Loading...
1997-08-26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 26, 1997 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY GEORGE STARK ROGER RUEL LARRY RINGER CRAIG MAC EWAN MEMBERS ABSENT TIMOTHY BREWER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR -JOHN GORALSKI TOWN COUNSEL -MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT, JEFF FRIEDLAND MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 27-97 TYPE: UNLISTED BERNARD PALMER, SR. OWNER: BERNARD, SR. & DIANA PALMER ZONE: CR-15 LOCATION: 42 MAIN STREET PROPOSAL IS TO HAVE A CRAFT, ARTS & ANTIQUE SHOP (12’ X 18’) IN COMBINATION WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 44-1997 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/13/97 TAX MAP NO. 131-5-24 LOT SIZE: .17 ACRES SECTION: 179-24 DIANA PALMER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-If anyone is here for the Bernard Palmer application, we’d like you to know it is off the agenda tonight, because they didn’t get the necessary variance that they were after. Is there anyone here to talk about the Palmer application? Okay. Are you with the applicant, or just from the neighborhood? MRS. PALMER-I’m his wife. MR. PALING-Okay. Would you come to the mic, please, and give us your name, because we would like to pass on a comment to you to for your husband. MRS. PALMER-Diana Palmer. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. The Zoning Board of Appeals didn’t give your husband the variance, and we just wanted to pass on a caution to him, if it comes before us, we see a problem with parking. We drove in the driveway ourselves, and the only way out was for us to back out onto Main Street, which isn’t a very good thing. So if it does end up coming to us, please consider that the parking doesn’t look adequate at the present time. MRS. PALMER-Even if they were coming in the way you did and going around and out? MR. PALING-We didn’t go around it. We couldn’t get around. If there is a way to go around and out, that’s different, but the only way we, and a little print or diagram can clear that up. The only 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) way we saw was what we did, that was to back out onto Main Street, and that wouldn’t be acceptable. If you’ve got a correction for it, good, but we wanted to warn him that we will be asking about parking when he comes. MRS. PALMER-Okay. So it’ll be tabled until next month, is that it? MR. PALING-Yes.We’ll table it until next month, I think is the best thing to do. MRS. PALMER-Okay. Thank you. MR. PALING-All right. Thank you. MR. GORALSKI-You should open the public hearing. MR. PALING-Okay. I’ll open the public hearing on this, if anyone wants to talk about the Palmer application. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. PALING-All right. We’ll leave the public hearing open, and this matter will be tabled until next month. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 27-97 BERNARD PALMER, SR. , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: To next month’s meeting of 9/16/97, assuming the applicant obtains ZBA approval. th Duly adopted this 26 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Mac Ewan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 31-97 TYPE: UNLISTED MIKE DORAN/PEGGY WARD OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A, CEA, APA LOCATION: CLEVERDALE RD. TO ROCKHURST RD., HOUSE IS THIRD ON RIGHT PAST MARINA APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INCREASE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF HOUSE BY 50 PERCENT WITH NEW ROOF LINE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 45-1997 TAX MAP NO. 15-1-49 LOT SIZE: 2,992 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-16 DEAN HOWLAND, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 31-1997, Mike Doran Peggy Ward, Meeting Date: August 26, 1997 “The applicant proposes to build an addition to an existing home. The addition has been reviewed by the ZBA and has been granted a variance to allow nonconforming setbacks and Floor Area Ratio. This application requires site plan approval because it is an expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA. It appears that this addition will have a minimal impact over what presently exists in this neighborhood. Comments on neighborhood impact may be provided at the public hearing. The Planning Board may wish to condition this approval on the applicant’s providing stormwater management around this addition.” 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. GORALSKI-And attached you’ll see the motion from the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. PALING-Okay. Would you identify yourself, please. MR. HOWLAND-Yes. My name is Dean Howland. I’m the agent for the owner. I’m the one that prepared the application, and I guess I’m here to answer any questions you might have. MR. PALING-Okay. The last sentence that John read regarding stormwater management, do you have any comment there? MR. HOWLAND-I don’t think there’d be any problem for us to accommodate it. It varies about what you do in the Town of Queensbury, when we do have to have it and when we don’t. It doesn’t effect it. It’s just rain gutters running to a retention pond or a drywell, in this case. MR. PALING-Okay. Then I guess you haven’t had a chance to see this before this meeting. MR. HOWLAND-As far as what? MR. PALING-I mean the comment by Staff you haven’t seen before this meeting. MR. HOWLAND-It was brought up last meeting, but it wasn’t addressed. MR. PALING-All right. I didn’t get a specific plan which you have for the management for the stormwater. MR. HOWLAND-Well, stormwater management is just catching the water in rain gutters and filtering it through either a drywell or a retention pond before it filters into the lake. MR. PALING-Yes, but we’re asking what it is you’re going to do, specifically. MR. HOWLAND-Well, then we can specifically put rain gutters on, run them to a drywell, and then let it filter into the lake. MR. PALING-Okay. John, is that satisfactory, rain gutters to a drywell? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. What I’d just ask is that when the building permit application is submitted, that you submit a plan showing the size of the drywell and the location of the drywell. That’s all. MR. PALING-Okay. We can make that part of the resolution. Yes. Okay. MR. GORALSKI-I can just add that Warren County Planning Board, I’m sorry, not the Warren County Planning Board, I’m sorry, that’s not the note I was talking about. MR. PALING-Yes. We don’t have, I don’t have anything. MR. GORALSKI-No. I wanted to add that it says on the agenda, Type II. However, a recently court decision has thrown out some of the Type II revisions that were put in place by DEC. So this is now an Unlisted Action, and so you should just review the Short Environmental Assessment Form that’s attached to the application. MR. PALING-Okay. Are there any questions or comments from the Board? MR. RUEL-Yes. I have a question. This additional space, how many bedrooms? MR. HOWLAND-We’re removing one bedroom to make a kitchen, dining area, and we’re putting one more bedroom back. So it’s no additional bedrooms. MR. RUEL-So you will be increasing the septic tank, holding tank? MR. HOWLAND-We’ve got a variance to put in the holding tanks that would meet the requirement of a two bedroom house. MR. RUEL-Okay, and, John, you mentioned about stormwater runoff. The roof area is the same now, whether it was one story or two stories, right? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. GORALSKI-Yes, the roof area is the same. We’re just trying to improve the situation along the shoreline. MR. RUEL-Did you have existing drywells for the roofing system before? MR. HOWLAND-No. There’s no gutters on that house, or either houses, five houses either side of that. There are no rain gutters there. MR. RUEL-So you’d like to see gutters put on, a leader pipe and a drywell? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. RUEL-Although they weren’t there originally? MR. GORALSKI-That’s correct. MR. RUEL-In order to improve the situation. MR. GORALSKI-That’s correct. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Lets open the public hearing on this matter. Does anyone care to talk about the Mike Doran/Peggy Ward application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Roger, do you want to do the Short Form on this? MR. RUEL-Yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 31-97 , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: MIKE DORAN & WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: PEGGY WARD , 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 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) 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 26 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Mac Ewan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. We can go to a motion on this. MR. RUEL-All right. I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 31-97 MIKE DORAN/PEGGY WARD , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: As written, with the condition that the applicant submit a plan for installation of rain gutters and drywells for stormwater runoff prior to obtaining a building permit. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 31-97 MIKE DORAN/PEGGY WARD to increase square footage of house by 50% with new roof line; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 7/30/97, consists of the following: 1. Application 2. Maps prepared by Howland Construction Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff Notes 2. ZBA resolution of 8/20/97 Whereas, a public hearing was held on 8/26/97 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Site Plan No. 31-97, MIKE DORAN/PEGGY WARD. 2. The applicant shall present two (2) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) th Duly adopted this 26 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. HOWLAND-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 30-97 TYPE: UNLISTED WILLIAM & LORRAINE KEIS OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, CEA, APA LOCATION: 276 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE TWO FRONT PORCHES AND ENTRANCES AND CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FRONT PORCH AND ENTRANCE. REMOVE EXISTING SUNROOM AND RECONSTRUCT 4 FT. WIDER AND DEEPER. RENOVATE INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 39-1997 TAX MAP NO. 13-3-25 LOT SIZE: 0.428 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 JOSEPH LANARO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. LANARO-My name is Joseph Lanaro. I’m representing the applicants, William and Lorraine Keis. MR. PALING-Okay. John? STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 30-97, William & Lorraine Keis, Meeting Date: August 26, 1997 “The applicant is seeking approval to construct a screened-in porch at the front of an existing home. The ZBA has reviewed this proposal and has granted an area variance to allow a nonconforming side setback. It appears that this construction will have no adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. If the Planning Board feels it would be beneficial to improve drainage conditions on this site stipulations could be included requiring stormwater management for this new addition.” MR. PALING-Okay. Any comments or questions by the Board? MR. GORALSKI-I just have one thing, that similar to the previous application, because of the recent court decision, this is not a Type II action. It’s an Unlisted action. MR. PALING-This becomes Unlisted again. All right. Okay. I have no questions on this one. Did you have any comments you wanted to make? MR. LANARO-I would like to try to address the stormwater management issue. The property currently includes approximately 18,600 square foot of area. The cover requirements for this district allows for a minimum permeable area of 65%. We’re, under existing conditions, at 82%, and we’re, with our proposed expansion, only reducing the amount of green space by one percent. Currently, the residence is situated very close to Cleverdale Road, and we have a long grass area that leads down to the lake. Along the overhangs on both sides of this addition, there are landscaping that currently exists, and will be transplanted when the addition has occurred. So based on the provisions that the amount of impervious area is only being increased by 250 square feet, or one percent of the total building, lot area, and that landscaping is going to occur, our intention with managing stormwater is to allow this to shed to these lawn areas, accumulate, and then slowly drain across this lawn area. Based on the increase in the pervious nature of this lot, we don’t believe it will be significant. So there is no plan for adding gutters or drywells. We believe that there’s enough impervious area on the site to accommodate runoff from the property. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. PALING-Do you want to comment on that, John? MR. GORALSKI-Well, I would say, based on the fact that you have a pretty significant setback from the lake, and as long as the landscaping that the gentleman’s talking about is replaced, I don’t think there should be a problem. MR. PALING-And I don’t think the way that’s graded right now it’s going to make any problem to the adjoining properties, either. MR. RUEL-The setback that’s normally required is 75 feet, and you’re 140 feet. MR. LANARO-140 feet. It’s quite a ways back from the lake. This is one of the few lots that does happen to have a lot of frontage, lake frontage. MR. RUEL-And you’re also reducing the area of the deck? MR. LANARO-Yes. The deck area is being reduced slightly to accommodate the expansion. We’ve planned it in a way where we can maintain the main structure of the deck and just revise the landing that was originally there. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-So you’re adding, what, 232 square feet? MR. LANARO-Exactly. MR. PALING-Okay. Any other comments, questions? All right. Lets go to the public hearing. The public hearing on the Keis application is open. Does anyone care to talk about it, pro or con? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-And we’ll go to the Short Form again. MR. RUEL-Short Environmental Assessment Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 30-97 , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: WILLIAM & LORRAINE KEIS , 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. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) 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 26 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. We need a motion. MR. RUEL-I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 30-97 WILLIAM & LORRAINE KEIS , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: As written in the resolution. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 30-97 WILLIAM & LORRAINE KEIS to remove two front porches and entrances and construct a single front porch and entrance. Remove existing sunroom and reconstruct 4 ft. wider and deeper. Renovate interior and exterior; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 8/6/97, consists of the following: 1. Application 2. Map dated 4/21/97 prepared by Joseph Lanaro Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff Notes 2. ZBA resolution of 8/20/97 Whereas, a public hearing was held on 8/26/97 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moved to Approve Site Plan No. 30-97 WILLIAM & LORRAINE KEIS. 2. The applicant shall present two (2) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. th Duly adopted this 26 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Thank you. MR. LANARO-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 28-97 TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, JR. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: LOT 12, HUNTER BROOK LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN 8 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND SITEWORK. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 8/11/97 TAX MAP NO. 48-3-34.1 LOT SIZE: 1.26 ACRES SECTION: 179-18 RICH SCHERMERHORN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 28-97, Richard Schermerhorn, Jr., Meeting Date: August 26, 1997 “The applicant proposes to construct an 8 unit apartment building on Hunter Brook Lane. The 4,422 square foot building will meet the setback and permeability requirements of the MR-5 zone. Staff recommends that additional landscaping be included at the sides and rear of this building to provide a buffer from adjacent multifamily residential properties. The site plan should also include some form of stormwater management system in order to correct an existing problem along the property line separating Cedar Court from properties in this subdivision. A $500 per unit recreation fee is required for each unit in this building. The fee is due at the time a building permit is issued for this building. Any comments from the Town’s Engineering Consultant should be addressed prior to any Planning Board action.” MR. GORALSKI-We’ve spoken to Mr. Schermerhorn. We’ve had some meetings with the adjacent homeowners association, and Mr. Schermerhorn has agreed that along the common property line, he’s going to develop a swale there to intercept the stormwater. I have a letter from Rist-Frost here. “We have reviewed the documents submitted with the above referenced application and have the following comment: We recommend that on Drawing SP-2 “Site Grading and Drainage Plan” the sediment control fence should be extended north and south or return up the slope at each lot line to ensure that all runoff is intercepted. We have no further comments. Please call if you have any questions. RIST FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. William J. Levandowski, P.E.” MR. STARK-Okay. Rich, you’ve seen these letters? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, I have. th MR. STARK-John, the letter that’s dated from Levandowski of August 12 says he’s reviewed th this and everything’s okay. The August 12 letter. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) th MR. GORALSKI-I don’t have an August 12 letter here. Okay. I don’t have a revised plan. He must have gotten it and I didn’t. MRS. LABOMBARD-Do you want to see my letter? MR. GORALSKI-No. I see the letter. I need a revised plan that shows the silt fence being returned. MR. STARK-Okay. Larry, do you have any comments? MR. RINGER-No. MR. STARK-Roger? MR. RUEL-Yes. I always have a question. Now the Staff here indicated that additional landscaping be included at the sides and rear of the building, to provide a buffer from adjacent multifamily residential. This is a multifamily residential property, isn’t it? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. RUEL-So you want a buffer between the multifamily areas? MR. GORALSKI-We’d like to see more, we’ve said this for every one of Rich’s buildings. We’d like to see more landscaping between the buildings to break up the barracks look of having these large buildings along the road. MR. RUEL-All right. I understand, but normally we certainly insist on adequate buffers when we have different zones adjacent, you know, like commercial and residential, etc., and transitional zones, but I didn’t think that, since all of these are in the same zone, and the same type of structure, why the necessity for a buffer? MR. GORALSKI-It’s my position, the position of the Staff that by landscaping between the buildings, you’ll minimize the impact of these large buildings and soften the look of the project. It’s an aesthetic thing. I’m not trying to screen one building from the other. I’m trying to soften the impact of these large, massive buildings. MR. RUEL-So the buffer is just for the looks. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. RUEL-Because you feel that a buffer then reduces the size of the structure? MR. GORALSKI-No. It minimizes the impact of the mass of the structure. MR. RUEL-Yes, the size. MR. GORALSKI-It doesn’t make the building any smaller, no. MR. RUEL-No, but if there are a lot of big trees next to it, it makes it look smaller. MR. GORALSKI-That’s right. MR. RUEL-That’s why you want a buffer. MR. GORALSKI-That’s right. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. STARK-Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-No. I just agree with Mary Lee Gosline in her letter. MR. STARK-Craig? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing right at the moment. MR. STARK-Okay. If that’s the case, I’d like to open the public hearing, if anybody would like to speak for or against Site Plan No. 28-97, please come forward. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BOB PALING MR. PALING-My name is Bob Paling, and I live in the subdivision just to the north of this one, and I just have one comment, and it has no reflection on Mr. Schermerhorn, but because of a recent unfortunate incident this Board just went through, I’m requesting that the swale referred to in John Goralski’s discussion be made part of the motion. Okay. MR. STARK-Okay. Thank you MR. PALING-Thank you. MR. STARK-Does anybody else wish to speak on this? FRANK HARDICK MR. HARDICK-My name is Frank Hardick. I live at 51 Cedar Court, adjacent to this development. I concur with Mr. Paling’s comments. I further feel that they should have this swale on the drawing done by the engineers before they go ahead and proceed to put it in. Okay. MR. STARK-Thank you. Does anybody else have anything, any comments pro or con for it? MR. GORALSKI-I have a couple of letters. The Beautification Committee, Site Plan 28-97, Richard Schermerhorn, Lot 12, Hunterbrook Lane, Proposal for plantings is approved as listed on blueprint dated July 27, 1997. No diversion from this planting list. Landscape architect Miller Associates, and then I have a letter. “Dear Queensbury Planning Board: The Queensbury Beautification Committee has concerns regarding the development of the north corner of Blindrock Road and Bay Road, better known as Cross Roads Park. Initially, this area was being developed as an Office Professional Park development, with the occupancy of the Prudential Insurance Company and the TCT Federal Credit Union. Presently, the majority of development on this property has been for a Multi-dwelling apartment complex. But, keep in mind that there are still commercial lots for sale on this parcel. There is need for practical application of good landscaping design standards to buffer and blend the two uses allowed by zoning. Because of the openness of this land, the Queensbury Beautification Committee feels it is in the best interest of the Town to have blending for this entire area and provide buffers for both aesthetic and practical purposes to achieve a “green” setting. Our goals include: 1) Privacy to the tenants, 2) Screening from road noise, 3) Enhance the overall attractiveness of the development. Looking at what Prudential has achieved with the plantings of the cedar hedging along the roadway, we would suggest that the screening of the parking lots be continued along future parking areas, where the property faces a road or an adjacent property owner. This will also provide relief from the asphalt retaining heat during the hot summer months. There is a need for privacy and to deflect the noise of the traffic passing by on bordering roads. Either conifers trees or columnar arborvitae, hemlocks or pine trees could be used for this year-round screening. Mr. Miller, the Landscape Architect for this project, certainly has worked very well with the Town to achieve its objectives during previous developments. We believe that Mr. Schermerhorn, the Developer; Mr. Miller, the Landscape Architect; and the Planning Board will work well together as a team to achieve these objectives and enhance the overall appearance of the Town and the quality of life for its residents. The Beautification Committee wishes to thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, Mary Lee Gosline for Queensbury Beautification Committee” MR. STARK-Okay. Does anybody else wish to speak? Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STARK-Rich, you heard the comments by Mary Lee. Do you want to comment on them? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, I appreciate her concerns for my tenants. All I can do is assure you, like I have in the past, that these are my investments. I own them, personally. I’m going to do everything possible to make it as private, as nice a community as I can. Most of the reactions I’ve 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) had have just been positive. So the only, I’m not so sure that this is negative, but, I guess this is the, the landscaping seems to be the biggest concern. Just so you know, the one by the road seemed to be the biggest concern. I just put a sprinkler system for the whole project, which was up and running today, and Adirondack Fence, as of tomorrow around 10 o’clock I’m putting a 416 foot fence along the border separating the commercial with the Multi-family, which everybody wanted, which I had intentions of doing all along. It’s just these projects, you know, as most people can understand, take a lot of money to do. So there is going to be a fence tomorrow. It’s all pressure treated. It’s going to match the one that I split with The Michaels Group between Cedar Court and myself, but other than that, I have great intentions to just keep continuing, and I don’t know how many people have actually gone over there, but every day we make sure that everything’s picked up. I mean, we really keep the property nice, because it is mine. MR. STARK-Okay. Craig? MR. MAC EWAN-Between original Buildings One and Two, we talked about what John was referring to, the aesthetic aspect between trying to separate the buildings and soften them up, didn’t you do a planting scheme in between those two first buildings? MR. GORALSKI-There are some pine trees. MR. MAC EWAN-We (lost words) additional plantings. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I put, as the meetings progressed, I have put additional plantings. There’s been things in the motion that just said, you know, add X amount of trees, and we’ve done that all along. I mean, John’s been out inspecting those as we’ve been going. The next inspection will be shortly on the end building, which is probably about two weeks away. Most of that landscaping is all in place now, with a sprinkler system, and like I said, I’m putting a fence in which is things that weren’t part of the site plan. MR. MAC EWAN-What I’m driving at, between Building One and Building Two, I think it was originally, we put additional plantings in there to soften that up between the two buildings. It was in that common area, right? MR. GORALSKI-Right MR. MAC EWAN-Is that what you’re looking for to be between this building and the other building, something along those lines? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you do that? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, like I said before, there’s approximately 40 to 45 feet between buildings. The only negative drawback is I do have a lot of plantings there, and snow removal is a very important thing in the winter. I guess if I keep them back away from the, between the two parking lots, it’s possible, but personally, I thought it looked great over there. I don’t know how many people have actually gone over and seen the property. I mean, I can add more, but I’m trying to do as much as I can possibly do. MR. MAC EWAN-I think if you could duplicate the efforts that you did between Buildings One and Two, with these next set of buildings, I think that would be ample. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I’m agreeable to that, but I think it’s really important if people actually just came over and saw that, you know, there’s not a whole of room between the buildings, I mean, because there’s a lot of parking lots. MR. MACEWAN-I recall between Buildings One and Two, the original there was a snow removal issue. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-And we’d talked about setting them back in far enough so you’d still have room to do that. If you duplicate then, then you’re (lost words). 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, but one of the concerns I brought up, too, is keep in mind that the leach field systems which are on these site plans are quite large, and if you put a lot of plantings, I mean, I’m not saying the near future, but some day these leach fields may require attention, and if I go planting a lot of hardwoods and pine trees, you know, I’ve just got to think of that, too. I’ll probably get 20, 25 years out of these systems, but that’s some of my concern. I mean, maintenance is a big factor, too. MR. MAC EWAN-Can Staff pull out what the requirements were for that first parcel, as to separation? MR. GORALSKI-I don’t have it with me right now. MR. MAC EWAN-No, I know. