Loading...
1999-09-28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1999 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY TIMOTHY BREWER ROBERT VOLLARO ROBERT PALING LARRY RINGER ALAN ABBOTT PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 29-97 LOWE’S COMPANIES, INC. MODIFICATION OWNER: SAME ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 251 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ERECT A FENCED GARDEN CENTER AREA, THE PROPOSED AREA WILL CONSIST OF REPLACING THE EXISTING ASPHALT WITH CONCRETE PAVING AND INSTALLING A 12’ HIGH CHAINLINK FENCE WITH SCREENING FABRIC, ALSO TO STRIPE ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES ALONG THE REAR OF THE BUILDING TO MAINTAIN THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. TAX MAP NO. 59-1- 5.5 LOT SIZE: ACRES SECTION 179-23 PERRY PETRILLO & DAN CURRIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 29-97, Lowe’s Companies, Inc., Meeting Date: September 28, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes to modify the garden sales located on the west side of the existing Lowe’s facilities. Site plan modifications are reviewed and approved by the Planning Board. They propose to add an additional 13,.910 square feet of enclosed space to the 27,297 square foot garden area. Staff Notes: The applicant has utilized a portion of the parking area along the west side of the site for display of garden materials. This display area was not identified on the approved site plan, and utilizes a portion of the site parking area. The proposed modification does consume a portion of the site parking, and does have a visual/aesthetic impact on the Bay Road Corridor. The proposed project does not interfere with the required amount of spaces for the store (605), they propose 606. Our office has received comment over the last year regarding the visual impact of the existing outdoor display area. Recommendations: Staff would recommend approval of the site plan conditioned upon adequate visual screening of the display area from Bay Road. Additional plantings should be located on the existing green area between the main entrance and the truck entrance. Staff would also recommend the perimeter of the proposed fence be landscaped.” MRS. MOORE-Craig, do you want me to read in the letters from the Fire Marshal? MR. MAC EWAN-You have a couple of them here. You have one to the architect, and you have one from the Fire Marshal. MRS. MOORE-Yes. I’ll start with the August 31, 1999 one. This is to the Store Manager. “Dear Mr. Currie, Thank you for meeting with me to discuss the proposed addition to the garden center. The proposed changes to the garden center, as explained by you appear to meet the intent of the code, however, the plans we have in our office at this time do not reflect the same. Please indicate the following changes, and re-submit your plans: 1) Two gates should be installed in the addition, one north, and one south, at least 12 feet wide, to maintain the required fire lane through this area. These gates should be full height. 2) A clear path, at least 12 feet wide, must be maintained between the north and south gate, to allow fire apparatus to pass. This area must not be used for storage of any kind. 3) A gate at least 5 foot wide, equipped with panic hardware, is required along the west fence, in line with the exit doors leaving the store and the existing “emergency gate”. If you plan to move the existing emergency gate to the new location, the opening created in the intermediate fence must be maintained. The intent here is to allow your customers and your employees a clear path to 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) safety, from the store and from the garden area. Please note that additional fire lane, and exit signs may be required in this area. Please give me a call if I can be of any further assistance.” Sincerely, Christopher J. Jones Fire Marshal” I’ll read a letter dated September 21, 1999, to Mr. Petrillo, “Enclosed, please find a copy of the letter, sent by this office, to Mr. Dan Currie, Store Manager, Lowe’s Home Centers Inc. Queensbury, New York. Per your request, I will clarify point number 1….. 1) Gates should be installed in the addition, on the north end, and on the south end, to allow fire apparatus to pass through the proposed addition. The overall width of the gates should be at least 12 feet. These gates should be full height. A clear path, at least 12 feet wide will have to be maintained between the north gate and the south gate. If I can be of any other assistance, please call. Sincerely, Christopher J. Jones Fire Marshal” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. Is there anyone here representing the applicant? Would you come right on up to the table, please. Good evening. Could you identify yourselves for the record, please? MR. PETRILLO-Good evening. Yes, my name is Perry Petrillo. I am the architect of record for the project. I was the architect of record for the original building. I’m here to represent Lowe’s regarding this Garden Center expansion. Lowe’s has been in the community now for approximately one year. Due to strong sales over this period, the need has arisen for a larger area for stocking of their exterior bulk goods. Due to the large nature of these products, such as bag mulch, rocks, things of that nature, live shrubs, plants, trees and fencing, the need has arisen for a larger area to house these products. It’s my understanding that in the past I’ve heard that there was a problem with them storing stuff in the parking lot, and I guess in view of the road, and the other problem is once that problem was basically cleared up, and they moved some of the product to the rear of the store, there was also a problem with theft, and product leaving the site. The proposal for the enlarged Garden Center is along the Bay Road side. The existing Garden Center faces Bay Road. What we propose to do is enlarge it, basically 65 feet in width across the front, by 214 feet in depth, running along the back, the side of the building. I’ve had conversations with Mr. Jones, the Fire Marshal. We’ve taken into account his comments regarding the gates, and we will be providing a pair of 12 foot wide by full height gates in the front, and then a pair of six foot wide by 12-foot high gates in the back. So in the front we’ll have a 24-foot wide opening, and at the rear we will have a clear 12- foot wide opening, for truck passage. We will also provide a striped area for that access, and a striped area provided for the gates that exist on the side of the Garden Center leading to the new gates exiting the proposed expanded area. The fencing along the Garden Center, the new Garden Center, would be screened with a dark green mesh, such as this. That would provide a screening from the product within this area. I’ve also brought along Mr. Currie, the Store Manager, in case there are any questions regarding the operational points from Lowe’s standpoint. MR. MAC EWAN-The first question I’d ask you is all the drawings that we have up here on our table aren’t the drawings that you have. MR. PETRILLO-Correct, this has been modified since then. I was not told that this needed to be resubmitted. Mr. Jones just told me to make the modifications and I could bring it along to the meeting. MR. BREWER-How do we review the modifications if we don’t have them in front of us? MR. PETRILLO-Could I leave these with you? MR. RINGER-The modification is the road? MR. PETRILLO-The modification is that we’ve added a pair of gates at the rear, okay, and that we’ve provided striping within the Garden Center for clear access, okay. This basically shows you the limit of the existing Garden Center here, with the 65 foot expansion towards Bay Road, with a pair of 12 foot wide peaks on the front end, and this would be the side of the store, provided with a pair of three foot eight wide gates for egress out of the Garden Center. MR. VOLLARO-Can you give me the dimensions? Since I’m working with a different drawing, I’d like to know what the dimensions of the gate are, the input gate and output gate. MR. PETRILLO-The gate in the front is two 12-foot wide gates. So it’s a pair of 12-foot wide gates, a clear opening of 24 feet if both gates are open. MR. VOLLARO-All right, and the rear? MR. PETRILLO-The rear is a pair of six-foot wide gates, giving you a clear opening of 12 feet at the rear. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. ABBOTT-Both of them on center? MR. PETRILLO-Yes. It would be centered on the 65 feet, clear shot to the back. MR. PALING-What’s the scale of the drawing that you have previously submitted? MR. PETRILLO-It’s whatever this one is. One fiftieth. So one inch equals fifty feet. MR. BREWER-A pair of 12-foot gates is on the front of the drawing, isn’t it? There’s nothing on the back. MR. MAC EWAN-Our drawings are not up to date with what his display drawing is, because he shows his gates on his. MR. PETRILLO-Your drawings show the 12-foot gates in the front. They do not show the gates in the back. Okay. That was just brought to my attention this week. You can see the letter that I got from Mr. Jones was dated, I think, less than a week ago. MR. PALING-Where do you show the scale on yours? MR. PETRILLO-It’s my fault they weren’t scaled. It’s one inch equals fifty feet. MR. PALING-But then we have another difference, and that print shows it and this one doesn’t. MR. PETRILLO-Now, in terms of the parking issue, the site as it stands, I believe, has 626 spaces. We are eliminating 44 for the Garden Center expansion, and we are picking up an additional 24 at the rear of the building. Thus giving us a new count of 606, the Township requiring 605. MR. BREWER-To that point, would you have employees park in those spaces rather than customers? I mean, what customer is going to park on the end of your building and walk all the way around? MR. PETRILLO-I would refer that question to Mr. Currie, the General Manager, as an operational question. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. CURRIE-That would not be a problem, sir. MR. BREWER-Okay. It only makes sense. MR. CURRIE-Absolutely. I agree. MR. MAC EWAN-This proposed addition, I’m assuming it’s like the one down in the Wilton store that just opened? MR. PETRILLO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Same fabric, same size, dimensions, roughly? MR. PETRILLO-I believe so. MR. RINGER-What is the height of that fence? MR. PETRILLO-It’s 12 feet now, and the new fence will also be 12 feet. MR. RINGER-The one in Saratoga, that looks higher than 12 feet, what we’re looking at here. MR. PETRILLO-Saratoga may be a higher fence. I’m not sure. I wasn’t involved in Saratoga. I mean, it could be a 20-foot high fence. I’m not sure. The fence that’s proposed, height wise, will match the existing fence. The existing fence is 12 feet high. This fence will be 12 feet high. MR. RINGER-Currently, they’re stacking stuff considerably higher than the fence, it’s actually over the roofline. MR. BREWER-I think that’s because they don’t have the space, Larry. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. RINGER-Will that cease? MR. CURRIE-Yes, and I think obviously you can see with the merchandise being stacked on the top part of that rack, that additional space is needed. So that inventory that is currently up top there will go away, and obviously will be placed inside this area there. That’s really the purpose of it, to aesthetically make it look better, and so that you don’t see that from the road appearance. MR. BREWER-So the inventory will be at level or below the height of that fence. MR. CURRIE-Will stay at the fence level, yes, absolutely, because all those bagged goods and that type of product will go in that area. That what it’s designed for. MR. RINGER-I think part of the problem that we’re having now is that stuff is stacked so high, it is not pleasant looking. MR. CURRIE-I agree. You’ll get no argument from me on that. I agree with you. