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. NACE-Okay. So, and you can see our houses are all way down here. Your Scenic Views and Vistas line starts somewhere right here where it starts to get steep. In fact, it cuts right through that little knob that you see there. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. That’s what I wasn’t clear about. MR. NACE-Okay. So we’re well below that Scenic, that’s cutting across that knob and coming across here with your Scenic Views and Vistas, and all our houses are down below that, well below that. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. Okay. These are just the ones that I was worried about. MR. NACE-Okay. Those are well below that. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. It’s a map that doesn’t often get a lot of attention, but I think it needs a lot more attention. MR. NACE-I don’t disagree with you. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there a certain elevation that we could say that no foundations will be installed, you know, above, or something to that effect? MR. NACE-I think that’s probably possible. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, it’s not labeled that way on the map, and that was one of the things that I tried to look at when I looked at the cross sections was to pick an elevation. MR. NACE-I think if you went with your Scenic Vistas Map you’d be very close to Elevation 450. Let’s see the other side. Hold on a minute. I think if you said 450 you would be right very close to that Scenic Vistas line. MRS. STEFFAN-The 440 line kind of truncates all the upper lots. MR. NACE-450’s way back here. You mean as far as the house goes? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. NACE-Let me take a particular look. Lot Six. Lot Six are proposed houses down about 430, and if you went to 450 for a limit, you would still be able to use most of that lot. That is the critical lot, though. So if you were to allow a little further beyond 450, even if you went to 455 or 460, I think it would be a safer bet. MR. HUNSINGER-Which lot are you talking about? MR. NACE-Lot Six. MR. HUNSINGER-Lot Six. MR. NACE-Yes. It’s kind of that weird lot in the middle. So I think if you were to say 460, it would still preserve what you’re talking about with the Scenic Vistas, but give Lot Six a little more flexibility as to where they built the house. MRS. STEFFAN-I’ve already specked out what 480 and 460 are. MR. NACE-Okay, and that really kind of corresponds. This line in here of ours is where it gets steep beyond 25 foot slopes. So that, as you come across here, that kind of corresponds pretty closely to the 460. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, this is the 440 line. MR. NACE-Well, if somebody wanted to build back in here, okay, 450 is right there, that’s why I say if you could go to 460, I think it would be a little, it would still protect your Scenic Vistas, okay, but it would be a little more lenient for that one lot particularly. MR. HUNSINGER-The 460 line and the other ones is way in the back. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. NACE-Yes. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, the first purple line here is the 460 line here, and this is the 460 line here. So it dips down. MR. NACE-Yes. It still protects that steeper slope where things are going to start to show up. So I think if you were to say 460. MR. HUNSINGER-And we’re not worried about this section for now. MR. NACE-No. You’re looking at Preliminary. Preliminary is the whole subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-But if we went with 460, then the drawings, the cross sections that we’re providing (lost words). I just, I don’t want there to be any ambiguity when somebody goes to build on these in the back. MR. O'CONNOR-So your request is that there be no foundation placed on elevation above 460. MRS. STEFFAN-Above 460. Because the cross sections you provided for us are at that 460 level. So the support documentation, for an example, would mimic the condition. MR. NACE-Okay, but 460 is foundation level, right? Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Top of the foundation. MRS. STEFFAN-The top of the house is at 460? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, on these cross sections the top of the house is 460, but on Lot Six it was suggested that the foundation itself could be 460. MR. NACE-Exactly. What I’m suggesting is that no foundation be located above that 460 contour elevation. Okay. In other words, if you were to take that 460 and make a setback line of it, okay, that no houses go beyond that 460 line, in plan view location. The roofs are less than 460. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Well, I guess I just want to make sure that we’re clear that, you know, because at 460 on a lot of these it’s on a slope. So if we say, well, we’ll dig out the foundation at 465, and bring it down so the foundation’s below 460. MR. NACE-I think your intent, what my intent was that 460 line be a step back horizontal line. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, a do not build from here. MR. NACE-Yes, above that, correct. MRS. STEFFAN-However, when we’re looking at these cross sections, the top of these buildings are at the 460 elevation. MR. NACE-In some cases, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s only these cross sections here. MR. O'CONNOR-Because the lots are down at 400, 410. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, but what we’re concerned most about is the higher, the houses that would be placed at the higher elevations. MR. O'CONNOR-I think the zone allows 35 foot in height. Is that typical? MR. HUNSINGER-I think if we word it to say that, you know, no building shall be constructed. MR. NACE-Shall be located. MR. HUNSINGER-Shall be located above the current elevation of 460. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. SEGULJIC-Do you mean the house or the building? You just mean the house, correct? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Or residence. MR. HUNSINGER-Or a garage. I mean, you don’t want a garage up there either. A little shed would be okay, but you don’t want a big, two story garage, you know. MR. SEGULJIC-Those ancillary buildings. MRS. STEFFAN-Stu, what is the ceiling height restriction for residences? MR. BAKER-For the basement? MRS. STEFFAN-For the house. MR. O'CONNOR-Thirty-five feet is the zone. MR. BAKER-Are you talking about the building height or the ceiling height? MR. HUNSINGER-Building height. MR. BAKER-Building height. Actually, I don’t know, I’d have to look it up. MR. NACE-SR-1A, or RC-3A. MRS. STEFFAN-See, because the drawings indicate that the top of those roofs are at 460, and if we allow the house to be built at 460, that would mean that they would go up to 490. MR. HUNSINGER-So maybe you want an upend limit on the top of the house, too. That might be hard to measure, though. MRS. STEFFAN-Actually, one of the questions I had is the cross sections have two styles of house. One was kind of funky and had a flat roof on it. MR. NACE-What I tried to do here is show the houses where they show on our plans, okay, and that’s not a fixed location. That’s a location within the setback lines that might be used, might not be used. Okay. The reason some of the houses look a little funky is some of them is turned with the gable towards you and some of them are turned with the eaves toward you. MRS. BRUNO-It looks like basically what you’ve got, from just eyeballing it, are two stories, eight foot high ceilings. Potentially houses this size they might actually build 10 foot ceilings. In some areas they may go up to three stories depending on if they’ve got, the height restriction is 35? MR. O'CONNOR-I think there’s a zone height limitation of 35 feet. Stu, have you got your schedule? MR. BAKER-Yes, I do. Which zone do you need the height in? MR. NACE-The RR-3A, or RC-3A. MR. BAKER-RC-3A. The height is 40. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, then that sounds like nothing over the 420. That’s a problem for Lot Six. MR. NACE-Over 420? Where did that come from? MRS. STEFFAN-Because if the house is at. MR. NACE-No, our intention with the 460 was that that would be where the foundation would be. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MRS. STEFFAN-But then if the foundation was at 460, then the house height could be 500 feet, which would stick up, which is what we’re trying to avoid. MR. NACE-Well, it doesn’t necessarily stick up. It depends on whether or not it’s on a steep slope, okay. Because of the view shed, the way it’s flat and we have somewhere between 40 and 60 foot crown of the existing trees, okay, it’s going to hide your house until you put the house up on the steeper portion of the slope. Okay, if the house is on the flatter portion of the slope, the trees will effectively screen a 40 foot house. MRS. STEFFAN-If they leave the trees. MR. NACE-Well, that’s what we agreed to a no cut zone on those lots for that particular reason. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, behind those lots. MR. NACE-Well, between those lots and the road, which screens them from your view shed. Your view shed is not from the top of West Mountain. It’s from Corinth Road, from Luzerne Road, from West Mountain Road. MRS. STEFFAN-See, there is no no cut zone on the fronts of Lot One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Eighteen. The no cut zone is on Lots Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, and there are no cut zones. MR. NACE-Okay. You’re saying on the upper side road, or on the upper side of our subdivision road there are no, that’s true. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. So if, just for purposes, I buy Lot Six, and I want to put my house at the highest point of land and I really want a good view. So I cut down all the trees that are in the front of my property, and so we could have a notch out of the hill and a 40 foot residence at the height of land. MR. O'CONNOR-You’re not going to see over the trees that are along West Mountain Road. Part of that no cut zone along West Mountain Road is the 400 feet. You’ve got 30, 40 foot trees. MR. NACE-You’ve got 40 to 60 foot trees. MR. O'CONNOR-You’re not going to see over them. MR. NACE-And I think if you look at Section, either Section A or Section B, in fact, shows that, okay. From the vantage point down on Corinth Road, your trees are so close to you compared to where the houses are, any view from Corinth Road is totally blocked by those trees in front that are being left as a no cut zone, and the same is true from a view shed out on Corinth Road if you’re looking in at the site. Now I’ve shown, if you look at Section A, I’ve shown that whole area to be conservative. The whole area along our subdivision road in front of your lots on Lots One through whatever it is there, I’ve shown that as all cleared with only new landscape type vegetation planted, okay, but put yourself in the little car on Corinth Road, and try to look back at that and you really can’t see it because the trees are so close to you, the buffer that we are leaving is so close to you compared to where those houses on the backside of our subdivision road are. MR. O'CONNOR-The beauty of the site is that you don’t have any long distance view shed of the particular area that we’re going to build on. MR. NACE-The only one that’s shown in Section B is Corinth Road, and the same thing there. There are trees in front, screen the view of those houses, okay, and in fact in Section B I took into account, actually if you looked at the topo map that shows where that Section’s cut, it’s looking through the Pumpkin Farm, which is all cleared. So that’s, you know, that’s the most drastic view shed I could find, okay, and it shows that the Pumpkin Farm, existing field is the Pumpkin Farm, and you don’t really get any trees until you get behind the Pumpkin Farm into our subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-How accurate is the height of those trees in there? MR. NACE-I’ve placed these, I think most of them are somewhere between 40 and 50 feet, 20, 40, 45 feet. I think my highest trees with any crown to them are 40 to 50 feet, and in reality I think a lot of the trees in there are upwards of 50. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I agree with you. I mean, you’d have to be, I don’t know what the elevation is. You’d have to be way up in the 580, 600 before you’d be able to see it form Corinth Road. MR. NACE-And Glens Falls, the whole Hudson River Valley there is flat. There’s no vantage point you can look down. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-What about from the Northway? MR. NACE-From the Northway? Well, if you look at the topo map, the Northway back here is around 340, and we’re talking, Chris, you said you’d have to be around 500 or so to look down in the site. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. You might see it from when you cross over the Hudson River, but that’s so far away it would be insignificant. MR. O'CONNOR-I think, again, if you take a look when you go across there, I think that the immediate foliage that you’re going to see up river is going to block the face of that mountain. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-It actually looks as if you started the house right at this point, and constructed it right here, you might see the roof. Otherwise you’d have to be way up here. See, if you lay this out like this on a pivot, you know, and pivot down to where you see the top of the tree, you can see the top of the tree right here. So if you put a house right here, it’s just enough above these trees, because there’s that next hill going up. MRS. STEFFAN-And actually the slope probably gets too dramatic there. So they couldn’t go higher. MR. HUNSINGER-But again you’d have to start the foundation up at, well, above, well, it’s not well above, it’s above 460, and you’d have to clear cut these trees on the hill. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So the 460 elevation. MR. HUNSINGER-I think it’s going to work, I mean, based on the information he has here. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Do we have consensus? MR. HUNSINGER-I think it certainly works on all of the lots except for Lot Six. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it’s kind of no man’s land, and the lines didn’t run here. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-So it was kind of odd. We had a 440 line, but we didn’t have any other lines there. MR. SEGULJIC-What’s the final? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think as long as they keep the 460 line as the limit you can’t build above, I think we’re safe. You can’t start, I mean. MR. O'CONNOR-That would be the foundation. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-No foundation above 460. MRS. STEFFAN-No building foundation be located above the 460 elevation. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. NACE-Instead of treating it as an elevation of our building type of setback or type of restriction, we’d treat it as a setback restriction and just have a line on the drawing that goes through that 460 contour and say no building west of this line. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, can I say no principal building? I think, Tom, somebody may want an accessory shed or something of that nature. MR. SIPP-Unless they cut every tree on the lot, once you cut out some, the rest of them are going to grow that much faster and fill in better. MRS. STEFFAN-Unless you clear cut your lot. MRS. BRUNO-Stu, is it possible for a home builder to come back and ask for a variance for maximum height on the buildings? MR. BAKER-Yes, absolutely. MRS. BRUNO-So I think we should put in there somewhere. Yes, they can ask, but I think if we don’t address it, then they may not look back to our meeting minutes to see why we were (lost words). MR. O'CONNOR-My understanding is that you can’t have a wood frame dwelling with excess of two floors because of building construction codes. You can have a pitch of your roof that would get you up, but you can’t have living space on the third floor. So I think you avoid that issue, but I don’t have a problem with that, but it just doesn’t happen. Building Codes don’t allow you to build a third floor on a wood frame construction. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m not trying to be a nudge with these elevations, but one of the things that we’re seeing, we’re certainly seeing the parcels on West Mountain are being purchased and developed, and I think that it’s very important to make sure that we’re protecting the views that we have. I’ve said this before. I’ve said it during the Comprehensive Land Use process, that we have to make sure that we’re protecting the view sheds so that, you know, folks who are coming here to recreate have beautiful things to see. If we’re carving up the mountainsides and putting in, you know, houses that stick out and clear cutting, it’s just not going to meet our regional goals for tourism. MR. NACE-Sure, I agree with you, but if you take a look, if you drive out Corinth Road or Luzerne Road or any of the roads that head out toward West Mountain, what sticks out at you are the houses that are on up on the steep slope sections of the slope. Because on a steep section of slope, if you open up just a small area, you can see it, it becomes visible. On the flatter, lower sections, that’s not the case. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, that’s certainly one of the other things that we have to address in the new zoning is that if a single family residence comes in, they don’t have the same restrictions as some of the subdivisions that were approved. So that’s another issue. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. So your wording is that at time of Final you want us to put a, demarcate a line on here at 460 with a note that no foundation be placed above that elevation. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, and we don’t have a problem with that, and, Mrs. Bruno, you want a note that. MRS. BRUNO-Relief on height restrictions. MR. O'CONNOR-Why don’t you say as a condition of approval, which is later enforceable, it’s your understanding that there be no application for a variance for height. MR. HUNSINGER-How do you word that? MR. BAKER-I don’t believe this Board could prohibit future landowners from applying for a variance. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MRS. BRUNO-No? MR. O'CONNOR-If it’s a condition of approval? MR. MEYER-It wouldn’t really, it would have the same effect. I mean, you could always go back and. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s like, where I’ve run into that in Lake George, they condition approvals of so many number of bedrooms, when they’re doing is cottage colonies, and then later people come in and try and increase the number of bedrooms, and they said no, the approval was for X. We’re not going to give you. So that’s what I’m familiar with. MR. MEYER-Ultimately, it’s up to the Board, but having a condition of approval would support your argument in that it, you know, it cements, for future reference, the Board’s opinion of whether or not there should be building above that 40 foot mark, but ultimately it’s similar to what’s currently there is there is a 40 foot mark. If you want to go above it, you can, but you need special permission, and again, there’d still be special permission, but there’d be a record to say, at the time the Board really felt strongly against that, and they’d need special permission to re-visit this subdivision application, and they’d also need special permission for the height variance, assuming the height variance remains at 40 feet. MRS. BRUNO-That was more my intent, just that you would put another flag in there to say, let’s look back at what originally happened. MR. MEYER-And then for what Mr. O’Connor is suggesting, that does work. MR. HUNSINGER-Couldn’t you just label the map maximum building height 40 feet? MRS. STEFFAN-Because we’d be asking for plat notations, you know, about the building elevation. We can just put another plat notation maximum building height 40 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Or, what if we backed into it the other way and said that, in no event shall any, the top of any house exceed 500 foot elevation. MR. MEYER-The top of the house, or do you want, or do you want a chimney? You can get into the APA type 40 foot definition. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Good point. I’m just saying that might be another approach. MR. MEYER-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Rather than limit the height of the house, limit the height in elevation that it can’t exceed. MR. O'CONNOR-This isn’t different than all the rest of Queensbury. Let’s not make it that different. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, we’ve already asked for house color restrictions, no cut zones. Why don’t we just add to this? Okay. What else? MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Just clarification. So they’re looking for Preliminary approval on Lots One through Fifteen. MR. NACE-No. With your regulations, Preliminary comes for the whole plat, for the whole subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-I was confused on that, too. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-And then. MR. NACE-We come back for Final on Phase I. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. O'CONNOR-And we get into that discussion a little bit with regard to Staff Notes. I don’t know if Stu made them or George made them, but what we would do is show Phase I as it’s shown here and show the lines on Phase II, light lines. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re looking for Preliminary approval on the entire subdivision. MR. NACE-The entire subdivision. MR. SEGULJIC-And you come back for Final approval just on Phase I. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Refresh my memory as to why that was. MR. O'CONNOR-We want to look at the stormwater on Phase II this Spring. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Gotcha. MR. O'CONNOR-And we may be able to do it even sooner. MR. SEGULJIC-So how are we going to handle the SEQRA, then, going about the stream? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think, for SEQRA, it’s got to be the whole thing. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s the whole thing. So when it comes to the stream issue, I’m just thinking out loud here, it has to be small to moderate that. There’s going to be more information obtained in the Spring. MR. NACE-Well, at this point we’re assuming that West Mountain has or will take care of their problem on their site, and we don’t have that to deal with. If we end up having to do something different, then at Final for Phase II, you can re-open SEQRA and deal with that if you need to. MR. TRAVER-How can we do SEQRA on Phase II if we don’t have the stormwater information? MR. NACE-Say that again now? We’re doing it on the whole thing with the assumption that everything will be as it is, okay, that West Mountain will take care of their problem on their site, and we don’t have that to deal with, which we haven’t dealt with it at this point, okay. Our stormwater report deals with both phases. MR. O'CONNOR-Phase I and Phase II. The anecdotal questions that were raised at the public hearing is what we want to check on, and if they don’t prove to be significant or substantial, we’ll make no changes at all. If they do prove to be substantial or significant, we would make changes. We understand that West Mountain has already undertaken, or is undertaking some steps to alleviate what they, actually Mike Barbone is the fellow who raised it. He’s the fellow who’s taking the steps to relieve us of those issues. He was not aware of a court order that basically said he had to do that. MR. TRAVER-Right. I think I remember that testimony, yes. MR. O'CONNOR-So we think it’s going to be pretty well handled. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? Okay. We did leave the public hearing open. Is there anyone here this evening that wanted to address the Board on this application? I don’t see any takers. I will open the public hearing, and if there are no takers, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENTS 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-So does everyone understand SEQRA is for both Phases? MR. MEYER-I’d just like to clarify one point. The SEQRA should be done for the whole thing, as you guys are discussing. The Preliminary approval really should just be focused on Phase I. Because if you grant Preliminary approval for the entire project, both Phase I and Phase II, if you don’t meet the 45 day deadline, you know, it’s an automatic approval. So you run the risk of automatically approving Phase II, unintentionally. MR. SEGULJIC-We have to, within 45 days, act on the Preliminary approval to? MR. MEYER-I mean, if they comply with your requirements of the Preliminary approval, then the Final approval is essentially automatic. MR. NACE-We have to apply for Final. There’s nothing automatic about Final. MR. O'CONNOR-We have to submit a Final application, and we won’t submit a Final application for Phase II. Then your time clock starts to run, if we submit the Final application, and are in full compliance with the conditions that they put on for Preliminary, and we’re not going to submit the Final for Phase II, and if we did submit it, you could say, hey, we’re going to turn it down. MR. HUNSINGER-So what’s this 45 day? MR. MEYER-I mean, the subdivision laws have built in time clocks. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MEYER-So the Board couldn’t just drag an applicant forever and not make a decision on it. My concern was that, by approving the Preliminary for the entire subdivision, you’d run the risk of running into that time clock for default approval for Phase II, without having considered all the information that you really want. MR. O'CONNOR-But don’t you agree that that’s not true, based on the fact that you can’t go to Preliminary, part of their approval of Preliminary is that we will submit a Final application, and if we don’t submit the Final application, there’s no time clock. MR. MEYER-And I just want to make sure that that’s clear, that it is, that that condition is there, that it’s based on the project being segmented into Phase I and Phase II. MR. SEGULJIC-Nothing’s ever simple. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. It’s a learning process. MRS. STEFFAN-Refresh my memory again. Phase II is, you’re intending to do it after the drainage issue gets squared away? MR. NACE-After we can observe how significant it is this coming Spring. MRS. STEFFAN-But the expectation is to develop the property all at the same time. It’s just a matter of? MR. NACE-Well, no, once we have approval for Phase I, we would start developing Phase I, okay, and then. MR. O'CONNOR-It depends upon, we will, this Spring, follow up and come back for the Final on Phase II. It depends upon whether or not we have to submit new information and what your agendas are like at that time, and we will then start, there are separate roads. So we can build the road in Phase I and then start, by that time we finish that road, we could start the road in Phase II. There’s a natural progression there. MRS. STEFFAN-Now Staff made the comment that the subdivision map should be revised to show the land that will be subdivided at a later date as one large lot. MR. O'CONNOR-I think that’s just a question of perception. What we suggest, and what we’ve seen done, is that we can label this lots one through whatever the number is, Phase I, and we can leave them as shown on here with that new line, and then, on 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) Phase II, we’ll make it light lines and put notes on here that Phase II is Preliminary approval only. MR. NACE-I think, you know, we’ve done several phased subdivisions in the past. I think, you know, Indian Ridge was phased, three phases I think. Hudson Pointe was phased, also in three phases, and that’s just what we’ve done is shown future phases as light, you know, dashed lines to indicate that this is not part of the approval, but that it’s anticipated that it will come back later. MR. TRAVER-So, should Phase I get Final approval, the resulting plat would show Phase I, and there would be a note on that section of Phase II indicating that that’s Preliminary approval only, is what you’re saying. MR. NACE-Correct, absolutely. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-And it allows the people in Phase I to know what’s coming next to them also, so that they don’t have a blank lot there, and us, you know, we want to show everybody exactly what is going to go into this subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-I think we could just say that the submission of the Final plan shall be depicted as follows. Phase II shall be shown, the Phase II subdivision shall be lighter and shall include a notation that only Preliminary has been approved, or something to that effect. I mean, we can specify, and we should also specify the building height restriction and stuff be labeled on the Final plot. Does legal have a problem with them showing the proposed subdivision for Phase II and having it labeled as Preliminary only on the Final for Phase I? MR. MEYER-A slight problem. There are restrictions in the recommendations and the changes that you can make after you grant something, Preliminary approval, and that is more of what I’m afraid of, from your standpoint. I mean, you’ve taken into consideration this height restriction and things like that, and I’m just concerned that once things start getting built, that the Board would get forced into essentially approving something that they didn’t full understand, and after seeing how the development was progressing, I mean, that’s where the concern’s coming from. MR. O'CONNOR-What would be the basis of the Board changing its approval? I mean, from our side of the table, this is something that we rely upon. The only question here is whether or not the stormwater plans that we have submitted are sufficient. We think that they still are. We think, anecdotally, what was raised at a public hearing has been addressed. If that’s the issue that’s open, Jeff. You weren’t here at that public hearing where it was raised, and in fact the fellow who raised it, I mentioned before, Mike Barbone, I think is the way you pronounce his name, Barbone. He raised it. He owns one of the lots down near the road, and then afterwards we showed him the court order that says, Mike, you’re supposed to take care of that problem. So he’s now taking care of the problem. MR. MEYER-And excuse me because I am coming to this late. My one concern was I don’t know what you guys know for Phase II. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. MEYER-I’m assuming you guys know a lot more than I do. If you’re comfortable with the information that you have for Phase II, and they’ve answered all your questions, once they supply the additional information that you’re getting for Phase I and, you know, ironing out all the details, that may be okay for the Board. I don’t know, I mean, if they’re still, if it’s just this illusive shaded area where they’re not really sure about exact locations and percs and all those things then, absolutely, you don’t want to necessarily move forward in granting the Preliminary on that. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, the way I see it is that there’s a natural divide between these two areas we’re discussing. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-The area that they’re asking to hopefully get the Final approval on is not in the area where the issue is. The stormwater is in the second area, which doesn’t communicate with that first area. So the two areas don’t communicate for stormwater. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. MEYER-Then what you want to be sure of is if you’re comfortable, you need to be comfortable with the stormwater and all the information that’s submitted for that second phase. If you’re going to grant Preliminary approval, you know, you’re essentially green lighting it, contingent upon them submitting the additional information and that it comes up to your expectations. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, but we want to be granting, in their world, the Final approval on the area that’s not affected by it, but what you’re saying is potentially by granting the Preliminary approval on the whole lot we’d be granting a back door way to Final approval across the whole site? MR. MEYER-Not necessarily. What I’m saying is it may limit the additional information and additional requirements that you’d be able to place if there are issues with the stormwater. If you don’t have all the information you want, and all the figures you need for evaluating the stormwater or any other issue, now is when you require it, before you grant Preliminary approval, and that was the whole point of my comment. I’m not trying to confuse everybody. MR. O'CONNOR-Maybe Counsel is not aware of the record. The record shows that we have submitted a stormwater management report to the whole site. It has been reviewed by the Town Engineer with appropriate soil tests and what not, and approved, and at the public hearing somebody raised anecdotal type information as to whether or not there is a runoff in the Spring that should be accounted for or should be taken into account, and it affects two lots, not even all of Phase II. I don’t know which two, the two lots that are most to the north of it potentially, and we’ve said we don’t want to have a problem on thoise lots. We think that, time wise and everything else, we can live with Final on the first section. This Spring, after we’ve looked at a snow melt and looked at the actual site to see if everything has been taken care of, we’ll come back for the Final at that time, and the only issue that I know of that’s open on that site is the stormwater and verification that what we’ve submitted is correct. MR. MEYER-And that’s fine. I was just making sure that the Board was aware of that before they move forward. MR. O'CONNOR-And I’ll stand by my statement on the record as part of a stipulation, if that’s, you know, if you want a comfort level with what we’re doing. I have that authority. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we can always put conditions into the Preliminary approval, too. MR. MEYER-Absolutely, such as what he just said. MR. HUNSINGER-What was suggested, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Plus if there’s new information that comes to light, we can always go back and re-open SEQRA. MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, you can. MR. NACE-You have that prerogative. MR. O'CONNOR-In fact I think you have to actually take affirmative action that says there is no new information, so you aren’t re-opening it. MR. HUNSINGER-We do, yes. Everyone understand what we’re doing now? MR. SEGULJIC-I think so. So when we come to the question under SEQRA, will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff, the proposed action is compatible with the existing drainage patterns. So we could say small to moderate, and then they would be going out and getting the information and then at a later date we would review that and then become satisfied with that information, or request a change. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we already have a stormwater management report. MR. NACE-Which says it is compatible. It’s just that we want to make sure that we aren’t being affected by stuff from off site that was brought up at public hearing, okay, and again, if there is significant information that says that we are being affected from off site, 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) then you’re going to re-open SEQRA for Phase II anyway and we’ll address that issue, or that question in that re-opened SEQRA. MR. SEGULJIC-So at that point the Town Engineer would look at it and say this is a significant change. MRS. STEFFAN-This is new information and it does not support. MR. HUNSINGER-New information, right. Okay. Everyone ready to move forward with SEQRA? It is the Long Form. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. HUNSINGER-No. Well, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Small to moderate? MR. SEGULJIC-Small to moderate. MRS. STEFFAN-Can the impact be mitigated by project change? Yes, we’ve done that with the no cut zone. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or or quantity? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Didn’t we say that was going to be yes? Or we were going to wait to see it alters drainage patterns. MRS. STEFFAN-We would wait, because our engineer signed off on it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MR. HUNSINGER-And that’s where we say yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And it’s a small to moderate impact. It’s actually a positive impact because the applicant has proposed a complete stormwater management plan. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. SIPP-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, potentially, that’s why we have the no build zone above 460. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, the condition, but proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. Proposed uses or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. MR. HUNSINGER-I think that’s the one we checked Small to Moderate Impact, and it’s mitigated by the restrictions proposed. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Well, the last element, Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. MR. HUNSINGER-You could say small to moderate impact there, too. MRS. STEFFAN-But will be mitigated by the elevations. MR. HUNSINGER-And the no cut zones. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance? MR. HUNSINGER-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. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. HUNSINGER-No. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Then based on the responses, I’ll make a motion for a Negative SEQRA declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 1-2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: CERRONE BUILDERS, K. KENNAH, WM. JOSLYN, C. BISHOP, 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. th Duly adopted this 27 day of November, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-The only other thing is do we have to note that they’re going to be submitting more information, stormwater information? MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, they’re only going to submit more information if they have more information. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-How do we want to handle that? I mean, we can require them to submit additional information, even if there is no change as a result of seasonal groundwater. MR. SEGULJIC-Wouldn’t we want the Town Engineer to look at it, though? Would we have to require them to submit it for the Town Engineer to look at it? When you’re going to look at, in the Springtime, the runoff for the Phase II, shall we say. So I guess we should have that submitted to the Town Engineer for his review. MR. NACE-Or I could simply schedule it and have him come out with me when go look at it. MR. SEGULJIC-So if we don’t put that as part of a condition, we might not see anything. Correct? MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t mind it as a condition. I would have a problem with it being a plat note, though. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, it wouldn’t be a plat note. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I don’t have a problem with it being a condition. That’s our intention, but when we get this plat and we get it filed in the County Clerk’s Office. MR. TRAVER-It would be part of the submission for Phase II for Final, right? MR. NACE-Final for Phase II. MR. O'CONNOR-Phase II Final, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-We can stipulate that in the resolution. MR. O'CONNOR-What are you up to agenda wise, January? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Actually I think all we really need to say is that for the Final application for Phase II the applicant shall provide additional information on seasonal groundwater. MR. O'CONNOR-Surface water is what you’re talking about. MR. HUNSINGER-Surface water, seasonal surface water. MR. O'CONNOR-And you’ve got to understand from our side, our people don’t want to build a subdivision that’s going to be problematic or be a problem, and that’s why we’ve volunteered to say we’ll back off, we’ll take a look. MR. HUNSINGER-And that just kind of leaves it open for what kind of information they submit, whether it’s inviting the Town Engineer out for a field visit and verification or, you know, additional data collection or whatever, that then we could have our Town Engineer. MR. NACE-Yes. We really don’t know what that’s going to be until we look at it. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Does that make sense? MR. MEYER-Not to confuse things further. You had discussed having him approve it, not just provide additional information. MR. HUNSINGER-Shall provide additional information for review and approval. MR. O'CONNOR-I think we said basically we would have him look at it with us, and part of it would be, that’s like Phase I of that review, and then he and Tom are going to decide whether additional information is necessary. We may all say nothing additional is necessary so there’s nothing to approve. You get yourself in a catch all with language. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I also don’t want to make it appear as though we’re circumventing our SEQRA review which is very thorough. MR. O'CONNOR-We, right now, don’t have any evidence to indicate that there’s going to be additional information, but we want to do a belt and suspenders approach to it, and if there is, we will submit it. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m just going to change the language of that, so that for review and recommendation by the Town Engineer, that we’re not looking for an approval from the Town Engineer, but we’re looking for a recommendation, then. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-And then that is not as binding as an approval might be. MR. HUNSINGER-That makes sense. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2007 CERRONE BUILDERS, K. KENNAH, WM. JOSLYN, C. BISHOP, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for 1. the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of a 227+ acre parcel into 26 residential lots ranging in size from 1.0 acres to 47.13 acres. Subdivision of land requires review and approval by the Planning Board 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 7/24/07, 9/18/07, 10/16/07; 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. 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. 7. 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 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 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) 10. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2007 CERRONE BUILDERS, K. KENNAH, WM. JOSLYN, C. BISHOP, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five Negative Declaration. This is approved with the following conditions. 1. That the applicant add plat notations, three of them. a.No building foundations to be located above the 460 foot elevation. b.That the maximum building height is 40 feet. c.That Phase I and Phase II will be denoted and differentiated. Lot lines on Phase II shall be lighter in color and labeled Preliminary only. 2. In addition, for Final approval for Phase II, the applicant will provide information on seasonal surface water for review and recommendation by the Town Engineer. th Duly adopted this 27 day of November, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. O'CONNOR-Can you table us to a meeting in January for Final, or not table us. Can you give us a date for January? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know what the application load is at this point, but I’m sure we have space. MR. BAKER-January is practically filled at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-It is practically filled. That’s why I wanted to ask. MR. SEGULJIC-This shouldn’t take very long. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. BAKER-They’ll be placed on an agenda based on when they submit for Final. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. th MRS. STEFFAN-Right. If you get your stuff in by the 15, the Planning Board Chairman would make a decision that we could add. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, something like this, I mean, we do have a limit to the number of agenda items, but something like this we can consider above and beyond. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I’m just trying to get there and get it off your agenda and off my agenda if we can. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 54-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED CINDY & MICHAEL TROMBLEY OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 80 ELLSWORTH LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,200 SQ. FT. KENNEL. KENNEL IN RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONES REQUIRE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. PLANNING 11/14/07 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE: 6.97 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265-1-16 SECTION 179-4-020 CINDY & MICHAEL TROMBLEY, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please, when you’re ready. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. BAKER-Okay. I noted in my comments that the applicants were on last night’s Zoning Board agenda for a variance from the 10 acre minimum lot size. That was granted last evening. The Site Plan submitted for the kennel was not drawn to the required, to the scale that was noted on the plan. The Site Plan application The site plan application checklist calls for a minimum scale of 1’=40’. The proposed minimum setbacks of the building and fenced in area should be confirmed by the applicant, and shown to scale on a plan. The Board should consider requiring the applicant to relocate the proposed septic system so that it is not under the proposed fenced in dog run area. The application does not specify the maximum number of animals that would be at the kennel at any one time. The Board should refer to §179-10-050 for the general standards to be applied to special use permits, and there were comments received from the consulting engineer as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. If you could identify yourselves for the record. MRS. TROMBLEY-Hi. I’m Cindy Trombley. MR. TROMBLEY-I’m Michael Trombley. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Could you tell us about your project? Had you heard the Staff comments before, had you seen those before this evening? MR. TROMBLEY-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you want to comment on those? Do you want to walk us through your project? The floor is yours. So however you want to proceed. MR. TROMBLEY-Can we get a copy of that by any chance? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Absolutely. MRS. TROMBLEY-And you are aware that it’s not an indoor/outdoor kennel situation. It’s just a doggie daycare grooming facility. It’s not for housing dogs 24 hours. MR. TROMBLEY-We were told it falls under a kennel, but it’s not a kennel. There’s no specific. MRS. TROMBLEY-Plus the Zoning Board also had put a stipulation on that it wouldn’t be, just in case anything were to happen and the lot was for sale, somebody couldn’t come in and use it as a kennel. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So did you go before the Zoning Board already? MRS. TROMBLEY-Yes, last week. MR. HUNSINGER-And was that approved? MRS. TROMBLEY-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Had you seen the engineering comments as well that were th dated November 18? MRS. TROMBLEY-Nothing. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BAKER-You should have been sent copies of both Staff and engineering comments. MRS. TROMBLEY-We have received nothing, only our agenda. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s a shame. MR. TROMBLEY-So it looks like we have some things to change. MR. HUNSINGER-Or at least address. We did come out to your site, I guess it was a week and a half ago. I don’t know if you noticed the Town van when we were out there 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) on a Saturday morning, and one of my comments is, you do have that garage structure on your site that wasn’t shown on the map also. MR. TROMBLEY-Okay. Well, what’s your recommendation? That because we have some things to address that obviously have to be changed on the plans. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, I certainly want to give you the opportunity to share any information with the Board that you might have at this time, but unfortunately I think we will be tabling your review. MR. TROMBLEY-That’s kind of what I’m getting. Because this stuff, we can talk about it, but until we change it, you can’t approve it anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Right. The other concern that we had when we were there is there is a fairly steep slope from the road down into the site, and we were just, you know, kind of curious as to how see the building and the driveway to the building being constructed. MR. TROMBLEY-Well, the driveway, the house down the road, before you get to that steep bank, there’s an area probably 50, 75 feet that’s relatively flat to the road. That’s where the driveway’s going to go in, and then angle towards the back a little, which I think that kind of shows on that drawing, but it’s not to scale. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-You included in your package a letter from your neighbors, you know, are all of the neighbors included on that? MRS. TROMBLEY-Yes. There’s one, actually, that came to the Zoning Board and he had a couple of questions as far as hours of operation and noise. We addressed that issue and he was satisfied with that. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I just thought I’d ask. MR. HUNSINGER-How many dogs do you anticipate? MRS. TROMBLEY-I’m looking for 12 to 15 for day care. MR. TRAVER-So they would essentially be dropped off in the morning, receive possibly grooming or whatever during the day, and then picked up at the end of the day? MRS. TROMBLEY-Right. MR. TRAVER-How do you expect that to impact on the traffic? Again, when we made our visit, it was a, you know, a fairly residential, rural, kind of a small road with really no parking on the street. I see you have some parking down here. With the nature of the way you described the business as such that you’re not expecting to have people really parking there for any length of time. MRS. TROMBLEY-No. We’re having a grooming facility for self-grooming as well as full service grooming. So the parking obviously for the day care clients, there would be no, it would just be a drop off, and as far as, we have three, if you look on the plan, there’s three bath areas. So obviously, that would limit the amount of people we would have there at one time for that. MR. TROMBLEY-I guess some of this that I’m reading from must be Mr. Ryan. Some of what he’s asking for I was under the assumption that that wasn’t required until actually the building permit stage, and that might be, and that I got from speaking with Craig Brown. So apparently that’s not the case. That’s stuff that’s required at this stage, then. MR. HUNSINGER-Could you be more specific? MR. TROMBLEY-Just that whole page, that site testing for septic system, stormwater. MR. TRAVER-All of those things relate to the Site Plan, which is what this Board reviews. You do need a building permit as well, but that’s a much more narrowly defined, relating mainly to the actual structure itself. What we’re approving is the concept, the plan, if you will, and sort of dropping into that neighborhood, into the Town, into that area, and how all of these stormwater and so on impact the community is one of 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) our main responsibilities to review, and we really can’t do that unless you propose a plan for how you’re going to address those various issues one by one. So that’s why it’s required. MR. TROMBLEY-Absolutely. It can be done. I just wasn’t aware it had to be done now, and had I got a copy of this, we probably could have had it done for tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Then with regards to lighting, all we really want to see is how many lights you plan on having and where you plan on putting those lights, and make sure they’re downcast. MR. TROMBLEY-Yes, it would be wall mounted. MR. SEGULJIC-Wall mounted downcast. MR. SIPP-I didn’t catch, how many dogs did you say? MRS. TROMBLEY-Twelve to fifteen for the daycare. MR. SIPP-All right, now, is there any solid material going to be used such as saw dust chips, as bedding? MRS. TROMBLEY-No, just, I mean, there’d be dirt and grass. MR. SIPP-And cages will be cleaned daily? MRS. TROMBLEY-There’s no cages. It’s not a boarding facility. MR. TROMBLEY-I mean, you’re going to have some of those portable kennels for incidental use, but not dog runs and not, it’s not a conventional dog kennel where you drop it off and go away for a weekend. MRS. TROMBLEY-This is a day care where they’re going to be together. They’re not going to be. MR. SIPP-What about noise? MRS. TROMBLEY-I really don’t foresee a problem with noise. I know there’s an indoor area that they’re going to be in, and there’s going to be, you know, outdoor areas for them to run and play. MR. TROMBLEY-Which the outdoor, the fenced in area that we were proposing, would be like a wooden, like a stockade which would help contain some of the noise, but, you know, where this building is located, it’s more than 300 feet, and it’s totally surrounded by woods. There’s no open area on that property at all. MRS. TROMBLEY-And our house is right next to it. So obviously the noise is an issue for us as well, but it’s not going to be an all evening operation where when people come home from work they’re going to be hearing barking dogs and what not. MRS. BRUNO-There will be waste that you need to dispose of. Do you have a plan for that? MRS. TROMBLEY-They have dog septic systems. We’re going to be looking into that, to install those, that takes care of the dog waste. MR. TROMBLEY-They’re underground. MR. TRAVER-So a doggie septic system? That’s interesting. MRS. STEFFAN-Now, that’s a first. I don’t think we’ve ever had one of those before. MR. TROMBLEY-We’ll have a conventional septic system, but also they make underground units that decompose at their own, however that’s done. MRS. BRUNO-Had you sited the human septic system the dog area just because that’s, I wasn’t able to see the site, just because that’s one of the few level? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. TROMBLEY-Not really. My thinking was, I don’t want to take anymore trees down than I have to, and being on an outside grass play area, if I have to dig it up, so what. It’s no different than digging it up in your own backyard. MRS. BRUNO-Right. MR. TRAVER-One of the concerns I’m sure you saw in the comments was that perhaps the dogs would be digging it up. So you want to be thinking about that in terms of whether or not you envision that as an issue. MR. TROMBLEY-I didn’t, but that’s a good point. MR. TRAVER-That’s going to be a question. MR. SIPP-And we’re going to put a septic system. We may need some test pits and soil sampling, see what your drainage, which I assume is pretty good. MR. TROMBLEY-We’d need a perc test basically. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing and we’ll leave the public hearing open. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Well, I’ll make a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 54-2007 CINDY & MICHAEL TROMBLEY, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: thth To the February 19 meeting, with an application deadline of January 15. So that the applicant can address Staff Notes and the Vision Engineering comments that were presented this evening. th Duly adopted this 27 day of November, 2007, by the following vote: nd MRS. STEFFAN-This’ll be tabled to the January 22 meeting with an application thth deadline of December 17, because the 15 falls on a Saturday. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you think you can get everything in by then? th MR. TROMBLEY-December 17? MRS. STEFFAN-That’s two full weeks. MR. TROMBLEY-That might be tight. MR. HUNSINGER-The risk is if you don’t then you’d be looking at the February meeting. MR. TROMBLEY-That’s probably not an issue because we’re probably not looking to do anything until Springtime anyway. I would rather have the extra time, rather than have to come back here and ask for more time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That’s why I asked, yes. th MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Tabled to the February 19 meeting with an application deadline th of January 15. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. HUNSINGER-So you do have a copy of the Staff Notes and the engineering comments. MR. TROMBLEY-Is this ours to take? MR. BAKER-Yes, you can take that. MR. TROMBLEY-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And what you should do is you should direct any of your responses to Staff and they will coordinate the comments with the engineers. MRS. TROMBLEY-Now there won’t be anymore paper going out that we don’t see, will there? MR. HUNSINGER-I hope not. I hope not. th MRS. STEFFAN-Actually, in preparation for the February 19. MR. TROMBLEY-This is what we need to address. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s what you need to address to submit your materials on January th 15, but right before the meeting you’ll also get a copy of the Staff Notes that we’ll be th presented with before the February 19 meeting. So, expect those, you know, the week before the meeting, expect those, and if you don’t get them, call the office and ask if you can come by and pick them up. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and ask for them. MR. TROMBLEY-Okay. All right. Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good luck, and certainly if you have any questions you can contact Staff. SITE PLAN NO. 55-2007 SEQR TYPE II KENNY PROPERTIES/DAVID KENNY OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 1454 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITION OF A COVERED ENTRY TO HOTEL, REDESIGN OF COURTYARD AREA, EXPANSION AND ADDITION OF OUTDOOR POOL. MODIFICATIONS OF EXISTING STRUCTURES IN THE HC-INT ZONING DISTRICT REQIURES SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SP 28-95, 7-96; AV 8-96, 55-04, 18-94 WARREN CO. PLANNING 11/14/07 LOT SIZE 3.40 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-21 SECTION 179-4-020 DAVID KENNY, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, whenever you’re ready, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. BAKER-Waivers have been requested for professional engineering plans regarding landscape, stormwater management, grading and lighting plans. The location of the existing connection to the public sewer line is not shown on the plans submitted. Will construction of the outdoor pool affect the sewer line? Landscaping details lack specificity. What species and number of plants are proposed? What type and height of fencing is proposed around the pool? Existing and proposed stormwater management devices are not shown. Will lighting levels around the outdoor pool be adequate for safety purposes? Will the pool area be lit all night long? Will access to the pool be provided all night long? If not, will adequate egress from the buildings be provided for safety purposes? And there are also comments from Consulting Engineer Ryan. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SIPP-Mr. Chairman, I would like to recuse myself because Mr. Kenny is a neighbor of mine. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. KENNY-Good evening. For the record, my name is David Kenny owner of the property. With me tonight is my daughter, Laura Kenny, Laura Coles. We requested a waiver on the. LAURA COLES MS. COLES-Actually, can we have a copy of your notes, because we didn’t get ours in the mail ahead of time either. We got the agenda saying here’s when you’re on, but. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KENNY-As far as the lighting plan, it’s not changing from what it is currently. As far as the stormwater plan, that is not changing either. We’re putting a carport over blacktop area. So when I spoke to the Town, he said well you can ask for a waiver from them if it’s, there’s no change. The sewer line, I believe, the sewer line is marked on the back side. We can put the map up and show it to you, if you have a map. MR. HUNSINGER-We have it, yes. MR. KENNY-And it’s marked on the map, is it not? Correctly, I think, the sewer line, it’s behind the building. MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s not even near the pool area. MR. KENNY-No, it’s got nothing to do with the pool area. It’s on the north side of the building. MR. HUNSINGER-Six inch sewer main. MR. KENNY-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KENNY-So I assume that’s, what were the other comments? MR. HUNSINGER-There really were no details on the landscaping, on the proposed landscaping in the courtyard. MR. KENNY-I guess we put it as a three to six foot high evergreen vegetation around the pool, and the way it’s detailed on the plan it will be similar to what they are. Currently now there’s just a grass space there, and currently what is in that space is a 5,000 gallon septic tank, which has to be removed because we’re on a sewer now, and 27 drywells, that all have to be, there’s about $100,000 in, that’s where my existing septic is. MR. TRAVER-Twenty-seven drywells? MR. KENNY-Twenty-seven. There’s nine pits stacked three high. There’s 54 drywells on the property. There’s 27 in that location and 27 behind the motel. They’re all stacked three high. MR. SEGULJIC-Just to clarify, those drywells were for your septic, then? MR. KENNY-Yes, they’re for the septic, which is now. MRS. STEFFAN-Public. MR. SEGULJIC-Now Public. Okay. Just when someone says drywell I think stormwater. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I do, too. MR. KENNY-The Code by the Health Department is 100 gallons a day per unit, and there’s 100 units there, so it was 10,000 gallons. We needed 10,000 gallons, it’s divided into two sections. The motel, it’s 140 in the motel, and the drainage had to be, when we did it back there, it was almost a quarter of a million dollars to put that septic system in, which we have never had a problem with, but it’s got to be dug up, because we had to go to sewer. So, that’s why there was nothing there. There was just grass area. So now since we can use it, we’d like to eliminate some parking, eliminate some blacktop, which we’re showing on the plan, and put a pool when we dig up that septic system, but there 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) is, the landscaping is done, you know, to improve the area, but presently now there’s probably four or five trees in there, if you drove up there. It’s in the center courtyard of the motel. MRS. STEFFAN-The Staff Notes are pretty specific, and they do identify the waivers that you’ve asked for, but they do pose a lot of questions, and, you know, one of the things that they’re trying to do is weigh the application against the current zoning law, you know, guidelines and, you know, landscaping standards and lighting standards, and so the plan has some shortfalls that they’ve identified, and actually when we look at the scale of the building, some of the other questions that come up are pretty significant questions, that the plan shows that the new building may be as large as 7500 square feet, but, you know, the information that is presented doesn’t quite jive, and so I think. MR. BAKER-That second sheet of comments was erroneously added on here. That actually applies to the next application. My comments on the Kenny application are just one sheet. MRS. STEFFAN-All righty then. MR. BAKER-Apparently there was some mix up when the Staff Notes were put together. It’s just that one page. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. Well, let’s go to Page One, then. So it identifies that you’ve asked for waivers granted for the professional plans, landscaping, stormwater management and grading, but they ask some questions. Will the construction of the outdoor pool affect the sewer line. The landscaping that you’ve identified lack specificity. The existing and stormwater management devices aren’t shown on the plan, and then will the lighting levels around the outdoor pools be adequate for safety purposes? They also need to meet Town standards, and then some questions about access, will it be open all night? And egress for the buildings, for safety purposes. MR. KENNY-I guess in order. The landscaping, the grading, okay, regarding the landscape plan, stormwater management, stormwater management is not changing. It’s sheet runoff, there’s 100 something feet in the back of the property where water runs to now, remain forever wild. It shows on the site in the back here. I mean, the stormwater plan that’s been in existence we’re not changing at all. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I think one of the issues that comes up, and this comes up on the Planning Board all the time. When we do a Site Plan Review on a new plan, we obviously want to know that everything works, and so even though the stormwater, it’s an existing stormwater plan, I don’t know if it is outlined and detailed and on record with the Town. MR. KENNY-Well, the building’s been there for 30 years and we’ve never had a problem with stormwater. We’ve supplied more than adequate stormwater drainage. MRS. BRUNO-You had made a comment when your across the road neighbor came in front of us for one of their plans regarding the stormwater. I don’t have those meeting minutes with me, but could you refresh my memory about what the comment was? MR. KENNY-The issue is if you’re up there, on the west side of the road, Route 9, there’s natural springs and clay material. You dig down two feet and hit groundwater. It’s a major problem. On the east side, which we are on, I can dig down, like I say, my drywells go down 30 feet, the septic tanks. They’re stacked nine, they’re 27, we had to dig down 20 feet, it’s all sand, but once you get on the other side of the road, it isn’t. The conditions change right where the Northway is. Now one of the issues we have is how the building is constructed, how they’re designed. Stormwater is a minor problem. A much greater problem in most of the Critical Environmental areas is groundwater, and groundwater underneath the ground, every time you put a building in you change the groundwater. All of a sudden now this becomes surface water, and, you know, when I build, I would require, but I can’t tell the Town how to do things, we put two foot of stone under all my foundations. (Lost words) 25 years ago, but there’s four foot of sand on the motel with three foot of stone. So I’m not changing even the surface runoff or the stormwater. The stormwater hits the roof, right, where does it go? Back to now (lost words) if the building wasn’t there because there’s stone and sand under the foundation to collect it. So, when we have runoff it just goes back where it would normally go if there wasn’t a building there, and also if there’s groundwater coming from other areas, which there isn’t, we have a lot of sand. This particular piece isn’t that bad because it’s all sand, but I’m building condos on the lake and up at Sun Castle and everything there 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) we don’t have a problem because we, I don’t understand why they don’t even require. When you build a building around the lake, under the foundation, if you put two foot of stone, it protects the owner because you don’t get water in your basement now, because you’re letting the water naturally take it’s course. Once you put a foundation in, then what do you do? You change the groundwater. Now the groundwater hits the foundation and comes up, rather than continues, and you guys don’t look at it. You look at the stormwater, and across the street from us the groundwater has drastically changed. There is a stream running under Route 9 and all the water dumps on our property. So, and none of it’s been addressed. None of it’s been looked at, and now what I understand is because the State that dumps their water on my property also, without permission, they just decided they’re going to take all the water down from Route 9, all the water from the Northway, and they put a pipe under Route 9, out into the back when it was 25, 30 years ago I guess it was, and dump it back there. Now, the volume of that water has drastically increased. The Town got a complaint from Boats By George, and this is how it was raised to my attention. So I brought it to the Town and said, look, it’s a stream from under the road, and you have the motel one up the road, all these projects on the other side of the road that don’t have drainage. I don’t care what you say, because there’s too much groundwater. Water has to go somewhere. Now the State has told them we’ll dump it onto the stormwater system, which you people approved because the State said it was okay, I guess, but they’re not dumping into a stormwater. They’re dumping it onto my property. All that water comes on my property. It is an issue. How it’s going to be resolved now I don’t know. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and we did drive down there after you had told us about that, and we did see the pipe and, I mean, there was no water that day, it was a sunny day, and it was dry. MR. KENNY-That water was running, I mean, it was running. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it was the next time we were out on site visits. So it could have been two or three months later. MR. KENNY-Did you go all the way back on the property? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KENNY-Well, it used to run two weeks of the year in the Spring, possibly. Now it’s running, actually, let’s put it this way. It ran all the way down to Boats By George, and into the ground, and he did get some runoff from it, and I said, what do you want me to do? That’s the natural flow of, they’re dumping it on my property. The Town came down, the Town people came down and showed it to me, and I said what can I do about it? The issue is, I’m concerned with the new project getting built here. Now, when they got that property, put the foundation in, they’re going to change the groundwater. The groundwater is going to become surface water, not stormwater, surface water, run into that low area, come across the road. There’s no more drainage, natural drainage. There was a pond back there by the way, and you can look at the maps of years ago. There was a big pond back there behind T shop or it’s the motor bikes there, and you can see where they filled that pond in. Now slowly he did it and said it wasn’t there, but it’s, you can look back at the maps that the County has and stuff years ago, and there’s a natural pond there, that’s been disappeared, and those are the issues, I’m not going to sit here and complain about one developer versus another, but, I mean, we, even at the Mall, you know, I’m not a believer in putting water, I like to keep it where it naturally would go. So that’s why around the motel, you come there at any time and the grass in the back, this whole back is grass. All the water runs, but it goes down into the ground. We have this map here that shows, the motel is greenery space around the whole thing. This is colored. The back is all grass. This side here is all grass. This is all grass. So when water hits the ground, it’s going back in, but also under the building, which you wouldn’t be involved in, because it’s the way I build, we put four foot of sand and two foot of stone to, I’ve got a natural retention basin under the whole building. That’s not required by Code. It’s just something, you know, the way I build, cheap fix. MR. HUNSINGER-How about the macadam, the parking area and driveway, where does the sheet flow onto? MR. KENNY-Most of that runs onto the grass, into this area here. It’s all (lost word), a lot of it, in here there are drywells. On this property we just put new additional drywells. MS. COLES-The property south. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. KENNY-And everything pitches to the back. In the back there’s 100 feet or 50 foot, 55 feet of sheer woods all around the property, and it’s all 20, 30 foot of natural sand. I mean, it’s more the opposite. We take the stormwater and the groundwater from the property across the street. You come up in the storm and watch it from the French Mountain it comes across the road right onto my property. It comes onto my property and disappears because I have good drainage. All along the front here I have all drywells. They weren’t required back then. I put them all in. I can show you now, we’re not changing anything, and that’s, what we’re doing is putting a carport over a blacktop area over here, and this green space here, which had nothing to do with, it was a septic system. It’s all septic down there. We’re digging that out and putting, and increasing the green space. So we’re not decreasing the green space. We’re not changing the stormwater at all. Actually, by getting rid of the, they say 5,000 gallons of water a day is what 50 units take. That’s what that system is designed for. One hundred units is 5,000. We’re eliminating 5,000, it doesn’t get that, but that’s what it’s designed for, and putting it on to the sewer system now. So there is no septic going in there anymore, in that green space that was there prior to this. So we’re increasing the, you know, the capacity of rain runoff, which the building’s been there for 30 years, and at that time, in the 25 years, 20 years, actually, and there’s never been a problem with, I mean, it’s almost impossible to have one, but, I mean, if you want an engineer to go out there and do test holes and stuff, it’s an expense, I think that what we’re proposing is not changing anything. I mean, when we came in before with the restaurant, as long as we weren’t changing the green space and the groundwater, this is the first time, this is something new, then, in the last, because when we put the addition on the restaurant, as long as we were going over existing macadam, we weren’t changing the surface runoff of the groundwater, they didn’t require it. So, and here all we’re changing is this blacktop area we’re putting a carport. I mean, what we’re doing is trying to improve the property. Actually we’re going from, it’s not part of this application because we’re going from 104 units, we’re cutting it down to 86 units. MR. HUNSINGER-You did say that in the application. MR. KENNY-We did? I mean, in today’s market with a motel, we have to put suites in. You need a carport. People want to drive under the carport when they get out of their car. We’re changing from a Days Inn to a Clarion. We’re upgrading it. We’re coming to all new standards, and the major expense we had was a lot of it was the sewer, and all of this, I mean, with 100 units there we have never had a problem in 20 something years with the sewer system because of the drainage. So nothing in that end is changing. This is the first time I’ve been told that the plan we submitted back in 1987, ’87 it was I guess, has to be updated or revised. That plan did, we went through that with the stormwater with everything, and that was sufficient, and we’re not changing that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the State stormwater requirements have changed, just in the past, I can’t remember whether, it was two or three years ago. MR. KENNY-Yes, but we’re not disturbing any woods or green space. We’re putting up a blacktop. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, no, I understand. MR. KENNY-So that’s, you know, there is no, I guess, if you go and have an engineer go back and dig test holes all the green spaces, it’s all pure sand back there. MR. HUNSINGER-How about lighting? MR. KENNY-We’re not changing the lighting. The only lighting we will have is down lighting around the pool area, and there’s two big parking lot lights there now. We’re replacing them with small lights around the pool. MR. HUNSINGER-When you say smaller lights around the pool, are you talking about bollard style, like three, four feet high? MR. KENNY-Pool lights, yes, three, four feet high, yes. Three of them, and then again, there’s, under the carport now, if you look, along the building here where the carport is, there’s lights all on the building up top there. They’re all going to be gone now because there’s going to be down lighting underneath there. It won’t even be seen, they’re in the ceiling here, instead of lights up along here that show. MS. COLES-Lights next to each doorway as you enter into the building. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MRS. BRUNO-There are a couple of reasons why we like to review the lighting plans. That is not only to make sure that there isn’t light that goes into the sky. We’d prefer to have the dark sky, but also there need to be certain levels that need to be followed for different areas of the site for safety purposes. MR. KENNY-I’m very well aware of that. MRS. BRUNO-You can’t go from an area of too high a light to too low a light because your eyes don’t adjust, that type of thing. I’m a bit uncomfortable with not having those. MR. KENNY-Okay. If that’s something, I mean, if you tell us exactly what you want, I mean, we’re talking about addressing the whole property now or just the? I mean, there’s lighting along the back where we have the parking. There’s parking lights that were all, again, submitted with the original plan. There’s lighting, you know, which is shown here, all the lights that are existing. You don’t have to have them all totally recalibrated to. MRS. BRUNO-I’m not sure what we’re going to end up requiring, but one of the things that we tend to do is to try to bring different sites up to Code when they come in front of us, which sometimes for the applicant can feel overwhelming. We understand that, but it really comes down to the only opportunity that sometimes we have to remedy some things that, you know, have fallen by the wayside, which doesn’t sound like it has. You’re the property owner. You’re versed in the industry. MR. KENNY-I guess that’s one of the things, you’re talking about the lighting around, I mean, there’s lighting in the back of the property which we’re not even addressing, and there’s lighting on the north side of the building that’s been there, that we’re not touching. I mean, on a lighting, you want just the lighting for, I mean, this is the first time, again, it’s been required. When we added on to the restaurant we did things, you know, the existing that was approved back in 1987, which we’re not changing at all. MR. HUNSINGER-And again, the Town’s lighting ordinance is only about three years old. MR. KENNY-That has changed, right. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why it wouldn’t have been required, or to the extent. MR. KENNY-Well, we did a lighting plan for them back then. Even in the Mall, mainly for the other concerns. For the parking concerns, for the pedestrian. It was more of a safety issue, that possibly an aesthetic issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and we look at it for both now. MR. KENNY-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-And the Code does have certain lighting levels that are, you know, minimums and maximums for those reasons. MR. KENNY-I know. We do them from an engineering standpoint. MR. HUNSINGER-So the light poles that are in the, I guess it’s along the southern boundary in the green space, those are going to remain? MR. KENNY-These light poles here? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there’s three. MR. KENNY-Yes. They’re required for the, again, to give off the light, because they also light up the parking lot on this side of the Mall, they’re shared between the Mall and the Days Inn. They come, that’s the only lighting for this parking here, and the Adirondack Outlet Mall is the property to the south of this. MR. HUNSINGER-So this picture that you submitted. MS. COLES-That’s the one that (lost words) currently in the courtyard. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. KENNY-Yes, that’s the one we’re taking out and replacing that with low lights, because that is where we’re expanding the green space. That’s in the courtyard. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KENNY-That’s the existing light there that would be removed. Right. That has, probably shouldn’t have been put there. It’s right here and it faces the rooms and it’s very, it keeps that area bright. So there’s no reason, there’s no parking there. There’s no, and we’re eliminating the parking there, we’re eliminating all that parking. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes, we noticed that. MR. KENNY-We’re adding green space is what we’re doing. We’re not taking away green space. That’s why I didn’t think the drainage, I mean, if it’s an issue, you tell me what you want. I mean, there’s no concern. MR. SEGULJIC-Is this something that, is it possible to have our Town Engineer go out to the site and just look at it and see if he’s satisfied with it and give us a letter? Instead of having to go through all the plans and do it that way? Is that possible? MR. BAKER-The Town Engineer does not do work for the applicants. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, right. MR. KENNY-The question is, I guess, if we’re not changing it at all, there’s no greater impact, there can’t be any greater impact than there is now. MR. SEGULJIC-And I agree with you, and I think what you’re trying to achieve here is very good. The problem, though, we have, is that, you know, we hold other applicants up to certain standards and we don’t know, if there is a problem there, now’s the time to address it. MR. KENNY-Okay. I guess my question is, though, by Code and by law, let’s say there is a problem there, like across the street. I sat here at the meetings, and they said, well, we’re not changing the runoff so it’s okay. As long as, we have to address the change. This is what was discussed to me at that meeting. Now, you’re putting a new building, and they said, well, there’s so much runoff now, that’s what we’re allowed. Not that they should be allowed, but that’s what the argument is. We’re not changing it. We’re not making it worse than the existing condition, and I’ve heard this at plenty of meetings. I think that’s the law. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, no, I mean, well, in simplistic terms, what the Code states is that the runoff after the project is no greater than the runoff is currently, yes, you’re correct. MR. KENNY-Before. So we have a blacktop area that’s receiving X amount of water. We’re putting a roof over, we’re not covering a green space. So we’re not changing the runoff in any way, shape or form. So to go back and address it we can, but we’re not changing it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. KENNY-I mean, we’re just putting a carport in this area over blacktop. It’s not part of our stormwater plan. It’s not part of the runoff. It’s not part of anything, but if you want a letter from an engineer stating that, (lost words). That would be the point you addressed with a new project, correct? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. KENNY-The change in the runoff. MRS. STEFFAN-So you’re taking out parking spaces and putting in. MR. KENNY-Green space. MRS. STEFFAN-Green space. MR. KENNY-Which doesn’t change the runoff. MRS. STEFFAN-What is that in the middle of that? 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. KENNY-This here? That is the pool. MRS. STEFFAN-That is the pool. Okay. MR. KENNY-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-So there’s going to be an indoor pool and outdoor pool? MR. KENNY-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-See, one of the problems we have is that the engineer states that the applicant should depict existing drainage patterns and stormwater mitigation measures. MR. KENNY-We’re not changing it. MR. SEGULJIC-In particular the area of impervious areas nearest the proposed entry. Also it is indicated that if the entry canopy will be guttered, and if so, where will it discharge? So the engineer has a number of questions, and I can understand what you’re saying, and I can appreciate what you’re saying, but it leaves us in a tough spot, and actually I’m sitting here, I don’t know if there’s a water problem there or not, now, for one thing, I don’t know. MRS. STEFFAN-You own the Mall next to this, correct? MR. KENNY-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-And is there a site plan on that? When was that renovated? Do you have a stormwater management plan property? MR. KENNY-Yes. That now, again, I don’t know, it was done in 19, the first project was done in ’85 without stormwater. Then we built in ’87 and ’89. It was done in phases, but again, whether or not there was, what was required, what we did along the road there. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. Are there catch basins in the parking lot on that property? MR. KENNY-Yes. There’s catch basins throughout the parking lot. They’re all interconnected. We put, even on this property out here, we have drywells all along the road that I personally put in, that go down 12 feet, and there is a catch basin in the corner here out by the road, because we don’t, I don’t want water running, it’s not water so much as much snow and ice. When people pull in, I like to keep it dry there. There’s, actually when the Town came in and put the sewer line in, they destroyed two of my drywells in the grass, but they did replace them. All along this building here, on both sides where the roof runoff is, there’s drywells put in. Now, were they all on the site plan? I don’t know. I know, if you go by the Mall on the south side there’s a big grass area. There are drywells in there. I think they are all on the site plan, but when I dig the foundations, I’m the type of person that, I don’t believe in open drainage. I believe in the water that comes here should go back in the ground in its natural spot rather than sheet run everything to one location. Now everything is inter-tied in over there with pipe running to the back, but there’s never been a drop of water run out of them. MR. HUNSINGER-And where do they go when they get to the back? MR. KENNY-All the woods back there. We have 100 feet behind that property of grass. MR. HUNSINGER-So it just goes into the woods. MR. KENNY-But it doesn’t go. Like I say, I’ll bring you down there, you go down there in the worst rainstorm, the water will be coming off Route 9. In this corner of this property we have drywells, and you’ll see the water, but now they’re not drywells. They’re drywells, but they’re 20 feet deep, and water just pours into them, and once it gets to the 15 foot level, I have pipes that come out to go to three more drywells out by the grass, not to get any silt into the new drywells, and it will take all the water and 15 minutes later everything is dry. Ed Moore across the street has that pond full overflowing onto the road and it mostly comes over on my, and we take his, but I have it, we have good soils, and it’s also, I think, designed a lot better. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. SEGULJIC-Now, you indicated you have some stormwater plans then? MR. KENNY-I’d have to go back to the 1988 files. MS. COLES-And some of those that you were just asking about are for the Mall, which is the property south of the one of this application. MR. KENNY-This particular property does not have. MR. SEGULJIC-Now all your stormwater plans, you just have drywells on site. MR. KENNY-We have catch basins that go into drywells. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and you’ve indicated you know the size of those drywells. MR. KENNY-This is on the Mall site, not on this site. MR. SEGULJIC-So you really don’t know what you have on this site. MR. KENNY-I know what I have on that site, yes. It’s grass around the whole building. That, the only blacktop area is the blacktop coming in that runs into this grass area here or runs to the grass area in the back. There are no drywells on that particular property. They run over to the drywells on this property. On that property, there is no, there’s grass off every roof. MR. SEGULJIC-You really don’t have engineered stormwater controls, other than directing it to impervious areas? MR. KENNY-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. KENNY-Which is a stormwater control. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m thinking if he conveys all this information to the Town Engineer, the Town Engineer’s going to say, you know, you’re okay. MR. KENNY-Yes. If you tell me what you want now. MRS. STEFFAN-I think the Town Engineer’s going to want to see something on paper before he’ll approve it. I mean, part of his stamp, of his approval. MR. KENNY-I guess I’m going back to the original question. I can agree with that. My disagreement with it is, by Code, I think if I have an engineer’s saying, I’m not changing it. I’m not adding anymore than was there prior to this application, that meets the Code, and I don’t have anybody coming, and engineer looking, you know, what you’re telling me, let’s look at the whole site, regardless. By putting this carport over a blacktop area is not changing the stormwater runoff. MRS. BRUNO-We just need to see the documentation of that. MR. KENNY-That there’s no change. MRS. BRUNO-Right, of what the existing is, so that we can then verify or have Bruce Frank go and verify, post-construction, that it is, indeed, the same. It sounds like a lot of language or, the other thing, there’s a bit of continuity that we need to keep throughout the Town, in terms of what we require of applicants, and we have been getting much more tough on sites, especially this size. MR. KENNY-Well, I guess, on the stormwater plan, if I have my engineers come in, or write a thing up, saying we’re not changing post versus pre. MR. SEGULJIC-Could we have the applicant speak with the Town Engineer? MR. KENNY-It’s blacktop. I mean, actually we’re improving the stormwater because we’re taking out all the septic system that’s in the grass field that now will accept rainwater which it couldn’t before. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MRS. STEFFAN-And the septic that’s coming out is under this grassy area? MR. KENNY-This whole area here. MRS. STEFFAN-The grassy spot, that was where the septic tank was. MR. KENNY-The septic tank and 27 drywells. There’s only 19 holes. They’re stacked three feet high, about five feet below grade. They’re about 20 feet deep. That’s how much, I can dig down about six feet of pure sand, and then we hit cobble, about two foot, three foot of cobble, and then once you go below that, you hit a real fine sand, when you get down about 10, 12 feet. That’s when it starts caving. The first six or seven feet is a little courser sand. Then you go down, and it’s three feet of rocks, cobble. I mean, really, you know, stones. Unfortunately that’s the soil condition there, and then on the other side of the road it just drastically changes. MR. HUNSINGER-I can only speak for myself, but I mean I’m feeling comfortable with what the applicant is expressing on the stormwater. I still do have questions, though, on lighting, in terms of the current lighting codes. I mean, one of the, just to elaborate a little further on lighting issues, just in the Town in general, in the new Comprehensive Land Use Plan, lighting is addressed, and there are some new lighting standards that are proposed in the new Code which is yet to be adopted, and at some point there may be a requirement that all sites be brought up to the current lighting code. So, by looking at this now, we might be saving you the time and the expense of having to look at it down the road. MR. KENNY-We did include the lighting that we’re putting on the property. MR. HUNSINGER-I did see that, yes, but I’m talking about the existing lighting poles that are there, whether or not they meet the current Code, and without having the specifications of what the lights are, we can’t tell. Do you know what the heights of the lights are? MR. KENNY-Approximately 20 feet. I don’t know if that Code has, other than the Town Code part, from a safety, they’re not pedestrian lighting, that’s parking. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, that’s what I’m talking about, the parking lot lights. MR. KENNY-And they did meet all State and Federal standards when they were installed. Now, I don’t know if that’s being changed. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It probably has. I can’t say for certain. Do you know what the wattages are? MR. KENNY-Wattages in the parking lot lighting, it’s height versus, you’re supposed to have, approximately 10 to 12 candle lights at five feet, you know, above, at eye level, and so, you know, you could have a light that’s 10 foot high, then you need them every so many, and then if you have a higher light, the spread. So it’s just not wattage. It’s the height. So they supplied a candle light at, from four to five feet above the ground, is what I normally designed it. I know in the stores it’s four feet at 60 to 80 candle lights at five feet. Outside I believe, in the nighttime, it’s somewhere around 10. I’m not exactly sure of those numbers, but again, the consistency of the lighting, if you go up there, between the Mall, around the whole property is the same, because it was all designed so you don’t have bright spots here, shaded areas. So we’re talking about changing something, we’re talking about changing all three sites almost, because it was designed as a total complex, but again, that’s something, I don’t think it’s, aesthetically it’s one of the few, as far as I’m concerned, I’m not saying I’m not, I mean, we built that property, I know there was supposed to be green space around all the buildings, which I don’t believe is followed in the Town Code. Now maybe it wasn’t part of the Town Code, maybe it is. In our Mall, in the Days Inn, we don’t have blacktop going up to any of the buildings. We’ve got 10 foot of green space to collect water. That was supposed to be part of the Code. There’s green space around all the foundations. So we don’t have blacktop right up to the building. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The Town Code for commercial parking lots is 2.5 foot candles. MR. KENNY-Probably at the blacktop. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and you think that’s what you have? 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. KENNY-Well, we probably have the engineering code for the State that is at four feet, which probably, I don’t know what that relates for blacktop. That is, that’s what the Town Code says. It’s something I’d have to measure. In what area, in the whole area, or the least? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s in the parking lot. MR. KENNY-But there has to be a range. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there’s different measured specified, and it’s 2.5 foot candles in a parking lot. MR. KENNY-Is that the minimum, then? MR. HUNSINGER-Maximum, and then there’s an overall. MR. KENNY-Is there a minimum? MR. HUNSINGER-No, there’s not one specified, and then there’s an overall uniformity ratio of four to one. So you shouldn’t have, you know, four times the light on your site. MR. KENNY-So that’s the minimum, then. MR. HUNSINGER-No, 2.5 is the maximum, 2.5 foot candles is the maximum for parking lots. That would be the average maximum on the, because you’ll have hot spots underneath the light fixtures themselves that will be greater than that. MR. KENNY-Right. That’s the average, if you have lights 100 feet apart, at the 50 foot mark back to there it would vary slightly all the way through. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MR. KENNY-I mean, it’s not the way, I don’t think that was designed. MR. HUNSINGER-But it sounds like that’s what you have. MR. KENNY-We designed that five feet, so when a person is walking, it’s not too bright, and then I’m assuming, I think it’s 10, but I’m not exactly sure, probably once you get down low to the ground, it might be down to two, but, you know, the lighting standards, I think, if I remember correctly, going back 20 some years when this was built, we were more concerned about the general lighting, as people at eye level. So you don’t walk and fall over something or trip and, you know, what’s at the ground is really relegated by the, you know, I could go out there and paint the blacktop white, and it’s going to change it from two to ten, so what are you lighting? But again, that’s something that, I don’t think it’s, but generally, from a safety standpoint and from a falling and when we have insurance people come out, they want to know what the lighting is at eye level, you know, within that range. Because it changes, you know, that 2.5, I’ll tell you what, if it’s 2.5, in the winter with the snow on the ground, which we have four months of the year, that’s a lot higher. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. KENNY-So when do you measure it? MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have the ability to change the fixtures in those lamps? MR. KENNY-Yes. I’m assuming you can just change the lamps up there. MR. HUNSINGER-So if they were currently too bright, you could put in a lower wattage bulb? MR. KENNY-Yes. I don’t think that’s the issue, though. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-The way that it’s measured is the lights are actually sited on your plan. It’s really hard to do it by hand, but it’s actually a computer program that you then put the specs of each light in and it will then extrapolate the average. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. KENNY-Yes. We had that done, but again, I know it was done by, because it was the Mall, and we bring national tenants and they require it in their leases, specifications for the public for those things. So if you go out there and look at it, it’s very. MRS. BRUNO-Those specifications that you’re speaking of, I understand that they’re for the Mall, but if you can vouch that they are consistent across all three properties, because like you said, it’s a complex. MR. KENNY-Right. MRS. BRUNO-Those documents that you have given to your tenants, perhaps turning something like that in to the Board could. MR. KENNY-You would need a lighting study done, or I’ll give you what they are, and I’ll have to get those, but, like I say, to do a lighting plan, now, you’re talking about a lighting plan that we’re not changing from what’s there. MRS. BRUNO-Well, you are, actually, because you have the covered area and then you’ve got the pool lighting. MR. KENNY-But we’re replacing existing lights with the same lights. That’s what we tried to address here, and we didn’t do a very good job of doing it. There’s lights along that building that shine out now. We’re taking them down and putting them in the ceiling shining this way, because now there’s no longer a need to have them shine out because the carport will shine down. The foot candles we did supply you with those lights. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and the foot candles that you are proposing is the same that Code requires. MR. KENNY-Right. MRS. BRUNO-When are the hours of the outdoor pool? That was something that Staff had asked in their questions and I’m curious, too, just because. MR. KENNY-The indoor hours close at nine. MRS. BRUNO-So people would be using it potentially at night. MR. KENNY-I mean, we close the indoor pool at 9 p.m., even though it’s lit up, just for safety concerns. The Marine Village, I think we close the pool there at, we close the pool before it’s dark, because the pools really aren’t designed to be swimming at night, even with the lighting, the lighting is, you know, an issue with the pool. The pools are not open when it gets dark. MRS. BRUNO-So it turns into just a safety issue in terms of those that might wander in. MR. KENNY-Which we can’t. We don’t have policemen out there. I mean, we’re in an industry where you can’t tell everybody no all the time. You have to make people feel that are on vacation that they’re welcome and you try to accommodate them. MRS. BRUNO-I understand that. That’s not quite what I’m saying. I’m just saying that in terms of, you know, you, as the owner, would like to be able to see if there’s something going on in the pool after your hours. Just piece of mind. MR. KENNY-Well, we do post the hours. MS. COLES-Just like the indoor pool, the door is locked at nine o’clock, the entrances, that’s why you have to have the fence. The entrances also have to be locked. MR. KENNY-I mean, the biggest issue we have with the pool is the Health Board saying you have to have two people in the pool all the time, two adults with a child, and you can’t enforce it. MRS. BRUNO-I missed it in the specs. How tall are your fences? MR. KENNY-The fences around the pool? MRS. BRUNO-Yes. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. KENNY-Will be five feet. I think that’s, I mean, if you want them lower. MRS. BRUNO-No, actually it would be, Stu, that’s the right height, right, five? MR. KENNY-I think that’s the Health Code. I think we’re required, to children. MRS. BRUNO-I’m just remembering something from a second floor that had access or some crazy situation. MR. KENNY-No, it’s five. The Health is, I know all the MRS. BRUNO-Okay. As long as it’s high enough. That was my question. No, we don’t want it lower. MR. KENNY-I don’t know if that’s Town issue. That’s more of a Health issue. We can open a pool without the fence. I mean, I’m required by the Health Department to put the fence around the pool and keep the public out. It’s a public pool. MRS. BRUNO-I think you’re right. I think it is just five. MR. KENNY-I can make it taller. I can’t make it shorter. MRS. BRUNO-Right. No, I wanted to make sure it was tall enough, again. MR. KENNY-Right. Well, I think the Code is more about people fencing it off. The height is more of a, you get too tall with fences people don’t like it, but we do plan on, the fence is going to be, I don’t want to fence it. So we have to fence it. That’s why we have all the shrubs around the fence to hide the fence from the parking lot, to dress it so that there’s a fence there, but it will be shrubbed around the whole thing, so hopefully it will disguise the fence as not a fence, because they’re not attractive. MRS. BRUNO-Stu, were you able to find that? That might be New York State Code, I’m not sure. MR. KENNY-It is. It’s New York State Code. MR. BAKER-Regarding what? MRS. BRUNO-I just wanted to make sure that the five foot fence was high enough for our Code. MR. BAKER-Yes, that would be State Code, and I don’t have access to that. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. KENNY-I know the Town requires certain heights on property lines that you’re not allowed to go over. I don’t think this is pertinent to that Code. MR. SEGULJIC-I understand what you’re saying about the stormwater. You’re not increasing any of the pervious area. My concern is you’re saying that the stormwater runs from west to east, I believe? MR. KENNY-No, the stormwater runs, now, are you talking about on the blacktop? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, on the blacktop. How does it run from the restaurant? MR. KENNY-The stormwater runs from north to south. MR. SEGULJIC-From north to south? MR. KENNY-Right. It runs from, this water into this grass area here. The parking lot’s all crowned. This stormwater here runs off to here. This stormwater here runs off to here. MR. SEGULJIC-But if it runs to here, you have a curb in front of that. MR. KENNY-Where? That’s a wood curb. The water runs right under that. MR. SEGULJIC-So the water runs right under that? 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. KENNY-It runs around it into the openings. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, we don’t even know how this parking lot’s sloped. MR. KENNY-It’s 20 year old. That’s the issue, it’s 20 years old. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t, I have no reason to believe there’s a stormwater issue there, but now’s the time, if there is anything, at least we should have the applicant speak to the engineer and see if there’s a comfort. I’m just looking for some comfort level, that’s all I’m looking for. With regards to the lighting, you know, once again, the applicant is here, we have the Town Codes. MR. KENNY-My point with the stormwater is, I’m within the Code. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I guess what I’m looking for is communicate that to our Town Engineer and I’d like some level of comfort, because before long, the next person is going to say it’s you causing the stormwater problem, and they’re going to say you gave them permission to do that. MR. KENNY-You’re not giving me permission to cover any green space. Let’s say there is a big stormwater problem there, which there isn’t, but let’s say there is. This does not, I’m not changing it. The Code says I can’t increase it. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, understand, stormwater is becoming a bigger, and bigger issue. We have a chance right now to make sure everything is correct. So what you need to do is. MR. KENNY-I would love for you to address stormwater on that strip. I would love it, and I would pay you to do it, because it’s not being done, because it’s not stormwater. It’s groundwater. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. We could put you in touch with people on the Town Board, if you’d like. MR. KENNY-Well, I have spoken to people, and I’ve spoken to the State, and there may be some, my problem is not this property. My problem is Glen Lake. All of that water from the other side of the road, and no one wants to address it, is running down behind the Route 9 Mall. That isn’t a stormwater problem, it’s a groundwater problem. When the groundwater rises in the Spring, is has no place over there, and when they put that new gas station in, that’s going to change the groundwater. They’re taking how much rain, but no one has done a study of how much groundwater is in that area. There’s streams all over. French Mountain Commons, when he built, had to put two foot of stone and pipe underneath this whole property because of the groundwater change. There’s a major groundwater problem there, and that’s, for some reason, the Code is afraid, or doesn’t understand, to address to address it. I worked at the County Airport as an engineer. We built in the swamps. You addressed it by putting the stone, and making sure you kept the groundwater going in its natural courses. Once you change that, then you create problems, you’re changing history. You’re changing the way the water’s been running for hundreds of years. You don’t know what you’re going to get, and that’s what happened probably up here on Morris Field. They changed, it’s not the stormwater. It’s the groundwater change that’s causing a lot of other problems. You go on the lake. People put a foundation in, and they say well it’s two foot, four foot to groundwater, and they put a foundation in. Now all of a sudden that groundwater comes out of the ground and runs in all different directions, a major change, and no one, you’re worried about stormwater. Stormwater is, in my mind, 10% of the problem. If everybody built and didn’t change the ground they built on, I built a building, and the groundwater goes in, I put stone under that foundation, and paper it the proper way and put sand underneath that, the roof, what I’ve changed the groundwater because I roof on it? What’s going to happen with that? It’s going to go back to where it would have gone if there was no building there, and plus the groundwater would also continue the same path. You’re not changing it. MRS. BRUNO-That is addressed in the Building Code. MR. KENNY-No, not that I know of. MRS. BRUNO-Foundation design? 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. KENNY-But they don’t address, if people have water in their basement, if it was built with stone underneath it, with a French Drain around, not just a French Drain around the outside, French Draining the whole foundation. If you have a 3,000 square foot foundation, now it costs, when you dig the whole, dig is two foot deeper, bring in stone and stone it, before you put your footings in. You’ll always be perfectly dry, because the water’s going to run under that, especially on slopes or where there’s high groundwater tables, but it’s not done, and it’s not addressed that I know of. MRS. BRUNO-Do we think that we’re coming up with a tabling to ask for anything else? MR. KENNY-Yes, I guess that’s the case. I assume that. I don’t have a problem with it. MR. SEGULJIC-I think with regards to the stormwater, I’d like the applicant to speak with the Town Engineer. If you can provide him with adequate information that he can provide us a letter saying he’s satisfied with it. MR. KENNY-Who’s the Town Engineer, by the way? MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Ryan. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Ryan, Vision Engineering, the letter. MRS. BRUNO-Isn’t that supposed to go through your office? MR. BAKER-That’s correct. All submittals, including those for engineering review, have to come through our office. MR. KENNY-I think so. MR. SEGULJIC-And then there is, in the Vision Engineering letter, it’s the first comment. You just have to address that. MRS. BRUNO-You’ll be sending it to the Building Department. They will then send it on to Mr. Ryan. MR. KENNY-Do I have an engineer send a letter to the Town saying I’m not changing the stormwater on my property. This project is not changing. According to the Town, I don’t believe I can address the engineer myself directly. He has to get something from another engineer. Is that correct? MR. BAKER-You can address the engineer, but send written materials for him through our office. MR. KENNY-Okay. I can do it myself, send a letter to him, I don’t believe this project. MR. BAKER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-Then now with regards to lighting, what do we want to see with regards to lighting? MR. HUNSINGER-I think it sounds like your lighting plan is okay, but the problem is we don’t know that it’s okay. So I think if you just gave us the specs on your existing lights. You gave us specs on the new lighting, which are fine. Again, going back to other comments, when we review Site Plan Review, we have the ability to look at the whole site and talk to you about the other components as well. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I’m looking at the Zoning Code, and when we’re looking at Site Plan Review, there are some requirements. The Planning Board review of a Site Plan shall include as appropriate, but not limited to the following general standards, the location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of the buildings, lighting and signs. So that’s some of the things we’re talking about right now. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access, circulation, intersections, road width, pavement surfaces, dividers, traffic controls. I don’t think that’s an issue for us tonight. Number Three, the location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off street parking and loading. I don’t think that’s an issue for us. Number Four, the adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. I don’t think we’re looking at that. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities, including conformance with the drainage standards of Chapter 183, Subdivision 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) of Land, of the Town Code of Queensbury. I think we are looking at that. Number Six, the adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. He is removing a septic and in the past we have had to have documentation on that. We’re not questioning the water supply, but they’re removing a septic, and so that, I believe we need to have some information on. Number Seven, the adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant’s and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or diseased plants. Certainly what the applicant is doing is they’re taking out non- permeable surface, and they’re adding landscaping. However, because of our landscaping standards in our Code, I think that we do need a plan to identify that it’s meeting our landscaping standards. What is that, then, the landscaping? MRS. STEFFAN-That is also part of the Code, and it talks about the kinds of trees that are part of our Town Code, and it actually gives species and things like that, and that’s part of the landscaping. Number Eight, the adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones. Certainly when we have the particulars, the Fire Marshal takes a look at it and gives his approval based on that information, just to make sure that the height of the new entryway is sufficient for access management. Number Nine, the adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding, or erosion. A stormwater plan and a landscaping plan would provide that, and then conformance with the design guidelines, landscaping standards and performance standards of the Chapter. So those are the things that we’re required, as a Planning Board, to look at. Some of the information that’s provided, I don’t believe, can satisfy our ability to make decisions on those things. So I think the Staff comments, by asking for some details, are appropriate to what we’re required to do. MR. KENNY-So my question is then, getting back to it, with this particular type of project, in the future, the landscaping plan that is, we showed with the area that we’re affecting, but now you want to see a landscaping plan for everything that’s on the property? We are showing a landscaping plan, the area we’re changing. Other than that, and I don’t have a problem doing it. I just have to know what is to be expected in the future. MRS. STEFFAN-Actually, that’s part of what the Community Development Department does in their meetings is that they can identify for you, they can point you to the places within the Code, for example our landscaping design, and when you identify trees, they will give you, as part of our plan, the species that are recommended. MR. KENNY-We’re not putting, we’re putting three to six foot evergreen shrubs around the pool area. They’re not going to be trees. The trees we have on the property are all existing. They’ve been there for, we actually have it in our plan, in our deed, that I put in it, this area here, it says in the back is green area, and it’s deeded that that. MRS. STEFFAN-It has to be green space. MR. KENNY-It has to be, it can’t be cut. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s a no cut zone. Okay. MR. KENNY-And that’s part of my landscaping plan. Now if you want, that’s something we did on our own. We did that back in, to protect it. I mean, we’re in the process of selling the property next door, and I put in the deed before we sell it, he’s got to give 50 feet of this property back to me so I can tree that to protect, see if he puts a big commercial property, when the Reebok goes, I want to protect the hotel, because I consider the hotel somewhat residential. Even though it’s not residential, but it is people sleeping at night. So I’m very concerned, and I can show you the contract we’ve drawn up where in order for this to take place, I have to get 50 feet of that property, because, which I own now the property to the north of me, but if I ever sell it, I lose the privacy of the hotel. So I want 50 feet to tree that, but, I mean, those are the issues that are existing, and if you want all that documentation. MS. COLES-So you’re asking for landscaping plan for the entire site, or just for the site that we’re changing? MR. KENNY-I would like to, I don’t have the record, I would like to pull up, because I think that’s all provided. In 1987 I believe we did provide all that. Because we did a major plan. I was one of the first to agree to all of these things, and all of that was, I think the trees and the green space was all documented. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MRS. STEFFAN-Well, that might be just a question of getting whoever designed that for you to amend. MR. KENNY-He’s long gone. MRS. STEFFAN-Long gone. MR. KENNY-Frank Hardick, and I doubt if he has the records. We’re talking, just like I doubt if the Town, maybe the Town does have the records. MRS. STEFFAN-Stu, if you were having a meeting with this applicant, you would be making recommendations. MR. BAKER-He did have a pre-application meeting, and he was informed at that time to either provide the landscaping plan or request a waiver, and he requested a waiver. MR. KENNY-Right. I requested a waiver and we supplied a landscaping plan to the green space we’re putting in, that we’re adding to the site that’s existing. We’re not changing what, the past landscaping plan. We’re adding more green space and more trees, or more shrubs. They’re not going to be trees, because it’s a pool area, and if you put trees, you’ve got leaves and you’ve got dirt in the pool area all the time. So around the pool you can only have shrubs. I mean, it’s a pool area, and it’s green space. So we’re increasing the green space and we’re adding shrubs. I mean, that’s the plan. Now if you’re saying you want a landscaping plan for the whole site, that’s different. That we’re not changing. I mean, we do have, since the property was developed, we put all, like in this island here, which we don’t show, where you’ll see all the crabapple trees if you go up there, we added them. We added crabapple trees around the whole back of the property, to protect it from the north property. Those are trees we, up and above the original landscaping, we put a lot of trees in, but if you want us to go out and detail every one of them, but that has nothing to do with this plan, it’s what’s existing there today. Like I say, what we’re looking to build is a carport. MRS. BRUNO-I just want to say Frank Hardick is still in the area. I know he’s not practicing anymore. MR. KENNY-I know, but he doesn’t have, he does not practice anymore. I’m a very good friend of his, and he doesn’t have records of this. I know Frank. Frank did all my work years ago, and Frank is a very, he and I think alike. He overdesigns because he designs for industrial work, and he did all the design for this project. MRS. BRUNO-I knew he was the designer on the front portion, at least your post and beam area. Knowing him, I thought perhaps he would still have the documents, but I’ve got to believe the Town probably does. I’m just trying to make it easier. MR. KENNY-No. I’ve talked to Frank about making changes in the building, inside, and since he was the original engineer who designed it, he’s pretty much, he’s come up and he’s talked to me a few times, but he’s pretty much out of practice. He doesn’t have all the records, no. Back then it was all done on appear. MRS. BRUNO-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So as I understand it, the applicant has requested waivers for landscaping, stormwater, grading and lighting. Correct? So we, as a Board, have the options to accept or say no, you’ve got to give us a plan. Correct? MR. BAKER-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So I think we just take them one at a time. Landscaping. The problems I have with landscaping, I think what they submitted to us for the pool is good. All you have to do is label the plans. That’s just my opinion. The problem I run into when you look at our Code, it talks about the five foot strip along the parking lot, and I don’t think they can do that, because don’t these blacktops merge right along the edge if I’m correct? But along the roadway, and I forget, do you have trees out in front along the road? MR. KENNY-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s what I’d want to see, just put those, put those trees on the plan, and then that means you’ll have to maintain those trees. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. KENNY-The Town put the trees in. We put the trees in originally, the Town dug them up. MR. SEGULJIC-And then put them back. They’re in the right of way, then? There are trees there, are they in the right of way? MR. KENNY-They’re on my property, but the sewer line is on my property, and I had to give the Town an easement. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, for me, show where the trees are. MR. KENNY-It’s just along the road? MR. SEGULJIC-Along the road, because we’ve got to draw this to an end here somewhere. MR. KENNY-Well, that’s my point. MR. SEGULJIC-Along the road. That’s what I’m saying. How does everyone feel about that? MRS. BRUNO-The road and the site that’s affected. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, the pool area, they have to label those. MR. KENNY-Well, the pool area, we have labeled them, okay. MR. SEGULJIC-It just says grass. There’s no labeling. MRS. BRUNO-Species. MR. SEGULJIC-This plan right here, label the trees. MR. KENNY-On the plan, or on the documentation, I guess. MRS. BRUNO-Put it right on the plan, that way it’s all right there. MR. KENNY-Okay, because it is on the documentation. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Stormwater. What do you want to do about stormwater? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, I certainly understand, you know, you’re looking to get some comfort from the Town Engineer, and, you know, based on what the applicant has described, I can’t imagine that, you know, we shouldn’t be able to get that. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. So with regards to stormwater, you should submit, the engineer, I believe you got that letter tonight from Vision Engineering. MR. KENNY-Yes, we got that, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-He made a comment on stormwater. Respond to that. Send it through Staff. They’ll get it to the engineer. He’ll comment. MR. HUNSINGER-And I think in your response you can explain what you told us. I mean, I don’t think you need to give him detailed specs and plans, but, you know, explain the site and what’s going on on the site. MR. KENNY-Well, I guess, according to the Code, the way I read it and interpret it, with pre-construction and post-construction there’s going to be no change. If not, we’re going to make it better, by taking out the septic and making that all green space also, permeable area. MR. SEGULJIC-So then the engineer, in theory, may agree with that, send us a letter saying it’s all fine. MR. KENNY-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. How about grading? 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the other thing, I just want to bring this point up, in that, you know, when we look at the new addition to the entryway and we look at the pool area, without a professionally engineered plan with some of the details that are lacking, according to Staff Notes, Code Enforcement is not going to be able to look at this and measure it against specifications if it’s not a professionally designed plan with details. MR. KENNY-For which, now, for stormwater or for? MRS. STEFFAN-For landscaping, for stormwater, for even the construction, the grading, height requirements and those kinds of things. I’m not seeing that as part of the plan. I see an artist rendering, and I see this plan, but it’s going to be 32 by 32. I don’t see the height on the. MS. COLES-The height has to match the existing building. MR. KENNY-The grade is there. We’re not changing grades. We had the heights put on there. So you want the height of the carport, the top peak height? MRS. STEFFAN-Do you understand what I’m saying? How can Bruce Frank and Code Enforcement, you know, with what we have right now, how can he? MR. KENNY-Wait. The Code Enforcement, there’s two issues, I guess. One, before we can do anything here, it’s like a house we’re building. I don’t think you have the plans of a house when you, I mean, this has to be, I’ve got to get a building permit, which requires all those things for the Code Enforcement. That will have a structural, what every structure is in the building. That’s, once we get the approval, then you would pay the money. If I get denied, I’m not going to pay that money to have an engineer design that carport. Once that carport’s designed, then that’s when all of the things get done for the Code Enforcement. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, that’s a little different. It’s not like a house. A house is residential construction, and the State Building Codes are specific for residential properties. In this situation, this is a commercial property. MR. KENNY-Right. I realize that, but it still needs. MR. SEGULJIC-Gretchen, they have it 32 by 32. Give us the height, and we have this rendering. Maybe I’m missing something. MR. KENNY-Right. I’ve got to have engineered plans, though. MRS. STEFFAN-How do you know where it’s sited in the grass? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, this plan is to scale. It’s one inch equals 20, I believe. MR. KENNY-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-And then the issue of stormwater runoff comes into play, and I. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that gets back to the engineer. I mean, it’s not an ideal situation. We’re just trying to move this thing along. MR. KENNY-I was here approximately a year ago we did this exact same thing, and none of these issues were raised. So something has changed in the last year. We just put, in front of the outlet mall, a little addition over the, where, a tower, which is what we’re building here, in front of where Liz Claiborne is, and, again, we didn’t raise all lighting, all the stormwater, because we didn’t change anything. We built it over blacktop, and at that time I was told by the Board that if you’re not changing things, now if you’re covering green space or changing, then you’re going to have to come in and update your stormwater, but if you’re not changing it, so something has changed in the last. MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t remember what that drawing looked like. MRS. BRUNO-It was an awning, right? MR. KENNY-I built it in December. No, it was a structure, very similar to this. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MRS. STEFFAN-And this is kind of out of my experience. I mean, you know, just the notation. I mean, this is an older drawing, and we’ve got drawings updated by Judd Burns Designer and then it’s dated, but there’s a couple of other notations on the plan. So when we’re asking, when the applicant’s asking for a waiver for professionally engineered plans, you know, this is a commercial property, so I am compelled to not grant a waiver on that. MR. KENNY-On which? MRS. STEFFAN-On professional engineered plans. That’s where I’m leaning. MR. TRAVER-Well, I would submit, based just on the volume of conversation that’s taken place this evening on this plan, that it’s not possible to review this without professional engineering plans. I mean, there’s every. MR. KENNY-What do you mean by professional engineered plans? MRS. BRUNO-That which you are requesting waivers from. MR. KENNY-Not plans for the building. You’re talking about plans. MR. TRAVER-In other words, generally speaking, when we have been in a position to grant waivers for various issues, such as the ones that you’ve raised here, the discussions have been very clear cut and the issues are very straightforward. In this situation you’re talking about adjoining properties. You’re talking about, you’re referencing previous applications. You’re describing a stormwater, your stormwater management system, which certainly sounds robust, and great, but we have no evidence that it exists because we have no, there’s no plans in front of us. So it’s very difficult to make these issues that you raised and requested waivers on to be very clear cut and obvious to this Board, and that’s the whole reason for having the detailed professional engineering plans. So that it’s not a matter of taking your testimony and making a decision based purely on your recollection and your testimony, but rather we have professional engineered plans. So my thought, after this length of discussion that we had on this issue, is that in itself is evident that we need to have professional engineering plans. Because if we’d been able to, if we’d been comfortable to grant waivers, I don’t think we’d still be talking about this application after, what, an hour or more. MR. KENNY-Well, engineered plans, I’m more than happy to get an engineer to submit a letter stating that stormwater, the runoff now is no greater than the runoff before. That’s what the Code. MR. TRAVER-Well, we’re getting into a circular argument. I mean, you’re raising the same points that you raised some time ago. MR. KENNY-She raised the point that she wants to see a building design that’s, the Building Inspector, the Code Enforcement can enforce. That’s done when the building permit is issued. Then that needs an engineered, stamped plan for a building permit. That is not something I’ve ever seen brought before a Planning Board, the structure, how it’s designed and how it’s built, so the Code Enforcement can enforce how the structure is built. That’s something new to me. MRS. STEFFAN-We do it every week, and actually there’s a motel that was up across from the Aviation Mall, and they put the same kind of entry on the front of their building. It requires Site Plan Review, and it was approved, and there’s also a, there’s part of the resolution that requires that applicants provide as built drawings to certify that the Site Plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to an issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or approval. MR. KENNY-The size of the building, its shape, but not the construction plans. MR. TRAVER-It sounds as though what you might want to consider. MR. KENNY-Do you want construction plans or the size and the shape, which is 32 by 32, and the height of the existing structure? MR. TRAVER-I think what would be to all of our benefit, if you were to speak with a professional engineer. I understand you had a long relationship with this gentleman that you’re still friends with, but he doesn’t appear to have been a lot of help in this particular application. So you might want to speak with, make an appointment with, someone 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) who’s currently practicing, and he can, in five minutes, very easily specify what all of these things are going to require and how it can be done and prepare an application that we can look at and very clearly see all of the issues that we’re raising and that you’ve described, in an unambiguous way, that we can very quickly resolve this. That’s my opinion, and I don’t know how other members of the Board are feeling, but. MR. SEGULJIC-What, in particular, would you like to see? MR. KENNY-That’s what I’d like to know. MR. TRAVER-I would like to, I guess, deny the waivers that have been requested, and I would like to see the professional engineered plans for this application that show the plans regarding landscape, stormwater management, grading and lighting. MRS. BRUNO-I agree. I think that makes three of us so far. MR. KENNY-So what is the landscape plan, I would like to know. Is that the total site? MR. TRAVER-The engineer will be able to help you with that. I mean, we could. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, you have to be clear. Are you telling him that he has to meet the Code, 179- whatever it is, is that what you’re saying? MR. TRAVER-I think we’re. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, most people who submit a landscaping plan, it would be for their entire site. MR. KENNY-The landscaping plan for the entire site has been done. I’m designing a new section of the site. We submitted a landscaping plan for the pool area. That’s the only change. MRS. BRUNO-So they can take that original one very easily and then work on that particular section. So ultimately they’re really only working on that section anyway. MR. KENNY-But that landscaping plan, I don’t have it. That was done, like I say, back in 1986. I’m not changing it. MRS. STEFFAN-No, but that wouldn’t change. All it is, they would be putting the landscaping plan together that you have started to put together around the pool. The rest of the landscaping plan, for example around the borders where you have your no cut zone, it’s just denoted as green space, and it’s green, and we don’t have to know what kind of trees are in there. We just know that it’s green space, and it’s noted. Just like you actually have some notations of this no cut zone. You talked about the crabapple trees between your retail complex next door. All that would be would just be round. MR. KENNY-Right, I understand that. I understand what they would be, but that’s what I’m questioning. What do you want on, you said you want a total plan in the back showing all the trees. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. KENNY-I can add them in. MRS. STEFFAN-And that’s what a Site Plan would provide. MR. KENNY-I can do that. I don’t need an engineer to put trees on this green space. See this is a colored map showing the green space. Now there are trees. These trees are here and located for you. The trees along the road, they can be drawn in. I mean, but now if you want us to go put every tree on the property, the only thing I don’t want to do is in the wooded area back here, I’ll just say that’s wooded area. Those are natural trees. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s fine. MRS. BRUNO-That’s what Mrs. Steffan just said. MRS. STEFFAN-All right, but what it does, when we look at the entire site plan, we know that, you know, there is other green space, because one of the things that we often do in 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) a landscape plan, there may be requirements, but we’ll look at some of the other landscaping on the property, or the green space on the property that may offset, just an example, what you’re proposing around your pool and say, there’s enough landscaping, there’s enough green space on the plan. MR. KENNY-This here does show it all, probably. That’s the problem, you don’t have this. This shows the green space all around the buildings. This is all, this shows everything. MRS. STEFFAN-The difficulty I’m having is that I don’t think that we can hold you to a different standard than we’re holding other people to, when they come in and they want to change things. MR. KENNY-I hope that’s the case. MRS. BRUNO-Absolutely. MRS. STEFFAN-We’re looking at all the sites and asking for the same kinds of things. MR. KENNY-I know it was totally different the last time I came here, which was about six months ago. MRS. BRUNO-That was a much smaller. MR. KENNY-A much bigger project. It wasn’t an awning. It was a full building. MRS. BRUNO-You might be able to refer to yet another hotel on Route 9 that I think you’re probably quite familiar with, and review some of the questions that we had on the lighting. MR. KENNY-Which one is this? MRS. BRUNO-Across from Martha’s. MR. KENNY-That’s my sister’s, that was on the original plans, that’s new, that’s not an old hotel. That was a whole new project. MRS. BRUNO-I’m aware of that, but my point is that we looked at his lighting plan very carefully, and you were just saying that you hope that we hold everyone to the same standards. My example is that we are, and we would like to see the same from you. MR. SEGULJIC-So what do we want to do about grading? I, personally, don’t see a need for the grading. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t, either. MR. TRAVER-My feeling is that the engineer that assists the applicant with preparing an application will be able to, I’m sure, take care of the amount of detail that is necessary to provide adequate information. MR. SEGULJIC-You’ve got to recall, he’s asking for a waiver. So we have to decide whether to grant him that waiver or not. What information do you want? MR. TRAVER-Shall we do a poll of the Board? MRS. BRUNO-A certain amount of the grading is going to be needed just to do the stormwater management, because of the flow. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, to that I think what I’d like to see is, the applicant submits the information for the engineer to review. If the engineer says it’s fine, I’m fine. If the engineer says we need grading information, then we ask the applicant for grading information. MR. TRAVER-Well, the application, as it exists, has been reviewed by Vision, and by Staff. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, what the engineer has suggested is that the applicant depict existing drainage patterns and stormwater mitigation measures. So, I mean, in a 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) lot of cases where we have the stormwater management plan, they just show flow of the water, and I think, if that is depicted on the map, I don’t see a need for grading. MR. TRAVER-That’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-And that’s basically what you’re saying, too, you know, if the engineer’s going to be okay with it. MRS. BRUNO-I think that was my point, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. MRS. BRUNO-A waiver for that, and if he feels. MR. KENNY-If I have an engineer submit a letter to your engineer, to the Town Engineer, saying I’m not changing the grading or changing what the, anything that’s existing, I’m not increasing anything, and there is no change, or do you want my engineer to do a whole stormwater plan for the property again? MR. SEGULJIC-No, what I’m personally asking is that you satisfy our Town Engineer that your stormwater controls work as existing, and if our Town Engineer says, yes, they are, I’m satisfied. MS. COLES-But no engineer would do that without something in writing. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s right. He, the applicant, has to submit information. The Town Engineer might say, no, I need all the design. If he says that, then we say you have to supply the information. MR. KENNY-I guess that’s my point. I can get (lost words). He’s done work, he will come out there and do an engineering study and say I’m not changing anything. It’s not getting any worse. Now, can he say everything there is sufficient without going through and doing a whole re-design of the stormwater plan? I’ll tell you what, if I had his license, I wouldn’t want to do it. So what you’re saying is, I mean, but he can say, it’s not changing, which is what the Code is. Post-construction, pre-construction. I’m improving it. That he can do without doing a whole stormwater plan. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, according to the Vision Engineering letter, the applicant should depict existing drainage patterns and stormwater mitigation measures, and in parenthesis, show existing runoff patterns and stormwater devices, in particular the area of impervious nearest the proposed entry. Also, it is not indicated if the entry canopy will be guttered, and if so, where it will be discharged. Number Two, a note should be added to the site plan indicating that all existing septic tanks, drywells, and etc. be pumped and disposed of in accordance with all Federal, State and local laws and regulations, and then he goes on with erosion during construction, but this indicates to me that the engineer is looking for that information denoted, otherwise how could he weigh and consider whether it’s adequate or not for the site. MR. HUNSINGER-So going back to your question. MR. KENNY-That would be lawyer concern. I’ll have to ask my lawyer. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think you need an engineer to tell the Town Engineer what’s there. I mean, if you know what’s there. MR. KENNY-I know what’s there. MR. HUNSINGER-If you have the existing plans on file, or if the Town has them on file, you know, I don’t know. You just need to get that information to him. MR. KENNY-But your engineer, unless I’m going to stamp something, is not going to sit there and say that what was built 20 years ago, what was under the foundation and all that work, what’s been there, is without coming out and doing all the test pits and what you’re asking for is a stormwater plan for the whole property, which is in existence for 20 years. A new stormwater plan. No engineer’s going to come out there, at least I wouldn’t say this meets. What they will come out and say whether there is a change, positive or negative. That they can do. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. TRAVER-It’s not for us to decide if you need a new stormwater plan. It’s for the engineer to decide if you need a stormwater plan. What we need to do is take a look at an application that’s been reviewed by the engineer, which we are not able to do this evening. MR. KENNY-I understand what you’re saying. MR. TRAVER-And we understand what you’re saying. I mean, we keep going around and around and around in circles. We’re not able to make any progress. MR. KENNY-I mean nothing with the Board, no issues. MR. SEGULJIC-What about lighting? MRS. BRUNO-Lighting we need. MR. SEGULJIC-So you want to see a whole photometric survey on site, is that what you’re saying? MR. HUNSINGER-Again, I think the lighting’s probably okay. He just needs to give us the information. MR. TRAVER-There needs to be something submitted that can be reviewed and signed off on by the engineer. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-I mean, it would seem to me at this point, and I can certainly understand the applicant wanting to waive having to go through some of these procedures, but it would seem to me, again, at this point, that the easiest thing to do is simply to get some engineering assistance preparing an application that addresses all of these issues, that clearly indicates that the existing and whatever modifications that this application are making to stormwater has no impact. The lighting levels are within Code, so on and so on. I mean, that can be, I think, done in less time than we talked about it tonight probably. MR. KENNY-Let me ask you this. Could I have a lighting inspector come out there, which we do, and with an amp meter and go to the area and say this is the light that’s provided with going out and redesigning the whole system? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, you just would need to submit those readings to the engineer for review for approval for the lighting. MRS. STEFFAN-But the lighting plan doesn’t have to be for the whole site. MRS. BRUNO-No, I don’t think so, either. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, we just have to tell the applicant where we want it. MRS. BRUNO-The pool area, the entryway and around the parking lot near the entryway, just this. MR. KENNY-We did supply that, though, I thought. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, he gave us that, though. MR. KENNY-I gave you that. MRS. BRUNO-He gave it to us in a tear sheet. MR. HUNSINGER-In a narrative form, yes. MR. KENNY-So you want an engineer to say that’s. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, the proposed lighting under the canopy meets Code. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. KENNY-That was done by Glens Falls Electric. It wasn’t done by us. You want an engineer to stamp it and say it’s okay. The area we’re affecting, we did have Glens Falls Electric go in and do the design for us and tell us what we had to do. MR. HUNSINGER-I was the one that brought up the lighting. My reasoning for bringing it up was to verify the poles over the parking lot, the lighting under the canopy meets Code as proposed. MRS. BRUNO-We had the tile store on Dix Avenue come in front of us, and I honestly did not review the final package because it was when I was on vacation. It’s a similar, albeit smaller application, but we had lighting issues. They had some wall packs. MR. HUNSINGER-There was a pole light on the site that we asked for details on. MRS. BRUNO-We tabled it for the lighting. What did we end up then requiring them to do? MR. TRAVER-They submitted, as I recall, cut sheets and I don’t know that they did a photometric survey. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they didn’t do a photometric survey, but they gave us cut sheets and details, and there was a current pole that didn’t meet current Code that they changed. MR. TRAVER-Right, yes. I think, the issue of the photometric survey, I think, is more applicable to new construction. I think in this case we’re merely interested in looking at this modification, it’s going to remain within Code. MR. HUNSINGER-I think if he just gave us specifications on the existing light poles, we would be able to know very quickly if it’s within reason or not. MR. KENNY-There’s only three light poles. There’s three light poles, the fourth one is coming down, by the pool area, because we’re doing away with that parking. MR. HUNSINGER-And the proposed new lighting under the canopy meets Code. You haven’t given us any details, though, on the lighting around the pool. MR. KENNY-That’s going to be low level lighting. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion to table. MR. HUNSINGER-Before you do that, we did have a public hearing scheduled. MRS. STEFFAN-Sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone here that wanted to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing and we will leave the public hearing open. MRS. STEFFAN-We can table it to January. There’s two weeks. MR. KENNY-Hopefully, maybe we’ll get this in the mail tomorrow. I mean, quite frankly, if I had gotten this letter, I would have had an engineer here. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s unfortunate. MR. SEGULJIC-Are you in a rush to do this project? MR. KENNY-Well, we’re spending a million dollars to upgrade the property, and it has to be ready by the Spring. I mean, we’ve got contracts signed. We’re converting to a Clarion. Are we in a rush to get it done? Let’s put it this way, we’re spending a lot of money. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) th MRS. STEFFAN-It is currently November 27, and the application deadline for January’s th meetings is December 17, and so that’s two weeks from now, and I don’t know, will you be able to? MR. KENNY-Probably not, but we’ll do what we can do. MRS. STEFFAN-But the other thing is, if I do it to February’s meeting, then you’d have a th January 15 deadline. MR. KENNY-Yes, that’s too late for us. That would be a major problem for the carport, but we’ll have to address that issue as it comes up. MRS. STEFFAN-Do you think you can turn this around in two weeks? MR. KENNY-I can turn it around. Can an engineer turn it around? Probably not. This Board is so busy that every engineer I’ve talked to in Town is backed up three months before they can look at anything. That’s one of the issues, whether it’s an engineer, I mean, I’m going to have to bring probably somebody that’s not familiar with it, because I know Tom is, I spoke to Tom walking in tonight when he was here. So he’s done other projects for me, and there’s a few other ones. Maybe I can get, you know, if I get into February, our Grand Opening is going to be in May. It won’t get done, and it has to get done, because we’ve already signed with Clarion. So this is, you know, this entranceway, because that changes the whole office. (Lost words) again which is a month for the building permit to be issued. MRS. STEFFAN-What we’ll do is we’ll put you on the January agenda and if you need to be extended all you have to do is let the Town know. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 55-2007 KENNY PROPERTIES/DAVID KENNY, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: nd This is tabled to the January 22 Planning Board meeting with a submission deadline of th December 17. The conditions on this tabling are so that the applicant can address the thth Staff comments of November 27 and Vision Engineering comments of November 18. The Planning Board has granted a waiver for grading, but the Planning Board has not granted waivers for professional engineered plans, landscaping, stormwater management and lighting. th Duly adopted this 27 day of November, 2007, by the following vote: MS. COLES-But based on the documentation we provide, if the engineer and other things are addressed, that may be sufficient for those plans, and then a full site plan waiver would be appropriate, is that what we’re saying? You’re not granting the waivers at this time because you need the additional information. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I wanted to mention this earlier. I think we need to be kind of careful on terminology here, because the Town Code doesn’t specify that the plans be prepared by a professional engineer. It just says what is required on a site plan. So I was going to advise that we not use the term engineer plans, but use the term full site plan, which is specified in the Code. MR. KENNY-So if I understand you correctly, we need to submit a letter to the Town Engineer for this stormwater, to see if he’s, if it meets Code. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KENNY-If he’s satisfied, then you’re satisfied. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, but lighting and landscaping, this Board does want to see. MR. KENNY-The landscaping plan, the plan you have today, all we have to do is add the trees. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, that’s right, and give us a little more detail on the new plantings, yes. MS. COLES-And on the lighting, you just want the current reading on the three fixtures that are currently in the three current posts. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but. MS. COLES-And then details on the lamppost that would go around the pool, the others under the carport you’ve already said are sufficient. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but I also want to be careful. I don’t want to mislead you because if the existing light poles are way out of whack, you’re going to need to change those fixtures somehow. MS. COLES-But again, we’re just talking about those three poles and more specifics on the ones to go around, the fixtures to go around the pool. MR. HUNSINGER-I believe so. Is there any other lighting on the facility? MR. KENNY-The only other lighting on the facility is in the back parking lot, they’re the same lights. Behind the building. MR. HUNSINGER-Are they shielded and downcast? MR. KENNY-They’re downcast. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, you might want to give us those specs, too. MR. KENNY-They’re the same. MR. HUNSINGER-Just so we’ve got it all covered. MR. KENNY-We do one, they’re all the same, they’re all the same fixtures. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MEYER-Could I potentially complicate things? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MR. MEYER-Can we just get a clear statement of the resolution? MR. KENNY-Well, that’s what we’re addressing. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think we have a motion. I’ll second. MRS. STEFFAN-Of course it’s been changed in the conversation that just occurred. MR. MEYER-Right, and that’s all I was asking for. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We will. Sorry about that. MR. KENNY-I think the resolution is that we have to address Staff comments. Period, pretty much. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. KENNY-How we do it. MRS. STEFFAN-And the terminology, Chris, that I used on professional engineering plans, those were the Staff’s, that’s the Staff’s terminology. MS. COLES-The engineer has on here this whole thing about existing septic drywells says that they’ll be pumped. You were making it to remove them. MRS. BRUNO-I think he was just saying that it should be noted. Yes, a note should be added to the site plan. That way they just can follow. It’s, again, just for follow up. MRS. STEFFAN-Do we need to qualify those things in the resolution? 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think we need to qualify them. I think everyone understands what we’re looking for here. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, but just based on the conversation that’s occurred, I think that there are some clarification of the motion that was made. I will re-read the motion for clarity. AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Sipp MR. KENNY-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-And please remember that if you have questions in the meantime, our Staff, the Community Development Staff for Planning can help you answer those questions. MR. KENNY-I guess I would have one comment, like you said before. If we can get it in by then, which we’ll try, comments, when can we get the comments? MRS. STEFFAN-We get the comments, for the Planning Board meetings that happen on Tuesdays, we get the comments, they’re mailed out on the Friday before the Planning Board meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, so it’s literally a couple of days. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, a couple of days before, but if you don’t have them, call the Community Development Department. MS. COLES-We can call on Friday to get them, whether they’ve been mailed or not. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, correct. They’ll have them completed. MR. HUNSINGER-So then when you come to the meeting, you can be prepared to address the comments. MR. KENNY-Tonight we were totally unprepared, and I’ve been here plenty of times, and this is the first I’ve seen it go into the detail. MRS. STEFFAN-So the Staff Notes come out on that Friday, and also the Vision Engineering comments come out on that Friday, too. MR. BAKER-I have a question for the Board. What day did you receive your Staff Notes on? MRS. STEFFAN-I received mine on Saturday’s mail. MR. BAKER-Is that true for everyone? MR. HUNSINGER-Or was it Friday? Yes, I think I got them on Friday. MRS. BRUNO-Yes, I was, too. MR. BAKER-They went out to the Board and to all the applicants on Wednesday afternoon. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-I’m not sure when it was. I was gone, too. MR. KENNY-The thing we’d have to go is go down and check the address it went to. Would it go to the same address that the agenda went to and stuff? MR. BAKER-Yes. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. TRAVER-Well, with the holiday that may have complicated things. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KENNY-It could be the holiday. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, sorry about that. Okay. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 56-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED GEORGE RYAN OWNER(S) CATHERINE RYAN ZONING NC-1A LOCATION 955 ST. RT. 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING 5,550 SQ. FT. GREENHOUSE DAMAGED BY SNOW AND REPLACEMENT WITH A 4,320 SQ. FT. “MORTON” BUILDING. RETAIL PROJECTS IN THE NC-1A ZONING DISTRICT REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SP 41-93, 55-93, 17-88 WARREN CO. PLANNING 11/14/07 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WETLANDS YES LOT SIZE 5.06 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-9 SECTION 179-4-020 GEORGE RYAN, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, whenever you’re ready, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. BAKER-Okay. Just a quick comment. The second page that was attached to the previous applicant’s Staff Notes actually goes with this application, the Staff comments on this application. Rather than read the entire comments, I noted, I’ll just summarize. I noted there were a number of items required in the application that were not provided, and under additional comments I noted that waivers were requested by the applicant from lighting, stormwater, grading, and landscaping requirements, landscaping plan requirements. I also noted that the site plans submitted are confusing, and are not drawn to scale, one plan submitted states on it “Produced by the Town of Queensbury, NY Planning Department.” Planning staff provided the scaled schematic of the property lines only; all hand drawn items on that particular plan were done by the applicant. The project description is confusing and does not seem to match all the information submitted by the applicant. It appears that the applicant is proposing the removal of up to three buildings totaling 5,675 square feet and replacing them with one building of 4,320 square feet, yet the plans submitted show that the new building may be as large as 75’ by 110’, or 7,500 square feet. Accurate figures must be provided, and included in the FAR worksheet, and there’s also comments submitted by the Town’s consulting engineer. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. RYAN-How are you guys? George Ryan. With all that said and done, I had a 5,000 square foot greenhouse that came down with the snow. I’m taking the 5,000 square foot greenhouse down and putting a 4,300 square foot building on top of it. The landscaping is going to stay the same. The septic’s going to stay the same. The lights are going to stay the same. I’m just replacing the greenhouse with a service building. My greenhouse is like a service building. I go in there and wash vegetables, grow my flowers, store my apples. I’m going to do the same with this building, but it’s going to have a solid roof. The only reason I need a building with a solid roof, due to the global warming and the proximity of where I’m at next to a golf course and surrounded by two mountains, Sugarloaf and French Mountain, the wind comes and the ground’s warmer and the weather, it’s just terrible over there. The wind, the last three years with the warm winters and stuff, it’s just been phenomenal. The greenhouses haven’t had a chance. I had 10,000 square foot of greenhouses, and there’s two of them that are damaged, 5,000 square foot. They’re still there, bent up, damaged, and if anybody took the time to come over and take a look, you’ll see the slab. I’m replacing that one building with this Morton building, and it’s as simple as that. The problem is it was in 1988 I was approved for the Site Plan, for a farm two types. I have a permit here. I’m not changing anything. The people down in that office, the office is broke. It needs to be repaired down there. I’ve been to two Site Plan Reviews. The application is scary. Thank God, the girls there to help you fill this out. They took the time to help me fill this out. I’d be lost. In the meantime, I have no way to make money, no way to make a living. All I’m trying to do is keep on doing what I’ve been doing for the last 25 years. I’m not changing anything. I showed you the original Site Plan Review. I showed you another Site Plan Review where they made me get a modification, and, needless to say, the comments those guys make, I could make some comments for them, too. I can show you some letters here where they told me I can sell Pepsi but I can’t sell Snapple. I’ll show you a permit right here where it says, George Ryan, it says a permit for storage, manufacturing, handling, 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) transportation, hazardous material, premises for barn, restaurant, place of assembly. These fellas have been picking me apart for years, and I just take it. One guy gave me a permit for the propane in 1991, another guy sends me a letter that’s still down there to take the tank out. I’ve been abused by these guys. I don’t go make a big deal about it, but they’re off course. It’s broke down there. The office is broke. There’s nobody, it’s like having a store with nobody running it. MRS. BRUNO-The greenhouse that fell in. MR. RYAN-The greenhouse fell in because we had a bad snowstorm, and what happened was the power went out, so with the power going out, the heat didn’t go on. It’s a catastrophe for me. It was a hard thing just to even look at, never mind cleaning it up. It took me forever. I went down to the Town and they said, well, you probably could replace that with a building. Get an engineered plan. So I called Morton Builders. The biggest mistake was I thought that Morton would be able to work with the Town. They gave me an engineered drawing, which I gave you a piece, and I have a copy here, and I went down to the Town and they took the application from me. I waited four and a half weeks and the Town sent me a letter stating that I had to get a Site Plan Review, after four and a half weeks. Now, to get the Morton Building, before you even start with them, they want to know, 10% they want down for the building, then they want to know where you have the money for the next payments. Where’s it going to come, letters from the bank, the whole bit. This is my livelihood. If you guys don’t like the Morton Building, that’s fine. I’m going to go home and build something, and I’m being honest with you, okay. I’m going to lose my money from Morton, but I’m going to go home. I’m going to put my pants on and just start working. MRS. BRUNO-What were your other site plan reviews for? You said that you had a couple? MR. RYAN-I had a Site Plan Review in 1988 that approved all the square footage that I’m doing. The building’s in the same spot. Craig Brown made me, one day I had a fire, and it was the most terrible thing in the world. I had a fire. It wasn’t my fault. Meantime I had a guy like Dave Hatin tell me to board the windows. I had the Sherriff’s Department telling me not to go near the building, and they made me sick, these guys. That office down there needs to, the application is scary. Never mind you’re here, like confused. You’ve got to be confused to fill it out. I went through two Site Plan Reviews in my lifetime. That thing’s scary, that application. I’m not changing any green space. I have a little truck farm. They gave me permission to have it. I look at the Code. It says a service building. These guys are, you know, where do they get their experience? From the Town of Queensbury. You guys are the bosses. Now you have a crew down there and they could tell you everything they want. If they have a personal conflict with somebody, look at the comments they give you. They don’t take it up, you guys have the power, not down there. They make this, it’s crazy. It’s broke down there. It needs help. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Ryan, could we just deal with this application here. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Let’s just go through it one step at a time. So what you want to do is you had a building, and you just want to replace the building, but it’s going to be smaller. MR. RYAN-Yes, it’s going to be a Morton building. MR. SEGULJIC-Now, if I’m correct, your existing area’s all impervious, right? MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Other than the building. You have no paved parking. MR. RYAN-I use the land. I grow tomatoes, plants, flowers outside mums. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Now there’s some comment here about the wetlands. It appears as if they’re just right on the edge of your property. How big is your property? MR. RYAN-It’s 5.6 acres, but you know something about that wetland. This is the saddest thing, okay. That’s a manmade map that somebody made, and now you’re suing the fellow by Macchio, by the name of Mr. Macchio. If you go on the back corner of my land, you’ll see a road going across there, and it’s a golf course, and the golf course uses it. You’ll see a well next to my line, and the golf course put a manmade pond in, 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) and that’s their irrigation system that they water the golf course with. Now here’s this guy that comes up, I’ve been through the Town for three site plan reviews. I came when I was a young kid, and I never had a wetland. Now, all of a sudden, I’ve got a wetland, and if I take you back there and I show you the wetland, there’s a road. Here’s my fence. There’s a road for the golf course and the golf course has a well and he pumps the water out of his well into the pond, out of the pond, into his irrigation system. There’s no wetland on my land. Right where you’re showing, that’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen, and try to talk to one of these guys to have them come take a look at it, it’s ridiculous, okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s not up to the Town Staff. I mean, it’s a State map. MR. RYAN-Well, somebody stretched the State map, and if you’re going to have rules, you’re going to sue a guy over on French Mountain for disturbing the wetlands. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, why don’t we talk about your project. MR. RYAN-Yes, then they should be over there suing me for having a wetlands because I’ve got sheep on it and none of their feet are wet. I mean, it’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen. MR. SEGULJIC-Are we looking for waivers on this application? MR. RYAN-I was looking for a waiver because my lights were pre-existing. They’re old- fashioned lights The reason I put the lights in, I had a young family. I wasn’t making enough money, and it got dark. So I put the lights on and I worked a few more hours. Pretty simple, and the lights are nice. I shut them off at 10 o’clock at night. They’re only there while I’m working, and they’re 175 watt mercury vapor lights. MR. BAKER-Waivers have been requested from lighting, stormwater, grading, and landscaping plan requirements. MR. RYAN-The stormwater is going to be the same exact gutters. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Your site’s all pervious, correct? MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Can we just take these one at a time? Is that all right? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, sure. MR. SEGULJIC-How does everyone feel about the stormwater? Personally, it’s all pervious. MR. TRAVER-Right. No problem. MR. SEGULJIC-For now I don’t think there’s a problem with that. How about grading? To me he’s just replacing an existing building. MR. SIPP-He’s not going to do any additional grading. MR. SEGULJIC-So everything’s going good so far. MR. SIPP-Is this on a foundation that was there for the previous greenhouse, so the concrete foundation for that? MR. RYAN-It’s a concrete foundation, but when the fellow was going to put the building up, and he gave a nice plan, I don’t understand why they say this stuff. He’s going to straddle my concrete foundation with the pole barn. Okay. He’s going to put poles on the ground. I’ve got beautiful soil there, and he’s going to straddle that concrete, so he can use it again. There’s no sense in tearing it out. I paid a lot of money for it. So he’s going to put poles, and it shows right here existing concrete, and it shows the poles, shows the doors, and he’s going to use that. So the worst thing that’s going to happen is, this building is smaller than the other. So we’re going to have some concrete that’s going to be exposed to the air, which I thought maybe I’d do something with. MR. HUNSINGER-So the building’s smaller, but the roof, the footprint of the building, the roof of the building, is the same. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. RYAN-No, it’s going to be smaller, because I have a 5,000 square foot building here that I was putting up, and if you look right here at the square footage, I’m only going to have 4300 square feet, and it’s going to have a little overhang to hang some baskets to sell and stuff. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I’m looking at that overhang. That’s why I’m talking about that area. MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-So the building does have, when I first read it, I thought that it was only the roof. You do actually have walls? MR. RYAN-Yes, it has walls and it has a roof. MRS. BRUNO-And it will be heated? MR. RYAN-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-And your concrete pad actually extends from inside to outside. You’re going to have some cracking issues. MR. RYAN-Well, you’ve got to come over and take a look at the concrete, and I had a greenhouse in there, so it was heated, but it’s industrial concrete, and it’s six inch thick, and it’s cut, there’s cuts in it, and it has expansion joint in it, and it’s lasted this long, since 2000, and I’ve got my fingers crossed. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. How about the landscaping? To me, all he’s doing is replacing an existing building, and he is a, I don’t want to call you a farm stand. You’re a farm stand. MR. RYAN-What I am, I’m a first generation farmer. I make my living as a farmer. MR. SEGULJIC-Gentleman farmer, how’s that? MR. RYAN-Yes, and I am. MR. SEGULJIC-And you have a lot of things planted as it is, you’re going to be growing things. Okay. MR. RYAN-And off site, not just on the site. I mean, this has been a devastating thing, and when you guys think about the plan again on 149, there’s one other thing. The State’s going to come by and they’re going to take most of my green space. The Town asked me to leave it green in the front. That’s why you see that green. The water stays on my own land. My own water stays on my own land. The water that, I like the water. If there’s no water, I could save it, put a big pot down, whatever, but needless to say the State’s going to take my fence, and they want to take 17 feet of my land, my 700. Okay. Now they didn’t give me a check yes. I don’t know, but that’s what they’re telling me. So I just want you guys to take that into consideration. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So, is everyone okay with the granting of the landscaping? I’m sensing that’s okay? MRS. STEFFAN-The waiver? MR. SEGULJIC-Waiver, and then I think the last issue with the waivers is the lighting. MR. HUNSINGER-Where do you have outside lights now? MR. RYAN-I have outside lights that are 110 feet off the road, and they’re 17 foot high, and they’re 175 foot mercury vapor lamps. MRS. BRUNO-What time do you close in the Fall? I know sometimes you sell pumpkins and that type of thing. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. RYAN-Well, I’m open right now, and, you know, it’s tough when it’s darker out. The lights really don’t give too much light, but it’s enough to keep the burglars out and stuff. MRS. BRUNO-So do you close when it becomes dark, or are you open after? MR. RYAN-No. This weekend you get a lot of traffic. I sold Christmas Trees and stuff, and I was probably out there at 11 o’clock working. Some nights, I was out there one night until 1:30 this week because I had a big order. I just don’t sell stuff around here. If I can sell something, I sell it. I make it and build it right there. Now I’m making wreaths. I change with the holidays. MRS. BRUNO-I guess what I’m asking is when do you close your gates to customers coming in? It sounds like the lighting is adequate for you, but if we have public? MR. RYAN-I close when the people stop coming. If I sit there for an hour and nobody comes, I shut the gates. I don’t have any set hours, per se. If my flowers aren’t ready, I leave the gates open, a lot of people stop and just talk to me. MR. HUNSINGER-So you’re not worried the light’s too bright. MRS. BRUNO-No, I’m not worried that it’s too bright. It’s a safety concern again. MR. RYAN-And I do have neighbors that live across the street, and I had a neighbor here today, and I’m not going to tell you what he said, but he told me that he thought it was okay what I was doing. It was just too late for him to stay here. He didn’t want to stay here. MR. SEGULJIC-So, I’m sensing we’re okay with the lighting? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it appears that way. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, I guess the only real concern I would have is it doesn’t seem as if your septic system’s located on the site. MR. RYAN-I have a septic system, and I have a permit, and I’m going to use the same one. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, you should just locate it on your drawing, to know where it is for your own benefit, too. MR. RYAN-Well, it’s on there, and I have a septic system, and it’s approved, and I have a permit. I even have the permit number, and the thing. Mr. Hatin came and inspected it, and I’m sure you couldn’t get nothing away from him if it wasn’t good. MRS. STEFFAN-When did you get that permit, George? MR. RYAN-Probably in 1990 or something like that. Is the bathroom used a lot? No. Somebody comes in, they need to use the bathroom. Some of the issues I had with Dave was when I did have a bathroom, Dave didn’t like the idea. He said that I needed a three foot door. Well, I didn’t have a door. So what’s the difference? But it’s a handicap door he said I needed. It’s not really funny because, you know, I’m not degrading him or something, but those are the kind of issues you have to deal with, okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s Building Code. That’s the problem. MR. RYAN-Yes, but the Code says if you have a door. Well, I didn’t have a door. I just had a beautiful bathroom there. The floor’s still there. I had all kinds of problems like that. I had a greenhouse and it’s plastic. Dave came one day and said I need exit lights, like this. Well, I really didn’t want to put the light on all night. It wouldn’t be nice for the neighbors. So I hung a sheet rock up, in case of fire, cut plastic and step outside. He didn’t like it. I mean, what are you going to do? And then as the time goes on, these are the people that are training the other people down there, and as I look at that, I don’t want to be angry about somebody or mad at them and say this guy that. It’s foolish. These people that we have working there, this is where they learn their jobs. The people that should be doing their jobs are happy doing their original job they did. They never move up the ladder. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, again, I think they’re just following Code and what’s required by State law. Other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing and I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. BRUNO-I have a question for Staff, and this is just, looking at the last page that’s included in the package. Under Commercial Industrial, and he had the second, actually I guess it would be the third permit, 2007-0501. Refunded permit withdrawn. Is that this same one? Did you put it in and then pull it out? MR. RYAN-No, I put it in, and the guy sent me a letter telling me that it was no good, that I couldn’t use that. So what’s the sense of them holding the money? I’ve paid them. They told me that they were going to take this. It looked good. Get an engineer stamp, I want you to know. MRS. BRUNO-I’m sorry. When I read it, I read it that we withdrew it, and I was just wondering what the reason for that was. Okay. I’ve never seen this sheet before, actually. MR. RYAN-So I’d love to come to one of your workshops and show you some of the harassments and some of the things. It’s kind of funny, because I have it written down. The tickets that I was given, take my propane out. Take this out. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Ryan, can we just stick to the application. Okay. To me, given the nature of the operation, I don’t have any problems with it. MR. TRAVER-I concur. MR. HUNSINGER-It is an Unlisted Action. The applicant submitted a Short Form that wasn’t filled out. Do we need to do SEQRA? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, one of the comments from Staff, applicant plan shows that the new building may be as large as 75 by 110 or 7500 square feet, and we’ve got a Floor Area Ratio worksheet, but is it correct? MR. RYAN-Can I just say something to that? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think she’s asking you, yes. MR. RYAN-Yes. Well, here’s the plan right here. You guys have a copy of the plan. The building is, this is it. I’m going to call the guy up, when I get done here, and I’ve got a contract with him right here. They would have been done. They said two weeks they’ll have it up. There’s the contract. It can’t be any bigger than what they gave us the plan for. That’s just a little bit, you know, I don’t know why they put that in there. That’s a good question, but there’s the plan. MRS. STEFFAN-And this is the building that you’re putting up? MR. RYAN-And that’s the building. This is a better plan with a stamp on it, if you’d like to see it. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, this is for the location. MR. RYAN-That’s the location, but here’s the building, the heights, what it’s built out of, the porch, and this is it. I submitted this plan and they kept two copies of it. I can’t give them anything else different. This is what I’m going to give them. MR. HUNSINGER-On the plans that you have there, does it have the overall dimensions of the building? MR. RYAN-Yes. It’s going to be like, it’s going to be 53.9 by 73.9. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s 4800 square feet. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board? MRS. BRUNO-I have one comment, and I’m not quite sure how I’m going to rectify this in my mind, but I’m uncomfortable about the lighting, just given the irregularity of the evening and safety for your customers, and like I said, I’m not quite sure how, I’m going to process it for a few more minutes, but I wanted to put that out there. MR. RYAN-Well, if you want to, when you get done here tonight, you come on over. I’ll turn the lights. I’ve got them on a timer. The timer is going to go off, probably by the time we leave, but you’ll see it’s just fine. It’s not bright. I had one fellow fall, and he slipped on the ice, and I felt so bad that he didn’t go to the hospital, because I have to pay money for insurance, and in business you never want to have anybody fall. Poor old fellow said no and he went home. In all the years, I started, you know, I started as a what you guys call as a transient merchant. MRS. BRUNO-Don’t go there, please. MR. RYAN-I’d like to solve that problem for you, because I could show you how it worked, and it worked easy, and I had to get a bond, and that was a different issue, but sometimes I’d love to come to a workshop and fill you in on some of this stuff. You’d really appreciate it. How simple things were back then. Trucks don’t go around. You had to get a bond. You had to get bonded. Until I saved enough money to keep it in my bank account, then I bonded it myself. It took a lot of years. I sold stuff on Glen Street, Price Chopper. There used to be a Carvel there. Niagara Mohawk let me use their right of way for that shopping center. MRS. STEFFAN-George, you have a well there? MR. RYAN-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Whereabouts is it located? MR. RYAN-My well is under a little well house, and it’s probably 35 feet off my line on one side. MR. SEGULJIC-I believe it’s located on the plan. MR. RYAN-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Which plan? MR. SEGULJIC-The big plan. It’s right here, between the crop areas. MR. RYAN-I have two wells. I have one on my house and one in the back there, almost next to the wetland. I think that’s what happened, they drilled the well a little crooked. MRS. STEFFAN-I missed it completely. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we want to see him label the septic system on the? MRS. STEFFAN-That’s my next question, where that. MR. HUNSINGER-Actually it is labeled here, septic area. MR. SEGULJIC-I think that’s for the house, though. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s for the house. MR. SEGULJIC-Septic area, it is labeled, okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Between the farm stand and the greenhouse and the crops, right in the middle. MR. RYAN-It’s a little right in the middle there. It is. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I didn’t see that before. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. RYAN-It’s not a very big septic system. It doesn’t have a grease trap or anything like that. It’s like for a standard house. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I would assume you don’t need much. MR. RYAN-And there’s, I’ve got the greatest soil right there. It’s sandy loam, and years ago it was a carrot farm, and anything grows real good there. MR. SIPP-Did you get out of the Christmas Tree business and the nursery business? MR. RYAN-No, I’m in the Christmas Tree business now. MR. SIPP-You still have seedlings planted? MR. RYAN-Yes. The seedlings kind of grew like into big trees. MR. SIPP-The strawberries, the taxes got too high to plant strawberries. I had like, you know, a half acre of strawberries. I could only pick them like once a year, and I had twelve months of taxes, and all that stuff counters. Financially, I just couldn’t do it. You’ve got to realize that I’m making my living off this piece of land. I have other pieces of land, too. So that takes a big factor. I don’t use fertilizers. I don’t use insecticides. I try to keep it organic. Not organic, I tell everybody it’s natural. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. You’re not going to put any fill on the building site. MR. RYAN-No. MRS. STEFFAN-You’re just going to put, this new building’s going to go on the slab that’s there. MR. RYAN-Exactly. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. RYAN-I have some stone over there that is for landscaping, to make it look nice, put a few walks into the doors and stuff, but am I going to bring in any fill? No. I probably will plant a little more grass, from the building. Right now I call it Irish blacktop, and really what it is is fabric, road fabric, and, you know, I roll it up and move it. It’s Irish blacktop. I probably will have some grass right there. MR. MEYER-Could I just make one quick point while it’s relatively quiet? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. MEYER-The different drawings that have been submitted do tend to disagree with each other in the information that he’s spoken. I’d recommend the Board to either reduce what he’s said into the resolution as contingencies or have him submit one final drawing that shows, that incorporates everything that he’s promised to do. The big one that comes to mind is the no fill and the dimensions of the building, just because both of those are on one of the drawings, and there are different dimensions of the building, and the other thing is just to, though every piece of property is unique and different, there is some precedential value to waiving a number of the requirements, and this is a unique situation, characterize it how you wish, because it is essentially replacement of the structure. MR. RYAN-Do you see the second drawing that this fellow just brought up. That second drawing I went to a Site Plan modification, at the request of Dave, and at that Site Plan modification, they granted me the space to make it bigger. I never did. Because I didn’t get a chance to, but if I wanted to put an addition on at the time, they were going to let me go another 25 foot. See that greenhouse keeps connecting. MR. SEGULJIC-So the area where it says fill for expansion, that’s not your intention? MR. RYAN-No more. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. RYAN-It was. See, that was a Site Plan Review that I got approved. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. SEGULJIC-So we’ll take that off the map. MR. HUNSINGER-This was back in 2002. MR. RYAN-That’s my 2002 Site Plan Review. The other one’s my 1988. MR. SEGULJIC-So you just keep on building. MR. RYAN-You’ve got it. The taxes keep going up. I have to work harder. I’ve got lights out there now. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Now I’m confused. I see the 2002 drawing, and the one on top. MR. RYAN-Is my original, 1988, and downstairs, they didn’t want me to even mention that, that I ever dealt with anybody at the Town, and what kind of makes me upset is some of these people that I went in front of that ’88 thing are still alive, and if you could go talk to any of them they’ll tell you that I’m doing just what I told them I was going to do. I didn’t do one thing different. MR. HUNSINGER-So what would we like him to do, update the Map Number Two to show the actual measurements of the proposed new greenhouse and delete the comment, fill for expansion? MRS. BRUNO-Yes. MR. BAKER-Which one are you referring to as Map Number Two? MR. HUNSINGER-Up in the top left it says Number Two, at least it does on our copy. MRS. BRUNO-2002. MRS. STEFFAN-July 2002. MR. TRAVER-Received July 9, 2002. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The bigger map. MR. BAKER-I don’t have mine noted that way. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So on Drawing Number Two, we’ll say eliminate the fill for expansion, and then as far as the building dimensions, can’t we say something like as long as it fits within the existing foundation? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think this shows 110 foot long building, 50 by 110. MR. RYAN-And that’s what is there right now. We’re going to take that down, and we’re going to go with this right here, the 50, it’s like 80 by 50 something. This map has the exact thing. MR. SEGULJIC-You said I believe 59.9 feet by 79.9. MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So why don’t we just label that area that, then. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes, have him put the right label on it. Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-We’re good to go. MRS. STEFFAN-Do we want to specify the dimensions? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because he has them. He has the plan right there. MR. RYAN-Yes. I submitted these plans to the Town. They have two copies. I’m going to have to give them more. MR. HUNSINGER-And that’s what we have as well in our package, right, that’s what these? 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. RYAN-Yes, exactly. The one other thing I wanted to tell you is I have two greenhouses now that are down. I’ve got permits for them. Now I’m going to have to fix those greenhouses. They’re not going to go next to this building, but I’ve got to put them back. If you went on over there and see, there’s two more existing buildings that are, they’re just hoops. I mean, there is a law that says that you don’t have to have a permit for a greenhouse, but I did get permits for them anyway, and I’m going to have to re-build them, but I wasn’t going to re-build them until I had this building. If I didn’t have the building, I didn’t know what I was going to do. So, I just want to make that. MR. SIPP-So if you re-build, you’re not going to use glass? You’re going to use plastic? MR. RYAN-No, I have plastic. They are plastic now. They’re just hoop houses, like one’s 28 by 48, and another one’s 28 by 70 something. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they’re shown here on the plan. MR. RYAN-Yes, exactly. MR. SIPP-The hoops are still in the condition that you could put them back up? MR. RYAN-No. I’d have to buy new hoops, but the bottom pipes are good, still. I could still use the foundation of it. MR. SIPP-You wouldn’t increase the size? MR. RYAN-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are we ready to move forward? MR. SEGULJIC-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-SEQRA, Short Form. MRS. STEFFAN-“Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MRS. STEFFAN-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative SEQRA Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 56-2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: GEORGE RYAN, 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. 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 27 day of November, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. RYAN-Thank you very much, I appreciate it. Do you want to come over and look at the light tonight? MRS. BRUNO-Actually we’ve got to go through the resolution. No, that’s okay. MR. RYAN-So what you guys see up there now, I’m going to tear that down. MRS. BRUNO-That was something that you purchased from Suttons, wasn’t it? MR. RYAN-Well, I just purchased one building from Suttons, and I bought 20 windows that’ll go into it, but it’s actually global warming. The global warming is what’s doing this, making the wind like this. We never had winds like this. The wind is terrible over there. In the last three years I lost three buildings, and it’s not an insurance type of deal. It’s an out of pocket kind of deal. So now I have to try to make it all work. MR. HUNSINGER-We’re working on the resolution. I was a little confused. On one of the drawings that was provided from your building design, it says farm stand to be removed, the existing 40 by 50 farm stand to be removed. MR. RYAN-Because I had a farm stand there. I took it down. Half of it’s still up. There was a building there, 40 by 50, that I. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. RYAN-On Number Two. MR. HUNSINGER-This is on Drawing G-1. MR. RYAN-Yes, but on Number Two, see, on this building right here, they gave me permission. You see this 40 by 50 building, front? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. RYAN-I’m taking that down, too, and this. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. RYAN-I might come, some day, and say, hey, I need more space again, but right now I want to go forward. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I wanted to make sure that was your intention, that’s all. MR. RYAN-And what I was trying to accomplish here was I thought we’d have an adult downstairs that I could show this to and he could come on over and see that I was already approved for all this stuff. I didn’t want anything that I didn’t come. I couldn’t talk to that, I mean, there’s people that will listen down there, but this should have been a no- brainer, in my own opinion. I mean, I’ve lost a ton of money, and I’ve worked on six months at a time. I could have been, like the City of Lake George, they’re going to want to buy flowers, and they put out bids. I can’t bid. I don’t have a place to do it. So it hurts. I work on a six month timeframe. So I’m losing a lot of square footage. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MRS. STEFFAN-I asked Tanya about the lighting, because that was still an open question. MRS. BRUNO-What did you say you have for lighting out there? MR. HUNSINGER-Seventeen foot high, one hundred and seventy-five watt mercury vapor. MR. RYAN-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-One, two? MR. RYAN-No, four. I have 700 foot of road frontage, and those four lights probably cover around a 250 foot area, and it just looks delightful. I mean, it’s not bright on anybody’s eyes or anything like that. They’re old. I actually bought them from Charlie Wood, and the only reason he sold them to me is he asked me what I was going to do with them, and I told him, if I don’t make enough by five, I’ll stay open until eight. He sold me the lights and I put them up. They were from the old Gaslight Village, and they’ve been there for 17 years. I could draw something up and give a better plan. Why they did this was because we were more than the minimum setback. So Morton, when he came, he said this is an existing thing, slab. You have to have a plan, so he just went, you know, they had setbacks of 30 feet. He stood on the thing and he said, well, look at where we’re at here, and he put 50 plus. He didn’t give the exact. MRS. BRUNO-You don’t have a survey of the site? MR. RYAN-Sure I do. MR. HUNSINGER-How hard would it be for you to? MR. RYAN-This? It wouldn’t be hard at all. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. RYAN-I’d just take a couple of measurements. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-So that was prior to the improvements, the house and the septic system and all that, or am I just not seeing it from this distance? That’s just the land? MR. RYAN-Yes. It’s just the land and my house. MRS. BRUNO-Your house is there. See, now this is, this is scaled. MR. RYAN-See, actually right here is the original one that tells you, 150 from the back, 160 to the front. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ve got that one, George. Thank you, though. I’ll make a motion to approve Site Plan No. 56-2007 for George Ryan. According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five, Negative. The Planning Board is granting waivers for lighting, stormwater, grading, and landscaping. This is approved with the following conditions. That the drawings labeled July 2002 should be changed by deleting the Town of Queensbury Planning Department, with a notation about date and scale, because it was not prepared by the Town and the drawing is not to scale. Number Two, that there will be no new fill on the site for the new building. Number Three, that the building dimensions will be constructed on the existing greenhouse slab as detailed in Allied Design Architectural Engineering Group P.C.’s drawings, G-1, and Sheet S-4 of S-8. Number Four, that the applicant will provide a survey map to the Community Development Department, and, Number Five, that no new building will take place within the Town setbacks. I think that’s it. MR. SEGULJIC-What was Number Two, I think it was. MRS. STEFFAN-No new fill, no fill for the new building. MR. SEGULJIC-Number Two, the second one you read. 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MRS. STEFFAN-The one about building dimensions? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-That the building dimensions will be, regarding building dimensions, it will be constructed on the existing greenhouse slab, as detailed in Allied Design drawings presented. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. BAKER-The survey map, is there anything to be included on the survey map? MRS. BRUNO-The only thing that was on it was the house. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m sorry. We had talked about putting setbacks on the, denoting setbacks on the survey map. MR. BAKER-Is the survey map also going to show the location of proposed building? I mean, as stated, I would expect to just receive a survey showing the property lines. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s what I heard the Planning Board say. MR. BAKER-Okay. That’s fine, if that’s your intent. MRS. STEFFAN-Is the Planning Board satisfied with that? I’m making the resolution based on the Planning Board being satisfied with the drawing labeled July 2002. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-Could you read the part about the building portion, the one that Tom just asked you to read again. MRS. STEFFAN-Regarding building dimensions. The building will be constructed on the existing greenhouse slab, as detailed in Allied Design Architectural Engineering Group, P.C.’s drawings, G-1, and Sheet S-4 of S-8. Those are the two drawings that in our package. MRS. BRUNO-I think on that Site Plan we need to take off the 75 and the 110, because that’s not the size of the building that’s going in. MR. BAKER-In earlier discussion, the Board had mentioned wanting to see a cleaned up Site Plan showing what’s there, what’s to be removed, what’s to be added, and that somehow got lost in the resolution. MR. RYAN-Two weeks you’re going to see this building up and you’ll know exactly. You can come on over with your tape measure. MR. SEGULJIC-I think we’ve got to take it into perspective. I mean, the guy just wants to replace a building that was there. MR. RYAN-Exactly. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, the guy’s living off the land. I wish we all could do that. MR. RYAN-And I’m actually giving, I’m taking a lot of this other stuff that I was granted permission for and just trying to start over again. Someday I’m going to have to come back here and say, you know, I’m to the point where I need more space. I’m giving up a lot of space from 2002. I’m just looking to get started again. Right now I have nothing. I’m looking to take that slab, instead of tear it up, put this building right on it, that they already have two copies of it. It’s not a magic show or anything like that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a motion. Is there a second? MR. MEYER-Can I have a clean motion without conversation, and so everybody knows what the motion is? MR. HUNSINGER-I wonder if she can get through it again. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s really the conditions that you need cleaned up. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, now that I need to make the motion again, what about Stu’s input? MRS. BRUNO-I agree with that. MRS. STEFFAN-One of the conditions of this resolution is the applicant will provide an as built plan to certify that the site is developed in accordance with the approved plans. So if we approve this, when the applicant is done constructing this building, he has to provide an as built drawing. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, my understanding is he submitted that as being a Site Plan that was previously approved. MR. RYAN-Exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-He really didn’t submit that as this is what I want to do. All he’s, he hasn’t really, I want to be careful how I say this. He hasn’t really shown us what it is he wants to do. What he’s done is described what he wants to do. MR. TRAVER-And included the drawings of the building. MR. HUNSINGER-Which is why I suggested in the motion that we be very specific about where the building location be on the existing slab, and that it be the dimensions according to the engineered sheets that were provided. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t see a need for him to submit as builts. Now that you mention that. He just wants to replace what he had. MR. HUNSINGER-Should we clean up the Site Plan, then? MRS. STEFFAN-Stu, is this 2002 drawing an approved Site Plan? MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. BAKER-I don’t know. I haven’t looked at the previous files on this property. MRS. BRUNO-Did you add anything to it, Mr. Ryan? MR. RYAN-No, that’s all approved. I had to get a Site Plan Review. That’s why I put those in my file. Remember what I told you, it needs repair down there. This is what they do. I went in front of a Board like, do you realize that if you guys get off the Board, and somebody comes here and you approve something, somebody’s going to pretend that it never existed. It’s history when they come in front of you guys, in 1988 and 2002. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I understand where Staff is at now. Because usually when we approve something it’s signed, and if we don’t have an accurate plan, we can’t really sign it, and then there’s really no record of what was approved. So I think we do need to clean up this Site Plan, have you sign it, so then we can sign it as being what we approved. MR. TRAVER-Perhaps the contractor that’s putting up the building could assist him with that. MRS. BRUNO-Start with the survey that you have. MR. HUNSINGER-And really, looking at that Number Two Site Plan, as you labeled it, George, there’s really only a few changes that would be necessary in order for it to be a reasonable depiction of what we’re doing here. You need to put in the proper building dimension and remove that label of for fill. MR. RYAN-Well, that fill’s already been added. MR. HUNSINGER-And then on the one building that’s to be removed, label that as such, you know, farm stand to be removed, and I think that’s really all we need to do, and sign it and date it. 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. RYAN-Not a problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Then we have something, even though it’s not to scale and doesn’t have dimensions. At least it’s a Site Plan. MR. BAKER-Will the plan show setbacks for the proposed building? MR. HUNSINGER-I think it should. Do you think you can get those dimensions? MR. BAKER-I’m just trying to think of what Staff’s going to have to work with when the building goes up, going out in the field to see it’s placed where it was supposed to be. MR. HUNSINGER-I know. I understand. I mean, we’ll still specify that the building be on the existing slab. MR. RYAN-And you’re going to see slab that’s going to be exposed. Because the slab’s bigger than the new building. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MEYER-While you guys are thinking through that, for my own reference, is this essentially tabling asking him to come back with this information, or this is all going to be part of the? MR. HUNSINGER-No, this will be all part of the resolution. Yes. We’re going to specify that he needs to submit a revised Site Plan, and we’re specifying from this plan what he needs to add and change. So it’ll be very specific to what labels need to be added. MR. MEYER-Okay. MR. BAKER-Make what you want to see on that plan as objective as possible, as clear as possible, please. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, understood. MRS. STEFFAN-Stu, what are you recommending? You want building setbacks. MR. BAKER-I’d like to see setbacks. I just need as clear and objective a description of what you want to see on this revised Site Plan, so that when it’s submitted to Staff, we know exactly what we’re to look for, exactly what the Planning Board expects. Leaving no room for subjective judgment, or as little room as possible. MR. HUNSINGER-I think we’ve done that. I mean, we already specified to take that reference off. So I mean, we’re starting with this map, and we’re just taking off the additions and subtractions. MR. RYAN-So, Chris, in other words, I’m going to just take my survey map, mark that concrete slab on it, where they’re putting the new building, measure from the road, measure my setbacks, all the way around, and give that to the Planning Department. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, I mean, what we’re specifying is start with this map, and then we’re telling you what to remove and add. MR. RYAN-Okay. That’s fine. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Let’s try this again. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 56-2007 GEORGE RYAN, 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 removal of existing 5,550 sq. ft. greenhouse damaged by snow and replacement with a 4,320 sq. ft. “Morton” building. Retail projects in the NC- 1A zoning district require site plan review approval from the Planning Board. 2. A public hearing is scheduled for 11/27/07; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) 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; 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. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 7. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 8. If applicable, Item 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 10. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 56-2007 GEORGE RYAN, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five, Negative. This is approved with the following conditions. 1.That the drawings labeled July 2002 should be changed by deleting the date stamp and the Town of Queensbury Planning Department date and scale because it was not prepared by the Town and is not to scale. 2.That the applicant will submit a revised plan to Community Development detailing the building dimensions with fill for expansion reference removed, labeling the farm stand which will be removed. To also identify building setbacks. 3.The building dimensions. The building will be constructed on the existing greenhouse slab – as detailed in Allied Design Architectural Engineering Group P.C.’s drawings, G-1 and Sheet S-4 of S-8, which were provided to the Planning Board. 4.That no new building will take place within the Town setbacks. th Duly adopted this 27 day of November, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mrs. Steffan ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Do you know what you need to do? MR. RYAN-Thank you very much. I know what to do. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You basically need to give us a clearer map. MR. RYAN-Thank you very much. I appreciate it. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2006 FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED THOMAS & LISA BRENNAN AGENT(S) B P S R OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION 751 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 22.720 ACRE PARCEL INTO 16 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1 ACRE TO 2.325 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE PREL. APPROVAL: 8/21/07 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 22.70 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 315-1-12.1, 12.2 SECTION A-183 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you for your patience. MR. LAPPER-We’ll be very brief at this hour. Tom Brennan subdivision with Tom and Dave Bogardus, the surveyor. We’re here for Final. The only comment that Staff had was a correct reference to an incorrect provision in the Preliminary resolution. In the paragraphs except and include and don’t include from the form resolution, a paragraph got included which would be, if they had public wastewater, and this is individual septic systems. It was Condition 10 under Preliminary. The sanitary sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review approval, permitting and inspection, and that’s for a public system, and this is not a public system. Everything else we’d complied with. That was the only thing that Stu mentioned in his notes. So we dealt with all the issues at Preliminary and hopefully you’re in a position to approve it for Final. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? So how do we deal with that? We have a condition in Preliminary that really can’t be met. MR. BAKER-I think the Board should just acknowledge in the Final approval that that was an erroneous condition at Preliminary, and that would cover it. Then we’ve got it in the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Any further discussion, comments, questions? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2006 THOMAS & LISA BRENNAN, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: 1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of a 22.70 acre parcel into 16 residential lots ranging in size from 1.0 to 2.33 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on4/26, 6/26, 7/17, 8/21/07; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and 6. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and 7. 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 69 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) 8. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and NOT APPLICABLE 9. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2006 THOMAS & LISA BRENNAN, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five is a Negative Declaration. Paragraph Six not applicable [deleted]. Paragraph Nine is not applicable [deleted]. Paragraph Ten is not applicable, but in our Preliminary approval was erroneously included [deleted]. th Duly adopted this 27 day of November, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you for your patience. Good luck. MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck with your project. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2007 SKETCH PLAN SEQR TYPE JOHN FEDOROWICZ AGENT(S) B P S R; KEVIN HASTINGS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 1433 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 10.14 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF 3.70 AND 6.44 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 1-2000, SUB 8-1999 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 10.14 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265.-1-19.11 SECTION A-183 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with the applicant, John Fedorowicz, and the project engineer, Kevin Hastings. We’re here for Sketch Plan. As you’ve seen, this was approved in 2000 as a subdivision for the prior owner, and then John and Laura acquired title, built their house in 2002, I believe, and came back in 2005 to propose a subdivision and it was denied. What is different about this application is that we brought Kevin in and we looked at this and we changed it substantially we think. So that this proposed subdivision addresses the grade issue, which is what concerned the Planning Board last time. We made the new lot bigger so that a driveway could be put in at a nine percent, 9.19 percent grade. The issue with this site was that it had a steep slope, and the prior subdivision just had an arbitrary, perpendicular line on it, which would have required basically doing a lot of cutting and filling into the slope, and instead what we’ve come up with is a subdivision that doesn’t require any variance. It is completely in compliance. We submitted a stormwater management plan that complies as a Major Plan. We did all the perc tests. We have a non-jurisdiction letter from APA. So I think that John has done his homework on this, and the big difference is that we comply with the minimum frontage, every area aspect, and the perc tests are all set for the septic. It’s basically putting the house and the septic on the flat spot at the top, and getting up there by putting the driveway in a better place than had ever been proposed before, to eliminate a steep grade. The site’s over 10 acres and it’s in a three acre zone, and if you take away the slopes in excess of 25%, it’s still 7.49 buildable acres. So we’re proposing two houses, which would require six acres, and of course their house is already existing. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Questions, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-The perc tests are kind of slow. Is that because there’s rock underneath the? There’s like six minutes, seven minutes. 70 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. LAPPER-I’ve got one minute, thirty seconds. Pretty quick. MRS. STEFFAN-I just would have expected them to be faster than that. So that’s why I thought that was kind of slow. MR. LAPPER-Can you explain that, what she’s looking at. KEVIN HASTINGS MR. HASTINGS-This is Kevin Hastings. I understand you’re looking at a set of perc tests that are in the range of six to seven minutes. That’s fairly normal, within range for the soil type. The one minute, thirty seconds that’s on the survey map is in a location that’s down gradient of any rock formation. So it may be a depth of soil conditions, to effect that perc rate, but it’s certainly within range for a septic system. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-How close is the proposed house well and septic to the property, the lots on Ellsworth Road? MR. LAPPER-You’re talking about the Jenkins and Stevenson. MR. HUNSINGER-Stevenson and Grundburg. MR. LAPPER-Yes, those are pretty big size lots. 350 feet. JOHN FEDOROWICZ MR. FEDOROWICZ-Yes, I would say, because actually the homes are right next to Ellsworth Road, on that end, and it slopes down to my property a little bit. They’re above me. MR. LAPPER-They’re above you. MR. HUNSINGER-How long is the driveway that’s proposed? MR. LAPPER-Eight hundred and twenty feet. MR. FEDOROWICZ-A little over eight. MR. SEGULJIC-With regard to the driveway, what kind of stormwater controls are you proposing? MR. HASTING-On the Site Plan we have, for construction phase, the stone filled check dams which are on the detail sheet, that’s a temporary measure. For permanent management and control of runoff, the shallow runoff detention basin at the bottom of the property or the bottom of the driveway. So all the runoff will flow and be channeled down to the detention basin. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re going to slope the driveway inwards, and then run the water along the swale into the retention basin. MR. HASTINGS-The inside swale, correct. MR. SEGULJIC-And then once it gets so full it’ll overflow out, then, I guess? MR. HASTINGS-It’ll reach the detention basin, and that function will be for water quality treatment, which is required by your Code, as well as volume detention for the 100 year storm. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HASTINGS-So this is in compliance of Chapter 147 of the Town Code. MR. SEGULJIC-But I guess you’ll have infiltration within the basin, correct? MR. HASTINGS-Within the basin, there are proposed, and this is Sketch design, of two infiltration drywells for the frozen frost conditions. 71 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. SEGULJIC-All right, but then it’ll also overflow, potentially, correct? MR. HASTINGS-Potentially it will, but that basin is actually very generous. It’s in excess of 100 year for total retention. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then also the house would get caught up into this system? MR. HASTINGS-Yes, the footing drains or under drains for the perimeter trench of the house location would be either daylighted into this driveway swale or allowed to run or discharge in a different direction but still remain on the property. Eventually that runoff would reach the same detention basin by an indirect path. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HASTINGS-So 100% of the runoff, as we have designed it, is intended to flow through that detention basin. So, again, we have total management of on site runoff of the new impervious area, water quality treatment, and again, compliance with the Town standards. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-Can you make a little more specific the comment in the letter the driveway has been designed so that it is as close as possible to the 12% grade. MR. LAPPER-Yes. It actually came out a lot better than that, Tanya. If you look at the S-1 Sheet, at the bottom left there’s a road profile, which shows three percent, where it, and then 9.19. MRS. BRUNO-It almost bit me. It’s right there. MR. LAPPER-So it came out a lot better than 12. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Nine percent’s still pretty steep, though. MR. LAPPER-Not for this part of Town. MR. HUNSINGER-It seems like a lot just to put in one house. MRS. BRUNO-Yes, it does. MR. LAPPER-Well, it’s definitely going to cost some money to put the driveway in, but it’s the right way to minimize impact on the lot, to make that lot a 6.07 acre lot. MR. HUNSINGER-And you show clearing limits. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-I have a question, just for clarification. I’m correlating the Dave Bogardus engineering letter and then the information that’s on the plan. MR. LAPPER-There are a couple of discrepancies. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. LAPPER-What happened was that Craig came in and pointed out, after we originally submitted, that the way Matt had drawn it, it didn’t comply with the road frontage requirements. So the size of the lots changed a little bit. It came in at 3.7 for the existing, and in order to make it so that it didn’t require any variances, that changed to 4.06 acres, so it’s correct on the final survey. There was an original survey that Kevin worked off of, but since it’s Sketch, we didn’t do anything about it, but it’s 4.06 for the existing house lot and 6.07 for the other. It’s good that you were able to catch that at this hour. MR. SEGULJIC-I assume you guys are here because of the grade of the driveway, right? MR. LAPPER-Well, that’s the improvement from how this was presented last time, because now the driveway follows the grade, yes, that’s the big improvement. 72 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-You said they were here because there was a condition with no further subdivision. When this was originally approved, way back, there was a condition no further subdivision on this site. MR. LAPPER-Correct. That was the predecessor in 2000 that they bought it from, and when he came in last time to talk about it, it was just this perpendicular line, so it wasn’t as good a plan. MRS. STEFFAN-And I guess, you know, that’s where I stumbled a little bit, not a little bit, but I stumbled on that, just because it was a condition no further subdivision, but obviously there are different situations. So I’m nervous about approving something that’s been approved with no further subdivision, even though the information has changed. MR. TRAVER-Along those lines. MR. LAPPER-I think it happened because everybody looked at this and said this lot has some steep grades, which it does, and then unfortunately what happened last time, after John and Laura bought it, they hired somebody to do a plan, and that plan was just like, you know, look at this as if it was a flat piece of property, you know, generic, and it didn’t respect the topography, and so this is really a very different plan with the nine percent driveway, and we wanted to go the distance and do the Major Stormwater plan at Sketch Plan to show you that we can comply with everything. So you’ve got over 10 acres of area, and we’re asking for two lots that will completely comply with all Town requirements, no variances, and a Major Stormwater plan. MR. TRAVER-And I think, looking at the discussion that took place when this was brought up before, that would be the first issue before us tonight would be to make a motion to remove the condition of the no further subdivision. So that’s really the first thing that we need to do. MRS. BRUNO-I think I would have liked to have seen, and I wish I would have thought of it when I was reading through everything before, but the meeting minutes from, if they even took them back, when did you say (lost word) owned it? MR. LAPPER-It was 2000 when it was. MRS. BRUNO-No, that was the one after that. They go back. MR. TRAVER-Yes, here’s May 2000, and then this is Preliminary, I think, and then. MR. MEYER-I’d just like to note for the Board, maybe some of this confusion is that the 2005 application appears to be a request to, an application to modify a pre-existing subdivision, and this application actually is a Sketch Plan for a new subdivision. So they are technically different applications. MRS. STEFFAN-But we would still have to consider the original condition. Even though this is a Sketch for a subdivision, we would have to consider the condition that was on the plat. MR. MEYER-Before you can approve this, you need to modify the pre-existing one. MR. TRAVER-Right. That’s what we were discussing before. MR. MEYER-But he hasn’t applied to do that. MRS. STEFFAN-He’s just looking for an opinion, Sketch Plan. They’re looking for an opinion. MR. BAKER-If you like the concept, the next step for the applicant would be to apply for a modification of that prior subdivision approval. MR. LAPPER-I guess what we’d like to do is to do that in conjunction with a Preliminary application, if the Board’s comfortable with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Was there any concern because of the steep slopes of there not being enough density? 73 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. LAPPER-No, we have that chart, although there’s a mistake on that also. On the Map, S-1, Slope Statistics for Lots 2A and 2B, it says the slopes in excess, areas in excess of 25%, 25% and greater, total project area, 10.13 acres, the slopes over 25% are 2.64. So that the usable density, it should be 7.49, instead of 4.49, because 7.49 plus 2.64 equals 10.13. So seven, so it needs, in a three acre zone, and it’s got almost seven and a half acres, 7.49, which is more than enough for two lots. MR. SIPP-All right. This is going to be a gravel driveway all the way. There are places where you do exceed slightly above 10% grade. MR. LAPPER-No. MR. SIPP-Well, when you go from 500 feet to 600 feet, there’s a grade of. MR. LAPPER-You’re looking at the existing, I think, rather than the finished. It’s the dark line you’ve got to look at. You’re looking at that profile. MR. HUNSINGER-Nine percent. Look at S-1, Don. MR. SIPP-Even at nine percent, that’s a pretty steep slope. In the middle of a Spring thaw you’re going to have a lot of water moving down that road. MR. HASTINGS-Well, we have it so it’s channeled on both sides, with a crown, the crown road and ditches on both sides. MR. SIPP-We hope. Yes, but if you’ve got snow banks on both sides of the road, I don’t know how you’re going to plow this. I would suggest you get a big blower, but if you’re just going to plow this, you’re going to have big snow banks on both sides of the road. Those are there, will retain the water and keep it from going off to the side. MR. FEDOROWICZ-I know how to keep my ditches clean. I’ve done it for years. I know what you’re saying about the water, but that’s pretty easy to take care of. MR. SIPP-I don’t think it will be. You’re going to run, the width of this driveway is going to be what? 14, 15 feet? Not even that. MR. HASTINGS-It’s on the Detail Sheet, and it’s 15 feet. MR. SIPP-Fifteen feet, and that’s going to be, now how much clearing is there going to be on either side of this? MR. HASTINGS-There’ll be minimal clearing on the Site Plan, basically to the edge of any cuts or fills, either to the toe of the fill or the top edge of the cut. So the intention of this Site Plan is to do minimal clearing as required to put in the driveway. MR. SIPP-I still say, you have 90 to 100 inches of snow, and some winters where it doesn’t run off in the middle of January, you’ll have a lot of water there come the middle of April. MR. HASTINGS-Well, again, as John pointed out, John Fedorowicz, that the driveway, it’s not crowned, but it is super elevated to drain to the inside ditch, and the ditch dimensions will be run in the field, but probably in a finished design it’ll probably be 18 inches deep, as a ditch or a swale form. MR. SIPP-Eighteen inches. Say that again. MR. HASTINGS-The detail that’s on the plan now is a concept detail that shows the width of the driveway with the graded two percent cross pitch to a graded swale that’s on the inside of the curvature of the road, but in finished design, when we advance this to final design with more detail, it’ll likely be a ditch that’s developed throughout that section of about 18 inches deep, 12 to 18 inches in depth. MR. SIPP-Good luck to you, but I really think that that, tipping the driveway like that, it’s just not a good thing, but that ditch that you have alongside the driveway is going to be filled with snow, and you’re going to have this water start at the top of with an elevation of whatever it may be down to an elevation at the bottom, and at nine percent grade, good luck. 74 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. LAPPER-Well, in terms of the final design, I mean, we’ll obviously work with the Board to make whatever modifications to this concept plan you want to see to address these technical issues. I guess what we’re trying to show at this stage is that this lot can be developed and exceed all the requirements. MR. SIPP-Well, I agree that you’re much better now than you were before, but I’m just worried about this being, if this lot is going to be sold to somebody. MR. LAPPER-Yes, they’re going to sell their existing house and build their own house. I mean, obviously someday they’ll die and someone else will buy it, but they’re building, the plan is to build their own home. I’m trying to say it they’re not going to be there until the end of time, but it’s their house. That’s what they’re doing this for themselves. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s a very nice house. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, for myself, so there was a restriction placed on no further subdivision in the past. I guess I’m just uncomfortable, in general, with lifting a restriction that was put on it in the past. So like Tanya I’d like to see the minutes from those meeting and see why it was placed. MR. LAPPER-Okay. From what we’ve been able to tell, it was somewhat arbitrary and the applicant didn’t care at the time. I mean, it was just a generic look at, hey, it’s a steep lot, and I think we’ve come up with a way to do it that’s proper, but we certainly, I mean, have no problem with the Board looking into that. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? MR. LAPPER-I guess we’ve gone so far. We really have done all the work for, essentially, for Preliminary. So what we’d like to do is to submit for Preliminary, ask you to waive that condition as part of that, and we get the copy of the minutes from 2000 so Tom and any of the other Board members can take a look at that. MR. HUNSINGER-Waive which condition? MR. LAPPER-The no further subdivision in the predecessor’s subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-We don’t need to do that this evening, do we? MR. BAKER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, you know, it’s certainly an interesting design, and the driveway certainly is very long, and it will be a challenging driveway, but, you know, that’s up to an individual whether they want to deal with it or not, whether they pave it or, you know, keep it permeable or whatever, but it certainly, what you’re presenting to us works, and it fits all of our zoning, and so there’s information that’s available now that wasn’t available at the time. MR. HASTINGS-Just as a note, you mentioned permeability for driveway, even though it’s graveled, it’s been mottled as if it was paved. So the permeability of it over time, you know, has already been accounted for in my design. MR. HUNSINGER-And we consider gravel to be impervious, yes. MR. HASTINGS-Correct. We’re just thinking of permeability and things of that nature. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. I mean, I know with my driveway, and I only have a very slight hill, every time we get a big rain, I’m out there the next day shoveling gravel back up to fill in the swales. MR. LAPPER-Eventually it’ll probably get paved and we can talk about all these things. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. My driveway’s over 400 feet, and we lasted one year with gravel. Now it’s blacktop for that reason, but we have French Drains along the side, you know, and so it’s, which you have to manage, when you have a driveway that big, you have to manage the weather. 75 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. FEDOROWICZ-A lot of people do, you know, I mean, gravel driveways are, there’s quite a few of them and people do manage them. I’ve been in the excavation business all my life, and I’ve, you know, fixed many driveways, but there are things you can do to make them better. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. FEDOROWICZ-Like I say, this design is probably one of the better, you know, crowns in the road and ditching and so on. There’s maintenance, but there’s maintenance anywhere you live in the Country today. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MRS. STEFFAN-And the house would be very well hidden from Bay, just because of that cliff that’s in the front. MR. FEDOROWICZ-Yes, it’s a nice location, it really is. It’s pretty up there. MRS. BRUNO-Because this is a subdivision, does this have to be given to the Fire Marshal just for review? MRS. STEFFAN-They would look at access management. MR. BAKER-Yes, they can certainly review it. I will tell you this is, I believe, North Queensbury fire district, and North Queensbury and the Fire Marshals have commented, previously, on proposed driveways with steeper slopes than this. MRS. BRUNO-At that length, do you think? MR. BAKER-Close to that length, yes. MRS. BRUNO-And the comments, I’m taking it, were kind of favorable? MR. BAKER-No. The North Queensbury Fire Department has been on the record stating they can get up those driveways. There’s actually no law in New York State, however, mandating fire access to residential properties. So even if North Queensbury said, we can’t possibly get to that, so be it. MRS. STEFFAN-Your insurance rates go up, by a lot. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? Okay. Well, thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-We will see you again. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else to come before the Board this evening? MR. SEGULJIC-So I guess he’s asking us to review these and give him some comment? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and there’s a number of ways we can do that. I mean, we could do it individually, of course, or we could do it collectively, you know, we could, you could send comments to me, and then, you know, I could send them to everybody after they’re all gathered in one sort of document, if you will. There’s any number of ways that we could handle it, and then once we have the comments we could discuss it at a Board meeting. MR. SEGULIC-I guess the only other question is when do you need comments by? th MR. HUNSINGER-Well, our next meeting is December 18. So, you know, really, maybe before we do our site visits. I mean, obviously it’s easier if you e-mail them, because then I can just compile them into one document and send them out. MR. SEGULJIC-Just so you have time. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 76 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So I have time to send them out for everyone to read them before the next meeting. MR. TRAVER-Which application are you referring to? MR. HUNSINGER-This is the CEA, proposed CEA Ordinance. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Yes. th MR. SIPP-Is the 18 a regular meeting? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It’s a regular meeting. MR. SIPP-When is the Schermerhorn thing going to be? th MR. HUNSINGER-It’s going to be on the 20. MR. SEGULJIC-So we’ll get comments to you by? th MR. HUNSINGER-Well, like the 14 I think is a Friday. MR. SEGULJIC-E-mail them or hand them to you? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, e-mail is better. Because then I can just copy and paste and put them into one document and have all the comments in one place, and then we can just talk about them. th MR. SEGULJIC-On the 20 talk about them, and then I guess the best thing to do is make a formal? MR. HUNSINGER-And then we can do a resolution or recommendation. Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Sounds good enough to me. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll send out a reminder. MR. SEGULJIC-Clarification. For December we have two meetings? thth MR. HUNSINGER-Two meetings, the 18 and the 20. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now there was some discussion about where that project was because of variances? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, yes, what happened last, was it last Wednesday that they went before the Zoning Board? MR. BAKER-You’re talking about the Schermerhorn project? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. BAKER-Yes, that was last Wednesday, and at this hour I can’t recall the Zoning Board action. MRS. BRUNO-They didn’t do any action because. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I thought they were going to hear it around mid December. th MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think they’re supposed to hear it December 12 is the date that sticks in mind. MRS. BRUNO-For the appeal. MR. SEGULJIC-So if they table it again, does that mean it’s off our docket? MR. HUNSINGER-I believe so. 77 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/07) MR. BAKER-Yes. Sue just reminded me, it’s coming back to me now. The ZBA is going th to hear it on December 12, both the appeal of the Administrative decision and the Area Variance. MR. SEGULJIC-And so if they table it they’re off our docket. Correct? MR. BAKER-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Or if they deny it they’re off our docket. MR. BAKER-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-If they approve it, then they’ll, okay. Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-I mentioned to Chris, and I know that this is an article that was in the Chronicle, but there’s a comment in here that Mr. Schermerhorn was talking about the project, and he said I know some people are upset about the project. I’m playing by all the rules and regulations, and he’s not going to pull back. He said the Town Planning Board has always been fair to him, but that there is a lot of public pressure. He said that if the project is turned down, he would have to challenge the decision in court, and then by the time that was settled, Travelers could be long gone, and I just, you know, as a Planning Board member, I’m unhappy about that comment, and I know it’s not in quotes, but it says that he said it here, and the reason I’m upset about that is because it’s printed, and to me it feels like an implied threat. So no matter what decision, you know, if there is a decision, obviously, in the affirmative, that would be fine, but any other decision will be challenged in court, and so I just, if he said this, I don’t think it’s appropriate. MR. SIPP-I agree with you. MR. TRAVER-I thought I recalled reading another comment from Mr. Schermerhorn where he said something, and I’m paraphrasing also, but he said something to the effect that if the plan was not approved as submitted, he would have to go back to the drawing board, or something along those lines. MRS. BRUNO-I think that was the first one. MRS. STEFFAN-I just was unhappy when I read that. There’ve been other times we’ve been in a situation like that, and I just think it’s an unfair position to put the Planning Board in. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-And I don’t know if it’s an intimidation tactic, but I don’t think it’s appropriate, and I wanted to bring it up. MR. TRAVER-Well, we can hope he was misquoted. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other business? If not, I will entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF NOVEMBER 27, 2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: th Duly adopted this 27 day of November, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger 78