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I’m pretty sure that the first three buildings, because I was issued CO’s, and, you know, this has been a controversial thing since I’ve started, with not so much the buildings, but the landscaping, John and Jim Martin were, before I got every CO, they were out there inspecting, and that was a lot of the stipulation was completing everything that was, you know, talked about in these meetings and was put in the motion. So, I believe I’ve completed them. MR. GORALSKI-What I’d be looking for here is, you know, he’s got, for example, on the south side of this building he’s got two white pines that are out kind of in front of the building. You take two more white pines and put them back toward the side of the building, that would accomplish it on the south side, and then you could probably just do the same thing on the north side. MR. SCHERMERHORN-If Staff just wants to pick a number, like we did last time, just read into the motion whether it’s six trees, three to four foot, or six foot, you know, I’d be agreeable to that, and we can just meet in the field and do it that way. MR. MAC EWAN-The way we did it the last time. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. RUEL-How many trees? MR. GORALSKI-I would say two on the north side and two on the south side of the building. MR. STARK-Lets leave it up to John, when he goes out and actually inspects the building, okay. MR. RUEL-I want to make it part of the motion. How can I make it part of the motion unless I. MR. GORALSKI-Put a number so that Rich and I don’t have to stand there and argue about it. MR. STARK-You’re saying two and two. MR. GORALSKI-Two on the north side, two pines, he’s got white pines here somewhere, yes. Two white pines of equal size to what he’s got on his plant list on the north side and two on the south side. MR. RUEL-The same thing. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. RUEL-All right. MR. STARK-Okay. Larry, do you have anything? MR. RINGER-No. MR. STARK-Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. STARK-Neither do I. Okay. This requires a Short Form? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. STARK-Okay. Roger. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 28-97 , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, JR. , 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 26 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling MR. STARK-Roger, do you want to make the motion and read in those three things? MR. RUEL-Yes, all right. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 28-97 RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, JR. , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: As written in the resolution, with the following conditions: A condition that the plans for Lot 12 include specifics for stormwater management to correct existing problem. Condition Number Two, that you will extend the sediment control fence, and, third that your plans should show the additional landscaping as discussed here at the meeting, essentially putting in two white pines on the north end and two white pines in the southern end of the plot, modify the plans, as indicated, with a pencil, prior to obtaining a permit. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 28-97 RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, JR. to construct an 8 unit apartment building with associated parking and sitework - Lot 12, Hunter Brook Lane. Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 7/30/97 consists of the following: 1. Application 2. Maps SP-1, SP-2, SP-3 dated 7/27/97 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff Notes 2. Rist Frost comments dated 8/12/97 3. Miller Associates response to Rist Frost comments. 4. Rist Frost comments dated 8/8/97 5. Queensbury Beautification resolution dated 8/11/97 6. Letter from Marylee Gosline - Qu. Beaut. Comm. dated 8/12/97 Whereas, a public hearing was held on 8/26/97 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to Approve Site Plan No. 28-97, RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, JR. 2. The applicant shall present two (2) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. 7. All engineering fees must be paid before a building permit is issued. 8. All recreation fees must be paid before a building permit is issued. th Duly adopted this 26 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: MR. SCHERMERHORN-Excuse me. I just want to make one comment. Both gentlemen that spoke, Mr. Paling and the other gentleman, I met about three week ago on my own time, at their convenience, with Mr. Goralski. As a matter of fact, I think I met two times out there. They’re concern with the stormwater was that one storm that we had, and my property is higher than theirs, and we can put it in the record, however you want to structure it this time, but I made a gentleman’s agreement with both individuals, in front of Mr. Goralski. I said my big concern is I didn’t want to have to get involved in re-drawing plans and incurring more engineering cost. I said I’ll do whatever it takes. I got a handshake from Mr. Paling’s associate that lives in Cedar Court. I’m sorry, I don’t know him by name. We had a, I thought, a gentleman’s agreement that I would do whatever it took, when I started the building, to do every possible effort, that there would be no problems. There is not a problem with the runoff at the present time, nor has there been, other than that one storm that we had, and like I said, I’m under construction over there as well as they were, but we can put it in the record, but in the future, it’s lesson to me that I guess a handshake won’t 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) mean what we met on. Because we did meet, and I didn’t want it to come to this point, to have to go back to the engineer. I’d like to start on Friday. MR. RUEL-We’ve had promises before the Board, and I’d like to see it part of the record. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I’m just making a point of it. MR. RUEL-Okay. Condition Number Two, that you will extend the sediment control fence. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. I already agreed to that in the letter. MR. RUEL-Okay. Well, I’m just making it part of the motion, and third that your plans should show the additional landscaping as discussed here at the meeting, essentially putting in two white pines on the north end and two white pines in the southern end of the plot. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Here again, maybe if we can do it in the past, just John Goralski, we picked the number. I just don’t want to have to go back and re-draw my plans MR. RUEL-Well, we just picked the number. That’s it. That’s part of the motion. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Three to five foot, just like on the plan. To me, I would think he’d want to reflect them on the plan. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Then how about we draw them on, John and I initial them or I initial them with John. That’s what we discussed with the swale. Actually, now I recollect. MR. GORALSKI-When you submit the plot plan for your building permit, just take a pencil and draw the pines, draw the swale, and that’s all you need to do. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. I just didn’t want to get into great lengths of having an engineer draw up a swale and everything. MR. RUEL-And modify the plans. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, that’s fine. MR. RUEL-As indicated, with pencil, prior to. MR. GORALSKI-Building permit. MR. RUEL-Obtaining a permit. MR. SCHERMERHORN-That’s fine. I would have done all this, but like I said, I met on my own time three weeks ago, and I said, gee, my biggest concern is I don’t want to get to the meeting and then have issues like this come up, because I try and address them before I get here. MR. RUEL-Yes, well if you have no objections to the conditions, we like to make it part of the resolution. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. SCHERMERHORN-I’m done? MR. STARK-You’re done. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thanks. MR. HARDICK-I’m the other fellow that met with Mr. Paling and Mr. Schermerhorn and Mr. Goralski, and what I found is that in lots of cases, you people are told things that later on don’t get 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) done, and so therefore it’s been ingrained in me, even though you have a gentleman’s agreement, and I have a lot of them, that if it isn’t in writing, it hasn’t been said, and I think as a formality, it should be put on the drawing. It normally is put on by an engineer. It’s not normally added to. That way the engineer says the swale is correct. This is the way it should be done, and everybody’s protected, and I think that’s the way you ought to kind of look at this situation. The particular property that Mr. Schermerhorn has is, in back, it’s about six or eight feet higher than Cedar Court. So the natural drainage would be down to that area. Now he said he just put in a water system for the grass. So he’s adding more water to the area. He’s also put in the septic system in the area, after he had dug a ditch, and the ditch is partially filled in again. So I would say, for our own benefit, we’d want to have something on a drawing to go back to, if it didn’t work, and an engineer to say, it didn’t work, fix it, and that’s my one comment. Thank you. MR. RUEL-Excuse me, sir. Don’t you feel that the conditions mentioned here this evening cover just that? The first condition indicated that the stormwater. MR. HARDICK-If you’re comfortable with marking up a drawing, and Mr. Goralski and saying, this is the way it ought to be, without an engineer’s input, that’s your prerogative. Technically, you can’t change a drawing unless a P.E. stamps it, or a licensed architect or a licensed landscaper. It’s not supposedly legal. MR. RUEL-John, will this be reviewed by an engineer? MR. GORALSKI-I didn’t intend for it to be. The plans aren’t stamped now. MR. RUEL-It’s not necessary. MR. GORALSKI-We don’t require an engineer’s stamp for site plan reviews. MR. STARK-Roger, Cathy wants to talk now. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, first of all, I don’t think this is closed yet. So they’re not stamped by an engineer right now, then do the people in Cedar Court have any recourse to fall back on if, indeed, they do get some ponding or some extra water? MR. GORALSKI-They have recourse to the owner of the property. JIM MILLER MR. MILLER-I’m Jim Miller, Landscape Architect. As a matter of course, after the project has been approved by the Planning Board, we submit stamped drawings. We just don’t submit them when they’re, before the meeting, but after approval, stamped drawings are required. MR. GORALSKI-They’re not required. They are submitted, though. They are not required by the Zoning Ordinance. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay, and I would like to make a comment, too, on the first statement that you made, how it’s in the record, but I don’t remember exactly your words, but how many things have gone by us. Now that’s not true. Not many things, and another thing I would like you to know is that in the case of Mr. Schermerhorn, he is the applicant. He is the owner, and he has brought many, many, many things to this Board, and never once has he gone back against, on his word, and maybe the other case that you’re referring to, I can’t remember, in the three and a half years that I’ve been on this Board, that I ever had any dealings with this other person that you may be alluding to or mentioning, but as far as many cases, I’d like to have that made clear that I don’t think many cases have gone past this Board that we haven’t paid attention to detail, but I appreciate your comment. You’re certainly, if you’re going to make a comment like that, I think you should back it up. MR. HARDICK-Okay. I’ll put it this way. If a site plan is presented to this Board, it should be done by a licensed engineer or architect or landscape engineer or somebody like that, or a land surveyor who has an exemption to do it, and any modifications to that plan can only be done by another licensed person, and that’s the law. That’s the education law. MRS. LABOMBARD-I am not arguing with you about that. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. STARK-Excuse me, sir. Mr. Miller is a Landscape Architect. The final plan that he submits will be signed by him, and it will include the swale, and it will include the two trees on the north and south side. MR. HARDICK-That’s perfectly adequate. That’s the way it should work, and I just wanted to make sure that even though you have a gentleman’s agreement in the field for doing changes, it’s the architect or engineer who signed that is ultimately responsible. MRS. LABOMBARD-We know that. We’re not arguing that with you. MR. RUEL-This is why it’s part of the motion. MR. HARDICK-Right. I agree with you. MR. RUEL-And we could have ignored it and said, well, you had an agreement, therefore we don’t have to make it part of the motion, but we did make it part of the motion, all right. MR. HARDICK-I understand that. MR. RUEL-And it’s very specific. I don’t know what else you want. MR. HARDICK-Everything is fine. As long as Mr. Miller’s happy, and he is happy with the changes, because he has to stand behind it. Thank you. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1997 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED THE MICHAELS GROUP (UNDER CONTRACT) OWNER: SAME ZONE : SFR-1A LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF BAY ROAD BETWEEN BLIND ROCK AND TEE HILL ROADS APPLICANT PROPOSES A 43 LOT SUBDIVISION. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 17-1997 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 7/7/97 TAX MAP NOS. 48-3- 31, 33, 39.1, 39.2, 43 & 44 LOT SIZE: 84.55+ SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JON LAPPER, TOM NACE; REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 5-1997 Preliminary Stage, The Michaels Group, Meeting Date: August 26, 1997 “The applicant proposes the development of a 43 lot clustered subdivision off of Bay Road. This project has received an area variance from the ZBA to allow lot sizes which do not conform to SFR-1A requirements. Warren County DPW is expected to comment on effects this project may have on Bay Road and the Planning Board should address any comments before taking action on this subdivision. As part of this subdivision, the applicant plans to extend Town water service into this site. Any comments from the Town Water Dept. must be addressed prior to any approval of this subdivision. The applicant is required to pay a $500 per lot recreation fee at the time a building permit is issued for all lots in this project. Any comments from the Town’s Engineering Consultant should be addressed prior to any Planning Board action.” MR. GORALSKI-Let me go through some of the other things. MR. STARK-Levandowski’s letter? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) th MR. GORALSKI-Right. The August 25 from Bill Levandowski, “We have received and reviewed Nace Engineering’s letter of August 18, 1997 and revised drawing submit in response to th our comment letter of July 18. Their response is generally satisfies our concerns. The revised grading plan at the inlet to the eight inch culvert near Drywell Number Eight is not clear. If the intent is to fill the swale to above elevation 375.1, the culvert invert elevation, the grading plan should so state and the impact of the fill on the existing woods should be evaluated. Please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. William J. Levandowski, P.C.” th MR. STARK-John, I don’t think I have the August 25 letter. MR. GORALSKI-Right. I guess we just got it. Roger Gebo had submitted a letter back when this first got sent to us, looking for some details on the drainage plan, and a site distance review, and Beautification Committee had looked at it, and “Jim Miller reviewed site plan and cluster plan of 20 acres of the property. Remaining acreage to be owned by Homeowner’s Association and left unimproved indefinitely. 43 single family homes on approximately 7,500 sq. ft. lots to be constructed. Development will try to save as much of the existing plantings as possible. Screening of pines behind lots 24-27 to remain to buffer the Cedar Court subdivision. Entry from Bay Road will be a boulevard with lighting along center, similar to Hudson Pointe subdivision. Town water will be installed in subdivision. 1. Committee recommends sprinkler system be installed in boulevard planting bed and entrance to subdivision. 2. Committee recommends approval of plantings shown on Surrey Field subdivision drawing (Sheet 5 of 8 dated 6/25/97 by Landscape Architect). All planting to be professionally installed and maintained with no substitutions to planting plan. 3. Committee strongly agrees with plan presented as it supports screening of adjacent properties at the entrance and boulevard and wants developer to adhere to planting plan presented. 4. Committee recommends lighting on boulevard be of moderate wattage so as not to be intrusive to adjacent property owners.” And that’s it. MR. STARK-Okay. Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-For the record, my name is Jon Lapper, and I’m here with Dave Michaels, from The Michaels Development group, Tom Nace, the project Engineer, and Jim Miller, who prefers to speak from the audience tonight. When we were here last, at the concept meeting in June, we had a detailed discussion of the project, and Dave Michaels explained in detail his ideas, why this is being done as a cluster. I don’t know if the Board needs to hear it again. If you’d like us to make a full presentation, or if any of the public raises questions, we’re happy to do that. If not, Tom will address the changes that we’ve done on the engineering since we were here last, in response to the comments from the Town Engineer, and just some minor changes that we’ve made to make the project better. MR. STARK-Tom, do you have the letter from Levandowski for yesterday? MR. NACE-Yes, I do. th MR. STARK-Okay. We didn’t get that. Could you just go over the August 18 letter, and answer each point. th MR. NACE-Okay. In my August 18 letter, or? MR. STARK-No, from Levandowski, from you. MR. NACE-You mean? th MR. GORALSKI-July 18. th MR. NACE-July 18. Okay. The first comment was the access road is subject to the approval of Warren County DPW. I met with Roger Gebo. I gave him a final set of, the set of the preliminary plans, along with details of traffic generation and also site distances. He’s reviewed those, and last week we received from Warren County, and, John, I’ll give a copy of this to you tomorrow, the road permit, the road entrance permit for the new road. So all issues with the County road connection have been taken care of. The second comment is the subdivision road layout and construction details are subject to the approval of the Queensbury Highway Department. We will meet with Paul Naylor. We have used the standard requirements for all of our roadway design, according to the Queensbury Highway standards. So I don’t anticipate any problem there. The 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) third is the water system detail is subject to the approval of the Queensbury Water Department. It says a note should be added to the plans that all related work to be performed in accordance with the Town standards. That note is already on the plans, and I’ve been talking with Tom Flaherty. There’s another issue that ties in with that, and that’s the formation of the water district extension to include this property. I’ve met with Tom. He’s agreed that we’ll make this into a consolidated water district with the main Town water district. We will, as we do that, offer up the opportunity for the two properties that intervene between our property on Bay Road, where we access Bay Road, and the extent of the existing district, which is down at the end of Cedar Court Road. The two properties in here will have the opportunity to enter into a district, if they want to be part of it. Okay. The design of sewage disposal system subject to the approval of the New York State Department of Health. Brian Fear from the Health Department has looked at the project. He was with us doing test pits. So he’s aware of the project and the layout. We are submitting the, as soon as we finish with the preliminary approval here, submitting a full set of plans and application for Health Department approval. MR. STARK-You’ll have that for final? MR. NACE-We won’t have their approval. That takes, depending on how busy they are, that make take a month or two, but we’ll certainly have his first look see at the final plans to indicate whether they are approvable, but everything he’s seen so far I would anticipate no problem. Utility locations should be shown on the Utility Plan. We have shown, as requested, the easements for the utilities along the roadways. The next items is Perc Test #8 is indicated in two locations, and Test Pit #8 is not indicated. We’ve corrected that. There was a mistake in the drafting. The storm drainage system, he states the storm drainage design utilizes a normally dry detention pond to limit the peak post development discharges to below pre-development levels. Calculations submitted indicate that this pond will have approximately 2.5 feet of water for the 50 year design storm. Calculations also indicate it would dissipate in a few hours. It appears the HOA will have the responsibility to maintain the pond. Which is true. No specific landscaping, ground cover or controlled access is proposed. In my letter to Mr. Levandowski, I indicated that that area will be re-seeded and mulched in accordance with all disturbed areas, or the same as all disturbed areas on the plan. So we will get ground cover established in there, and we will have sediment control devices in place, in accordance with the standard details, until that occurs. It appears that the eight inch culvert from the center area to DW #8 could flow in reverse to form a pond at the culvert entrance during storms due to water levels in the dry well higher than the culvert entrance. The applicant should investigate and address this possibility if necessary, and what I had done in the revised plans that I sent Mr. Levandowski to look at, we had re-graded that area, and I think that’s th in his August 25 letter what he was referring to. In that re-grading, it will have a small effect on the area that has to be cleared. Right around the inlet to that culvert, there will be a small area that will have to be cleared, and that will be indicated on our clearing plan for Final. MR. STARK-John, Levandowski, that Part B there, did he okay that or? MR. GORALSKI-Part B? No. I don’t think he’s still clear on what’s happening here, I think as Tom indicated. If the intent is to fill the swale to above the elevation of 375.1, the culvert elevation, the grading plan should so state, and the impact of the fill on the existing woods should be evaluated. What Tom is saying is there is going to be some existing clearing, I mean, some additional clearing that’s going to take place around that culvert. MR. NACE-That is correct, and I talked to Bill today about that, to clarify. MR. GORALSKI-Okay, and that clearing should be indicated. MR. NACE-On our clearing plan, that’s correct, and that will be done at Final. MR. STARK-Okay. Anything else, Jon? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Just a few more issues that we’d like to run by you before you open a public hearing. We’re requesting, as we mentioned last time, a waiver of the phasing requirement under the Subdivision Regs. Ordinarily you can only have 35 units in a phase. Because of the circular design of the subdivision, the layout, it doesn’t make sense to put a “T” intersection. It just makes sense to do the road all at once. Because of The Michaels Group’s track record, we don’t think you should have a concern that they’re going to start the project and abandon it. That’s certainly not going to happen. John asked me to submit a formal letter, which I incorrectly addressed to the Chairman, but I have that to submit, and we hope that you’ll agree to that waiver for the Final approval. Additionally, I submitted a draft of the covenants and restrictions for the Homeowners 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) Association documents that Dave and I came up with. I’ve submitted that to John for review by the Town Attorney before Final. MR. GORALSKI-There’s no comment. MR. LAPPER-And we also had a full archeological survey done, which we will submit to John. The summary and recommendations are that a complete and comprehensive survey guided by thorough background research, sampling strategy and field testing has been performed. No archeological sites were discovered. Therefore, no additional archeological investigation is recommended, and this has been submitted to New York State as well. Then there was an issue that was raised by the neighbors on Susan Place, on the north end of the property, because there’s this existing 15 foot wide path that leads to Bay Road, and the neighbors were concerned whether or not that might be used for this project, as an alternative access, that the residents would then have to deal with noise and cars, right in their back yards. What Dave has proposed to the neighbors, which they have found acceptable, is that we will, as a condition of the approval, we will. MR. MICHAELS-What happened was, Mike Webster is one of the owners of Susan Place, and he’s acted as the liaison representing the Susan Place homeowners from the last meeting, is how we had it set up, and what was discussed with Mike today was that we told him we’re very open in terms of how we can handle that right-of-way, in terms of to give them security. Their main concern is that the residents, or future residents potential of Surrey Field will not be allowed to use that right-of-way for ingress and egress, and that is our intention in the beginning, is common area. It’s not our intention whatsoever. So what we did is we ran a title search to look into that piece of ground and how it’s restricted by the deed, and then we found out, as I spoke with him today, that it’s not only the residents abutting the right-of-way and Susan Place have the right to use that right- of-way, but so do two homeowners that are directly to the south, and after bringing that. MR. LAPPER-Let me show that on the map. These two parcels here are also benefited by a right- of-way. So we can’t cut off their use. We’re not buying their property. We can restrict that any property that The Michaels Group is buying will never use that right-of-way. MR. STARK-Where’s Webster’s house on here? Point to it. MR. MICHAELS-Right there. MR. STARK-That one there, okay. How many homeowners are up north of that? MR. LAPPER-North of that would be one, two. MR. RUEL-Are you saying that they would be landlocked? MR. LAPPER-No. What the neighbors are concerned with, that was originally reserved, that piece of property, so that if this property in the back were developed, there would be a separate access to Bay Road, so that this could be developed, that could be a separate driveway or to a separate subdivision, and what The Michaels Group is saying is that there’s no way that we’re ever going to use that. It doesn’t comport with this layout, and so we’re willing to restrict the deed, a covenant which we will put into the deed when own the property, that that will never be used for ingress or egress to Bay Road. When we were here last time, the issue was raised as to whether we might want to convey little pieces of that to the adjacent neighbors. When we did the title search, we haven’t closed on the property yet, but we had a title search done, and what we found out was that there are existing easements that were granted to those two property owners that I just showed you. So they have additional rights, which means that if we were going to do boundary agreements, which it’s not that we can’t do it. It’s just that we can’t extinguish those real estate rights. Those people either purchased or negotiated rights to use that right-of-way to get to the rear of their property, and they still have the right to do that. So that we can’t extinguish those rights. So we can’t give someone a clear deed. MR. RUEL-You could only convey that property over to them if the so called landlocked properties were willing to agree. MR. LAPPER-Well, they’re not really landlocked, because they all have access to Bay Road in the front. MR. RUEL-Yes, but they have access already. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. LAPPER-Yes, but this gives them the right to have access to the back. MR. RUEL-And it is an easement. MR. LAPPER-It is, they have easements of record. MR. MICHAELS-Yes. That’s what I brought up to Mike. I thought the simplest way, because, you know, to try to get all those owners together, and then who’s going to own this, and are we going to create a separate entity that owns this, and, you know, as one property between four homeowners gets pretty complicated, and then there’s the issue of taxes and everything else, and what I represented was I thought a simple solution was is that we’ll further deed restrict the Barber property to say that any future residents or owners of the property itself do not have any rights whatsoever to utilize that. That has to be for their purposes kept forever green, which is our intention in the first place, and that way, that’s their main, that’s their concern, that Cedar Court residents are not allowed to use that right-of-way. That’s their concern is how is was represented to me loud and clear, and that’s not our intention in the first place, and I thought that would be a very simplistic way to handle it. MR. LAPPER-Probably a covenant, recorded in the County Clerk’s office, with a deed that will run with the land and be perpetual. MR. RUEL-But you can’t restrict that road to the people that have an easement. MR. LAPPER-We can’t restrict, but the people who have an easement are not, it’s not the land that The Michaels Group is buying. We can’t say anything about those two other parcels. We have no rights, and we’re not offering to, because that’s not our business. They’re not here before you, but we can restrict the property that The Michaels Group is buying, which is where there are going to be 43 homes, that those people will never use that right-of-way. So we’re offering everything that we have the legal right to offer. MR. STARK-Okay. Fine. Anything else? MR. LAPPER-I think I’m done. MR. NACE-Yes. I just wanted to address one other issue on stormwater. At the previous meeting, there had been a lot of concern voiced regarding stormwater interaction between our site and Cedar Court to the south. If you have read through the stormwater report, and I doubt very many have, because it’s kind of dry, but what we have done is we have reduced the amount of stormwater that presently drains toward the south and into that swale between this property and Cedar Court. We’ve reduced the peak runoff there, in a 50 year storm, from a little over five cfs to under two cfs. So there’s a substantial reduction in the amount of water that will be going into that swale. We’ve re-routed the water through the development, through our stormwater detention system, in such a way that when you add all the stormwater leaving the site together, we are still reducing the overall peak flow going into the drainage way out behind, and that drainage, one thing to clarify. That drainageway out behind our stormwater detention pond outlets into is way back in here, back well behind the properties on Cedar Court. The actual properties on Cedar Court are in here. This shows them a little better down here. The last property, the last house is up in here. The property ends back here. The common, there’s a strip of common property in Cedar Court behind, and then that drainageway, this little stream, is well out in here, and we are emptying into it with our stormwater system up in here, well away from the Cedar Court development. MR. STARK-Point to the swale. MR. NACE-The swale between the two that I was referring to earlier is right in here, okay. It comes down, the existing fields in here, a good portion of those fields drains to the south, and inlets into that swale, and that comes in right behind the residences on Cedar Court, okay. By intercepting this stormwater here, and taking all of our road system into our closed drainage system that outlets over here, we’re greatly reducing that amount of drainage. MR. RUEL-Is that swale presently wet, to date? MR. NACE-This swale? There have been some improvements to that to take care of some of the water that comes into it right now. I don’t know if it’s wet right now. I can’t really tell you. Maybe Dave can. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. MICHAELS-Yes. We worked with Mr. Paling and a number of the people representing the board of the homeowners at Cedar Court, Frank Hardick one of them also, and we did some substantial improvements along there, in terms of piping, and quite a bit of mitigation and it’s seeded, and since the grass has grown in and it’s draining out quite well, and it is working. It originally was proposed just to get it to make sure it was a gravity feed through there, and what we did is actually excavate, pipe it, and pipe stone it, seed it, to get the job done, and that has since been done. MR. RUEL-Maybe I overlooked it. What sheet has the clearing plan? MR. NACE-I believe it’s right on the first sheet here. MR. RUEL-The first sheet. MR. NACE-Okay. Yes, it is on the grading, grading and drainage. MR. RUEL-Do you want to go through that and explain what you intent to clear. MR. NACE-What Bill Levandowski was referring to, the clearing, what Bill Levandowski was referring to? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. NACE-Okay. There is an area right here. We’re picking up all the road drainage, and in most of the front lots, the front roofs of the houses, the driveways are all coming out on the roadway, and we’re picking that up in a closed drainage system, coming down to this detention pond. There is, however, some interior common space in here that presently drains into the headwaters of that shallow swale that ends up down here, okay, and instead of draining that on down through, we’re picking that up and bringing it into our closed system, and where we do that, we have a culvert that leads into our closed system, and as Mr. Levandowski pointed out, previously our grading had been such that when our closed system got a lot of water in it, it could back up and pond a little up in here. So we’ve re-graded a small area right up in here, so it’s a little higher and won’t pond. So I think we changed the grade by a foot and a half or maybe two feet at the most. So there will be just one little area right in here where we’ll have some additional clearing that we didn’t show on this plan. That’s the only difference. MR. RUEL-Yes. That holding pond normally will be dry? MR. NACE-This is designed so that when you get small flows, they will go through. There’s a pipe that comes into a structure in the bottom, and the outlet pipe goes directly from that structure. So the outlet pipe is designed of such a size it will control the flow. When there’s too much flow, it would put too much water down the stream at one time, it backs up into the pond from the structure in the bottom of the pond. MR. RUEL-Where does that outlet pipe go? MR. NACE-The outlet pipe goes out into an existing drainage swale that comes out and intercepts the stream out in here. MR. RUEL-Is there presently water in that area? MR. NACE-Yes. There is. MR. RUEL-Yes. So it would just be the overflow? MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. RUEL-All right. While you have that up there, now you intend to meet the requirements of the Beautification Committee on a sprinkler system in the boulevard area as well as low wattage lighting so as not to interfere with adjacent properties? MR. MICHAELS-In terms of that, it was the height of the lanterns going in that was at issue, and the idea was, you know, we didn’t want 12 foot lantern lighting going in, and we said we would keep it more in tune to normal lamppost residential type indirect lighting going in. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) JIM MILLER MR. MILLER-I’m Jim Miller, Landscape Architect. I met with the Beautification Committee and this sheet was a landscape plan. The last time we were here, we talked about maintaining some of the evergreens from the tree farm area against the rear of the Cedar Court properties, and also transplant some of those evergreens along the boulevard to buffer the neighbors coming in the boulevard. As Dave said, the design of the boulevard is very similar to Hudson Pointe. We’re going to lower level lights, and plus buffering on both sides with evergreens. It’s going to be planted very similar fashion, using daylillies and perennials and rows of street trees. In addition, since most of this site is fairly open, what we’ve done is we’ve shown a street tree pattern throughout the site, where the trees will be located, essentially at the property lines, back from the right-of-ways, so we can define the roadway with trees. In addition to that, the reason we did them at the property line is that we don’t know where the driveway is going to go now. So that puts them on the property line where we won’t have to relocate anything. In addition to that, as each home was built, there’s a landscape package that The Michaels Group puts in, in addition to these, but this was just to establish some trees in areas where we don’t have them. MR. RUEL-Will there be any lighting in the area, besides the boulevard? MR. MICHAELS-No. Right now the only street lighting is along the boulevard. MR. RUEL-Any sidewalks anywhere? MR. MICHAELS-No. All the residents will have exterior lampposts that’ll be electric eye. So whether they’re there or not, they’ll still always go on at night. MR. RUEL-That comes with the property? MR. MICHAELS-Yes, and for the clustered size of the, you know, the lots aren’t one acre lots. They’re clustered single family lots. So that amount of land staggered back and forth should create a nice streetscape and give safety. MR. RUEL-You put an eye on, it’s going to be on all night. MR. MICHAELS-Yes. MR. STARK-The same as a street light, Rog. MR. MICHAELS-It does work nice in terms of security, or if somebody pulls in their driveway to get into their house, you know, it provides lighting on the sidewalk going in and that kind of thing. MR. RUEL-It’s a nice feature. MR. STARK-Okay. I’d like to open the public hearing for Subdivision No. 5-1997. If anybody wishes to speak pro or con, please come forward, state your name into the microphone. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ALICE DALLEK MRS. DALLEK-My name is Mrs. Dallek. My property abuts what I’ve always known as Dr. Barber’s property. They have their facts a little wrong there. Susan Drive does in no fashion go onto Bay Road. It’s an east to west road. The road that goes, and the only way they can go out of that, could go out of that property, would be to go on to Country Colony Road, then on to Tee Hill, or to Bay Road. So the name of the road is not Susan Road. It’s Alice Drive. MR. STARK-Would you go up and point to the road here, ma’am. I’m not sure exactly where you’re talking about. MRS. DALLEK-This is Susan Place. It goes east to west. This is Alice Drive. This is Susan Place, which abuts the Farm to Market Road, the road behind it is Farm to Market Road, as I’ve known it. Dr. Barber always used it to bring his manure in, to grow his crops, and this is Alice Drive. They don’t have the name here. I want it stated I the record, as the attorney said at the last 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) meeting. There is no egress out of Alice Drive. I have not heard that mentioned, in anything they said. MR. STARK-For the new Cedar Court? MRS. DALLEK-That’s right. MR. GORALSKI-Surrey Fields. MR. STARK-Not Cedar Court, the new development. You don’t want anybody to go out that way. MRS. DALLEK-That’s right. Exactly. MR. STARK-Well, okay, we can put that in a motion, but they don’t plan on going out that way. MRS. DALLEK-I want it in writing. Thank you. I trust nobody. MR. STARK-Would anybody else, please, like to come up. JOHN MC FEE MR. MC FEE-My name is John McFee, and my property both faces where they’re going to build, and it faces that 16 foot right-of-way. MR. STARK-Excuse me, you’re one of those two pieces of property they referred to? MR. MC FEE-I’ll show you which one. In here, all this. This is me, and that’s the 16. MR. STARK-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC FEE-When I went through the plans, the property and all the different things I had to get, we went to the County center. We went to the Queensbury, and at that time, they said that they had no record on who owned the 16 feet. There has been no taxes paid on it, and it was one of those good ol’ boy things. Use the road, go ahead. Because at one time, we tried to buy it, and they said, we can’t sell it to you, we don’t know who owns it. Now these people, they’re going to give it to us. They’re going to give us half of it, each one. Well, they can’t give it away when they don’t know who owns it. MR. STARK-They don’t plan on giving it to you now. They’re just going to maintain the easement. MR. RUEL-They can’t do it. MR. STARK-They don’t plan on giving any land to anybody. MR. MC FEE-So any time anybody wants to go in there, they can? MR. STARK-That I’m not sure of. Jeff? MR. FRIEDLAND-I’m not sure of the question. MR. MC FEE-This lady is talking about a different piece of road than I’m talking about. MR. GORALSKI-Right. Let me try to clear this up. The 16 feet Jon Lapper was explaining and Mr. McFee is talking about runs along the north side of his property there. What Jon Lapper, The Michaels Group attorney, explained is that they can’t give that or sell that to anybody, just like you just said. MR. MC FEE-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-So that the status of that is not going to change at all as a result of this project. The only thing they’re going to do is they are going to restrict the people who buy lots in this subdivision and tell them that they cannot use that 16 feet. You have the same rights you have always had, and you will continue to have those rights as a result of this project. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. MC FEE-See, the reason I’m curious about that. The property line, when they used to build these hedgerows, they put them right on the line. The stuff that’s growing there is about 16 foot deep, and it’s actually on the 16 foot. To use that road, they’re coming down and driving across the property of the woman in the other house. Now, I mean, that’s what the problem is. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. MC FEE-And as I say, there’s no reason anybody can’t use it. It’s going to be wide open. There’s no blockage in it. There’s not going to be anything to. MR. GORALSKI-This project is going to have no effect on that 16 feet at all, except for the fact that they will guarantee that the people who buy lots here will not use that, and that’s all they can do legally. So they’re not going to change it. They’re not going to restrict you from using it. They’re not going to restrict anyone else who has rights to it from using it. The only thing they’re going to do is guarantee you that the people who buy lots there will not use it. MR. MC FEE-Okay. That’s all I can ask. MR. STARK-Does anyone else wish to speak? DAN RYE MR. RYE-My name is Dan Rye, and I have the little red house right here across the street at 550 Bay. Now I understand this would be, I would be most effected than anybody for this development, I believe, unless I’m incorrect. It looks like I’m going to be swarmed. I’ve got the little red house that sits way back, right up here, across the street. Are you familiar with where I’m talking about? MR. STARK-I’m going to have you go up and point to it in a second. MR. RYE-I can’t tell where it is. When I bought my property, I bought it for my mother. So she could have privacy, and to me, my house isn’t going to be worth anything, as far as privacy. I’m going to have a mini city behind my house. MR. RUEL-Do you have a lot number on there? MR. RYE-550 Bay Road. It’s a little red house right across the street. It sits way back. MR. GORALSKI-Is it north? MR. RYE-It’s right up here. MR. MILLER-I think it’s this one right here. MR. STARK-Okay. Fine. MR. RYE-Because it’s a triangle lot. It doesn’t, it’s not correct on this map, but as far as I can see, I’m going to be swarmed with this whole development. MR. STARK-You’re going to be south of the boulevard road. That’s going to be all shielded, and the houses are going to be three, four hundred feet behind you, the first one. MR. RYE-Right. I’ll have a complete, basically a city behind me. MR. STARK-Well, there’s only 42 units back there. I mean, it’s not a city. It’s going to be landscaped. You won’t even be able to see them. MR. RYE-I mean, I’m not going to have any privacy, from what I’ve got now, and I’m strongly against it. I bought this property for my mom, and if I get all these houses behind it, to me, I wouldn’t want my mom, as far as privacy. MR. RUEL-It looks like you have a substantial buffer zone there, if that’s where your property is. Doesn’t that retain the privacy that you’re looking for? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. RYE-No. MR. RUEL-What do you feel is the infringement on your privacy? Noise, traffic? MR. RYE-Just the basic population. I think we’ve got enough population in this area as it is. Right in this immediate area, I mean, we’re going to have just nothing but houses. MR. RUEL-How does that interfere with your privacy, though? MR. RYE-The more people there are in an area. How does that interfere with me? MR. RUEL-You won’t even see these people. MR. RYE-They’re going to be directly behind me, 43 houses. MR. RUEL-Yes, a considerable distance, with a buffer zone in between. MR. RYE-It’s going to be considerably louder. I mean, right now I have wilderness, and I’m going to have 43 houses. You think that’s going to be the same as not having those 43 houses there? 300 feet away? MR. RUEL-What zone are you in, do you know? MR. RYE-I’m right across the street. MR. GORALSKI-Is that a map of your property? MR. STARK-Roger, we can’t get to answer each individual until after the public meeting. MR. RUEL-Why, you just want to take comments? MR. RYE-Well, I would imagine you should know what zone I’m in. I’m right across the street from this building. I don’t know. I’m not familiar. MR. GORALSKI-Excuse me. I think we’re all kind of confused on exactly where you are in relation. MR. RYE-He’s got a picture of my house. MR. MILLER-It’s this property right on the south side of the boulevard. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MR. RUEL-You don’t want to respond to anything until after? MR. STARK-We’ll respond to it, at the appropriate time, Roger. Otherwise we’ll be here all night. Okay. MR. RYE-Okay. That’s all I have. MR. RUEL-Well, how do we respond to individuals? MR. STARK-Well, Cathy’s writing down each individual question, and we’ll respond to it. MR. RUEL-All right. You’re running it. MR. STARK-Okay. We’ll address it. Thank you. Anyone else? HELENA REARDON MRS. REARDON-My name is Helena Reardon, and I’m going to be right across the street from the wonderful boulevard that’s going in there. So I want to know what protection am I going to have? I’ve got 283 frontage. I’ve got a vacant lot. Now they keep saying it’s going to flow south. As long as I’ve been up there, the land at Cedar Court is a hill that goes north. The water’s never going to go back up that hill. I don’t think, unless there’s something new that I don’t know about. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. STARK-You live on the east side of Bay Road? MRS. REARDON-I live across the street from the boulevard that they’re going to put in. MR. STARK-What protection are you talking about? MRS. REARDON-Well, when they come out of that boulevard, they’re coming right at me. MR. STARK-Jim, would you point to her house, if you could? Mrs. Reardon, across from the boulevard she said. MRS. LABOMBARD-Mrs. Reardon, you mean that the lights would shine right in your house? MRS. REARDON-They’d shine, and the traffic. Have you been on Bay Road recently? The traffic that is there. MRS. LABOMBARD-Now you said you had 283 feet of frontage that’s on Bay Road. MRS. REARDON-On Bay Road. MRS. LABOMBARD-And your house you’re saying is exactly in front of where the boulevard is going to come out? MRS. REARDON-I don’t know if it’s exactly in front. MR. NACE-Her driveway is exactly opposite the ingress portion of the boulevard, okay. The egress portion of the boulevard is south of her driveway. MR. STARK-How far south? MR. NACE-Well, the separation distance, this is about 30 or 40 feet, and her house is, the main part of the house is to the north of her driveway. Her garage is at the back of her driveway. MRS. REARDON-Is at the driveway. I’m not worried about the driveway. I’m worried about my home, and if you have noticed, if anybody’s noticed, when they come out of Tee Hill Road, they have knocked that cemetery fence down many, many times. Now what protection am I going to have when they have those roads coming in? MR. STARK-We’ll address it. MRS. REARDON-Thank you. All right. ROGER RYAN MR. RYAN-My name is Roger Ryan. I live at Barber Road. This is the first time I’ve seen these drawings. So I was wondering, there’s a couple of ponds over, I see the one listed there. Is the other one going to be filled in, or what’s going to be done with that? There’s natural drainage in the back that goes from the first pond under the road that comes over the hill to the second pond, which then goes down into Gosline’s pond, flows under Blind Rock Road, and then goes down and through ACC and that way. Is any of that water going to be filled in, any of that wetland back there going to be filled in? Is one question. Okay. What I was looking for was the total property, because one thing that bothers me is I know what Dr. Barber owned for property, and I have a fair idea, and some of the maps I’ve seen of this development show, are not clear and concise as to the property that’s involved in this 88 acres, or 84, depending on who you talk to. So one thing I want to find out, since Nolan owns the land in the bay by me, what rights these people are going to have as access or future access to Glen Lake. MRS. LABOMBARD-We answered that the last meeting. MR. STARK-There’s no access at all planned in the future. MRS. LABOMBARD-And it’s illegal to have any access. Jon answered that a month or so ago, in June. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. STARK-We’ll have their attorney address that, though, for you, okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, it’s already been on record, but we’ll do it again. MR. RYAN-The one thing that does concern me, though, Tom was talking a little bit about the drainage. As you know, when you design a drainage system, once every 10 years, you’re going to exceed the capacity of this system, and I was just recently involved in some land over on the end of Glen Lake, which the people had seven foot deep gullies right through the middle of their property, when you exceed that outtake. So one of the things that does concern me, what the plans are to take care of that excess water, so we don’t have problems. We don’t build any problems. Another thing that you may not have thought about is that we are having very serious problems around Glen Lake due to drainage from the roadways, and there was a town in Florida which had two people die, and all the water drained off the roads into this lake, where people were swimming. They’d dive off the bridge into the water, and amoebae went up into the nose because the blood vessels in the nose, went into the brain and killed the people. Now, you’re going to get pollutants, rubber, you’re going to get oil, gasoline, other things coming off the road, tar. I’m not in favor, I have no qualms about this development, but I don’t like the idea of running water, surface water, off into a ditch that’s going to go into a stream. As you probably know, a lot of people fish down there by the golf course, for trout, and it could have some serious effects, maybe not right now, but in the future. So I think there’s things that should be thought about in something of this nature. Thank you. MR. STARK-Thank you. MRS. LABOMBARD-Mr. Ryan, I just have to make a comment, and you probably aren’t going to like to hear this, but I can’t let it go. I agree with you 100% about the environmental runoff onto Glen Lake, and also a lot of other lakes in this area, except I know that, don’t just use that as one of the excuses for those problems on Glen Lake. There’s an awful lot of antiquated septic systems on that lake. So, seriously. I don’t want you to imply that that is the reason that Glen Lake has all its problems. I mean, you know, it’s one of the reasons. MR. STARK-Okay. Does anyone else wish to speak pro or con for this? MARVIN DOBERT MR. DOBERT-Hello. My name is Marvin Dobert. My two brothers and myself live adjacent to Roger and in between this settlement, this proposed project and Roger. I didn’t attend the last meeting, so some of the questions that I ask may be a little bit redundant. Did I understand it correctly that of the parcel that’s being purchased, I understand you haven’t closed on it yet? MR. STARK-We’ll address your questions, okay. MR. DOBERT-Of the parcel that’s being purchased, there is no frontage on Glen Lake. MR. STARK-None, but we’ll address it. Okay. MR. DOBERT-Did you do these renditions, Mr. Miller? MR. MILLER-Yes, I did. MR. DOBERT-Do you mind if I address Mr. Miller? MR. STARK-Go ahead. You’re supposed to address your questions to us and then we’ll answer every single question you have. We’ll come back to you if you have any additional questions, but go ahead, ask Mr. Miller your question, okay. This is the way it’s always done. MR. DOBERT-It is a technical question, but is there any frontage on Glen Lake? MR. MILLER-If you look at this little map up here, this shows where it is relative to Glen Lake, and there’s no frontage on Glen Lake. MR. DOBERT-Okay. The 500 foot setback that you have penciled in, okay, is that measured horizontally or up over the esker? MR. MILLER-Horizontally. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. DOBERT-That’s measured horizontally, and how high is the esker, approximately, elevation? MR. MILLER-Elevation is about 380. MR. DOBERT-So, 380 feet up from Glen Lake. MR. MILLER-Above sea level. (Lost words) elevation of Glen Lake. MR. DOBERT-My concern to the Board is that the 500 foot setback Glen Lake is not represented as you might think it might be horizontally. There’s a sand esker which I’m concerned could be mined, and that mining material could be used as fill, and what I would like to see addressed is that any usage of the properties that’s not included in this subdivision be defined. Because I believe, I could be wrong here, but I believe there is an existing subdivision that’s approved for this parcel? MR. STARK-No. MR. DOBERT-There’s no, Danny Barber didn’t have a subdivision? MR. STARK-No. MR. MAC EWAN-He made application, but never followed through with it. MR. DOBERT-It wasn’t completed. MR. MAC EWAN-He didn’t follow through on the application. MR. DOBERT-Okay. So the parcels, then, are one or three acre per dwelling zoning. MR. STARK-It’s as if it never existed. It never was approved. MR. DOBERT-All right, but my concern is that the esker could be mined. It’s valuable fill. Fill could be sold or filled in to some of the lower areas, and the parcels that are not included in this subdivision, and then it looks like, maybe there’s no frontage on Glen Lake, but it looks like one of these parcels adjoin north Fitzgerald Road. Am I right there? One of the corners? MR. MILLER-One of the corners might come to it, but there’s no frontage. MR. DOBERT-So there would be access to north Fitzgerald? MR. MILLER-You would have to trespass to get to it. A corner of our property line might be on the road, but you can’t have a driveway or something over a corner. We have no plans to do anything back there at all. It’s going to belong to the homeowners association. It’s never going to be mined, cleared. MR. DOBERT-No, I don’t mean the green area. I mean the area beyond the green area. MR. STARK-Well, nobody’s living back there. The 43 units are up in the front around the circle, and the rest of the land is never going to be touched. MR. DOBERT-Well, my concern has to do with how fragile that esker is. I’d just like you people on this Board to take a close look at that. Any mining on either side of that, any excavation whatsoever could just be disastrous. It’s a very steep elevation, and any removal of any fill whatsoever, or any excavation, will cause, you’ve already seen it. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have some indication that that might take place or has taken place in the past or something? MR. DOBERT-No, I don’t. I’m ignorant as to the boundaries of the property that The Michaels Group have an option to buy, other than this subdivision. My concerns are that there’s other properties that’s included in the purchase of this property that might be developed at the. MR. MILLER-There’s no other property other than what’s on the plan. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. DOBERT-There’s no other properties other than what’s on this plan, the Surrey road subdivision? MR. MILLER-That’s right. MR. DOBERT-Okay. Well, anyway, that’s my concern. My concern is that, I’ll say it one more time. I’ve lived there for 30 years. I cannot walk up that hill without having boulders kick loose and fall, in many cases, into the lake, and it’s grown over right now. I mean, there’s never been a tree cut there as long as I’ve lived there in 30 years, that I know of, and it’s very fragile. MR. STARK-We’ll address every one of your concerns. MR. DOBERT-Okay. Thank you. MR. STARK-Is there anyone else that wishes to speak? JANE BARTON MRS. BARTON-My name is Jane Barton. My family and I, my uncle was Bob Nolan. We now own all that land, and I have one. MR. STARK-Would you please point to the land that you own, so we’ll know exactly what you’re talking about. MRS. BARTON-We own this land on Glen Lake between this property. This is the cove. MR. GORALSKI-That’s not Glen Lake. MR. MILLER-No, that’s just a pond. MRS. BARTON-Okay. We’re right here. All right. We own not where the blue part is, but we own to the north of that, on top. MR. STARK-Okay. MRS. BARTON-And I have a question. First of all, when something like this is being done, do you normally let the people who own the property next to it know about it? MR. STARK-You’ve been notified, yes. MRS. BARTON-How? MR. MAC EWAN-If you’re within 500 feet, by certified mail. MRS. BARTON-I own the land, my family and I, we own the land directly next to Dr. Barber’s land. I have never received anything about this. MR. STARK-Well, he’s checking the receipts right now, and we’ll see if one went through to you or your family. Okay. While he’s checking that, do you have any other questions? MRS. BARTON-Yes, I do. I’m concerned about, because the land coming up from Glen Lake to where this, to where Dr. Barber’s land is, it’s very, very steep, and I’m concerned as to how close all this development is going to come to the top of what we call the mountain. MR. STARK-Well, it’s 500 feet from Glen Lake. That’s that waved line. MR. MILLER-The esker and the ridge that everybody’s talking about runs right through here. So all the project is way on the other side, way below that. So this ridge will actually separate this development from anybody or anything on Glen Lake. MRS. BARTON-So the development is not going to effect the trees and the rocks and everything, because that would come down. MR. STARK-He’s not touching anything back there. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MRS. BARTON-Because if it did, it’s going to come right down onto our right-of-way that goes right along Glen Lake. MR. STARK-They’re not even going to be close to you. MRS. BARTON-Okay. MR. MILLER-As a matter of fact, under this project, it will never be developed. MR. RUEL-Is that the 300 foot elevation you mentioned a moment ago? MR. MILLER-Yes, that’s that ridge. MR. STARK-The ridge, but it’s not 300 feet high, Roger. MR. RUEL-But he said above sea level. MR. STARK-Above sea level. John, did you find the notification to Nolan or Barton? MR. NACE-It’s on the list of people. MR. GORALSKI-Suzanne Nolan, right? MRS. BARTON-We own the land all the way across. Do you want me to go on? MR. GORALSKI-I would go on. MRS. BARTON-I have another question. There is a road that goes along behind Mr. Dobert’s property. Right now it’s called the Nolan Camp Road. It’s our ingress into our property, and Dr. Barber and his family, in the past, have used it for, they brought their tractor down, when they used to have cows and stuff, and then it goes on up into this property. So there is a “road”, and I’m curious as to what’s going to happen with that road. MR. STARK-Okay. We’ll address that. MRS. BARTON-Okay. MR. STARK-Do you have any other questions? MRS. BARTON-Well, I will have a question if they don’t find why I wasn’t notified. MR. GORALSKI-Suzanne Nolan, Las Vegas, Nevada? MRS. BARTON-No, that’s not me. MR. RUEL-He’s getting near the bottom of the pile now. MR. STARK-Do you live on this property here or do you live elsewhere? MRS. BARTON-We have a summer camp. My taxes all go to my regular address here in Queensbury. I’ve been paying the taxes. MR. GORALSKI-Jane Nolan Barton, is that it? MRS. BARTON-Yes, it is. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. Well, you have it here on the map as Jane Nolan Barton. Do you have it on there? MRS. LABOMBARD-It just says lands of Barton and Nolan on the map. MR. GORALSKI-Well, like I said, why don’t you go on, and then. MRS. BARTON-But I do need an answer to that question before I leave. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. STARK-Okay. Is there anyone else? CHRISTINE MOZAL MRS. MOZAL-Christine Mozal, and Jane Barton brought it to my attention that I wasn’t notified, either, and I’m within 500 feet of the boundary that’s closest to Glen Lake, and that’s my concern. My question is, it was just referenced that this particular project won’t involve that green space. Is there a possibility that in the future another project could go on that green space? MR. STARK-No. Their lawyer will address that. He’ll give you a specific answer to that, but the answer is no. MRS. MOZAL-Okay. It is my concern. MR. STARK-Okay, and you weren’t notified either. MRS. MOZAL-No, I was not, Chris Mozal. I don’t feel that’s a big issue, but if that’s what you say you do, I don’t think any of the lake front property owners were notified and we are close to that, the green space. MR. MILLER-If you read the Ordinance, it’s 500 feet as measured along a road. It’s not 500 from the property line. We typically try to do more. Like we sent them to all the people in Cedar Court, and what we do is we get the tax map numbers, then we get the addresses as listed in the Assessor’s Office, and in the case of Cedar Court, there were 12 people we found that hadn’t been listed yet, because they’re recent residents. We found that. We corrected that. So we get the list from the Town, and whatever we get, that’s what we send out. MR. STARK-Chris, you can see how many notices they’ve sent out. I mean, it’s not like they. MRS. MOZAL-Yes. I don’t really think this concerns us, other than we would be concerned because it borders our property, and I’m wondering if this will ever be developed, and then we would have a concern. MRS. LABOMBARD-Chris, where does it border your property? MRS. MOZAL-In the back of my property. MRS. LABOMBARD-I see where Nolan Barton lands are, run the whole corner on the left there. Where is, show me. MRS. MOZAL-Mine is like three lots away from there on the lake. I don’t really know where it is on there. MR. MILLER-She must be somewhere up in here along the lake. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. So I think you’re far away. MR. RUEL-About half a mile away. MRS. LABOMBARD-So, are you pretty far away? MRS. MOZAL-No, I’m not pretty far away, but I’m not concerned as I was. Thank you. MR. STARK-Is there anyone else? Okay. I’m going to leave the public hearing open, for now, in a case anyone wishes to speak after Mr. Lapper or Nace, and Miller and Michaels try to answer the individual concerns. We have a list. You’ve probably got the list yourself, Jon. Right? Okay. Well, come back and then, if anyone else wishes to speak, after their comments, will have a chance again to speak. Jon, lets go by our list here, okay. MR. LAPPER-I just have one preliminary comment before we get started. MR. STARK-Yes. MR. LAPPER-To a certain extent, the comments of all of the neighbors, to summarize, that is justification for why this is being done as a cluster subdivision. Because we’re protecting all of the 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) neighbors on the boundaries by putting all of the development closer to Bay Road where it is, and protecting all of the resources where you have the steep slopes, Glen Lake, and even Susan Drive, that whole area, we’re staying away from all the areas that people mentioned that they’re concerned with, and even though some of the neighbors are confused about that 16 foot right-of- way and what the rights are, you know and we know that that’s going to be deed restricted, and that that’s not going to be our access to the property, and there’s not going to be any access to Bay Road, and we’re using up all the development rights to the property forever, by doing a cluster. So no one’s ever going to be able to mine the mountain, get access to Fitzgerald Road, get access to Glen Lake, and that’s why this property is suitable for a cluster, and probably not suitable to do three acre and one acre lots over the whole thing. MR. STARK-Okay. Cathy, do you want to read the name and the person that had a concern? MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Mrs. Dallek was concerned about Susan Drive not connecting, would you address her concerns about Susan Drive? MR. MILLER-Yes. Susan Place is here, and the road she was talking about is Alice Drive. It shows on this overall plan, and you can see this comes in. It “T’s” and Alice Drive goes into Country Club which I believe goes over to Tee Hill Road. The concern, as we understood it, that there would be a connection through here, and that was something that was discussed, and decided there’s no way we can do that, put that kind of impact on the adjoining neighbors, and that is why we went for a boulevard design, and didn’t look at that as a second entrance. So that will not be an entry way. MRS. LABOMBARD-Mrs. Dallek, did you get all that? Okay. All right. MRS. DALLEK-I still want it in writing. MR. STARK-Okay. Next question. MRS. LABOMBARD-Mr. Rye has concerns about his privacy, as his house is going to be just south of the boulevard. MR. MILLER-Okay. His house, I showed him a photograph that I have confirming that the house that he was talking about is right in this area. You can see on this plan, this doesn’t show any of the landscape mitigation, and his house, it’s fairly open here, and I can understand his concern. What we did, in the design of the boulevard, you can see the way the boulevard comes in and swings in, that we stayed as far away from his property as we can. The house is fairly close, and it’s a narrow lot. By doing this, we’re able to accomplish a couple of things. One is, the existing pine trees that are there, they’re fairly mature. They’ve been limbed up. So you can kind of look underneath them, unfortunately, but we’ve preserved those pine trees that are there. In addition, there’s kind of a knoll back here. So as the roadway comes up, we would have to cut that road down. So this knoll that’s here will actually add some additional buffer between the boulevard and his house. In addition, the hatched green that we show there, we’re going to transplant some of those Christmas trees that are in the back. There are some pines and some spruce that are in the back here. These will be transplanted by tree spade, and that area will be filled in. So what we’re trying to do is create as much of a buffer as we can along the side of that property, and you can also see that the closest house is approximately 300 feet away from that residence, and all the rear of his property is all woods and we won’t clear anything along that. MRS. LABOMBARD-There was a person, I think, between Mrs. Dallek and Dan Rye. I think I missed that person. Maybe I didn’t. Is there anybody that spoke second? MR. MILLER-It was Mr. McFee. MRS. LABOMBARD-Mr. McFee. That’s who it was, thank you. Yes. All right. Did you get his concern, because I missed that. MR. MILLER-His concern was the access over that 16 foot right-of-way. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Then we have Mrs. Reardon. She lives across the street from the boulevard, and she is concerned about her house and being protected and any of those ramifications. MR. MILLER-And plus the drainage. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. NACE-Okay. Her first concern, if I remember right, was drainage. She rightly said that there is a knoll back here, and we can’t possibly take all this drainage back through that knoll. We don’t. The boulevard, the front section of the boulevard, will drain out toward Bay Road. We have some drywells along the way, and then down we have a low point. The County requires us to put in a low area before we get to Bay Road, so that none of our drainage can get out to Bay Road, and in that low area we have some drywells and infiltration trench connecting the drywells, to take care of that drainage. Her second concern was the fact she’s right across from the entrance, and as I pointed out, her driveway leads into her garage. Her house is off to the north of that. So that our exiting traffic will not be looking directly into her house. MR. STARK-Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-Roger Ryan, on Barber Road. He’s concerned about wetlands and ponds being filled in, and about Gosline’s pond. MR. NACE-Okay. I believe the ponds and wetlands he was talking about are in the back here. The pond, the old pond that shows on the USGS map is not that much of a pond anymore, as I understand it, and there are some wet areas, as you go down along this stream. Those are not being touched. Our drainage system, as I said, will empty into an existing drainage swale that empties into the stream, but any disturbance we have is simply up around where we’re going to put the detention pond, and well back away from the stream area. So we’re not planning on filling any wetlands in the back here. We’re not planning on touching the pond. The drainage design, he said something to the effect that we know those systems overflow every 10 years. This drainage system is designed based on 50 year return period storm. That’s a fairly intense storm, almost six inches of rain, or five inches of rain, rather, in 24 hours. That’s not going to overflow every 10 years. MR. MILLER-One of the other questions he had dealt with pollution and runoff. This system is a combination of drywells with perforated pipe. So the primary method of disposing of runoff is going to be infiltration into the soil. The detention pond will only accept the overflow, and this is more becoming accepted practice is that you want to take the first half inch, the first flush of rain, as they call it, and try to infiltrate it or retain it. That’s where most of the pollutants are, and with this system, with the drywells and the infiltration, it will accomplish that. So this isn’t a system where we’re just piping the water off of the site. MRS. LABOMBARD-Would you say this is tantamount to a State of the Art type of system? I mean, one of the best you could put it? MR. MILLER-I would say so, yes. We think so, yes. Normally, what we try to do is infiltrate as much of the soil as we can, and the runoff as we can into the soil. This particular site we have some high groundwater and some areas that we have different varying soils throughout the site. So we don’t have as good infiltration as we’d like to have. So that’s why it has to be a combination system. We infiltrate in the areas where we can, but then the overflow is handled in a detention pond. MR. RUEL-What is the soil mostly, in the area? MR. NACE-The soils are fine, sandy loams, a little bit of clay and silt loams. They vary throughout the site. MR. RUEL-High perc rate? MR. NACE-No, not a high perc rate. Perc rates were, I believe, between two and a half minutes and fifteen minutes. MR. RUEL-Ideal, right? MR. NACE-Ideal for septic systems, yes. MR. RUEL-Will there be a drywell at the bottom of the pond? MR. NACE-It is, the structure at the bottom of the pond that everything goes into is a drywell. That’s correct. MR. RUEL-So it’s more than just a pond, right? 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. NACE-Yes. The bottom of the pond will be available for some infiltration, depending on the groundwater conditions. MR. RUEL-Only if the drywell gets filled up and pond gets filled up, then through evaporation then it would remove the water? If it went beyond that, the overflow would go. MR. NACE-No. There is a pipe out of that structure at the bottom of the pond. MR. RUEL-At the bottom? MR. NACE-Yes, correct. So that’s why we call it a dry pond. It doesn’t hold standing water, except when the pipe outlet is exceeded. Okay, then the amount of water, we use that piped outlet to regulate or control the amount, the peak rate of runoff that can go on down the stream, okay, but as Jim pointed out, the upper reaches of this are all infiltration, drywells and perforated pipe and trenches. So a lot of the initial runoff we’re taking care of through infiltration. It’s just the excess in the more intense storms that’s going to go into this pond, and then the outlet pipe will handle some, and what it can’t handle will be retained in the pond until the rainfall intensity decreases and the pipe catches back up with it. MR. RUEL-Yes. So technically it’s not an overflow pipe. MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. MILLER-No, it’s a controlled release. MR. NACE-That’s what allows us to maintain a fairly dry pond. MR. RUEL-Yes. If it’s at the bottom, you wonder why you even had the pond. MR. NACE-Well, it’s a big storage tank, in essence, that takes. MR. MILLER-I believe the outlet pipe is smaller. The outlet pipe is I think it’s an eight inch pipe, where our incoming pipes are larger than that. So what happens, if we get a flow that’s greater than that eight inch pipe will handle, it’ll back up into the pond. MR. RUEL-I’ve got you. It restricts the flow out of the pond. MR. MILLER-Exactly. MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. RUEL-Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Marvin Dobert had some concerns, I think a couple have been answered, concerning mining and the frontage on Glen Lake, of which there is none. MR. MILLER-Yes. His concern has to do with that ridge I pointed out on the property, and that’s back on the homeowners association land, and that will be protected in the deed and will not be developed. As a matter of fact, any of the properties on that side, they will see no change. That steep wooded ridge that runs through there, this project will actually protect that. MR. LAPPER-Also the 500 foot buffer that we show on the map is 500 feet from Glen Lake, horizontally rather than covering the contours of the hill. MR. RUEL-Do you have any renderings or elevations of the proposed structures? MR. MILLER-The houses themselves? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. LAPPER-They’re very similar, if you’re familiar with Hudson Pointe, Roger, they’re very similar to Hudson Pointe. MR. RUEL-Yes. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MRS. LABOMBARD-Mr. Dobert really has a lot of concern for the sensitivity and the fact that the area is very fragile. MR. MILLER-Well, that’s the reason that we looked at this property and as a matter of fact, some other developers came to us a while ago, for the property at the rear, and after looking at it, we recommended they not pursue a development there, and that’s why this was done as a cluster, because of the amount of disturbance that would have to be done to the area to put roads and to build back there. That’s why we felt it was best to stay out of that CEA and out of that back wooded area and put the development out in the open area. MR. STARK-Anybody else, Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, Jane Barton, and I think she has a real legitimate question, as far as receiving a notice, or was she not on the road? MR. GORALSKI-As far as I can tell, Jane Nolan Barton was not notified and, based on our review of that Section of the Subdivision Reg’s, she should have been notified, as an adjoining land owner. MR. STARK-Okay. So what’s that do to the whole process. MR. FRIEDLAND-I’d say that the purpose of that is to notify people if they know about the project, and about the public hearing. I think, thankfully, Ms. Barton knows about it, and she’s here. So I don’t see the fact that she did not get written notice as being a problem. MRS. LABOMBARD-She also had the Nolan Camp Road, the ingress into the property, what would happen to it. MR. MILLER-Yes. I’m not sure where that road ends. My guess is, you know, there’s a series of roads that come back and loop through the back property, and there’s also a road that comes up, and I believe it comes up through a site and up by this hedgerow in this area here. So those roads will be, you know, they’re in that homeowners association property, and there’s no plans to utilize them for anything or do anything with them. They’re just existing. MRS. LABOMBARD-Where does the Nolan Camp Road connect with? MR. MILLER-I think it comes out. I don’t know the name of the road that’s back here along Glen Lake. I think it does come out onto that road, though. Barber Road? MR. RUEL-Barber. MRS. LABOMBARD-And Christine Mozal is, I know that she was concerned, and I’m not sure if she’s satisfied right now. MR. MILLER-I mean, it could be a condition. I mean, we have no proposed uses for that. If the concern was that there was going to be access from that back property, that might be a concern that our home owners will have, too, but if it was desirable, those roads could be barricaded. MR. STARK-That would work both ways, not only to, you know, people from your development go on their properties. They don’t want people coming from the other development coming on their property. Okay. Let me just ask you to relinquish the table once again. I’ll go through the public hearing to see if there are any secondary comments. Does anybody wish to speak after hearing the responses, please come forward, one at a time. MRS. REARDON-I think they misunderstood me. My name is Helena Reardon, and I think they misunderstood me. I’m talking about if there’s 40 homes there, there’s going to be 40 cars, if they have one apiece. If they have two, there’s going to be 80. Now, when they come out of that wonderful, that’s all they seem to say is that wonderful boulevard, they’re coming at me. MR. STARK-So you’re afraid they’re going to run into your house? MRS. REARDON-Right. They run into the cemetery there, more than one time. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. STARK-Don’t forget, Tee Hill Road is a main road, and they’re going a lot faster than they would be coming out of the boulevard. That’s a regular road, a public road. This is not a public road. It would be a road in the sense that it goes to that development. MRS. REARDON-Do you have young children in their 20’s or so? When they’re coming out of there, they’re not coming out at 10 miles an hour. That’s all I want you to know. MR. STARK-Okay. I’ll have them address that. MR. MC FEE-Could I look at the map one second. There is a piece of property here with a neighbor, I have a neighbor. In here, there’s a triangular piece of property. I have a neighbor that sits on the north side, where they’ve got. There’s a property in here between the barn and my neighbor, which Barber owns, and that’s going to be part of the new road, but there is another house in here, which is not on any of the maps. MR. STARK-What’s your point? MR. MC FEE-Now, the point I’m asking is, where her property and Barber’s property meet, if you’ve been on the road, it’s about that high off the road. How much property do they have for their entrance in there? Because they’re going to have to bank that road. Are they going to bank her property, or are they going to bank their own property? MR. STARK-They’re not banking Mrs. Reardon’s property. She lives on the other side. MR. MC FEE-No, I’m talking about this house. MR. STARK-Okay. We’ll have them address that. MR. MC FEE-Okay. She’s not here, so she doesn’t know. MR. STARK-Okay. What’s her name, sir? MR. MC FEE-Cleveland, Shirley Cleveland. MR. STARK-And you’re concerned about Mrs. Cleveland’s property? MR. MC FEE-Right. MR. STARK-John, has she been notified? Okay. MR. MC FEE-Another thing, as the gentleman was talking about mining, there’s, up in here, there’s a road in here they’ve been logging for the last couple of years, and they come out onto back of Tee Hill Road. MR. STARK-Who logs it? MR. MC FEE-I have no idea. We just hear them. I’ve seen them going, but they’ve been logging in here for the last two years. There’s a road on the ridge. This pond up here, the last time I was up there, it’s dry, and the ridge up there that they talk about, that’s what they’re riding. They’re riding all the way into here. MR. STARK-What road do they come out on when they log? MR. MC FEE-You come off of Tee Hill, down, it’s Alice Drive. It’s in here. Right in here somewhere, between Country Colony and here. There’s one piece of property. There’s two new houses, and there’s a piece of property in the back, and that’s where they’re going in to log it. MR. STARK-They’re logging on this piece of property and no one knows about it? MR. MC FEE-I don’t know. I know I just hear them because he was concerned about this ridge up here, everybody was asking about it, but they’ve been using that road to come all the way into here. MR. STARK-I’ll ask him about the logging. Okay. Does anyone else have a comment? 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. RYE-On that other picture, I believe my house is the only one that’s really going to be close to this, and like one of the ladies was saying, you know, you’re going to be having a lot, I would say 80 to 100 car activity, if it was two cars to a house or more, and I’m the only one that’s really going to be right close to this road, besides the other lady that I would imagine they would be coming right at her. When I bought this house, it was basically for privacy, because it’s set back in, and it’s going really the farthest from privacy, as far as the other houses around, and it’s just a major concern to me. MR. STARK-What do you propose to do about it. If this land is for sale, these people are proposing to buy it. It’s a pretty well engineered plan. I mean, if they were to put lots all over that property, you know, it would be much worse than the proposed plan. MR. RYE-I don’t know. I really don’t know. It’s just nothing like when I bought the house. It’s going to be totally different from what it is. It’s going to be planned. I mean, I’m going to have, I’m going to go from privacy to very minimal privacy, and noise and cars. It’s just a real bummer for me. MR. MAC EWAN-If they were willing to buffer more along the boulevard, along your property line, would that help you out at all? MR. RYE-Well, it definitely couldn’t hurt, but I think I’m going to have full, a lot of activity. I wish I really knew better off with these pictures exactly how bad it’s going to be for me. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, one of the things to keep in mind is that there’s a knoll right there, and when they cut that road way in there. MR. RYE-It’s not really much of a knoll. It’s almost flat. Well, it’s almost flat from my house out. MR. STARK-You’re talking out to Bay Road. They’re talking to the north. MR. RYE-My house is the only one that’s on that second picture there. The lot right by the boulevard. So it’s almost like flat to the road. MR. STARK-Not to the boulevard road. You’re talking to Bay Road. MR. RYE-Boulevard. I’m real deep off of Bay into, close to this development. Everybody else is close to the road. I’m deep in. That’s what I’m saying. I don’t know. MR. RUEL-You have a driveway access to Bay Road? MR. RYE-Yes. MR. RUEL-How many feet? How many feet are you from Bay Road? MR. RYE-A long ways. I don’t know how far. MR. RUEL-Four, five hundred feet? MR. RYE-In that picture, my house is the only one that’s in the picture. Everybody else’s isn’t even close. It’s just that it’s really disappointing to me. MR. RUEL-Do you have any ideas at all how this project could be improved to satisfy your privacy requirements? MR. RYE-Well, the house really isn’t going to be much good to me now. It’s not going to be private anymore. There’s going to be a mini city behind me. I bought the house for privacy. To me, it’s disappointing. MR. RUEL-I still think you’ll have privacy. MR. RYE-I’m not going to have anything like I’ve got now. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. RUEL-They’re building a buffer zone. They’re extending it. They’re doing everything possible to isolate you from the rest of the properties. MR. RYE-It’s just so far back in that I am, compared to the other people. I’m just concerned about all the activity, houses, cars and all that stuff. To me, my house is going to be worth less money, to me, quite considerable, compared to when I bought it for the reason I bought it. I don’t think you can do anything. I don’t know. It’s just a real bummer. MR. STARK-Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? MRS. BARTON-I’d like to address the concern about possible barricades, and that road that they’re not sure if it actually comes on to their property, I think it does, but maybe it doesn’t, but if it does, I would like to see if it could be barricaded so that, I’m concerned about ATV’s or motorbikes and dirt bikes, things like that, coming on to the Nolan Camp Road because that’s not a paved road or anything, and it can get very eroded, and I don’t want, it also is a private road. So I don’t want it to be used. MR. STARK-Does anyone use your road now? MRS. BARTON-Just us. MR. STARK-ATV’s or anything? MRS. BARTON-Not right now. MR. STARK-So you’re worried about coming from their project, the 43 houses, ATV’s going over onto your road? MRS. BARTON-Right, through the back of the property, because there already is a road there, and I’m not sure how far it comes into their property, but I know it does come into there. MR. STARK-Okay. So you want the roads barricaded? MRS. BARTON-Right. MR. STARK-At the edge of their property line, so no one can go either way. MRS. BARTON-Right, and my other concern is, since I have not been notified, and obviously, things were discussed at the last meeting, is it possible to get minutes of the last meeting so I can find out what has been talked about? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Absolutely. MR. STARK-The last meeting was only like a scoping session, ma’am. It wasn’t, it was like a Sketch Plan. MR. GORALSKI-There was no public notice except for the legal ad in the paper, for the last meeting. MR. RUEL-But minutes are available. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. The minutes are available. Just come down to the Planning Office and Maria can give you the minutes. MR. STARK-There was nothing decided then, no approvals given, no nothing. MR. RUEL-Yes, but she wants the minutes. MRS. BARTON-But something was brought up, and someone said that questions were answered at the last meeting. MR. STARK-Well, between this meeting and the Final, that’s when everything gets answered. What happened at the last meeting doesn’t count at all. They just had some concern. We said, this 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) is what we’re going to be looking for, and they said okay, and, you know, they addressed all those concerns. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, Lorraine Stein did bring up, she had a concern about whether or not any of this was going to have any frontage, if this project was going to have any frontage on Glen Lake, but she just, like I said, it wasn’t an advertised public hearing. MRS. BARTON-Okay. So there was not a whole lot discussed about it? MRS. LABOMBARD-No. They just presented an initial, it was like a scoping thing, Jane. MRS. BARTON-Okay. Thank you. MR. RINGER-Here’s a copy of the minutes of that meeting that you were asking about. MRS. BARTON-Okay. Thank you. MR. DOBERT-Marvin Dobert again. I also would encourage, I’d be strongly in favor of a barricade. I also would be willing to take you folks on a walking tour of that cut of that road that goes from, I call it up over the notch, so to speak, and just let you see first hand what’s happening back in that area. I’d be happy to do it. I just think you planning people should be well informed about this structure, this land structure up in here. With 45 units of housing in there, the only place that they can, the kids, the only place that the kids can go, it’s really wet down in here, and it’s messy. It’s messy. They call it a pond, but it’s messy. They have to go up over this little notch, and then this esker, this land esker over here is so steep that anybody or ATV’s or anybody that’s walking that area would have to come up over this little road here and then what that would do is, in my opinion, it would compromise the privacy on this side, and it would also compromise my camp, in particular. I haven’t had any vandalism in 35 years, but I’d be very concerned about that. There’s really, in order to get up on this ridge, they’d have to go up over that notch, or way around this way here, and my other concern was that there would be, then, an access around this. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you point to the vicinity of your camp again, please. MR. DOBERT-Yes. I can tell you exactly where it is. Can you see this, where it says “site”? I assume the site is the site in question, right. Okay, and this little bay right here, it shows three dots. Our camp is the closest camp to the site, so to speak. MR. MAC EWAN-Someone else had brought up that they are hearing logging from that area. Do you know of any up in that part of the property at all? MR. DOBERT-I haven’t heard any, but that doesn’t surprise me, because I was say the vertical elevation of that esker is, from Glen Lake, 150 feet. So, I mean, it’s straight up. So in order for anybody to get around this, these people, these kids that would be living in this new area here, would, they wanted to travel around this, would have to come up over that notch, and I think a barricade would be appropriate, myself. I have one more comment. Roger, you asked the gentleman out front there if there’s any way that, I can’t quite remember your wording, but you asked if there was any way that you might preserve his peace and quiet that he referred to. An easy way to do that would be to keep the zoning as it is now, one residence per three acres. MR. STARK-Okay. Does anyone else have any comments? Okay. I’m going to leave the public hearing open yet until the responses have come in. Would you like to come back, gentlemen. MR. MILLER-One of the first things I’d like to say is there seems to be a lot of concern about kids 20 years old, you know, ripping out the driveway and the entrance in ATV’s and all these other things. This is going to be a project that the market is very similar to Cedar Court, and the only difference, instead of being townhouses, they’re going to be detached, and there’s not a lot of people over there in Cedar Court riding around in ATV’s. MR. STARK-Okay. Another comment was the lady opposite Bay Road entrance. How do you protect her? Do you have any comment on that? MR. NACE-Okay. It’s a typical highway entrance, okay. “T” intersections exist all over Town. There are may one or two famous ones where they get run all the time, Dr. Krogmann’s office, but generally, you know, there’s stop signs. This is not at the end of a straight away or a long downhill stretch on the road coming out of Surrey Field. So there should be no reason for people to be going 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) 40 or 50 miles an hour coming into that intersection. There are residents coming out that live there. They know the road. There will be typical traffic control, stop sign, a stop bar. There is no reason it should be a dangerous intersection. MR. RUEL-Did you say earlier that her house is not directly opposite the road? MR. NACE-No, it is not. Let me reiterate that one more time. MR. MILLER-In addition, the driveway, we have to cut that driveway in. It’s not a steep driveway. It cannot exceed three percent slope where it comes into the intersection with Bay Road. MR. NACE-First of all, let me address, there is a bank here. It’s probably about four to five feet high. They will be cut down, okay. All of the grading necessary will be on the property for this project. None of the grading will go on to adjacent properties, but again, her house sits here. Her garage is at the end of her driveway, and her house is to the north of that. So directly opposite our exit lane on our boulevard, there is no house. In fact, there are some trees over there. If somebody comes through this and doesn’t stop at Bay Road, I think they’re going to hit a couple of pine trees rather than her house. MR. RUEL-In other words, the entrance road might be opposite her house, but the exit road is? MR. NACE-The entrance road is opposite her driveway, that’s correct, and her garage is directly behind her driveway. The house is to the north. MR. RUEL-Maybe that will satisfy her. MR. STARK-Okay. Does anyone else wish to comment on this project? Chris, do you have anything else? No? Nothing? Okay. I’m going to close the public hearing now, and I’d like to take a five minute break before we go on. Okay. We’ll reconvene in five minutes. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STARK-Okay. Jon or Tommy, if you have anything else to say before we move ahead. MR. LAPPER-Just a couple of quick comments. Dave Michaels is agreeable to barricading the roads in the back, if that’s what the Board and the neighbors would like, and with respect to the house to the south, I think the Board can appreciate that this whole project, the design, the shape of the boulevard, and all of that extra buffering were done to protect that house, which is the closest house, but if we didn’t use that entrance to this property, the only other choice would be to use the entrance up by Susan Drive, where all the other people live. Those are the only two entrances to Bay Road, we’ve chosen the one that’s wider, where we can put the buffering in and protect that fellow’s house. MR. MILLER-As you can see from that picture I just handed to the Board, that’s a picture looking, I don’t even know if that’s, we’re not, I think we’re even further away with our boulevard than where that picture was taken from, and you can see that that’s all cleared, and that’s the area we’d want to fill, and you can also see in there the pine trees that I was talking about that will remain. On this gentleman’s lot, you know, he bought this lot for privacy. You can see the width of the lot. We’re providing a buffer that’s wider than his entire lot. So, you know, if you’re looking for privacy, you buy more land, and we’re providing as much as we can. We’ve moved the boulevard to the far side of our property, away from him, and I don’t know what else we could do. MRS. LABOMBARD-Mr. Drellos, I don’t know why I wasn’t, I guess you just caught me by surprise, but I guess this whole concept of living, where you have a homeowners association, is something that I’m not tuned into, and maybe many of us that have our own homes, we have a hard time seeing it, but in the case of any of those septic tanks, of the septic systems failing on that land that’s common green space, the homeowners association is supposed to take care of it, and I think I would have a difficult time paying for, if I lived on the other side of the development, but I guess paying for somebody’s septic system is failing, but from what I hear about, my friends that live in other, like Bay Bridge and so forth, they do roofing or they do their driveway sealing, and everything all goes around, and different things are taken care of, and they meet on a regular basis, and I guess those are the covenants that you have to agree upon, when you go into something like this. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. MILLER-And one of the advantages to that if a system is failing, a homeowners association can correct it, instead of it continuing to fail for a long period of time. MR. LAPPER-There’s some responsibility. MR. STARK-Any other comments? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. STARK-Okay. John, now this is Unlisted. MR. GORALSKI-Right. You have to go through Part Two of Full EAF. I can read off the questions if you’d like. “Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?” MR. STARK-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-“Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater?” MR. STARK-No. MR. GORALSKI-“Construction on land with a depth to water table of less than three feet?” MR. STARK-No. MR. GORALSKI-“Construction of paved parking for 1,000 vehicles?” MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. GORALSKI-“Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface?” “Construction that will continue for more than a year or involve more than on phase or stage?” “Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e. rock or soil) per year.” “Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill.” “Construction in a designated floodway” “Will there be an effect on any unique or unusual landforms found on the site?” MR. STARK-No. MR. GORALSKI-“Will the proposed action effect any water body designated as protected?” MR. STARK-No. MR. GORALSKI-“Will the proposed action effect any non protected, existing or new body of water?” MR. STARK-No. MR. GORALSKI-“Will the proposed action effect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?” I would say yes. MR. STARK-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, but it’s going to be mitigated. MR. GORALSKI-“Proposed action will require a discharge permit.” “Proposed action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project) action.” That’ll have a district extension. So that’ll be taken care of. “Proposed action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity.” No. “Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system.” “Proposed action will adversely effect groundwater.” “Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity.” “Proposed action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day.” Stop me if there’s a yes to any of these, okay. “Proposed action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions.” 43 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. GORALSKI-“Proposed action will require the storage of petroleum, chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons.” MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. GORALSKI-“Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services.” “Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities.” “Will proposed action alter the drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff?” MR. STARK-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-I would say yes. MR. GORALSKI-“Proposed Action would change flood water flows.” No. “Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion.” No. “Proposed Action is incompatible with the existing drainage patterns.” “Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway.” No. “IMPACT ON AIR Will proposed action affect air quality?” MR. STARK-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. GORALSKI-“Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species?” MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. GORALSKI-“Will Proposed Action substantially affect non threatened or non endangered species?” MR. RUEL-No. MR. GORALSKI-“Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources?” MR. STARK-No. MR. GORALSKI-“Will Proposed Action affect aesthetic resources?” MR. STARK-No. MR. GORALSKI-“Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance?” MR. STARK-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. GORALSKI-“Will Proposed Affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities?” MR. STARK-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. GORALSKI-“Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14(g)?” MR. STARK-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. GORALSKI-“Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?” MR. STARK-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. GORALSKI-“Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply?” MR. RUEL-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. GORALSKI-“Will there be objectionable odors, noise or vibrations as a result of the Proposed Action?” MR. STARK-No. MR. RUEL-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. GORALSKI-“Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety?” MR. RUEL-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. GORALSKI-“Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community?” MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. STARK-Roger, do you want to put a yes on that? MRS. LABOMBARD-I don’t think so. MR. RUEL-Do you want to repeat that? MR. GORALSKI-“Will the Proposed Action affect the character of the existing community?” MR. RUEL-It changes it. MRS. LABOMBARD-The character though. The character has to do with the whole. MR. GORALSKI-Would you like me to go through some of the examples here? So you can get an idea what they’re talking about? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-“The permanent population of the city, town, or village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%.” MR. STARK-No MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. GORALSKI-“The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project?” MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. GORALSKI-“Proposed Action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals.” 45 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. GORALSKI-No. “Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use.” No. They’re using the density that they’re currently zoned for. So they’re not going to change that. MR. RUEL-It changes the density. It’s not the same density. MR. GORALSKI-They’re using the allowable density, though. MR. RUEL-But it still changes it. MR. LAPPER-But it’s permitted density, not existing. MR. GORALSKI-We’re talking about changing as in you got a re-zoning or something like that. They didn’t get a re-zoning for this. They’re just using the density they’re allowed to use. “Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects.” “Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment.” MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. RUEL-It has to be one of these items in order to change the character? MR. GORALSKI-In order to say yes, I would say, yes, it has to be one of those, or something similar. MR. FRIEDLAND-It doesn’t have to be just those. Those are just examples, something similar. MR. RUEL-It’s just my opinion, that’s all. MR. GORALSKI-That’s fine. MR. RUEL-I think it changes the character of the neighborhood. The neighborhood is not 40 homes on a small area. It’s homes spread out. The character of the neighborhood is changed. MRS. LABOMBARD-Cedar Court is right next door. MR. GORALSKI-It’s up to the Board. You guys decide. MR. RUEL-It’s my opinion. MR. STARK-You’re fighting a losing cause, Roger. Cedar Court is closer than these are, and that’s part of the neighborhood, right? MR. RUEL-Yes, okay, but pick the other side where you have individual homes. Don’t pick the side that has the multi family dwellings. MR. STARK-I don’t think it’s a problem. Go ahead. MR. GORALSKI-“Is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. STARK-No. MR. RUEL-No. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. That’s it. So, based on your review of Part 2, I recommend that you pass a resolution that there are no significant environmental impacts related to this project. MR. STARK-Okay. Do you want to make a motion to that effect anyone? RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 5-1997 , Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: 46 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: THE MICHAELS GROUP , 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 26 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer MR. STARK-Okay. Is there any further discussion among the Board, or, John, do you have any other questions? MR. GORALSKI-No. MR. RINGER-I have one question. One of the people that talked about the logging on that, is that on any of your property? Do you know if that’s going on? MR. LAPPER-We haven’t purchased the Barber property yet. So it’s certainly not being done by The Michaels Group. Are you aware of anything? MR. MICHAELS-I’m not aware of anything. MR. RUEL-Strangers. MR. STARK-Jim, you’ve been all over this property. Have you seen evidence of logging up there or anything? MR. MILLER-Well, there is. I think some of the roads that were back there are probably used for logging, and to tell you the truth I haven’t looked that carefully to see how recent it was, but it’s fairly common for people to log their property to help pay the taxes. So, you know, it may have been logged in the past, but once it’s used for this development, it won’t be logged. MR. STARK-You haven’t seen any logging? 47 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. MILLER-Not while I was on the site, no. There’s brush in there. There’s stumps in there. I mean, obviously it’s been logged. MR. RINGER-Under your proposal, there will be no logging? I mean, this will be forever wild. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MICHAELS-In fact, if we put forth our option to purchase the property, probably the first thing we would do is post it. It definitely, in the covenants and restrictions, is going to deed restrict the common area also for no use. You can’t use recreational vehicles. All those things will already be restricted to the homeowners anyway. We’re just as concerned about that. What people are buying into here is to have those provisions in place. MR. LAPPER-Sometimes you have to do some selective cutting in 25 years. So we’re not saying that the homeowners association may decide they want to do that for the health of the forest, but we’re restrict any kind of clear cutting, and any kind of logging except for the health of the woods back there, and we’ll put that in the final set of covenants. MR. STARK-Does that answer your question, Larry? MR. RINGER-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-And I’d like to make something known, and I came back to, this was asked of me, this is a subdivision and not a PUD, and the final approval really rests with us, the Planning Board, not with the Town Board. MR. STARK-That was a question that came up. MRS. LABOMBARD-Just to make sure you understand. All right. I mean, in other words, this is where the buck stops tonight. MR. STARK-Craig, do you have any final questions, Roger? MR. RUEL-Yes. I’ve got one left. This may have been asked possibly at the sketch level. If this was not clustering, 43 homes, how many homes would you get on there, without clustering? MR. LAPPER-43 homes. MR. RUEL-The same amount? MR. LAPPER-Yes, but they would be a completely different configuration. They would be built in the back. MR. RUEL-You’d have the same number of homes? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. RUEL-So clustering does not increase the number of homes? MR. LAPPER-Absolutely not. MR. RUEL-It decreases the amount of land use for homes. MR. LAPPER-By definition in clustering, you’re not allowed to increase the number of homes. You’re not allowed to change the density. MR. RUEL-And this approach gives more green space? MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. RUEL-It shortens the roads. MR. LAPPER-Yes, less maintenance for the Town on the road. MR. RUEL-And reduced cost to the Town. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. MR. RUEL-For road maintenance and road building, etc. MR. LAPPER-That’s why clustering is considered progressive zoning. MR. RUEL-So this is a definite advantage. MR. LAPPER-We think so. MR. RUEL-It would be a definite disadvantage not to cluster. MR. LAPPER-On this property definitely. MR. RUEL-Thank you. MRS. LABOMBARD-And how many square feet, again, in those units, in those homes? MR. MILLER-The minimum is 7,000 square feet, and it goes up from that. MRS. LABOMBARD-No, 7,000 is the size of the lot, which is really about a sixth of an acre. MR. MILLER-That’s right. If it was a conventional subdivision, the lot lines would be bigger, and you’d just be incorporating what’s common land here. So all that area, if you look at the layout here, there’s no units behind. All the backs of the units are all on common space. So in effect, they’ll have a very large back yard, but their property line won’t be that far. The intent is to minimize the amount of maintainable yard space for the market that The Michaels Group is going after. MRS. LABOMBARD-I just kept visualizing the clustering in Phase I of Hudson Pointe, and they were on a third of an acre. MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. RUEL-It wasn’t clustering. MR. NACE-It was a third of an acre, you’re right. It was a PUD. MRS. LABOMBARD-We talked about clustering that Phase I. That came up a lot. MR. MILLER-Well, that was a PUD. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. I understand. MR. MILLER-But those third acre lots, there was a minimum width was 85 feet, and I believe the minimum width here at the building line is 70. So this is a little bit tighter. So this is comparable to the Cedar Court, really, except for their individual lots rather than having attached. MRS. LABOMBARD-And then how many square feet in the units, in those homes. MR. MICHAELS-What we anticipate is a series of houses anywhere from 16 to 2200 feet. That’s what our initial marketing is telling us right now. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. I had forgotten that, and they’re all two story? MR. MICHAELS-No. They’ll be one and two story, one story, one and a half and two story. MR. RUEL-In order not to change the character of the neighborhood. MR. STARK-Okay. John, they requested a phasing waiver for this. Would that come in the motion or? MR. GORALSKI-That should be in the motion. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. STARK-Put that in the motion itself. MR. GORALSKI-That’s right. MR. RUEL-What’s that? MR. STARK-The phasing waiver. MR. RUEL-Yes. You did request it? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MILLER-The road will all go in at once, and then, you know, that would allow the houses to just be built without coming back for the last eight units. MR. STARK-Okay. Now the homeowners association bylaws, you submitted them? MR. LAPPER-We submitted a draft. We will update those after some of the stuff that we talked about tonight, and that’ll be done for Final. We’ll have that. MR. STARK-Okay. One last time, is there any other comments by any members of the Board? Would somebody like to make a motion. MR. RUEL-We’ve got a lot of items, don’t we? MR. STARK-Well, if you want to make the motion, Rog, and then. MR. RUEL-All right. If I miss any, you add. All right. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1997 THE MICHAELS GROUP , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: On the west side of Bay Road between Blind Rock and Tee Hill Roads, for a 43 lot clustered subdivision, with several conditions: First, the phasing request waiver is granted. Two, the applicant shall limit the entrance and exit to the subdivision via the proposed boulevard only. Three, the 16 foot right-of-way road on the north end of the property will be restricted and will not be used by lot owners in this subdivision. To satisfy some of the comments this evening. Number Four, Alice Drive road will not be extended to give access to this subdivision. Five, Beautification Committee comments such as sprinkler system and lighting will be adhered to, the comment was for low wattage. Six, the unnamed roads, logging, etc., shall be barricade, and discontinued as to whatever use they’re put up to now, and specifically with the barricade to cut off access to Nolan Camp Road. th Seven, that the applicant will meet the requirements of the Rist-Frost letter dated August 25. th Duly adopted this 26 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: MRS. LABOMBARD-And can we put in this something about posting the property, the applicant will post the property and restrict clearing? MR. STARK-He will. MR. GORALSKI-Clearing will be restricted to the clearing plan that was submitted as part of their application. MR. RUEL-That’s done. Right? 50 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MRS. LABOMBARD-And that definitely on the final stage we will see a homeowners association bylaws document? I mean, do we have to see that? MR. GORALSKI-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-I would like to definitely have that put in this, that we get a copy of. MR. LAPPER-You already have a copy, but we’re going to add that we won’t use that 16 foot access. We’ll add that to the covenants, that the homeowners can’t use that, and we’ll add about logging and we’ll add about the use of the property in the back by RV’s, that’ll be disallowed. MRS. LABOMBARD-But what about bylaws and all that? MR. LAPPER-We’ve already submitted all of the covenants and restrictions, which is the standard, what The Michaels Group proposes for its residential subdivisions, in terms of what you can and can’t do, in terms of parking recreational vehicles on your property, and all of the rules that they think are fair to the residents. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. I understand that, but what about something like the homeowners have to realize that they will form an association and these maintenance things they will be responsible for? MR. STARK-They automatically adhere to it. MR. GORALSKI-That’s all in there. That’s in the Offering Plan. MRS. LABOMBARD-In the Offering Plan, okay. MR. GORALSKI-George, one thing you want to add is that the Clearing and Grading plan be revised to reflect the comments of Rist-Frost. MR. RUEL-That wasn’t picked up? Yes, there are quite a few comments. MR. GORALSKI-No. There’s only one left, and that’s the one. MR. RUEL-What’s the date of that letter, do you know? th MR. NACE-The 25. th MR. STARK-August 25. th MR. RUEL-August 25, yes. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer MR. MILLER-Thank you. MR. NACE-Can we, since tomorrow is submittal date, can we get the application in tomorrow and follow with the plans next week? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. NACE-Okay. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thanks very much. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 29-97 TYPE I NEWMAN DEVELOPMENT GROUP OF QUEENSBURY, L.L.C OWNER: QUAKER VILLAGE DEV. GROUP ZONE: HC-1A 51 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF QUAKER ROAD AND BAY ROAD DEVELOPMENT OF A 114,731 SQ. FT. HOME IMPROVEMENT CENTER WITH A 34,060 SQ. FT. GARDEN CENTER AND A 12,000 SQ. FT. RETAIL OUTPARCEL BUILDING. ESTABLISHMENT OF LEAD AGENCY, REVIEW OF FULL EAF AND DISCUSSION OF SCOPE OF DEIS IF NECESSARY. TAX MAP NO. 59-1-5.5, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19.1, 19.2 LOT SIZE: 25.4 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay. John, do you wish to make some comment please. MR. GORALSKI-Sure. These gentlemen made a preliminary proposal or presentation to the Board, explaining basically what they’re proposing. This is a Type I Action. It’s the position of the Staff that there’s the potential for significant environmental impacts warranting a positive declaration, and requirement of the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. We’ve discussed that with the applicant. The applicant agrees with that and has actually prepared a Draft Scoping document. MR. PALING-Right. MR. GORALSKI-Before we get into whether or not you are going to make a positive or negative declaration, the issue of lead agency status needs to be addressed. We sent out notification to the involved agencies of your request for lead agency status. The only two involved agencies at this point are the Warren County Department of Public Works, which will be issuing road cut permits, and the Department of Environmental Conservation, which will be issuing several permits regarding the wetland and the stream. Both of those agencies have concurred with your request to be lead agent. MR. PALING-Okay. So we can proceed as lead agency, then. MR. GORALSKI-Right. Now, as far as reviewing the impacts, what I would recommend you do is, I believe you’ve all gotten a copy of the draft that the applicant has submitted, the Draft Scoping document. MR. LAPPER-John, are you going to have them formally pass a resolution accepting lead agency status first? MR. GORALSKI-Let me talk through everything first. MR. PALING-Okay. What I’ve got looks different than what you’ve got. MR. GORALSKI-This right here? MR. PALING-I seem to be missing part of it. MR. STARK-It’s in there, Bob. MR. RUEL-What part are you looking for, something like this? MR. PALING-What he’s holding up right now. I’ll use Roger’s, go ahead. MR. RUEL-This, is this it? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, that’s it. MR. RUEL-Right, and this is their marked up copy? 52 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. GORALSKI-That’s their full EAF. Now, here’s what I would recommend. You can, if you wish, pass a resolution establishing yourself as Lead Agent, go through Part 2 of the Full EAF and make a positive declaration, and then go into the Draft Scoping document. If you feel you have enough information, and I think you do, to simply pass a resolution establishing yourself as lead agent, and requiring an Environmental Impact Statement, then we can go right into reviewing this scoping document, and taking it from there. MR. STARK-Why don’t we just get one thing out of the way, and get the resolution as lead agent. MR. PALING-Yes. Why don’t we have a resolution that we will, is this a resolution to become the lead agent? MR. GORALSKI-Well, I gave you a resolution to become lead agent, and then the second part of that, the second resolve clause in that is either a positive declaration or a negative declaration. MR. RUEL-So we can’t do this now, can we? MR. GORALSKI-You can do that first part of that resolve clause if you’d like. Is that what you want to do? MR. PALING-Well, do the part that establishes us as lead agency first. MR. GORALSKI-All right. Why don’t I read that motion, if someone wants to make that, I’ll read it, and then someone can adopt it. MR. PALING-Fine. Newman Development Group of MR. GORALSKI-“WHEREAS, in connection with the Queensbury, L.L.C. project, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board by resolution previously authorized the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review, and WHEREAS, the Executive Director has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent, NOW, THERFORE, BE IT, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review. That would be your motion. If someone wants to make that motion and second it, then you vote on that. MR. RUEL-I’ll make that motion. MR. STARK-Second. MR. PALING-Okay. WHEREAS, in connection with the Newman Development Group of Queensbury, L.L.C. project, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board by resolution previously authorized the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review, and WHEREAS, the Executive Director has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent, NOW, THERFORE, BE IT, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: th Duly adopted this 26 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. RUEL-And then later we’ll pick up the either/or. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. GORALSKI-Now you have a choice. If you feel you have enough information, without reviewing Part 2 of the EAF, you can simply do a positive declaration requiring an Environmental Impact Statement. If you’re uncomfortable doing that, and you want to go through Part 2 of the EAF, you can do that. MR. PALING-I’m not sure how far everyone has been into this. It might be best to do that, to go the long route, if you will, and go through Part 2. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, I’d rather do the long route. MR. PALING-Okay. Lets do it that way and go through Part 2 of the Environmental Impact Statement. MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, before you jump ahead, and you can do what you’ve proposed to do if you’d like, but I just want to point out for the Board’s benefit, the applicant has requested or has proposed to do an Environmental Impact Statement for this project, and that’s been done both, I st believe, in informal discussions with John and also formally in an August 21 letter in what I believe to be the applicant’s authorized agents, NW Bernstein and Associates, to Mr. Goralski, which say right in it, we propose to cover certain issues and not cover certain issues in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement to be prepared in support of this project. Just so the Board knows, the SEQRA regulations that we’re governed by expressly state that the lead agency, which is now, as a result of your resolution, this Planning Board, must require an Environmental Impact Statement, if requested by the applicant. So again, I just want to echo something John said. If you want to go through the EAF you can do that, but you’re going to reach the conclusion, and the applicant has acknowledged and is affirmatively nodding their heads that they’re acknowledging that the conclusion you’re going to reach is to require an Environmental Impact Statement. MR. PALING-Okay, and I understand what you’re saying, and my reasoning in going this route was so that we would be better prepared when we come to scoping. MR. GORALSKI-I think if you allowed the applicant to go step by step through this draft, they will fill you in. You’ll be filled in, you’ll be intimately familiar with this project. MR. PALING-No. We’re intimately familiar with the project, but it’s part of our duty tonight, to instruct the applicant what we expect of them, okay. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-And that’s why I said, lets go through the Environmental Impact Statement and pick out what it is we want to do. Now you’re saying we can accomplish the same thing. MR. GORALSKI-By going through this, but if you want to go through the EAF. MR. PALING-Okay. Now what’s the difference between what you’re holding and the statement that we would go through, the Environmental Impact Statement? MR. SCHACHNER-When you say the Environmental Impact Statement? MR. GORALSKI-No. You’re talking about the scoping. He’s talking about the scoping document. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-The difference is they’ve already taken all of the, basically, they’ve gone through the EAF and said, okay, here are all those things listed in the EAF, and here’s what we’re going to do to address them. Since it’s confusing you, lets go through the EAF so you’re not confused. MR. PALING-Well, it isn’t that it’s confusing. I’m wondering if we, how do we know how they interpreted it is the way we would, if they skip over something they don’t think is important we might think is important. MR. GORALSKI-Because this goes through every issue and says what they’re going to do. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. MAC EWAN-And if they’re going to address something that we think is more important than the way they plan on addressing is, we can tell them otherwise, and if they’re addressing something that we don’t think is that important, we can tell them otherwise. MR. STARK-Bob, lets give him a chance to go through this. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re saving a whole step here. MRS. LABOMBARD-Good. MR. PALING-All right. Are we going to use this document? MR. GORALSKI-If you want to use that document, we can go through Part 2. MR. PALING-All right. I know in my own mind, when they, I’m going to go through this document. All right. Lets try it your way, but we may end up going back to this. Okay. MR. LAPPER-For the record, my name is Jon Lapper, and I’m here on behalf of Newman Development Group, L.L.C., to my left, who is general counsel to the L.L.C. I want to start off by saying that Mark Newman, who is the principal, who was here with me to make the presentation when we submitted the EAF at the beginning of August is out of town meeting with a tenant today, and couldn’t be here, and apologizes, but he will be here for all of the remainder of the meetings. Our consultants are Ed Garrigan, to my right, from C.T. Male. Ed will address the engineering issues. Dennis O’Malley, from Transportation Concepts, to the left, he has done the Traffic Study, and Don Kugan is the Wetlands Specialist who is sitting behind us, and he will be dealing with the wetlands permitting issues. We, together, prepared the draft Scoping document that we submitted to John Goralski and to you for your review, and we would like to just go through it, point by point, and we have the consultants to answer any questions that you would have or the public has in terms of the impacts that we think need to be addressed in the scoping document. I think I’ll turn it over to Ken to get started. KEN CAMLET MR. CAMLET-If I could, let me walk you through the scoping documents, since most of you probably have not had an opportunity to read through it carefully to this point. On Page One, we provide a capsule description of the proposed action. There’s some small changes to the square footages that are referenced here. The numbers that appear in the scoping document or the most current estimates. The initial section is a descriptive section that describes the purpose, need and benefits of the project, the location of the project, its design and layout. Continuing over to Page Two, construction and operation, and finally the approvals required in connection with the project. What we have done in the section labeled Part Four is to combine, in one section, as allowed under the revised SEQRA regulations, the environmental settings, the environmental impacts, and proposed mitigation measures to address those impacts tends to make the sections much more readable, by combining all that information in one place. Under Section Four, we discuss natural resource and human resource impacts, under natural resources, we look at impacts on land, and in parenthesis, we’ve noted those impacts which in Part 2 of the EAF, we’ve determined to have the potential to be significant, that’s the pattern for each of these items, anywhere where in the Part 2 EAF an impact was identified as potentially significant, we’ve addressed it here, in that initial parenthetical, and then have outlined how we propose to deal with those issues in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. So under impact on land, there will be some areas of the site where the depth to water table is less than three feet, and there will be construction, within the boundaries of a designated flood plan. We will address, within that section of the Draft EIS. The geological setting, potentially significant environmental impacts, and mitigation measures that we propose to minimize every one of those environmental impacts. MR. GORALSKI-I’m sorry. I don’t mean to interrupt you, but I just want to make sure the Board is following now what, you see where this coincides with the Part 2 of the EAF? MR. RUEL-Not exactly. MR. GORALSKI-He say, “Impact on land is a section of Part 2 of the EAF”? MR. RUEL-Yes, and he picks up the water table. MR. GORALSKI-He picks up less, right. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. RUEL-And then what about the excavation, is that part of it? MR. GORALSKI-Lets go through those one at a time, so that we know exactly what we’re talking about. MR. RUEL-Well, you have a small to moderate impact on Excavation for mining purposes? MR. GORALSKI-No. If you go to Impact On Land, there is going to be construction where the depth to the water table is less than three feet. They will address that impact in the environmental impact statement and address what mitigation measures they will use to minimize the impact, okay. MR. RUEL-I see that. MR. CAMLET-Mr. Ruel, in response to your concern, that “X” is misplaced. Because of the nature of the program that this was typed on, that “X” should be opposite the yes that appears in Column Three. It refers to construction in a designated floodway that is an item or two below that. MR. RUEL-I just couldn’t understand what you’re going to do with 1,000 tons of natural resources. MR. CAMLET-Yes. There’s no mining going on. MR. RUEL-That’s where you have the “X”. MR. CAMLET-You’re right. It was a typographical error. MR. RUEL-All right. MR. GORALSKI-Okay, and then if you go on to geological setting, they’re going to address the composition and thickness of subsurface material and depth to groundwater, listing the distribution of soil types, engineering properties and suitability for construction, and the topography of the site. All those things will be addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement. The potentially significant environmental impacts, the depth to groundwater and potential for soil erosion. Those things will be addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement. Unless you feel that for some reason they shouldn’t be, those things will be addressed, and then Number Three is mitigation measures to minimize those environmental impact statements. They will discuss these mitigation measures that they’re going to be using to address the potential impacts. MR. RUEL-Good. MR. CAMLET-Thank you for that help. Okay. Continuing, if that’s okay, under B on Page Three, Impact on water. Again, we pick up from those items checked off on the Part 2 of the EAF form, the project will require a discharge and wetland buffer permit from the DEC. It will change floodwater flows, at least potentially, and it will potentially allow development in a designated floodplain. So those are the impacts we’re going to focus on within the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. We’ll consider the natural setting, in terms of water resources, both groundwater and surface water, potentially significant environmental impacts associated with those features of the natural setting, potential impacts on use of potable water, potential reduction of groundwater recharge, increased runoff, runoff water quality, and potential impacts on downstream flows, and then we will address mitigation measures to offset each of those potential impacts. MR. RUEL-And stream crossing. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. CAMLET-Landscaping plan, soil erosion control techniques, stormwater control system, avoidance of direct discharges to surface water resources, potential improvement of downstream flows. MR. GORALSKI-If I could just make sure that one thing is specifically going to be addressed. A concern with Halfway Brook is that Halfway Brook is a trout stream that’s used as a significant recreational facility in Town, and I know that there are some concerns not only about the quantity of the water, but the quality, meaning temperature and how it effects the trout habitat. That should be addressed specifically. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. LAPPER-Under “Runoff - Water Quality” we can add the effect on trout stream. MR. GORALSKI-I believe that’s under “Runoff - Water Quality”. MR. CAMLET-Okay, 2D, yes, the intent was to encompass that. As part of that, we’ll make sure we address that. Okay. Then in a category, “Impact on human resources” , we’ve addressed the primary such potential impacts. MR. RUEL-Excuse me, where are you? MR. CAMLET-At the bottom of Page Three. MR. RUEL-The bottom of Page Three? MR. STARK-In the draft, Roger. MR. RUEL-This one, okay, in the letter, okay. MR. CAMLET-The draft scoping document. We’ve skipped over those items in the Part 2 EAF that had no impacts identified, and just to look ahead, on Page Five, there is a parenthetical note that appears, about halfway down the page, that summarizes those items that we propose not to address in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement because there are not projected to be any potential adverse environmental impacts of this project on those issues. MR. GORALSKI-That’s important for you to read through that note very carefully. MR. PALING-When are we going to look at it in detail, because you’re rolling pretty fast. Can we stop right now and look at this, or are you intending we look at it later in detail? MR. CAMLET-I was going to go through what we propose to address, and then go into that node and talk about those things we propose not to address, and obviously, if you think we should address anything that we’ve proposed not to address, we’ll address anything you believe it’s necessary for us to address. This is the Draft EIS. It’s the scoping process. If you think we should cover more than we’re proposing to cover, we’ll deal with any issues you think are significant, and then we’ll entertain public and interagency comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, once that’s completed, and make any additional refinements that are required based on those public inputs. MR. LAPPER-Ken, lets take a step back a second and just summarize, to make it easier for the Board. What we’re looking at, the impact on land, impact on water, and the impact on transportation. We’re saying that this project, those are the areas of concern for this Board and the community. So we’re focused on those issues. We’re not looking at plant and animal species. I mean, we’ll look at the trout stream, but there are whole sections that we’re not looking at that other EIS’s, it might be appropriate, but here we’re focusing on what the potential impacts are. So what this does is it summarizes the important issues. MR. RUEL-Right. Is it possible for you to go through this scoping letter, document, and use this at the same time? MR. CAMLET-Sure. MR. RUEL-Otherwise, there may be some elements of this form that you don’t cover at all, and this way we’ll have an opportunity to check every item. MR. CAMLET-Okay. Certainly we can do that. We’ve talked about the impact on water. The next category is impact on air, and we’ve indicated in Part 2 of the EAF that we don’t project any significant impacts on air quality. Therefore, we have had excluded that from the draft scoping document as one of the items that would be addressed in the draft EIS. The induced traffic and the other criteria that play into impacts on air do not exist with respect to this project. So we don’t meet those threshold criteria that make it necessary to address them as part of this impact statement. MR. PALING-Now, you’re not going to give us any more detail than this, when you say, that’s the end of your statement? 57 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. CAMLET-There is going to be prepared a detail draft environmental impact statement that encompasses all of the items that the Planning Board agrees should be part of the scope of the environmental impact statement. MR. PALING-All right. At what point do we go over this item by item and agree or disagree with what you’re saying? MR. GORALSKI-That’s what we’re doing right now. MR. PALING-It’s going too fast for me. MR. LAPPER-We’re giving you an outline of what we’re going to be talking about and what we’re not going to be talking about, and if you’d like us to slow down, and as Roger suggested go through the list on Part II of the EAF, lets do that. MR. PALING-When we do a SEQRA, we read it sentence by sentence and comment on every item. We’re going through this at a break neck speed, and we’re not stopping to comment on anything. MR. LAPPER-Then lets back up and pull out the EAF. MR. RUEL-That’s why I suggested that we cover every element of this. MR. PALING-Yes. I’m not comfortable with what we’re doing. MR. RUEL-Actually, we’re covering, what, Impact on Land, on water, transportation and character of the neighborhood. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. RUEL-That’s it. Now the other ones, you had no comments about them at all. MR. GORALSKI-You know what, lets start all over, okay. Lets go through the EAF, the way we always do, okay. MR. PALING-I think that’s the only way that we’re going to really understand what’s going on. MR. STARK-Speak for yourself on that, okay. MR. PALING-All right. Okay. I’m not comfortable with comparing the way that we handle SEQRA. In every other meeting that we’ve ever had, we don’t do what we’re doing here tonight. MR. STARK-We didn’t have an EIS. MR. MAC EWAN-You’ve never had an Environmental Impact Statement in front of you, either. MR. RUEL-No, we never had one, did we. MR. CAMLET-You’re going to have a Draft Environmental Impact Statement that’s this thick, that you’d be able to spend weeks on going through in great detail to your full satisfaction, and if there’s anything, based on your review of that Draft Environmental Impact Statement, that you’d like to see changed or supplemented, or supplemented or anything of that sort, we will address every one of those concerns. MR. PALING-Is that something you’re saying we get to review on our own? MR. LAPPER-Next, right. MR. CAMLET-A month or so from now, we will be submitting to you a Draft Environmental Impact Statement that addresses those items that you’ve agreed should be part of the scope of that document. MR. RUEL-Okay. That’s what we’re looking for. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. GORALSKI-Let me try one more time here, okay. They are not giving you the answers tonight. They are giving you the questions, okay. If you take this Draft Scoping document, put it next to the full EAF, okay, everybody do that. The first topic is impact on land, okay, and if you look at the bottom of Page 2 A, it says, “Impact On Land”. MR. RUEL-In the scoping document? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Okay? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Now. MR. RUEL-Water table. MR. GORALSKI-Right. Now what they’ve done is they’ve gone through the example items listed, and they’ve said construction where the depth to the water table is less than three feet. MR. RUEL-Yes. It says small to moderate. MR. GORALSKI-It’s a significant issue. Okay. They went through and found geological setting and said they’re going to address the geological setting as it relates to the subsurface, the composition and thickness of the subsurface material. MR. PALING-All right, John, if you’re saying that at some point that we get a document that we can go back and review, item by item, where we can think about it, okay. MR. GORALSKI-That’s what the whole purpose of this is. You’re just telling them what you want in that document. MR. PALING-We’re not telling them anything. We’re listening. MR. GORALSKI-Well, that’s what I’m saying. That’s why we should go through this, and if we’re going too quickly, we need to slow down. MR. PALING-As compared to how we usually do a SEQRA, we certainly. MR. GORALSKI-Well, you don’t usually give a positive declaration. Usually, you review the EAF, say there’s no significant impact, and that’s the end of it, right? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. Tonight you’re saying there is significant impact, and we want an Environmental Impact Statement. MR. RUEL-Okay, and this is it. MR. GORALSKI-This is like a table of contents for the Environmental Impact Statement. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-So you need to, as Ken goes through this and he says, okay, we’re going to address the geological setting, the way that we’re going to do that is that we’re going to talk about the composition and thickness of the subsurface material. We’re going to list the distribution of soil types, and the potentially significant environmental impacts are the limited depth to groundwater and the soil erosion. If you think there’s some other significant impact, say that, or if you think there isn’t a significant impact, say that. MR. RUEL-Okay. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. GORALSKI-And then they know whether or not to include it in their draft where they expand on this and explain all of these impacts and issues. MR. RUEL-All right. I have a question relative to that, understanding this thing. Here in the scoping document we talk about water table three feet. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. RUEL-In this, it says here, the second item, construction on land where the depth to water table is less than three feet, small to moderate impact, yes. Can impact be mitigated by project change, no. I go back to the scoping document and it says, raise site elevation by importation of fill material in order to mitigate that particular problem. Are we mitigating this or aren’t we? MR. GORALSKI-What they’re doing, they’re saying there is going to be an impact. MR. RUEL-Yes, but they’re also saying, can impact be mitigated by project change, and they’re saying no. In the scoping document, it says yes. MR. GORALSKI-No. The scoping document says what, they’re going to do something to minimize the impact. The impact’s not going to go away. There’s going to be an impact. What they’re going to do is when they say mitigation measures to minimize environmental impact. MR. RUEL-Wait a minute, when you say you’re going to mitigate something, you’re going to change it, right? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. RUEL-Now if you’re going to change it, you’re going to eliminate the problem, aren’t you? MR. GORALSKI-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-It makes it smaller. MR. GORALSKI-You are not going to eliminate the problem. That’s the point of doing an Environmental Impact Statement. MR. RUEL-Okay. How do we know to what degree is this problem being eliminated? MR. GORALSKI-You’re going to get a Draft Environmental Impact Statement that thick that’s going to explain it. MR. RUEL-I can’t read that much. MR. MAC EWAN-Roger, how have you been doing it for the last five years? MR. RUEL-What’s that, these? MR. MAC EWAN-Every time you do one of these environmental assessment forms, you go right down through the thing, and if there’s an impact on the land or water, aesthetic, archeological, we answer those questions. How could it change all of a sudden for something like this? MR. RUEL-No, I was just wondering why, in one case they said that they couldn’t do anything about it and over here they said they can, but, no, he answered the question by saying, they’re not going to eliminate the problem, they’re just going to mitigate it. MR. PALING-I’m going to listen to the best of my ability, but I’m going to hold anything, any kind of decision, until I see the document and I read it. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what this is all about. MR. GORALSKI-That’s what you’re doing. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, then I think this is not very. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. CAMLET-But we’re not able to prepare the Draft Environmental Impact Statement itself until we go through the scoping process, so we get your guidance as to what that document should include. MR. PALING-Go. I’m not comfortable, but go. MR. RUEL-It would be nice if we had everything at one time. MR. MAC EWAN-How can you get everything at one time if you don’t know what the things are that they’re going to look up. MR. RUEL-No. We could use their evaluation of this, and we could review it, with that two inch document, and then if we feel at that time items are missing, we could say so. MR. MAC EWAN-They can’t prepare the two inch document until we agree that the information that they’re going to provide for us is good enough. We’re going through this form tonight to say whether, yes, I like this idea that you’re going to address the subsurface area, the geological setting, but you need to do more about the topographic aspects of the site. Okay. We can go to the back page of this thing and say, in the sections where the impacts on open space and recreation, that they don’t want to address or don’t plan on addressing, we can say, that’s not good enough. We want to know more. That’s what we’re doing here. MR. RUEL-Craig, do you feel that we really know enough about this project to ask detailed questions about it, such as you just mentioned? MR. STARK-If you have a question, ask them to address it. MR. MAC EWAN-If you don’t feel comfortable with the information that they’re going to provide you, they’re not providing you any information tonight. They’re only providing you the game plan that they’re going to give you the information tonight, or in the document when they come back with it. They’re outlining the great novel here, and they’re going to tell you the chapters they’re going to include in the novel. If a chapter’s left out, you ask for another one. MR. PALING-Well, okay. You know at least two of us how we feel here. The other members of the Board evidently don’t. MR. GORALSKI-What would you like to do? MR. PALING-I would use the normal form that they have filled out, and I’d go over each question in there, and consider it as we do at any other meeting that we’ve had. MR. GORALSKI-And I’m saying, lets do that. MR. RUEL-He’s talking about a blank. MR. PALING-Well, I don’t care if it’s a blank or not. I’ve got theirs here, and I can follow that. Now we can follow that through. MR. SCHACHNER-You can certainly go through the Environmental Assessment Form if you wish. Just to put this into context, the reason that Staff is suggesting that it’s not necessarily a worthwhile exercise to go through the Environmental Assessment Form is one simple fact, and that fact is that, the sole purpose of going through an Environmental Assessment Form, an EAF, is for the Board to make the decision whether an Environmental Impact Statement needs to be prepared. That’s the only reason to go through an EAF, to decide whether an EIS needs to be prepared. Here, we already know the answer. The answer is, an EIS needs to be prepared. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-So all that Staff has been saying, I think, is that because we already know the punchline, we don’t need to go through the exercise to ask that question. The applicant has done us a service, to a degree, by preparing a proposed, as Craig says, outline of that Draft Environmental Impact Statement. All the Board needs to do, and it doesn’t matter how you do this. You can do this by going through the EAF, if you like, or by going through the proposed scoping document if you like, but all you need to do is tell the applicant, as Craig says, either, yes, the skeleton you’ve provided is appropriate for the document, now go home and prepare the document, 61 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) or the skeleton you’ve prepared for the document is missing pieces in the following ways or has too many pieces in the following ways. Now go home and prepare the document. It doesn’t matter how you do that. You can use the EAF if you like or not use the EAF. MR. PALING-Okay. Craig, what do you want to do? MR. MAC EWAN-I’m all in favor of going through the outline. MR. STARK-The outline, Bob. MRS. LABOMBARD-The same with me, outline. MR. PALING-Larry? MR. RINGER-The outline. MR. PALING-All right, go with the outline, and then we’ll have to see what happens later, in the detailed review. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. Again, Bob, you should keep in mind that the outline is just that. As the applicant itself indicated, they’re not providing you with the information tonight. They’re only providing you with the outline of what information they will provide in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. When you get the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, it will be incumbent upon you to decide whether the level of information it contains is adequate for your review, but the scoping is done, and we have no change, we’re scoping this tonight on the applicant’s document. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s true, and that’s why if you’re not comfortable with that, if there are things that are in there that you want to make sure are in there, that may or may not be in there, looking through the EAF is perfectly fine, if you want to do that. MR. LAPPER-I have a suggestion that maybe Bob and Roger will be comfortable with. If we go to Page Five and look at the areas that we have proposed not to look at, and you can think about those, because you’re familiar with all those areas, because you look at them every two weeks, and see if you think that we’re correct, that these are not areas of potentially significant environmental impact, under that note that Ken pointed out. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. He’s right smack in the middle of the page on Page Five, and what the applicant’s proposing is that those, everyone sees a parenthesis note, those things in the parenthesis appear to me to be the exact words from the various headings in the EAF Part II that they are stating that their opinion is there are no significant impacts in those categories, and therefore they’re proposing not to discuss those categories in the Environmental Impact Statement. So this is just another way of looking at the EAF categories and saying whether you feel there are impacts in those topics or not. MR. PALING-Okay. I am very comfortable with that kind of an approach, but it’s going to take me a minute and a half to go through it. MR. CAMLET-Take two if you need it. MR. PALING-Okay. Now, my first question is, and maybe you’ve answered it. I guess I’ve been distracted trying to do it the other way. Impact on historic or archeological resources, how do you know that that shouldn’t be covered? MR. LAPPER-Because we’ve already checked. We’ve checked with New York State. We’ve checked the circles and squares map. We know that there’s nothing that has shown up. MR. PALING-Okay. Now this is not a Critical Environmental Area. MR. GORALSKI-No, that’s correct, it’s not. MR. PALING-There’s a creek there, but there’s. MR. GORALSKI-It’s not a designated Critical Environmental Area. MRS. LABOMBARD-But there are designated wetlands there. 62 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. LAPPER-We’re staying out. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, but they are not Critical Environmental Areas. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. I understand. MR. GORALSKI-You’ll see that they are addressing the wetland issue. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. MR. PALING-Yes. They’ve got to address that, too. MR. MAC EWAN-On this particular note that’s in the middle of this, going back to the comments you made earlier about the trout stream, how would they address it, and would that fall under the impacts of open space and recreation, or would that fall under the impacts of the water quality? MR. LAPPER-We’re dealing with it under water quality. We will definitely deal with the impacts on the trout stream. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. As long as we’ve got that on the record. MRS. LABOMBARD-Good, Craig. MR. PALING-I have no issue with that. That seems fine to me. MR. GORALSKI-So, to take what Mark and Jon said a step further, everything in the EAF that is not specifically in this note will be addressed in the Draft EIS. Is that an accurate statement? MR. LAPPER-Right. Correct. MR. PALING-All right. That’s fine. That’s good. MR. GORALSKI-Then when you get that Draft EIS, you will get a detailed explanation of every one of those impacts, as well as plans with grading a stormwater management plans, and traffic impacts, and everything, what the impact on the trout stream is, the wetlands, the stream crossing, and then when you get that Draft Impact Statement, you’re going to read that and say, yes, this is sufficient and this addresses all the concerns, or you may say, no, it’s not, and we need some supplementary information. MR. PALING-John, that’s easy. That’s fine. I’m comfortable with that. I’m comfortable with that paragraph. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MR. PALING-Now that I’ve had a chance to understand and read it and understand where they’re coming from, okay. Everybody else comfortable with it? Okay. MR. GORALSKI-Do we need to go through the rest of the Draft, or? MR. PALING-I don’t think so, not with utilizing that statement, I don’t need to see the rest of it. MR. GORALSKI-Okay, because I know what I’m going to get now. MR. GORALSKI-What I would recommend, then, is that you pass a resolution, stating that there are, there’s a potential for significant environmental impacts, and that an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. Now, do you want a separate resolution on this? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, they already did one on lead agency. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-So, essentially, I think what you’re doing is the second, you know, it’s the second part of the prepared resolution, the part that say, positive declaration. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. GORALSKI-Right. I can read that portion. That’s the next step. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-“Be It Further, Resolved, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that it has sufficient information and determines the significance of the project in accordance with SEQRA as follows: 1. That the action proposed by the applicant warrants a positive declaration and requires an Environmental Impact Statement, as the Planning Board has determined that the action may include the potential for at least one significant environmental impact” MR. PALING-Yes. MR. RUEL-Okay. You mean that the action proposed may require, right? MR. GORALSKI-No. It does require an Environmental Impact Statement. MR. RUEL-May require a positive declaration. MR. GORALSKI-It does require a positive declaration. MR. RUEL-Not may, it does? MR. SCHACHNER-That’s your determination. MR. GORALSKI-That’s up to you to decide. MR. PALING-Yes. We’re deciding that it will be a pos dec, right. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. RUEL-Yes, but the way, I’m just reading this. This one doesn’t say may require. It says, warrants a positive declaration. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. That’s the point we’re making, is that, you shouldn’t be saying may require, as Bob just said, you’re saying it does or will require. MR. RUEL-Yes, may require, that’s what I said. MR. PALING-All right, then we can proceed. MR. GORALSKI-Would you like me to read that again, and then somebody, just like we did with the lead agency thing. Someone can then. MR. PALING-You mean the thing you just read, as a motion? MR. GORALSKI-Right. Read as a motion that someone can move and someone can second? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. RUEL-And then you’re going to add this statement. MRS. LABOMBARD-And then we add those. MR. GORALSKI-And then what I would suggest then is that you pass another resolution. MR. RUEL-Why don’t you add it to the first one? MR. GORALSKI-All right. Be It Further, Resolved, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that it has sufficient information and determines the significance of the project in accordance with SEQRA as follows: 1. That the action proposed by the applicant warrants a positive declaration and requires an Environmental Impact Statement, as the Planning Board has determined that the action may include the potential for at least one significant environmental impact, and that the Environmental Impact Statement should include those items listed in the document titled Scoping Document, Home Improvement Center, Town of Queensbury, 64 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) Warren County, New York, dated August 18, 1997, and prepared by N.W. Bernstein and Associates. MR. RUEL-I’ll make that motion. BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, THAT THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD HEREBY DETERMINES THAT IT HAS SUFFICIENT INFORMATION AND DETERMINES THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEQRA AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT THE ACTION PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT WARRANTS A POSITIVE DECLARATION AND REQUIRES AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, AS THE PLANNING BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT THE ACTION MAY INCLUDE THE POTENTIAL FOR AT LEAST ONE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, AND THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD INCLUDE THOSE ITEMS LISTED IN THE DOCUMENT TITLED SCOPING DOCUMENT, HOME IMPROVEMENT CENTER, TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, WARREN COUNTY, NEW YORK, DATED AUGUST 18, 1997, AND PREPARED BY N.W. BERNSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES. , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: th Duly adopted this 26 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. GORALSKI-And that’s all you can do tonight. MR. PALING-Okay. That was hard. MR. LAPPER-How about the public hearing? MR. PALING-Okay. Yes, there is a public hearing tonight. MR. STARK-I just had a question for Jon. When do you think you’ll have the EIS done? MR. LAPPER-We hope to get it to you by the end of September so we could be back to talk to you about it for October. MR. STARK-That’s all I wanted to know. MR. PALING-Okay. We’ll open the public hearing on the Newman Development application. Is anyone here to talk about this, or would like to talk about it, pro or con? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, just for your information, you’re going to, I would strongly recommend you have another public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement anyway. MR. PALING-Yes, okay. MR. RUEL-Yes, leave it open. MR. SCHACHNER-No. You’re going to have another public hearing on the Draft Environmental. MR. RUEL-Yes, depending on when you have this document. 65 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) AUDIENCE-Excuse me. Is there a decision by the Board that the draft scope is acceptable for purposes of preparing the Draft EIS? MR. GORALSKI-They just passed that resolution. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. RUEL-That motion indicated that. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. AUDIENCE-Okay. MR. PALING-And part of the record is the items that you won’t cover, that paragraph was read into the record, too. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Dennis O’Malley, who’s our traffic consultant, would like to ask you some specific questions, just to make sure on the traffic issue, which you’re all very familiar with that intersection, to make sure that he’s focused on what you’re focused on, as he goes and finalizes his traffic report. He’s already done a whole bunch of data collection and done a preliminary report. MR. PALING-Okay, now, do you want just Board comments on this? DENNIS O’MALLEY MR. O’MALLEY-Well, at this point, my comments and my information will be directed to the Board, if, in part of the public process, anyone wishes to make a comment specific to some other areas that we do not talk about, and you think it’s important enough to include in the transportation portion of it, we’d like to know that so the document covers those things. MR. PALING-Well, public input it always important, and you may want to listen, if there is anything that you might want to. MR. O’MALLEY-By the way, my name is Dennis O’Malley. I’m with Transportation Concepts, and we’re doing the transportation report. I think this may help clarify a little bit about what this process is about, the scoping document is it allows us to learn what you think are important, as part of the environmental process, so that when we prepare the report, we’ve got all those things that you believe are important, included in the document. If, for example, I was to come to this site, which we all know as the Quaker Electric site, the corner of Bay Road and Quaker Road, and I were to say, as part of our traffic study, what we’re going to include is an analysis of two intersections, the intersection of Glenwood and Bay, and the intersection of Quaker Road and the current unsignalized driveway into the Quaker Electric site, and that’s all we were going to include, you would probably come back to me and say, you’re crazy. Because as part we should also look at this intersection of Bay Road and Quaker Road, and if I thought in my process that I was only going to look at those two intersections, and went and prepared a document that only included those two things, based on what I heard tonight, and came back with a report, you’d throw the report back and me and say, wait a second, we have other areas that we think are important, as part of an investigation in this process, and that’s why, as part of what I wanted to do tonight was to hear what you had to say. I can tell you what I think are important, but it may not be what you think are important as well, and I want to get the input back from you, so that when I give you a report, I want it to include all of these things that you believe to be important to the transportation system serving this site, and so as I’m going through this process, I’m going to tell you what I believe to be the important and critical issues facing the site, and that’s just as an outline, and then I want you to come back and say, yes, you’re on the right track or, no, you’re off base, or, yes, you’re on the right track, but we think there’s some other things that you ought to include. All right, as I’ve said, we’ve got a couple of items here. Number One is the existing transportation system, and I know everyone pretty much in Queensbury understands the Quaker Road, how busy it is, how much traffic is on Quaker Road, all the way from Exit 19 of the Northway down through Route 9 and all the way down Lower Warren Street. In fact, our firm some time ago conducted a corridor study as part of 254 and have some historical data along Quaker Road and this site. What we’ve proposed to do is to look at some major intersections along Quaker Road and evaluate what the current conditions are, how much traffic is there in 1997, what we think will be the traffic at the time the project is completed, which is estimated to be 1998, if the project moves along at a fairly good pace and we get done and we’re able to do it according to schedule, and then what it will be in 1998 with this site. All right, and what we have proposed so far is to look at these major 66 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) intersections, aside from the driveway here, Quaker Road, the intersection of Glen and Bay, or Glenwood and Bay, which would be the site of the major access from the site, the intersection, the signalized intersection of Quaker Road and Bay, the intersection of the Hannaford driveway and Quaker Road, the intersection of Glenwood and Quaker Road, and the intersection of Quaker Road and Route 9, Route 9 and State Route 254. Those are the primary intersections that we have included in our preliminary analysis for the site, and all of those intersections would be evaluated on the basis that I just talked about, 1997 for Friday afternoons, for peak hour afternoons, and for Saturdays, at each of those intersections. We would evaluate it, make some projects about how much traffic we think would be there in 1998 based on historical data, and then how much traffic is going to be generated by the site. Now, how much traffic do we think the site is going to generate? Well, as we’ve talked about it, and many people have heard in other projects, we have a reference document that we use for land uses all across the country, whether it’s a residential subdivision, a shopping center. It could be anything from a drive-in bank, a McDonald’s, a Burger King. It has references that suggest how much traffic is generated by a site of a particular size and a particular use. We use that as a reference document, but in this case, there isn’t a lot of existing data on home improvement centers of this size, such as the Home Depots, the Builders Squares, and some of those other documents. I can’t think of any others right at the moment that are up in this area, but what we have done is gone and look at some of these sites that are of the same type, that may potentially come to this site, and counted cars that go in and out of those driveways. The Home Depot in Schenectady, Department of Transportation looked at the Home Depot on Washington Avenue Extension in Albany, and there’s other data that exists around the country from other consultants who have done work for other projects of similar type to estimate the amount of traffic that’s generated by these sites during the afternoon. We’ll use that information to generate the traffic. Understand also as part of that that we have an existing site. Quaker Electric is there. Ace Hardware is there, and there’s some (lost words) out parcels that have some offices and so forth. So there is traffic that’s already coming to the site. That traffic obviously is there, would be removed as part of that site, and we would be adding it. So we’ll be examining the impacts of adding that traffic, and then making some estimates about where the traffic goes, and you can look at existing traffic related to other retail uses and make estimates about where it comes from and where it will go when it leaves the site. All of that will be included in the document. We then would evaluate all of those intersections that I just talked about, and make recommendations for improvements, if necessary, related to the site. Now I will tell you that on this site, from my field investigations and from my knowledge of Quaker Road, I think this site would make two positive improvements to the area around the site, that currently are not there. Number One, we’re aware of the importance of Quaker Road, and one of the things that we believe the site is doing, and what we will propose, is that the site, which has full access on Quaker Road, will be restricted. You will no longer be able to make left turns out of that driveway or left turns into that site. That will be a right turn in and a right turn out only. All other traffic that wants to take a left out to go back to the east along Quaker Road will be forced to do so through this intersection, come back down to Bay and Quaker, make a left again and go through out along Quaker Road. The same thing for lefts in. They would not be able to do it from Quaker Road. They’d be able to do it at Bay and Quaker, come up to Bay and into the site. So this would be restricted, and we think that’s a benefit to Quaker Road, the operation of Quaker Road. That’s general. We don’t have the specifics yet, but we believe that’s part of what the package will offer. The second is the intersection of Glenwood Avenue and Bay Road, and people in this room use that from our own observations and from my own historical knowledge of the intersection. Right now here are some significant difficulties during peak hours for people from Glenwood trying to get out onto Bay Road. Bay Road has some traffic on it which has some fairly high volumes, traveling at fairly high speeds in this area, and people from Glenwood especially trying to turn left out of Glenwood to travel north on Bay Road have some difficulties. We believe that this project would create enough traffic at this particular intersection, the control would probably be a traffic signal, and so we believe that there’d be a traffic signal at this particular location. The second thing is also, if you’re traveling north on Bay Road, there’s two lanes which come up right now, and as you get to this intersection, the two dissolve and become one. It’s kind of a rapid geometric feature that is a transition from two into one, like you see in some areas. We’ll fix that. We’re going to make this so that those two lanes, when they get north of the site, would be transitioned back in. We’ve talked to the County Highway Department. They’ve indicated that those are critical issues which they believe also should be included in the document, that is some work up in here to transition these two lanes into a single lane. A deceleration lane down along Quaker Road that comes into the site, and the traffic signal at the intersection. We believe there are only two permitting agencies, as far as the traffic is concerned, the Warren County Highway Department, which has control over both Bay Road and Quaker Road. We would be required to have curb cut permits from them at both locations and review, and any highway design or modifications that we would make, would be the responsibility of the approval of the Warren County Highway Department. The second agency in permitting will be the Town of Queensbury, because they have the responsibility in the legal 67 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) elements for a traffic signal, should one be installed at this particular intersection. The recommendation is there to ensure that the device meets warrants and that the Town of Queensbury is comfortable with, as they believe that is the device controlling traffic that should be there. They would be the agency that would have to approve that. That generally gives you some outline of what we plan on including as part of the transportation elements for this particular site, and if you have anything else that you’d like to include, or you have anything that you think that I’ve covered that you don’t think should be in there, that’s part of what I want to hear from the Board tonight. MR. RUEL-I have one comment, and that is, over the years, I have reviewed many traffic impact studies, and it seems that traffic engineers have their own language, and they have a lot of formulas and mathematical symbols, etc. Is it possible for you to take all this information and translate it into plain English, so that the average layman can understand what this document is all about? MR. O’MALLEY-Yes. I guess we all get tied up in our own professional languages, and unfortunately we feel comfortable with it, and we talk to other professionals that way, that when we talk to someone who doesn’t know what we’re talking about, doesn’t use that language on a regular basis. MR. RUEL-Right. It’s like a computer manual, you know, to a layman, it means nothing. MR. O’MALLEY-I can only tell you that I’ll try to make my best attempt. Unfortunately, what happens, and often times as you’ve seen many times from many projects, I’m sure, is this level of service connotation, which is like a grading you give to a report card, and how does this intersection operate? If it’s an A, it’s a very good intersection, and if it’s an F, it’s a very bad intersection, like students coming home with the same report cards. Why we do that, in many Planning Boards and other reviewing agencies, is certainly technical people, like the Department of Transportation and Warren County Highway Department and so forth are comfortable looking at those and need to see that information, in terms that you just talked about. We often like to talk about in terms of, will a person that comes to that intersection start to experience delay which is much greater than they had while they were traveling it today? Will this project add some significant delay to that? Will these two left turn lanes which back up against one another at Hannaford and at Bay Road now have enough traffic associated with them that it’s become a bigger problem and people can’t get through it? I’ll try to give you that information in those general terms so that, in my opinion, what I think the product of that analysis will be, and talk in terms of what the driver will experience on the highway system. MR. CAMLET-If I could add to that briefly. Dennis and I have worked together before, an if Dennis doesn’t succeed in what he’s describing to you, I’m going to re-translate what he says in his traffic study for purposes of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, so there’ll be two versions of that description. MR. RUEL-I appreciate it. Thank you. MR. PALING-The access that you have on Quaker Road, the right in, right out, are you moving that bridge? ED GARRIGAN MR. GARRIGAN-My understanding at this point is no. MR. PALING-You’re not moving the bridge? MR. GARRIGAN-It’s a product of the water people and the hydrology. MR. PALING-Okay. You haven’t decided yet. MR. GARRIGAN-My name’s Ed Garrigan from C.T. Male Associates. The location of the access to Quaker Road is also a function of the existing right-of-way crossing Niagara Mohawk’s land. There is an existing right-of-way for where the bridge is now, and we wish to re-utilize that same location. It will be wider than what’s existing now. MR. PALING-You’re going to re-build the bridge? MR. GARRIGAN-I’m not certain if it will be a bridge or a culvert structure of some sort, but it will not be the bridge that’s there now. 68 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. PALING-Okay, but it’ll be in roughly the same location, but it may not be a bridge even. That’ll be interesting, with the stream there. MR. RUEL-It’s not very wide. MR. LAPPER-It’ll be wider. It’ll be more than two lanes. MR. RUEL-Yes. It would have to be. MR. GARRIGAN-That’s right. It will be wider than what’s there now. MR. RUEL-It’s inadequate now. MR. GARRIGAN-It’s inadequate to function for this site. MR. O’MALLEY-For the Board’s information, what we think is going to come out of this process is that we’ll have to construct a deceleration lane along Quaker Road. We think that width would be about 16 feet, 12 foot lane, with about a four foot shoulder, and then the radius here, again, we said this is right in and right out only. It’ll be constructed that way, and the radius would probably be improved, so that if a truck was coming in to this site, it would be adequate radius for a truck to come in. MR. PALING-Will you have an island at that access? MR. O’MALLEY-Well, from an operations point of view, we’d say we’d like to, but we know for snow removal and some other features, we have to rely on your discussion and the public work's, Warren County Public Works, to say whether that’s their preference. MR. PALING-I think the Planning Board would prefer an island in there. Because it helps, so they don’t violate the flow of traffic. MR. O’MALLEY-Obviously, the benefits of doing that is that no one can or would have difficulty to come out and turn left at that location, and we’re trying to create a feature that would not permit that to happen. So a raised island, obviously, is the best feature for doing that. I’m sure Warren County is going to want to make sure the island is set back far enough so snow plows can travel down Quaker Road and not hit curbing. MR. PALING-I think you’ve already stated that any curbing you use will be either granite or cement. Am I correct? MR. LAPPER-Cement. MR. PALING-No wood. No asphalt. MR. O’MALLEY-That’s correct. MR. RUEL-Well, we’re going to get all these details anyway. MR. PALING-Well, we’re trying to tell them what they should be looking for. Does anyone wish to make any comments about this layout that we have here? GEORGE DRELLOS MR. DRELLOS-George Drellos, Queensbury. Why isn’t this entrance more utilized up here? It’s just for trucks, is that it? MR. PALING-Truck entrance, yes. MR. DRELLOS-Can you get to it from this way? MR. O’MALLEY-Yes. MR. DRELLOS-Well, don’t you think everybody would want to bypass the light and cut through? 