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? Anything else, Tim? MR. BREWER-No, other than the parking, if they require employees to park out there, if they keep the inventory at fence height or lower, I don’t really have a problem with it at all. MR. RINGER-The 12-foot, I’d like to see no signs on the fence, like the one we’re looking at in Saratoga has signs all around it. MR. PETRILLO-Signs meaning? MR. MAC EWAN-Banner type, temporary signs. MR. CURRIE-The advertising, banner signs are just temporary signs. That’s all seasonal, and that comes down, you know, per season. MR. MAC EWAN-It doesn’t comply with the Town Sign Ordinance in Queensbury, and whether you need to get a special use permit to use them or not, that’s something you need to take up with them, but they are not part of our Sign Ordinance. MR. PETRILLO-Okay. MR. RINGER-If we put it in our motion that no signs are allowed on the fence, wouldn’t we? MR. BREWER-Well, I think we should at least give them the opportunity to apply for a temporary sign, if that’s what the case might be. MR. CURRIE-Sure, now does that indicate, if they’re on the inside of the fence, does that also apply the same way or? MR. MAC EWAN-I would take that up with the Code Enforcement Officer, but it might be that signs are signs no matter where they are. MR. CURRIE-Okay. Not a problem. MR. BREWER-I don’t think that. Signs on the inside are not. MR. MAC EWAN-He’s talking about on the inside of the fence. MR. RINGER-Well, they couldn’t be seen with screening anyway. MR. MAC EWAN-All I’m suggesting to him is he takes it up with the Code Enforcement Officer. Bob, do you have any questions? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I have just a couple. What’s the function of the dark line within the new structure? MR. PETRILLO-This? Basically it’s just to denote that that’s where the striping will be for the unobstructed path. MR. VOLLARO-So you’re not going to be able to store anything in that area. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. PETRILLO-No. There will be no storage allowed anywhere on the striped path. That path will run full length, 12 feet wide, okay, and then there’s a four foot wide path that runs from the existing Garden Center across to the exit gates. MR. VOLLARO-I see that. Just one other question. On the planted area, adjacent to the Bay Road. We’ve been talking about that for a while. That’s got to be maintained well and bushes installed and planted in there that are not dead. Now, have you been working that problem? MR. CURRIE-Of course all those shrubs and things that were planted are under warranty by the people who originally planted those, and of course I contacted them earlier this summer, to replace them. Their recommendation was, they will be back, which they have since, come back and removed anything that was dead and now have planted some more live shrubs to replace those. So those have been replaced already. That’s part of the one year agreement with that, and obviously we were still under contract with them, obviously, been holding money for them to take care of that, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Because that makes a nice buffer area for what you’re planning to do here. The more buffer area you’ve got and the more shrubs you’ve got kind of tends to shield this a little bit more, because this is right up, when you come down Bay Road, you’re going to see that, particularly now with the dark, and I know why you’ve got that screening on it, to hide the interior, but that’s a pretty prominent piece to the eye. So it would be nice to have this front end well maintained. That’s all I have on it. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-My concern is the proximity now to Bay Road, but when I look at the drawing, the other row, just south, that row in the parking lot is going to be on the same, yes, it’s really basically right, almost extended to the one that you’re moving over now. So I guess the new, I guess I’m not making any sense. The new parking area is on the same plane as the one just south of it. MR. PETRILLO-This isn’t new. This is existing. The new parking spaces are shaded along the back of the building. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right, then that’s where I’m missing it. MR. PETRILLO-So the expansion of the Garden Center isn’t the total parking lot that’s there now. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I knew that. MR. PETRILLO-It only goes to, basically, to the light poles. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. I know, but I thought that, I didn’t realize there were two rows there now. I guess I forgot. MR. PETRILLO-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, well, good. MR. PETRILLO-So there is a buffer between that and the road. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Now, I am concerned for that planted area, too. Is there a sprinkler system in there now? MR. CURRIE-I just received some bids, even as late as today, for a proposal to put sprinkler systems in for next year. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, because even if the summer is not as hot and dry as it was this past summer, it’s still pretty exposed there, and it’s going to dry up pretty quickly, and you’re just going to end up with the same pattern all over again, I would think. My, of course everything is built now, but your rendering, what you have there, you know, there and the other one, looks so much better than what it is in actuality. I don’t know. I guess that’s your style. That’s your architecture, but it’s not as pretty as I think it should have been for the amount of money that you have into it, and it’s not, don’t take it personally, but it’s one thing that we’ve thought about as we pass it on our site visits, over all these months, is that maybe the building should have faced the other way, you know, instead of facing on Quaker Road, it should have maybe faced Bay Road, and maybe all that area that we’re camouflaging, should have been around to the other side, but, you know, you can’t change it now, but I just thought I’d say it. I understand why you’re putting that green stuff up, but it’s loud. It hits you. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. PETRILLO-Well, I think also you have to realize, we are talking about retail, and part of the whole retail identity is exposure. So, you know, for the Garden Center to be there, it gives Lowe’s exposure, okay. If the Garden Center was hidden on the opposite end of the building, people wouldn’t know it existed. I mean, obviously you’d know it existed if you went to Lowe’s on a regular basis, but if you were driving by, you wouldn’t know that the Garden Center existed. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, it’s not just the Garden Center part. It was the whole construction part, too. MR. PETRILLO-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But I understand where you’re coming from, and I guess you have to sacrifice, you know, not being a marketing person myself, I need to be educated in those ways, but, you know, I just look at it from a passerby standpoint. MR. PETRILLO-Right, a user point of view kind of, yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Alan? MR. ABBOTT-The picture of the Saratoga store is a very nice cement space, we’ll say, in front of the double doors, the front of the Garden Center. Your proposal has it coming right out onto a couple of parking spaces, and what is the general use of the double, or 24 foot door section? Are customers coming in and out of there? Is it open during business hours? MR. PETRILLO-I’ll let Mr. Currie address that to a degree, but the Saratoga store is set up a little bit differently, in that the way it was built, with those gates in the front, and the gates at the rear, okay, it was designed, physically, for drive through traffic. So you drive through, load up and proceed through. Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is not set up for that. MR. CURRIE-No. MR. PETRILLO-This is set up more for Lowe’s use in alleviating space requirements for product. MR. CURRIE-And even the, I mean, as far as the Saratoga store, it’s obviously, it’s a different prototype. Ours is designated as what they call a 101. The Saratoga’s a 114. With the 114, they automatically have the Garden Center expansion. That’s part of the process when they build a larger store. So this is typically not on the store as a standard 101 drawing, but as far as the drive through, it was originally designed as a, like he explained there, as a drive through for the customer to drive through the gate to load up, but at that point we used to have a register out there, and maintain that. Now it’s just, we obviously have the gates there for the Fire Marshal to obviously meet Code on that area, but it’s still designed as a shopping area and everything still goes out the other gate. As will be this also. This won’t be open to full traffic because that’s just not what the purpose of it is for us, and even in Saratoga, I’m sure, they’re not using as a drive through, as far as I know. MR. ABBOTT-I just wanted to make sure those gates weren’t open during “business hours” because then you lose a couple of parking spots. MR. CURRIE-No, no, they will not be. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. PALING-I had three questions, and I think at least two have been answered. The exposure, but what you’re telling us now is there’s going to be no material outside of this fenced in, screened in area, top, bottom, side, back or front. MR. CURRIE-Obviously, I think what you saw this spring and summer is growing pains on our end, and certainly we certainly would have loved to keep that product inside, but then certainly, certain customers wouldn’t have been serviced with the product, so, yes, I had to put it somewhere, and unfortunately, that was the only place I could put it with the amount of plants and shrubs and other items we had inside the outside Garden Center, but to answer your question, yes, it will be all maintained, and there will be nothing outside of that. This is the whole design, and this is the whole purpose of it is to get that inside the fenced area, so I don’t have to put it outside. MR. PALING-The second point was in regard to the shrubs and trees. When we pass on these applications, we not only say plant, but we say maintain, too, meaning water and clipping and replacing of dead trees or bushes, and that would apply after the warrant, would apply forever. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. CURRIE-And that’s part of the contract that I have proposed for the people that are going to be putting in the proposed irrigation system, and also part of the contract I have with the people who mow the facility, also. That’s part of their contract. MR. PALING-Okay, and the third point has to do with the print. You don’t show any scale on this print that I have, and of course the gates are not on there either. So I think we ought to be sure that Staff is going to go over the print completely to see that there are no surprises, and you should point out if there are any differences, because we have at least two, now. MR. PETRILLO-No. The only difference is the addition of the gates at the rear and the striping through the proposed area for emergency vehicles and things like that. MR. PALING-And the notation of the scale. MR. PETRILLO-And the notation of the scale. MR. BREWER-So what we could do, Bob, is just have him submit a new print with all the conditions, the scale and whatever else has to be on that print. MR. PALING-The Staff would approve it, right. MR. PETRILLO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-I have a question. It’s a follow up to Alan’s question here, about the parking spaces that are right in front of the 12-foot gates. You show, in your shaded areas, those are the parking spaces that are going to be eliminated and relocated to the back portion of the store. Is that not correct? The shaded area addition to the Garden Center. MR. PETRILLO-What we’re losing here is 44 spaces. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. PETRILLO-We are picking up 24 in the back. MR. MAC EWAN-Which puts you at? MR. PETRILLO-606. MR. MAC EWAN-One more than you need. MR. PETRILLO-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Now in front of the gated area on here, and I don’t know if it’s different on your print, because I can’t see it. On our print we have six parking spaces that are right in front of those gates that obviously you couldn’t use, but they’re not shaded. MR. PETRILLO-In the front here? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Where that number twenty-nine five is. MR. MAC EWAN-If you could come up here and maybe you’ve taken care of it on yours. I’m looking at these six parking spaces right here, unshaded, but you have them delineated still as being able to be used. MR. PETRILLO-They can be used. MR. MAC EWAN-I would highly not encourage anyone to use parking spaces in front of that gate area. MR. PETRILLO-I think that’s what we addressed with the other question on the Board, and the fact that the gates are not going to be open during business hours. The intention of those gates is not to be for public access. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you only plan on having fires after business hours? MR. PETRILLO-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Then they shouldn’t be blocked. From emergency access, that’s the whole basic principle behind those gates isn’t it? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. PETRILLO-But the gates are not blocked. The gates can open. MR. MAC EWAN-If you have a couple of cars sitting there, and it’s going to become, I would think, an emergency hazard for fire apparatus or emergency apparatus or one form or another, that needs to get up close to that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-One car wouldn’t be able to get out, if it had to, because the gate would be open. MR. PETRILLO-Well, if that were the case, and I understand your point, if you lost the one space, so that that gate could swing fully open, okay, we’re still at 605. The gates at the rear are only a six- foot leap. They will open and swing against the fence, and not obstruct the cars. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you understand where my concerns are coming from? MR. PETRILLO-I totally understand, and realization that these gates in the front are 12 foot each side, okay, creating, obviously, a larger swing. The need to block out this space may be required, so that that gate can swing completely open against the fence. Obviously, this one can because the other side is striped and there’s no parking over there to start with. That’s understood, and that’s taken as a good point. The rear gates can swing open, as they are. They’re only a six-foot leap. So they would swing against the fence. MR. MAC EWAN-So what would you do, remove that one parking spot and stripe it? MR. PETRILLO-We can remove the one parking spot and stripe it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other question from Board members? MR. ABBOTT-Is there currently product sitting in the loading zone areas, displays like lawnmowers, snow blowers, whatever’s out there now? Okay. So that other door can swing all the way open, and not hit any product sitting in front of the store? MR. CURRIE-Yes. MR. ABBOTT-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Anything else? We don’t have a public hearing tonight, but if anyone wants to come up and comment on this application, you’re welcome to do so. Okay. Does someone want to put a motion up? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make the motion to approve modification to site plan no. 29-97, for Lowe’s, with the addition that Lowe’s provides a new print. Do you have a designation for that print, date, number? MR. PETRILLO-This is dated 8/20/99, which I believe yours is. MR. BREWER-Amended when? MR. PETRILLO-I’ll put a date on this of today, 9/28/99. MR. VOLLARO-9/28, okay, and that Lowe’s provide our Staff with the new print dated 9/28/99, which also shows the striping of one parking space adjacent to the fence on the south side of the proposed structure, giving them a total of 605 parking spaces, versus the required 605, that is the required amount. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. They’re eliminating one space. Yes, is that enough for you to track it? MRS. MOORE-I just want to clarify that Bob Vollaro’s talking about the one space that’s in front of the gate issue, and you didn’t discuss anything about the clear zone that Chris Jones, our Fire Marshal, discussed. Is that what you’re? MR. VOLLARO-I thought that Chris Jones’ letter was entered into the record, and was part of the record? MRS. MOORE-Okay. You should identify that on the map, that the darkened area on the drawing dated today, that’s designated as no storage area. MR. BREWER-Yes. He’s indicated that, hasn’t he? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MRS. MOORE-No, he has not. The applicant has, but to either have the applicant note it on the plans that this is what this area is designated as, or have it said in the motion that way. MR. VOLLARO-Let me just take a look at the drawings for a minute and see where you’re coming from, Laura. MR. BREWER-She’s saying that 12-foot swath in the center of that is a no. MR. RINGER-Is a fire lane. MR. BREWER-Yes, is a fire lane, and no material should be stacked there. MR. VOLLARO-But I thought that was the purpose of supplying the new drawing, so that she has that stripe. MRS. MOORE-As far as I know, it doesn’t say what that zone, that area is. You can have them make a notation on the map. MR. BREWER-So it’s noted on the new plan. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MRS. MOORE-I’m concerned with the parking space. MR. MAC EWAN-Why can’t you just condition it upon the Fire Marshal’s letter of August 31, st which is part of our motion? MRS. MOORE-That’s fine. That clarifies it. I’ll continue on with the parking space issue. The Board does have the review authority to say that they don’t need as many parking spaces as they’ve displayed, and you’re removing one. Is there a reason why they would need all three of them on that side? MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s what I was pushing for. I don’t think they need any of them there. MRS. MOORE-I guess I would encourage the Board to eliminate all three of them, then. MR. BREWER-On the north side, or the south side? MRS. MOORE-It would be on the east side of that line. MR. BREWER-The south end of that. MRS. MOORE-It would be the south end, but on the east side where it says five. MR. BREWER-West side, wouldn’t it? MRS. MOORE-West side. MR. BREWER-So you’re saying eliminate those three? MRS. MOORE-Yes, where it says five. MR. BREWER-All right. MR. PETRILLO-It’s actually only two spaces down there, because the other one is not counted because it’s actually cut in half already. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Well, I’m sorry, then remove the two spaces. MR. PETRILLO-Right. MRS. MOORE-You want to remove two spaces now? MR. BREWER-Well, wait a minute. If you’ve got to move these two, what sense does it make to have those there? Let’s just cut the parking off right here. I mean, it doesn’t make any sense to have two sticking out here, does it, if you’re going to eliminate those. MR. PETRILLO-Well, the island is already there, that circle just south of twenty-nine five. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. VOLLARO-Can we drop the spaces below 605? MR. PETRILLO-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Because there’s adequate area within the entire parcel to add more parking spaces. MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t you just retract your motion, and start another one. It’s the easiest thing to do. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ll retract the motion and start a new motion. MOTION TO APPROVE THE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 29-97, LOWE’S COMPANIES, INC., Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Abbott: Based on Lowe’s supplying a new print, dated 9/28/99, and the new print shall show the south side of the new structure (Fenced Garden Center Area), we’ll eliminate all of those parking spaces, take them all together, and that the area of previously occupied by those parking spaces will be striped as an emergency access, and that all materials shall be contained within the structure, and none of it within the structure shall be higher than the structure. Also, we move that all those parking spaces identified on the drawing as new parking spaces can be removed at the rear of the building, the north side of the building. That the applicant will meet with Staff in the Town of Queensbury to discuss the planting area that’s to the west of the new structure, between the structure and Bay Road. That the modification of this site plan determines that there is no change to the original SEQRA findings. Duly adopted this 28 day of September, 1999, by the following vote: th MR. VOLLARO-Based on Lowe’s supplying a new print, dated 9/28/99, and the new print shall show, on the south side of the new structure, we’ll eliminate all of those parking spaces on the south side of the new structure, take them off all together. MR. PETRILLO-And the ones in the back? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. PETRILLO-Just the two in the front. MR. VOLLARO-Just the ones in the front. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s four of them. MR. BREWER-Just as long it is proven that you can have them. You don’t need them, is what we’re saying. MR. PETRILLO-Okay, and we’ll stripe that as a? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Let him finish his motion here, and we’ll see where it goes. MR. VOLLARO-And that the area previously occupied by those parking spaces will be striped as a fire zone. MR. MAC EWAN-Emergency access. MR. VOLLARO-An emergency access. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-And that no materials shall be stored above the new structure. MR. BREWER-Which is twelve feet high. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, it’s on the drawing. MR. PALING-Well, above or outside, anywhere outside. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. VOLLARO-All materials shall be contained within the structure, and none of it within the structure shall be higher than the structure. MR. MAC EWAN-There you go. MR. BREWER-Now, with the parking up here, Bob, that this be required employee parking, rather than customer parking. MR. VOLLARO-You want to designate that? MR. BREWER-Yes, he agreed to it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. BREWER-Rather than have employees park out here, and customers park over here. I mean, if we’re going to utilize the parking. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Brewer, that’s difficult to enforce, just as a point. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m inclined not to have any parking out there at all. I don’t think they need it. I think they’ve got more than what they need. There’s enough room in that parking lot to park the sixth fleet, for crying out loud. MR. BREWER-Okay. So then we don’t have to require him to have it, then. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think we need it. MR. BREWER-I mean, that’s up to the applicant. MR. MAC EWAN-Look at what’s going to happen in the middle of winter for snow removal. Now it’s going to become a real cumbersome task. They’re not going to use it in the wintertime anyway. That my position. I’m inclined to say that they don’t need it at all. MR. BREWER-That’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-And we can also, in the motion, remove all the parking spaces to the rear of the building. Are they presently? MR. BREWER-No, he added those to make up for what he lost here. MR. VOLLARO-Those parking spaces that are identified on the drawing as new parking spaces can be removed, at the rear of the building. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. SCHACHNER-I just think that for the purposes of enforcement you should make clear which side is the rear of the building. MR. MAC EWAN-The north side. MR. VOLLARO-Is the north side of the building. MR. BREWER-I’ll second it. MRS. MOORE-I have one more. Would you encourage, I would encourage additional landscaping up front on the Bay Road side. MR. BREWER-Up against the fence? MRS. MOORE-Either up against the fence or in the green area that currently exists. MR. BREWER-What’s your druthers? Is there going to be any kind of lawn between the fence and the parking? Or is the parking going to go right up to the fence? MR. MAC EWAN-Just like you see in the Saratoga store. MR. BREWER-So it’s either out on Bay Road or nothing. MRS. MOORE-That’s fine. I’m just encouraging the Board to do so. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-You have to be specific what you’re looking for. MR. VOLLARO-I’m just going to talk about maintenance of that area. MR. MAC EWAN-But that’s not what she’s talking about. She’s asking for more plantings. MR. BREWER-Do we think they need more? MR. MAC EWAN-You can never have too many, as far as I’m concerned. How much more are you talking and what are you talking? MRS. MOORE-Would you like it clarified with Staff, have the applicant meet with Staff and put together an additional landscape plan for that area? MRS. LA BOMBARD-That sounds good. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s reasonable. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because they’re putting in a sprinkler system, and it’ll work. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s reasonable. Anything else? Did you add that to your motion? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll add to the motion that the applicant will meet with Staff for the Town of Queensbury to discuss the planting area that’s to the west of the new structure, between the structure and Bay Road. MR. MAC EWAN-Now do we have a second? MR. ABBOTT-Second. MR. MAC EWAN-Alan seconded it. AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Chairman, I didn’t hear anything about SEQRA review of the modification, did I? MR. MAC EWAN-No. We forgot that. I’ll add to it that the modification of this site plan determines that there is no change to the original SEQRA findings. Okay. Sorry about that. MR. BREWER-Go ahead, get the new plan. Do we want to get a date for the new plan? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, the date was specified as 9/28/99, on the plan. MR. BREWER-Right, to be submitted. MR. PETRILLO-Let me just clarify. The plan you’ll be getting will be dated 9/28/99, but it will also have a revision date on it, showing what the Board discussed, regarding the parking issues and the striping, and just let me clarify that our new parking total will be 577. MR. BREWER-Whatever it is. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. MR. PETRILLO-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 35-92 MODIFICATION HOWARD CARR OWNER: ILENE FLAUM ZONE: PC-1A LOCATION: QUEENSBURY PLAZA APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO THE APPROVED SITE PLAN. THE MODIFICATION IS TO RELOCATE THE 30,000 SQ. FT. FREE STANDING BUILDING, AND 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) REORIENTATION OF PARKING TAX MAP NO. 103-1-1.2 LOT SIZE: 12.63 ACRES SECTION: 179-22 JON LAPPER, HOWARD CARR, JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 35-92, Howard Carr, Meeting Date: September 28, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes to modify an existing site plan. Modification of an approved site plan is required to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board. Staff Notes: The applicant has provided an updated site plan showing the proposed retail building being moved 45 +/- feet towards Glen Street. The previous approved plans also provide for a 30,000 square foot building at a similar location. The new location will assist in improving internal traffic control. The plans submitted are consistent with the previous approvals. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the site plan.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, my name is Jon Lapper. I’m here with Jim Miller and Howard Carr is here as well, the property manager. As many of you will recall, we’ve been here many times. The history of this Plaza has changed, and it was updated to include the Olive Garden, and then the Red Lobster. Originally, there was a 55,000 square foot expansion that was approved, and that was subsequently changed as we added freestanding buildings instead of inline stores. What’s left, what was approved last time, which was now two years ago, and we’ve come back subsequently to have it extended, was a fairly significant change which will include this boulevard feature, making a much wider drive aisle on the extension of Bank Street to the main entrance, significant new plantings, which is really going to pretty up what’s there now and sort of make up for the old 1950’s style plaza that we started with. Finally, Howard Carr has found a tenant for the freestanding building, which will be Staples. They’re going to come into the parking lot with a freestanding larger building in the back, and what we’ve proposed is a slight modification of the plan that’s approved, to accommodate that building. What’s up there now, what Jim put up to begin with, is the plan as it exists now, not what we’re proposing. That’s what’s approved right now, and we’ll walk through the changes. MR. MILLER-Good evening. As Jon said, we’ve started with the older plan, and what this plan had shown was a 30,000 square foot building, which we had modified by pushing it back further than one that was there previously. One of the requirements, when we had this approval, we needed a 30 foot wide fire lane on the south side, and that required an easement from Niagara Mohawk, and one of the things that’s required in this modification is that we couldn’t get full width of that easement. The other thing, which I’ll show you the revised plan. The other thing Jon talked about was the proposal to the parking lot will remain the same. Some of the existing trees in the drive aisle in this area would be transplanted into some wider islands. Additional planting would be located along the main entry driveway, and then the driveway from Bank Street to the main entrance is going to be widened with wider islands and this was going to be landscaped. All that is still part of the plan. That’ll still happen as part of this improvement. So we haven’t changed anything there. There is an existing island where the auto parts store extends further to the south, and this scheme, you can see we have a new building, enter from the front, and the parking basically conforming to the existing parking. So since we have moved that building forward, actually what’s happened is we’ve had to rearrange that parking and I actually think it all helps the circulation out. This is the modified plan. As you can see, the main portion of the parking lot improvements stayed the same. What we propose doing here is removing that portion of the island, to accommodate the requirements from Niagara Mohawk. We had to shift the building forward. So we would reorient the parking in this area, eliminating several small islands, dumping traffic into this driveway, and changing the circulation, and one of the advantages to this is the turnoff lane by the Red Lobster now that comes in behind the Red Lobster will also feed the new store and will force everybody further down into the main driveway, and this orientation allows this parking lot to essentially be shared by the Red Lobster and the new Staples store. Then this plan, the larger scale plan showing the landscaping and site work around the new building. This is the new island you can see would be all heavily landscaped and smaller islands across the front. The storm drainage stayed essentially the same as in the last plan. The drainage from this area came down into a low area, off our site, onto the Niagara Mohawk property, and some drainage will still go that way, and if you recall, or if you’ve been to the site, there’s a deep ditch along Bank Street. So the intent always was to intercept the existing storm drainage into a pipe and eliminate that ditch all the way down Bank Street, and install catch basins down to a low point where storm drainage all eventually ends anyway, and comes under Bank Street. So that would clean up that whole side of Bank Street, eliminating all the brush, debris and low spot. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) This area would be landscaped. It would be graded. It would be lawned, and it would be landscaped. There’s some berming and buffering in back of where the service area is. The service is designed for trucks to come in, enter, and back into a delivery area, and the circulate back out. Because we had to pull the building forward, we’ve allowed for 20 spaces to the rear, which would be designated employee spaces, with service entrance to the building. Site lighting, the existing light that’s in this lot will remain. I think there’s a couple more up by Red Lobster. New lights will be located in the islands at the entry to Staples. Because of the intersections that we have here, new lights will be located in this area and this area to light those intersections. In addition, back at the driveway entrances coming into, off of Bank Street for a service area, there’d be some street lighting in that location, and there’d also be lights along the back of the building, which would be building mounted and primarily for security at that point, and that’s the extent of the modification. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. LAPPER-Just today, Howard was talking to the Staples’ real estate representative, and what, the Staples store is going to be 24,000 square feet. Right now it’s 18,000 square feet in-line. It’s going to be 24,000 square feet, and we’d anticipated that on the south side of that there would be a 6,000 square foot additional tenant space where there’s no lease for that yet, but Staples, after reviewing the plan, decided that they don’t want to have that there. So we’re going to slice of 6,000 feet from the bottom, as you’re looking at that plan, which is just going to mean that the site will be less intensely developed, which will certainly help parking. It’s approved right now. So we’re giving up a right that we have to build an extra 6,000 square feet. It’ll be 24,000 square feet. That just happened today. So what we would propose is that the final plan that we submit for signature would have a smaller building. MR. BREWER-And then this is the end of it, right? MR. LAPPER-And then this is the end of it. MR. BREWER-I’m going to miss you, Jon, Howard. MR. VOLLARO-On a scale of one to fifty, which is what this drawing is, how far up does that cut, do you know? MR. MILLER-Bob, I’m not sure. I’ve got a phone call in to the architect. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you don’t have a number for that? MR. MILLER-No, I don’t. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MILLER-It probably is going to take off about 20% of it. It may get somewhat shorter. I’m not sure. I have to coordinate with the architect on that to see how it’s. MR. VOLLARO-So that number hasn’t been set in concrete yet. MR. MILLER-The 24,000 is, I think. MR. CARR-24,099 is what they told us today. MR. MILLER-I just don’t know the shape of it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Jim, when I looked at the other drawing where you have it, the new building in relationship to the plaza that’s already there, it almost looks like it’s, and then when you’re taking off the 6,000 square feet, it almost looks like it’s the same size, but obviously, you’ve said that the other one was 18,000, and now you’re going to 24, so you’re increasing it by a third, but, boy, it’s hard to visualize that, like when just look from here and I see where Staples is now, in the original plaza, and then I see the proposed square footage, it looks like you could take the new one and superimpose it right on the new old one. MR. MILLER-Are you looking at this space right here? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. MILLER-I don’t think that’s all Staples. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. LAPPER-It’s not. MR. HOWARD-That’s Joann’s. MR. MILLER-Yes, that includes Joann’s, too. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. MILLER-I don’t know where these tenant lines, they were on our old plan, and we just kept them, and it doesn’t represent the tenants that are there now. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Okay. So you’re increasing your building by one third, basically. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, we’ll start with you. Have you got any questions? MR. PALING-Yes, I’ve got a few. The only entrance to the building for customers is from the parking lot, right? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. PALING-There’s nothing on Bank Street. Now walk me down Bank Street a little bit. First of all, how much wider is Bank Street than it was before? MR. MILLER-Well, we’re not widening Bank Street. MR. ABBOTT-The main driveway that goes east to west, that connects the Bank Street. MR. MILLER-I see what you’re saying. It’s going to be 28 feet now, and I think it’s probably only around 20 or 22. MR. PALING-So eight feet. MR. MILLER-I think you’re right. We’re going to go to 28. MR. PALING-All right. That’s Bank Street Extension. MR. MILLER-That’s right. MR. PALING-Now, walk me through the reasoning for the stop signs, where they’re going to be in the new plan. MR. MILLER-Okay. There’s an existing stop sign. The traffic comes out to this area, okay, and then there’s an existing stop sign from the service road that comes around the back. So there’d be a stop at both of these points, and one of the main concerns here is this building is so close, that visibility, all the existing buildings, existing conditions, that we want to stop that traffic. MR. PALING-Okay. That doesn’t show on the print, but there’s a stop sign there, and a stop sign. Okay. MR. MILLER-That’s right, yes, it shows on the bigger one, and then what we’ve done is we’ve kept, we’ve eliminated one stop sign that’s here now because we’ve got this island all the way down. We put another stop sign basically down here at the front, across the front of Staples, okay, and then it would be through, on Bank Street, and then we would have one coming from our store out onto the Bank Street Extension, we would have one there. So, actually, each of the three driveways that come out to Bank Street Extension would have one stop heading east. Now there’s two stop signs there now, we’ve left them, coming west on Bank. One is at this intersection. The other one is right on the corner of the building, and this one is important, again, because the building is so close there that we need those stops. MR. PALING-Okay. How about the one on Bank Street that would be positioned, across the street from? MR. MILLER-That was existing, and we looked at that. Of any of them, that’s probably least necessary, but since it’s existing, we left it there for, and plus that was in a Town right-of-way, too. So I get a little nervous about taking stop signs down in Town right-of-ways. MR. PALING-Okay. That’s all I have for now. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. MILLER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Alan? MR. ABBOTT-Back to the “main entrance” to the plaza, back by the Red Lobster, what’s now the right hand lane that turns off to the right, that goes to the Red Lobster, you foresee that being one of the primary ways of getting to the Staples building, as I understand it? MR. MILLER-It probably will be, yes. MR. ABBOTT-And then to get out of there, you are left to transverse the maze of stop signs around Bank Street, and going back up through? MR. MILLER-Well, but there’s only one, I think there’s only one stop sign, as they exit, because that’s a one way entrance, and as they exit, they, you know, we either have to come up and there’s a Do Not Enter sign, and they would go back to the Bank Street Extension, or they would just come up here, and they could either take a right and go down to Lafayette and they could take a left, and the only stop sign they have exiting is right here at this intersection. There is no other. MR. ABBOTT-They do basically have to get back on Bank Street Extension. MR. MILLER-That’s right. MR. ABBOTT-So although you’re limiting, or reducing traffic coming in on the Bank Street Extension, going out, everybody has to? MR. MILLER-Yes. Well, that was the way that modification was done. I believe that was done when Red Lobster was done, that this whole intersection was redesigned, and that was the way it was done, so we were not modifying that at all. MR. ABBOTT-Being relatively new here, I was not aware of the eight-foot increase in Bank Street Extension. It makes me feel a lot better hearing that. Because I’ve tried to make right hand turns with someone sitting there, and it’s nearly impossible. MR. MILLER-It’s difficult. MR. MAC EWAN-The boulevard drive aisles also in the plaza are widened as well, with this site plan. MR. ABBOTT-Okay. MR. ABBOTT-I’m all set for now. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I’d just like to ask sort of an academic question. Are you really just pivoting this building, and not moving it forward? MR. MILLER-No, we moved it forward. MR. VOLLARO-Because I see that on the old drawing, dated June 27, 1997, the corner setback was .48, right at the corner of that building. MR. LAPPER-The setback to the NiMo property? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and the new building is set back exactly the same amount, .48. MR. MILLER-What happened is that’s, we just slid it, and before we had a line that was parallel to the building. What we were looking for is an easement, and then we just slid it, so we ended up with the same dimension, so that our setbacks were the same. That’s why we had to move it forward, because we end up with a wedge shape instead of the rectangle that we originally wanted. So we just slid the building until we had the same dimension as the setback. MR. VOLLARO-Because the NiMo portion changed. Is that what you’re saying? 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. MILLER-That’s correct. MR. LAPPER-NiMo wouldn’t give us as much as we asked for, because of the location of the power transmission lines. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MILLER-So you can see, in the original plan, we had some rectangular piece that we were going to get an easement on, and that gave us the 30 feet all the way down, and NiMo wouldn’t give us that. They would give us a triangular piece, which eliminated part of the space in the back. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MILLER-So what happened, you know, in here, where the building was back, we were only about 10 feet off at that point, and we needed a minimum of 30, plus some room for grading and things. So we basically took that whole building and slid it along that diagonal line, until we had the same dimension. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got you. I see what you did. So now, but that’s a moot point now, with slicing off the end of the building. MR. MILLER-It probably is, yes. MR. BREWER-So that’s going to change again. MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-It’ll get smaller. MR. BREWER-No, it’ll increase. MR. MILLER-That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-Does that relieve your need to get an easement from NiMo? MR. MILLER-We’ll probably still need it, because I don’t envision the building’s going to get more than 20 feet narrower, and so we’re probably still going to need some of it, but we’re going to have to investigate that and find out exactly. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Well, if you don’t know what that line is, if you can’t draw the line on that building, you can’t tell me anything about it. MR. MILLER-Exactly. MR. LAPPER-NiMo said they’re okay with what we’re asking for so far. MR. MILLER-Which would be good, because that would give us the ability to grade better and clean that edge up. It’s kind of a bad edge along the property line. MR. VOLLARO-I guess the only thing I have is, tonight, as we stand, I’m not exactly sure what the Board is approving, unless they, whoever makes the motion talks about the building being at 24099, but we’re not going to be approving this drawing. MR. MILLER-I think, Bob, what’s going to change is I think that the way the building is situated along Bank Street, and the front of the building facing Red Lobster, all the parking will remain the same. So as the building footprint shrinks, it’ll shrink from the rear and the side toward Niagara Mohawk. So the primary side facing the rest of the shopping center will remain the same. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No. I’m really pleased to see that that driveway has expanded, though, because that is very difficult for someone trying to get down there. You have a problem with stormwater at the area where the automotive place is and the China Buffet. Any rain at all, that puddles. It is a part of this 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) plan, and I’m sure you’re aware of it, but it really does present a problem. My wife and I go there quite a bit, and we seem to get there quite often when it’s raining. MR. MILLER-We’ll take a look at that, since we’re doing some storm drainage in this, now would be the time to fix it. MR. RINGER-Okay. You’ve got, there’s a walkway across there that’s always flooded, in any type of rain. When you park your car, there’s a walkway going into the, getting out of your car and going across into the auto place or into the China Buffet, that’s generally filled with water, in the rain. MR. HOWARD-Well, we are aware of a problem relative to a catch basin that’s right here. MR. RINGER-Right. That’s where it is. MR. HOWARD-Okay, and we have got somebody coming in, okay, we think it is mud related, that the pipe is filled, all right, but it will be examined, and if not, part of what happens here is this whole interior system drains out into here, and we have a large grease trap installed back here. That will have to be relocated further back, all right, and when that happens, okay, if we don’t have enough flow here, okay, that section will be replaced also. MR. RINGER-Good. MR. BREWER-Your name for the record? MR. HOWARD-Howard Carr. MR. MAC EWAN-Tim? MR. BREWER-Absolutely nothing. I think it’s finally here, and I think it’s a good plan from when we started. It’s been a long time. MR. MAC EWAN-If we are to approve this modification, when do you anticipate you’d start construction? MR. HOWARD-I can address that question. We asked it many times today. The problem that we’re dealing with is Staples is going through the development of a new prototype interior. If they can get that, they have been up here and done the soil sampling and etc. So really the only thing that we’re waiting for is their internal design elements. We are prepared, at this point, to start the site work. We’d prefer to start the site work in the fall, because water tables are down, and everybody who knows the site knows that there’s a pretty high water table. So our intention is probably to start the site work no matter what, this year. Whether or not they’ll get done and get into the ground in time, I don’t know. It’ll also depend somewhat on the weather. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s also inclusive of doing all the other changes in the site as well, correct? MR. HOWARD-No. What we would expect to do this year, if you’ve been there recently, you’ve seen that there’s been some work going on. We’re installing an irrigation system now that will handle the main throat of the entrance. We’re going to extend this irrigation system down the Bank Street Extension, but not until it gets relocated. We have to cut up the parking lot and relocate some utilities, etc., over here, so generally what we’re thinking is that all of the boulevard that’s going to occur here will occur on the back side of the construction of the building, as opposed to on the front side, and that we’ll do the utility work this year, and the balance of the site improvements will all occur in the spring and early summer. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does anybody else have any other questions? MR. VOLLARO-Just one. Can we find a way so that when the new drawing is prepared to show, and I suspect you are going to prepare a new drawing for 24099, whether we can, in the motion, can you pick a date, or a way for us to identify that new drawing, so that, so what we’re approving, I mean, right now, I’m having a problem in my mind trying to see how I’m going to approve a drawing that’s going to change. Do you know what I’m saying? MR. MILLER-I don’t know when I’ll get the information, but I would say, you know, I’ll put an amended date on it and submit it to the planning staff for their review before the final drawings. MR. VOLLARO-Laura, is that satisfactory to you? Or am I asking for something I don’t need to ask for? Usually when I approve a drawing, I’m approving what I see. If I don’t see what the change is, I don’t know exactly what I’m approving, because they don’t know yet either. How do we get to that? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. LAPPER-It’ll be within the footprint that you see there now. So it’ll be smaller. MR. BREWER-So we could just stipulate within this footprint on the plan that we have right before us. If it decreases, it’s not any big deal. If it increases, then we’ve got a problem. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s a decrease, it’s a decrease to the north. We know that. MR. BREWER-That’s what I’m saying. So if it’s in that footprint, it’s not really a major problem. Is it? MR. ABBOTT-The architect hasn’t confirmed that. MR. BREWER-He knows that it’s going to be smaller than that footprint. MR. LAPPER-It’ll be within that footprint. MR. BREWER-That is there now. So if we just indicate within that footprint. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. As long as, from what I hear, this is the case, the Board is comfortable that you don’t care what the precise configuration is, so long as it’s within that footprint, then you can include that as a specific condition of your approval, and although you’re correct, Bob, that you won’t physically see it in front of you tonight while you’re approving it, what you’re saying is as long as it’s within the footprint, it meets with your approval. MR. VOLLARO-Then I’m satisfied. MR. SCHACHNER-It won’t need to come back to the Board. If you’re comfortable with it. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just want to get a way that the motion could go to talk to this problem. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? I just have one more question. Just so that I’m understanding this, because we’ve done six motions on this project, and we haven’t turned a shovel full of dirt yet, that all the conditions of the originally approved site plan are all going to be met and complied with prior to the new tenant occupying the new store? MR. LAPPER-Prior to CO. MR. MAC EWAN-I just want to be clear on that. MR. SCHACHNER-And for the purposes of the record, it would be nice if the applicant made some statement to that effect, instead of nodding affirmatively to the Chairman’s statement. MR. LAPPER-I was the one who said prior to CO. MR. BREWER-Prior to temporary CO. MR. MAC EWAN-Our original motion that I have right here in front of me says that. MR. SCHACHNER-The applicant is on the record consenting to that, is my understanding. Correct? MR. LAPPER-Yes, as Town Counsel has corrected, on the record, consenting. That’s always been the intention. MR. SCHACHNER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Does someone want to put a motion up? MR. BREWER-Can we read it as written? I’ll try it. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 35-92, HOWARD CARR, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: The applicant will resubmit a plan showing a reduced size building with the footprint of the drawing we have before us, and the reorientation of the parking, along with all the previously agreed upon conditions in previous motions, and that there is no significant change to the SEQRA findings previously made. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) Duly adopted this 28 day of September, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Let’s see some dirt flying. MR. LAPPER-That’s the plan. Cathy, are you going to do the old business that was tabled, it’s not on that agenda. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. You’re right. We are. MR. LAPPER-We did what was asked, and have letters from Rist-Frost. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 46-99 TYPE II CHRIS MACKEY OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-3A, CEA, APA LOCATION: 15 WILD TURKEY LANE, OFF RT. 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITION AND ALTERATION TO AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL CROSS REFERENCE: AV 78-1999 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/8/99 TAX MAP NO. 3-1-7 LOT SIZE: 1.54 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79, 176-60 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff Notes? MRS. MOORE-I have Rist-Frost comments, and I’ll read those into the record. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what we’re looking for. MRS. MOORE-This is in regards to Site Plan No. 46-99, Chris Mackey, addressed to Mr. Round, dated September 28, 1999, “In accordance with the Town’s request, we have” MR. PALING-Excuse me, Laura, I’m just trying to get clarification. I’m going to ask you to start again because I couldn’t hear anything. This is from last week? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, a carry-over from last Thursday. It’s not on your agenda. This was an application that was in front of us last Thursday night, and we felt uncomfortable with the. MR. PALING-I’ll excuse myself from it, because I didn’t read anything about it. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. PALING-Sorry. MRS. MOORE-All right. I’ll just start at the beginning of the letter. “In accordance with the Town’s request, we have reviewed the stormwater aspect of the above referenced application against the recently adopted Stormwater Management local law for the Town of Queensbury for projects within the Lake George Park. The proposed project does not involve land disturbance of 5,000 square feet or more. It doesn’t result in new impervious surfaces of more than 1,000 square feet. In fact, the impervious area is reduced slightly. Therefore, the project is exempt from even the requirements for a minor project. The applicant has, however, proposed stormwater management capacity for the paved driveway area measuring 3,400 square feet of impermeable surface. The shallow grass swale and infiltration trench proposed have been properly sized for the 3,400 square feet of impervious area according to the guide for minor projects, stormwater management for the Lake George basin. We recommend the applicant follow the New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control during construction, and more definitely show the grading for the shallow grass swale proposed.” And we have a Rist-Frost letter dated September 28, 1999, addressed to Mr. Round, “The Environmental Design Partnership fax dated September 28, 1999 satisfactorily addresses our comments in our review letter of September 28, 1999.” 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. MAC EWAN-So two letters went back and forth today? MRS. MOORE-Yes. I have the comment letter from Dennis MacElroy, if you want me to read that. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, please. MRS. MOORE-It’s a letter of transmittal. “Remarks: Revised Sheet S-2, in response to your comment letter, which include a revised grading and area of shallow grassed swale, and added note regarding erosion and sediment control.” That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Now we tabled this last Thursday to refer to Rist-Frost, to have them review this stormwater management plan, and obviously they’ve put their stamp of approval on it. We’ve closed the public hearing. So if someone wants to put a motion up, one way or the other. MR. BREWER-Was there a SEQRA on this, Craig? MR. MAC EWAN-It’s Type II. MR. BREWER-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 46-99 CHRIS MACKEY, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Abbott: As in the prepared resolution. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 46-99; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 8/30/99, consists of the following: 1. Application w/drawings and maps, dated SP-1, SP-2 dated 8/27/99 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 9/2/99 - Meeting Notice 2. 9/2/99 - Revised FAR sheet, map A/1 revised 9/2/99 & Proposed Conditions 3. 9/16/99 – Notice of Public Hearing 4. 9/1/99 - Warren Co. Planning 5. 9/15/99 – ZBA resolution 6. 9/21/99 - Planning Board from D. Hatin 7. 9/23/99 - Staff Notes 8. 9/23/99 - Map S-1 revised 9. 9/27/99 - D. MacElroy to RFA 10. 9/28/99 - D. MacElroy to RFA 11. 9/28/99 - RFA comments 12. 