69 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. LAPPER-Only if you’re going north. MR. O’MALLEY-Only if you’re going north. There’s not that very many going north. MR. DRELLOS-So, basically, you’re forcing everybody out this one entrance, except for this one. MR. O’MALLEY-Those people who want to go back to the west on Quaker Road, if they were in this part of the parking (lost words). MR. DRELLOS-Well, wouldn’t it be better, maybe, to position it so you could use both entrances, maybe give people better access out? Instead of trying to force everybody out, kind of like one. MR. LAPPER-You want to use the signalized intersection. MR. DRELLOS-Well, being a signal light, wouldn’t it be awful close to this one? MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Chairman, if I could, these are details of the design that will be addressed at the time of the public hearing of the Environmental Impact Statement. MR. PALING-Okay. We consented earlier to public comment, John. I’m not going to cut it off. MR. GORALSKI-I know, but I’m just saying, these things will be explained in the, that’s the purpose of preparing an Environmental Impact Statement. MR. DRELLOS-I understand, but maybe if he knows my concerns, maybe he can address them at the meeting. MR. PALING-Yes. Go ahead and raise your questions. MR. DRELLOS-That’s all. I was just wondering why, you know, we have an entrance here. Maybe we could utilize this one more up here. Instead of putting a traffic light here, so close. I don’t know how many feet it is to this one, 500 feet. I mean, that’s pretty close. MR. PALING-Okay. What we don’t want to do is engage in a dialogue. We’d like you to express your concerns, and then we’ll look at it. Does anyone else care to comment? GARY HIGLEY MR. HIGLEY-Gary Higley from The Sports Page on the corner of Quaker and Glenwood. Just to make sure that the traffic study on Glenwood itself is involved in this. You talked about the traffic intersection at Glenwood and Quaker, but you didn’t talk about Glenwood itself, the traffic effecting that road. MR. O’MALLEY-It will be. MR. HIGLEY-Okay. That’s the only question. MR. PALING-Okay. I think everybody’s been heard from that wants to be. Okay. Thank you. All right. I guess that’s all the comments we have, both from the Board and from the public. MR. LAPPER-We’ll see you when we have the DEIS. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. O’MALLEY-Thank you. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 23-97 TYPE: UNLISTED EXIT 18 BUSINESS PARK, INC. OWNER DOUGLAS L. MABEY ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 24,000 S.F. ADDITION TO WAREHOUSE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 200’ BY 50’ SELF-STORAGE BUILDING. PER SECTION 179-26 ALL LAND USES IN LI ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REIVEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 15-89, 62-89 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 7/7/97 70 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/9/97 TAX MAP NO. 137-2-4.1 LOT SIZE: 5.066 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 GIFFORD HARVEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT ndth MRS. LABOMBARD-There was a public hearing on July 22 and August 19, which was tabled. MR. PALING-Okay. John? MR. GORALSKI-I’m looking for my notes. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, when we talked about this before, we were concerned about a planting schedule on it, and I think that’s what we’ve been provided with, in this, with the new print. MR. GORALSKI-That’s right. MR. RUEL-Yes, but I think you’re also waiting for Town Highway Department approval, the two items. MR. PALING-Right. You want to read Sue Cipperly’s note into this, John, or how do you want to do it? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, I can do that. Sure. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-This is a memo from Sue Cipperly to the Planning Board “Subsequent to the August 19, 1997 Planning Board meeting, I asked Mr. Naylor to review the map of this project, as requested by the Planning Board. Mr. Naylor did not indicate any problems with the project as shown, but declined to write a letter to the Board. The applicant did discuss the situation with Mr. Naylor on 7/22/97 as indicated in his letter of August 9, 1997, and it appears the project will comply with the concerns expressed by Mr. Naylor at that time.” MR. PALING-Well, do we or do we not have Mr. Naylor’s approval? MR. GORALSKI-We have a verbal approval from Mr. Naylor. MR. PALING-Why don’t we have a written approval? MR. GORALSKI-Because he didn’t write one. MR. RUEL-He does that all the time. MR. PALING-Why? MR. GORALSKI-I don’t know. MR. STARK-Does he write approvals for other projects, or just give verbal approvals? MR. GORALSKI-Sometimes he gives written approvals, sometimes he gives verbal approvals. Usually, I mean, it depends. MR. STARK-I have a question for Mark. Mark, what would you prefer? MR. SCHACHNER-It’s not a legal issue. MR. STARK-It’s not a legal issue. 71 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. SCHACHNER-It’s not a legal issue. When you say, what would I prefer, in reference to the Highway Superintendent expressing his approval? MR. PALING-Or anyone. When we ask for the Water Department or anyone’s approval, shouldn’t we expect it in writing? MR. SCHACHNER-There’s no law that requires it at all, writing or verbal or otherwise. It’s really a matter of policy. MR. RUEL-We went through this once before, remember? MR. PALING-Not this, no. We went through a different, something different, relating to the same subject, but not what we’re talking about here. I don’t think, I can’t remember going through this, but I can’t remember a department head refusing to put it in writing. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the big deal? We’re getting hung up on a technicality. The staff’s saying that he approved it. Lets move on. MR. PALING-How do you know he approved it? MR. STARK-John said so. MRS. LABOMBARD-John said he did. MR. GORALSKI-Sue spoke to him, and he indicated that there was no problem with the access the way it was presented on the plan. MR. RUEL-It’s in the letter, yes. MR. PALING-We’re the same Board that just went through the Ermiger thing and we thought we were rock solid, and then all of a sudden we say that we’re not. MR. GORALSKI-I’m just telling you what happened. If you’re not comfortable with it. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. You’ll never hear me say I’m against anything in writing, for the same reasons, but I’m just saying it’s not a legal requirement. It’s a matter of policy. MR. PALING-Well, I will go with how the Board feels. I’ll let the Board know that I feel that I don’t see any reason why they can’t write a letter of approval for this, and I’d like to see it, but I’m going to go. Craig, you think it doesn’t make a difference, that’s what you think. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff is reassuring us that DPW says it’s okay. So that’s good enough for me. MRS. LABOMBARD-I don’t think it would hurt for him to put a little blurb down. MR. STARK-John, the Water Department, Sewer Department, do they always put it in writing? MR. GORALSKI-As Mark said, there’s nothing written down that it has to be one way or another. There are times when applicants just go to the different departments and talk to them and get their comments on it and put it on the plan. There are other times when it gets put in writing. Let me just explain one thing to you. I can’t force Mr. Naylor to put anything in writing. I don’t believe that you can force Mr. Naylor to put anything in writing, and the applicant can’t force Mr. Naylor to put anything in writing. MR. PALING-Well then what good is Highway Department approval? It seems to me, by the tone of this letter, he was requested to write a letter, because it said he declined to write a letter. Therefore, he must have been asked to write one. MR. GORALSKI-That’s correct. MR. PALING-It seems odd, to say the least, that he would approve it but not put it in writing. MR. GORALSKI-I was not there when Sue discussed it with him. I can say that it’s certainly possible, he’s very busy working on Sweet Road, that he didn’t have time to put it in writing, but I have no idea why he didn’t put it in writing. 72 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. STARK-I would prefer to have it in writing, but if we can’t get it in writing, his verbal okay is fine. MR. RUEL-Is there a signature line on the plan? MR. GORALSKI-No. MR. RUEL-Okay, and we have no regulations. Therefore, it can’t be enforced. I would strongly recommend that we start putting in a requirement for signatures on the plan. MR. RINGER-Well, in this case, I don’t think we should hold the applicant up for an internal problem that we have. So I think we should go on this one now, and discuss it at another time if we feel we need it written or not. MRS. LABOMBARD-I agree. MR. RINGER-We shouldn’t hold an applicant up for an internal problem that we may have. MRS. LABOMBARD-Correct. MR. HARVEY-Thank you, Mr. Ringer. I appreciate that. MR. PALING-We already did this once already, along the same lines for the Cerrone Subdivision, to expedite matters because he refused to sign, he insisted upon being the last to sign it, and we said, okay, we don’t want to hold progress. Therefore, I signed it before he did it, and we passed a resolution that we would be the last to sign any prints. I will go along with the Board again, for tonight, but what I’m going to do, I’ll tell the Board, is that I’m going to call Connie Goedert, who’s already called me on this matter, and I’ll tell her what happened tonight, and ask her to put this in the same reconsideration or whatever review that’s going on now about this picky stuff we get into and hold the applicants up. So I’ll go along with the Board, and we’ll say okay, but I think we’re taking a risk, when we let anybody off the hook like that, and don’t require it in writing. MR. RUEL-That’s a change of requirement. That’s all. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, I’m going to tell Connie that it was the consensus of the Board, I think, five to one here tonight, that we want this documented, and we’ve already told her, in a previous letter, the order in which we wanted to see the print signed, or the last signing comes here. All right. I’m not going to belabor the point. Lets see. What have we got? The public hearing was tabled. So the public hearing is open. Does anyone on the Board have any questions on this matter? Okay. Does anyone in the public wish to comment about the Exit 18 Business Park? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-All right. Then the public hearing was tabled. It is now closed. This is Unlisted, but we don’t need a SEQRA on this. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, you should do the Short Form. MR. PALING-Short Form. MR. RUEL-All right. Short Environmental Assessment Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 23-97 , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: EXIT 18 BUSINESS PARK, INC. , and 73 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) 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 26 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Yes. I have one more comment before we go to the resolution. I’d like to request that the resolution say, with the applicant’s agreement, that the plantings will be per the print, and that they will be maintained, and by that we mean they’ll be weeded and clipped, that kind of thing, because we’ve, in the past, let things be planted, and then they go to weed, but we never said maintain. So I’d like to add planted and maintained per the resolution. MR. RUEL-I’ll put it in, but what kind of maintenance are you talking about? Forever? MR. PALING-Yes, forever. Sure. That’s what we’re talking about. MR. RUEL-Okay. All right. I’ll make a motion. MR. HARVEY-Mr. Paling, the owner retains a professional landscape maintenance firm. He has an irrigation system. So it’s very well maintained. He’s not going to let that slide downhill. MR. PALING-If you’ve ever been along Route 9 there near Round Pond Road, near the dentist’s office. MR. RUEL-Passarelli. MR. PALING-See, that we got burned, and we come back, because all we said was plant it, didn’t say maintain it, and look at the mess that you have to look at today. We don’t want to do that again. That’s all we’re trying to accomplish, and it sounds like it’s going to be done that way from what you say. MR. RUEL-As indicated in the written resolution, with the condition that plantings as submitted per the plan, and also that plantings be maintained. 74 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. HARVEY-Agreed. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 23-97 EXIT 18 BUSINESS PARK, INC. , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: As indicated in the written resolution, with the condition that plantings as submitted per the plan, and also that plantings be maintained. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 23-97 EXIT 18 BUSINESS PARK, INC. for a 24,000 sq. ft. addition to a warehouse and construction of a 200’ by 50’ self- storage building; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 6/23/97, consists of the following: 1. Application 2. Map - Topographic Survey 3. Maps - C-1, C-2, D-1 dated 6/23/97 4. Maps - C-1, C-2, C-3, D-1 revised 8/4/97 with letter 5. Map C-3 revised 8/21/97 with letter Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 8/25/97 - Memo from S. Cipperly 2. 8/19/97 - Planning Bd. Resolution - table to 8/26/97 3. 8/19/97 - Staff Notes 4. 8/8/97 - Rist Frost comments 5. 8/4/97 - Letter from G. Harvey, P.E. 6. 7/22/97 - Planning Bd. Resolution - tabled to 8/19/97 7. 7/22/97 - Rist Frost comments 8. 7/22/97 - Staff Notes 9. 7/21/97 - Letter from Gifford Harvey 10. 7/21/97 - Memo to P. Naylor from J. Goralski 11. 7/18/97 - Rist Frost comments 12. 7/9/97 - Warren Co. Planning Bd. Resolution - Approve 13. 7/7/97 - Qu. Beautification Comm. resolution - Approve 14. 7/7/97 - Letter to W. Levandowski from J. Goralski Whereas, a public hearing was held on 7/22/97, 8/19/97, 8/26/97 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to Approve Site Plan No. 23-97, EXIT 18 BUSINESS PARK, INC. 2. The applicant shall present two (2) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 75 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. 7. All engineering fees shall be paid before a building permit is issued. th Duly adopted this 26 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 10-97 TYPE II TOP OF THE WORLD GOLF RESORT, INC. OWNER: TOP OF THE WORLD VENTURES ZONE: PUD LOCATION: OFF LOCKHART MOUNTAIN ROAD PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF SITE PLAN 36-86 AND 3-87 TO CREATE A SEPARATE LOT APPROXIMATELY 71 ACRES IN SIZE FOR THE GOLF RESORT SO THAT IT CAN BE OWNED AND OPERATED AS A SEPARATE ENTITY WITHIN THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, WHICH COVERS A TOTAL OF APPROXIMATELY 1300 ACRES. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY TAX MAP NOS. 24-1-5.2, 5.3, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3/24-2-47.1 (PORTION) LOT SIZE: 1300 ACRES SECTION: 179-58 DAN SMITH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT thth MRS. LABOMBARD-Public hearing on March 18 and August 19 of this year which were tabled. MR. PALING-Okay. Public hearing is tabled. This is a Type II. John, this stays a Type II? MR. GORALSKI-It’s exempt because the APA has reviewed it, and it’s an exempt action. MR. PALING-Okay. So we don’t need a SEQRA. Okay, because of APA, okay. John, do you have any new input or input on this? MR. GORALSKI-You received the memo, right? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-You received a memo and whole package of stuff that you requested at the last meeting. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-At this point, I don’t have anything additional to that. MR. PALING-Okay. We received voluminous stuff, which I read. Let me just go over my notes a minute. Okay. I think what I’m going to do is ask the applicant to tell us what’s gone on since the meeting, if there’s anything significant that would effect the way that we look at this. If you’d identify yourselves, please. MR. SMITH-Okay. My name is Dan Smith. To my left is Jim Feeney. We were here about a week ago, and as the Board probably noticed, there was some conflicts between the homeowners association and the original developer, often referred to as the Galesi Group, and there was one conflict between the association or the homeowners and the golf course purchase, if you will. To 76 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) make a long story short, we’ve got a Park Agency permit for this two lot subdivision. Joe Walsh is seated to my right. Joe represents the homeowners. Joe has resolved, I believe, most of the conflicts that the association or the townhouses had with the developer, and we have entered into a handwritten, scribbled, but effective, agreement, basically saying that the road from the gate house up to the golf course, looping around, for those of you that went up there, there’s a tree well. We will pay four shares of that road. So we have agreed to pay that. Famous last words, I think that Joe will say that they’re in agreement, and I think we all ask you to approve this as a two lot subdivision. I had a prior conversation with John this morning about whether or not you would approve this because it wasn’t on a road. MR. GORALSKI-You’re all set. MR. SMITH-That’s all taken care of. It’s not an issue. MR. PALING-Okay. The access we’re talking now? MR. GORALSKI-That is not an issue. MR. PALING-Okay. What’s changed since we talked about it? MR. GORALSKI-Several things. One is that it basically says, what the Ordinance says, you can’t build, you can’t build a principal building. It doesn’t say you can’t create a lot. Second of all, because this is within the PUD, there is access to the site, and thirdly, they have, or it’s my understanding they have an easement that’s written into their purchase agreement that will always give them access to this parcel. MR. SMITH-Not only that, you have about 66 precedent units up there. Every townhouse is also not on a town road. MR. PALING-Okay. So then the access is not a factor, and the demolishing of the motel has been, we know about that. That’s all covered with a bond. MR. GORALSKI-My understanding is that’s going to take place. MR. SMITH-The permit we have from the Park Agency, or that will be issued once this Board signs off requires a bond. I have spoken with the Park Agency staff, and they’ve agreed to the tune of $10,000. MR. PALING-Okay. Right. That’s what I think it was before. Do you want to turn it over to the homeowners and see? MR. SMITH-Sure. MR. PALING-Okay. What I’m going to do then, to do this right, is, well, the public hearing was tabled, so it’s not closed. Go ahead. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOE WALSH MR. WALSH-Thank you. This is Joe Walsh again, and since last Tuesday, we have accomplished basically two agreements. We have an agreement with the sponsor, and I would like to present that to the Board tonight, which really addresses the various concerns that we raised last week, primarily dealing with performance bond issues. There are some monetary issues which really relate to the Offering Plan and have nothing to do with either the APA or the Town’s function, but that is also memorialized in this letter agreement, which was signed today, by the sponsor’s representative. I don’t have an original. I have a fax back of the original. MR. PALING-I’m not sure we want this, do we? MR. RUEL-This isn’t part of the 71 acres, is it? MR. PALING-That’s an agreement between yourselves and this group, right? MR. WALSH-And the sponsor group. 77 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. PALING-And the sponsor group. Okay. I don’t see where we enter into that. MR. SCHACHNER-The Sponsor Group is probably some entity of the Galesi Group, as opposed to the Golf Course purchaser. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-And I think the homeowners association council has indicated that he’s offering this agreement for our records if we want it. I don’t think we’re obligated to take it. It’s really up to the Board. MR. PALING-Lets go along and see at the end if we do or don’t want it. MR. WALSH-I would offer it only because last week we tried to make the point that part and parcel of your approval is reference that the process is subject to the APA permit conditions. MR. RUEL-I don’t think so. I don’t think we said that. MR. PALING-I think the APA was separate. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, the Staff’s position is in agreement with the statement just made by the homeowners association council, and you’ll notice in your memo, Staff memo says, on the first page, sort of roughly almost exactly halfway down. It says, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board granted conditional approval to the project contingent upon compliance with the APA permits. MR. RUEL-That’s not the Planning Board. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. When I say the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, I’m referring to the Planning Board. MR. RUEL-You are? MR. PALING-Well, that says the Town of Queensbury Planning Board granted conditional approval. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Ten years ago when they approved this PUD, the Town Planning Board said, as part of their approval, that you follow the permitting applications for the APA permit. The approval for the PUD was contingent upon those permits being fulfilled. Okay on that? MR. SCHACHNER-If I could interject, I don’t know that we need to get bogged down here. I think the Homeowners Association council is merely offering to include this agreement as part of our records. I don’t see any harm in doing that. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-I have no objections to look at it. MR. WALSH-Yes. That’s really our intent. It’s only to show that the sponsor does acknowledge that there are discrepancies between the APA permit as it stands, and basically they are agreeing to take care of those concerns, as the far as the performance bonds. So it’s offered only in that context from us. There is a separate letter agreement which Mr. Smith referred to, which is an agreement between the HOA and the golf course applicant. As Mr. Smith indicated, it basically provides for a shared maintenance agreement formula on the road, and again, I would offer that only as a copy for the record. MR. PALING-That one, I was wondering if we should read that into the record. MR. WALSH-Maybe just give a copy and make it part of the record. It’s kind of two pages and scribbled all over. MR. RUEL-No, I wouldn’t. 78 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. PALING-All right. Let it go. Just give them to John. All right. Lets put it this way. What objections does the homeowners association now have? MR. WALSH-None whatsoever. MR. PALING-Good. MR. WALSH-In fact, we’re here to endorse the project tonight. MR. PALING-All right. Then we thank you. Is there anyone else who would care to discuss this matter, talk about this matter, pro or con? Okay. If not, the public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-All right. Okay. The public hearing is closed. We’re exempt. Now, we can go right to a motion. MR. RUEL-All right. I’ll make a motion. MR. PALING-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 10-97 TOP OF THE WORLD GOLF RESORT, INC. , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: For a modification of Site Plan No. 36-86 and 3-87, to create a separate lot approximately 71 acres in size for the Golf Resort so that it can be owned and operated as a separate entity within the Planned Unit Development which covers a total of approximately 1300 acres. th Duly adopted this 26 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Okay. Craig’s got a question. MR. MAC EWAN-The infamous letter of last week. MR. STARK-Lemery and Reid. MR. MAC EWAN-Lemery. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-About Ermiger? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s going on with that, and where do things stand? MR. GORALSKI-We have filed a civil suit in Town Court against Mr. Ermiger regarding the hours of operation of his go kart track. MR. STARK-When will this be heard? MR. GORALSKI-They usually hear it within 21 days. They have to schedule it. Originally it was scheduled for Judge Muller. He had a conflict, and they have to re-schedule it to Judge Bacas’ calendar. MR. STARK-So it’s going to be after the end of the season? 79 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MR. GORALSKI-Absolutely. MR. PALING-Yes. What part is McDonough or the motel playing in this? MR. GORALSKI-None. MR. PALING-Will they play any? MR. GORALSKI-We may have to call them as a witness, if it goes to trial, but otherwise, it’s the Town taking enforcement action against Mr. Ermiger. MR. RUEL-When does the track close down? MR. GORALSKI-I don’t know. MR. RUEL-Tomorrow? MR. PALING-I doubt it. They stay open at least weekends after Labor Day, don’t they? MR. STARK-No, every day. MR. PALING-After Labor Day, though. MRS. LABOMBARD-They’re open. They’re open all the time. MR. STARK-What about Lombardo? MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Lombardo’s attorney and engineer are speaking with the Department of Transportation at this time. We met, I guess it was last week, or two weeks ago now, with Mark Kennedy from DOT, and both, well, I told them that I did not endorse opening another road cut there, and that I felt that if they wanted to move the road cuts in some way to help them out, that is a possible option. Mark Kennedy told him that DOT’s position is that they do not need more than two road cuts on that site, and they would not give him a permit to open any other road cuts. MR. PALING-We kind of concluded three was what’s needed there. MR. GORALSKI-Actually, on your approval it says that they have three, and that when they develop the center part, that they eliminate another road cut, that they would only have two in the end, also. MR. PALING-Is there some way you can re-configure that to get a quick entrance to the southerly unit is what’s hurting him right now, I believe. You can’t rent that building. MR. GORALSKI-Well, I’ll tell you that we had discussions about what’s hurting him right now, and the discussion centered around the fact that having a road cut in front of that building is not the only thing that’s preventing him from renting his parcel. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re talking the new building that he put up or the new addition portion of it? MR. GORALSKI-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a self made, how do you want to label it? MR. STARK-Hardship. MR. MAC EWAN-Hardship, there you go. Thank you. Because when he got approved for that thing, he only had two curb cuts. MRS. LABOMBARD-What else is hindering him? MR. GORALSKI-That’s it, because that’s all, or what else is hindering him from renting it? This is simply my opinion of what’s hindering him, and it’s really not appropriate to go into it right now. 80 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/26/97) MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. That’s what I thought you were going to say. Okay. MR. STARK-That’s it. MR. PALING-Okay. Any other business to come before the Board? MR. STARK-Site visits. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, when are site visits, tell me. MR. PALING-Okay. If everybody agrees, we could go one more time. So the site visits will be thth the 11, Thursday the 11 at four o’clock. Everybody okay? We’ll be right there, and then our thrd two meetings will be on the 16 and the 23. Then the next site visits we may go back to Saturday mornings. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman 81