9/28/99 - RFA comments Whereas, a public hearing was held on 9/32/99 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 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Site Plan No. 46-99 for Chris Mackey. 2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) 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. Duly adopted this 28 day of September, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Paling MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. LAPPER-Thank you very much. SUBDIVISION NO. 18-1999 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED CLUTE ENTERPRISES, INC. OWNER: SAME ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF FIFTH ST. EXT./350’ WEST OF CAROLINE ST. APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 2.40 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.28 ACRES AND 1.12 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 90-1999, AV 104-1996 TAX MAP NO. 131-8-26 LOT SIZE: 2.40 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; LARRY CLUTE, PRESENT MR. BREWER-Could I ask a question before we start? How come this wasn’t done as a simple two- lot subdivision? MRS. MOORE-Because it required an Area Variance. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. BREWER-An Area Variance for 1.12 acres? MRS. MOORE-Because of the required road frontage. He has less than the required 40 feet. MR. STEVES-I’ll explain that. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 18-1999, Larry Clute, Meeting Date: September 28, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision with a shared access drive. The proposed subdivision is located in the Suburban Residential – One Acre zone (SR-1A). Staff Notes: The applicant’s proposal meets the requirements for subdivision review of preliminary and final stages. The plans propose house locations in compliance with zoning requirements and a common access drive. Recommendations: Staff would recommend approval of the subdivision with the condition the shared driveway be documented as such on the final plat.” MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to ask a question before we start, as well. The motion to approve the Area Variance No. 90-1999 was dated September 22, the meeting date was September 22, and this nd petition that was signed, I noticed, is dated 9/23. MRS. MOORE-It may have been received that evening and dated the next day. MR. VOLLARO-I guess my question is, was this considered when the Area Variance was granted? That’s all I’m asking. MRS. MOORE-I believe it was. MR. STEVES-Yes, correct. MR. VOLLARO-Was it? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing else to add, Laura? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. My name is Matt Steves. I represent Clute Enterprises, and Larry Clute, President of Clute Enterprises, is here with me. As you can see before you, it’s a two-lot subdivision on Fifth Street Extension. We did come in for an Area Variance for the minimum lot frontage, for two lots. We require 40-foot minimum per lot. We have a 50-foot strip out to Fifth Street Extension, and we propose to use that as the common strip for the two lots. We could have two lots and not require a variance, but that would require us to install a driveway around the back of the other three houses and along the land that was the old railroad bed, onto other lands that the client owns near the bend there, this sharp bend on Fifth Street Extension, as you can see on the map, but there was a couple, well, three reasons why we did not want to obtain that or go for that route, and the Zoning Board did agree with us. First of all, it’s because of the length and the effecting three neighbors. The second reason is for the Town of Queensbury Highway Department is considering straightening that road out, and maybe negotiating with my client to acquire that land, and then just the slopes and the conditions along that old railroad bed, it’s just cost prohibitive to put a driveway in that far. We have sufficient land for the two lots. Therefore we just thought it would be better to have a common access drive, and one of the requirements from the Staff has noted that, and that was also one of the things that was brought up in the Zoning Board, and we do show a 12 foot wide common driveway to be utilized in the center of that 50 foot strip, and we do have that noted on the final plan. I have shown the topography, as requested via Staff, to verify that it is not too steep for septic systems. The entire lot, with the exception of the old railroad bed, is at about a four to four and a half percent grade, which is more than suffice, and you can see where the placement of the septic system in the house has worked fine. As far as any environmental concerns, there are wetlands on the adjoining property. It is also outlined on your map that was flagged by DEC, and was also reviewed by the Army Corps of Engineers, and I’m open to any questions the Board may have. MR. MAC EWAN-Tim, we’ll start with you. MR. BREWER-The only concern or question I have with a subdivision like this with a shared drive, who’s responsible for maintenance of the driveway? MR. STEVES-If you have more than three on a common drive, you would be required to go with a homeowners association. Here it would be between the two parties. It would be right in the deed, as far as, because of the property line actually goes right down the middle of the property, or the driveway. It would be written into each deed, as far as the shared maintenance of that driveway. MR. BREWER-So it would just be up to the neighbors? MR. STEVES-Just up to the two owners, that’s correct. If you only have one house, you’re going to have to maintain it yourself. MR. BREWER-I understand that, but if you have two, and this guy says, well, I don’t want to maintain it, and this guy says, well, I don’t want to maintain it, then, if there’s a fire, that’s my concern. MR. STEVES-A fire, my answer to that question would be, I’d have to look at it as if I was living there myself, and if my neighbor said, I’m not going to plow it, to get to my own house, I’d make sure it would be plowed. MR. BREWER-That’s you. MR. STEVES-Yes. I’ve seen common driveways. We’ve done numerous ones. We did the ones for the Higgs and Crayford subdivision. I’ve never seen any problems with those. MR. BREWER-Okay. I just bring the concern up. MR. STEVES-I understand, but I haven’t seen any problems with those. MR. BREWER-I don’t have any real, I’d like to hear from the public, to see what their concerns are, other than the petition, but I’ll leave my comments to that. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No questions right now. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. My site plan doesn’t show, or my subdivision plan, rather, doesn’t show an actual drive. I have a 40-foot wide road by scale, here. I get, I don’t know, on one to fifty, by the way, I seem to get. MR. RINGER-The new plan we got tonight, Bob, we got a new one tonight. MR. VOLLARO-There’s a new plan, all right. I used the new plan, I believe. MR. STEVES-It was to incorporate the comments made by the Zoning Board. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but I don’t see the driveway laid in there. What do you plan to do, just have a macadam drive? MR. STEVES-I show a proposed 12-foot wide gravel and macadam drive right down on your line. It shows it coming right in with the property line right in to the middle of it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Turning area, too. MR. STEVES-It falls dead center of that just under 50 foot wide strip that runs out to Fifth Street Extension. MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking in the wrong place. Okay. I see it, right here. He owns from here to here, the property line for the two lots would run down the center of that 50 foot strip, leaving 24 feet and 24 and a half feet on either lot, and the property line right down the middle with a 12 foot drive right in the center of that 50 foot strip. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-On the little map, that shows all the streets, it looks like this borders on Richardson Street? MR. STEVES-No, it does not. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But it doesn’t. MR. STEVES-Richardson Street is to our west, approximately 400 feet. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Alan? MR. ABBOTT-I’m with Tim. I want to hear from the public. I’m glancing over the petition, and I see at least four or five names quickly of the adjoining property owners. So I’m curious to hear their thoughts. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. PALING-The only reservation I’ve got on this so far is the possible traffic problem, not from having two residences put back there, but if this were put to other uses which are contained within the zoning, I couldn’t vote for approval of something that would generate any great traffic, when it would come in for site plan, and maybe the applicant would be willing to tell us what he intends to do with this, although he’s not required to do so. MR. STEVES-What other property are you talking about? MR. PALING-No. I’m talking about these two lots. You can do other things than put houses on them. MR. STEVES-Single family homes only. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. PALING-Are you committing to that? MR. CLUTE-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. If you’re committing to single family homes only and not these other possible uses. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. PALING-Okay. That’s all that was my concern. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else to add? MR. STEVES-No. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll open up the public hearing. Anyone want to come up and comment to this application or ask questions to the Board, you’re welcome to do so, and identify yourself for the record, if you would, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED SUE JOHNSON MRS. JOHNSON-My name is Sue Johnson. I’m the homeowner at 216 Fifth Street Extension, which would be right next to where the 12-foot driveway is, coming past my bedroom window. MR. ABBOTT-Lands of Wilson or Lands of Germane? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Germane. MRS. JOHNSON-It was previously Germane. MR. ABBOTT-Okay. MRS. JOHNSON-I was opposed to the driveway, but the applicant has a perfect right to put a driveway in a one family home, one home, in the back, and we were aware of that when we purchased the home a year ago. That limits traffic. That’s fine. When you put two homes with one drive, you can call it a drive, but it becomes a road, as far as I’m concerned. He also has access off Richardson Street because it’s my understanding he owns from Caroline to Richardson, everything behind there, with the exception of the wetlands perhaps. I’ve contacted the Environmental Conservation Department, but I have yet to speak to anybody, because I don’t know where the wetland technically ends. I don’t know how far of a drop he has back there, because it’s kind of at a slant, but it’s wet back there, and I don’t know how far you have to go for a septic tank or how far he has to go for a foundation, but my concern is he’s also going to hit water. That’s really not my problem. It’s his, but he can put two houses with that driveway. He can also still come in off Richardson where he’s entering now with vehicles, behind the other homes, and put in a third home with a drive, or he could put in the one home with the one driveway, off of Fifth, and come in with one home facing Richardson, and with a drive and get his two houses that way. My concern is the traffic. I have four small children. My concern is for my yard and our home. T here’s ice buildup. Something flies into my house or my property. There’s wildlife. We have video of deer at the edge of our property in the back. Again, I don’t know where the wetlands are marked, because I haven’t been back there. It’s not my property. When gas and NiMo and all of the things that need to come into a home, the plumbing and that kind of thing, where are they going to run? How are they going to interfere with our properties on each side? MR. MAC EWAN-As far as any utilities, it would have to be within his, the width of that, that 12. MRS. JOHNSON-Is there a variance on how far back their septics have to be from my property? MRS. LA BOMBARD-They’re nowhere near your property. MR. MAC EWAN-What he has shown here and illustrated on this subdivision map is that the building development window fits within the setback requirements of Town Subdivision Regulations. MRS. JOHNSON-Okay. My biggest concern is the traffic. As you had mentioned, what if the neighbors don’t get along and don’t want to share a common driveway? MR. BREWER-They haven’t got a choice. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MRS. JOHNSON-Well, they have a choice. If one’s having a party and they own that drive, and they’ve parked all along it, and there’s a fire at the other house, this one doesn’t care. MR. PALING-Is your house number 220? MRS. JOHNSON-216. MRS. LA BOMBARD-She’s on Germane’s. She bought Germane’s property, Bob. MRS. JOHNSON-Actually, it was Taft’s property. Germane sold to Taft. Taft sold to us. MR. PALING-I thought Germane was 220 and that Willison was 216. I got them mixed up. MRS. JOHNSON-The previous owners were Germane. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. BREWER-Your name is what, ma’am? MRS. JOHNSON-Johnson. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Mrs. Johnson, you were told, when you bought your house, that only one house could go back there? MRS. JOHNSON-Right. I don’t think it maintains the aspect of the neighborhood. I don’t see, I’ve really paid much more attention since the zoning meeting. I don’t see other houses with houses behind them facing our back yards. I see houses with yards together or roads in between, but it’s not maintaining the look of the neighborhood to have a bunch of houses behind other houses facing us. I’m going to be in my back yard looking in somebody’s front window, or them being in their front yard with their sprinklers or what not coming. I mean, I know I drive through the neighborhood and see people watering the front lawns or the back lawns, and the sprinklers are coming into the road. Well, now they’re going to be coming in to where my child’s swing set is. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else? MARIA GAGLIARDI MS. GAGLIARDI-Maria Gagliardi. I live at 220 Fifth Street Extension, which is, I believe to the north, the lot to the north, on that side of the proposed subdivision and driveway. I just have one question before I really just say my concerns. I believe on the map at says, lands of Willison. I believe that’s where my land is supposed to be, but I’m not sure why it says that because I bought from Karen Shevlin, and she had the property before me for about 12 years. MR. MAC EWAN-So your property is the Willison property. MS. GAGLIARDI-But I bought from Karen Shevlin. MR. MAC EWAN-Obviously, they haven’t updated it. MR. BREWER-What’s the original date of this? MR. RINGER-’86, it looks like. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Dated 1986. MR. VOLLARO-May 15, 1986. Right here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, Maria, what are your concerns? MS. GAGLIARDI-Well, basically just like Sue said, and basically my main concern is her kids next door. They play right around that lot, and I’m just afraid somebody might come pulling in and not watch for the kids, and the fact that, as I believe somebody at the zoning meeting said it, 201 Fifth Street, brought up a good point, that nobody’s necessarily going to expect to see people coming out of a driveway between two houses, and there could be an accident. You just never know what could happen. Those are my two biggest concerns. I’m just not crazy about seeing a two driveway between two houses, but that’s not something you can really do anything about. They have to have 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) an access to get in, but those are basically my two main concerns, the traffic and that people watch for the kids coming through. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? VERA KENNY MRS. KENNY-My name is Vera Kenney, and I live on the corner of Fifth Street Extension and Caroline, Number 35. MRS. LA BOMBARD-She’s not on here either. MR. MAC EWAN-And you live where? MRS. KENNY-On the corner of Fifth Street Extension and Caroline, Number 35. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Did you buy your house from Dubois? MRS. KENNY-I have been in the vicinity for over 50 years. MR. MAC EWAN-So you’re on the opposite side of Fifth Street Extension from Dubois? MRS. KENNY-Yes, on the opposite corner. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. KENNY-We bought this property back when Viola Combs owned it. She owned all that property. She owned the property in question where they are building. So I am very familiar with the area, and I brought up, at the other meeting, about where they want to go in with this driveway. There is a dip in the road there, and then you go up further, there’s a curve going out to Richardson. This area is very heavily traveled, due to the Northway and the conditions on the Corinth Road. People are cutting down Richardson, and coming down Fifth Street, and there is a water buildup there, when there is a lot of rain, and in the winter time, and it’s an icy condition right there, and the Highway Department right now has a ditch running along that street, Fifth Street, to compensate for the water, so it doesn’t build up so much on the road, and it goes into that property, plus, I’ve heard from the Highway Department that they have not considered, as yet, to straighten that curve on the end of Fifth Street and Richardson, plus they have an access road cut in from Richardson, that goes all the way behind all this property. Now why can’t they use that as road for any homes that they plan on building in there? Because I’m sure as I’m sitting here, there’ll be other homes in there. It won’t be just two. MR. MAC EWAN-For this subdivision, that’s all they can put in. You couldn’t build any more than two houses in there. MRS. KENNY-He owns more property back in there. MR. MAC EWAN-With this particular subdivision, you couldn’t even access the other property. He doesn’t have enough frontage and enough land to do it. MR. BREWER-Where’s his other land on here? I see where it comes in and I see Bishop. MRS. KENNY-That is vacant land, all the way down Richardson Street quite a ways, and some of it even comes out onto Haviland Avenue. Of course there’s wetlands in there, but I know in other areas they have built in wetlands. MR. BREWER-Maybe that’s a good question to ask. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. KENNY-That’s about it. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much. MRS. KENNY-Outside of, are they planning on coming in on that driveway with the gas, the electric and water? MR. MAC EWAN-If they’re going to put utilities in there, and if this gets approved, and if he builds houses, that’s the only way he’d get them in there. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MRS. KENNY-What about your emergency vehicles? Are they going to be able to come in on a 12- foot driveway, your fire department, your Niagara Mohawk, and all those, for servicing these homes, in case of problems? MR. MAC EWAN-It would probably be no different than servicing your home with a 12 foot or 18 foot wide driveway? MRS. KENNY-I’ve never seen these vehicles coming into driveways. They always park out on a road near. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll address that issue. MRS. KENNY-And why can’t that road that they’ve got cut through back there be used as a road to come in to these two houses and service these homes with emergency vehicles and what not? MR. MAC EWAN-Just gleaning, at what I’m looking at in front of us right here, is that he doesn’t have frontage, so he doesn’t have access to Richardson Street. MRS. KENNY-Well, you’ve got a road cut in there. MR. MAC EWAN-This subdivision shows that that back boundary line is delineated so that it’s probably three to four hundred feet away from either Richardson Street, and probably 200 feet away from Fifth Street Extension. So he doesn’t have property that goes up and abuts the right-of-way. MRS. KENNY-Well, I thought he owned property right out to Richardson Street. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, it does look like a road. This little dotted line that’s delineated looks like a little road, but his boundary is definitely drawn, and it ends his property. MR. STEVES-That’s the old railroad. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s the old railroad. MRS. KENNY-Yes, but you’ve cut a road through there. I’ve seen it. MR. STEVES-What the dashed line depicts is the old railroad bed. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So do people use that? MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. We’re going to need to get you guys on the record, but I want to continue with this public hearing first. MRS. KENNY-I know the railroad tracks used to go through there, yes, but they are gone, and then after them, the property dips down, but they do have a road cut through there right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Who’s “they”? MRS. KENNY-Whoever’s building back there and taking down lumber and. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. In other words, you’ve lived there for 50 years and. MRS. KENNY-And I’ve been back there. I’ve seen it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But prior to this, the advent of this project, nothing had ever been cut down in there, or nothing had really been a road before? MRS. KENNY-Yes. The neighbor that owned the property before went in there from Caroline Street, with a road, but they’ve built homes there now, and he cut lumber, and he evidently sold the property to this outfit, to put up homes, and no one complained when he put up homes that faced Caroline Street, because there was a road. There was facilities for coming in for your lights, gas and whatnot, but now he’s building behind homes and just wants to use a driveway when he’s got a road cut through there. Now why he cut through there, I believe, is to go in there and clean out the property, because he had no way to get in there. So why can’t that road be made into a road, if he owns the property? 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. MAC EWAN-The question here is, A, who owns the property, and, B, even if he owned that property, that’s, at this point, not part of this subdivision application, because it’s not delineated on this drawing we have in front of us. MRS. KENNY-Well, don’t you think that he owns more property that maybe he isn’t showing? MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll ask. MRS. KENNY-Well, I hope you do, because I think he does. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? I think for the time being I’ll leave the public hearing open. Can I get both of you gentlemen to come up to the table. MRS. MOORE-Craig, do you want me to read the petition in? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. It would be a good idea at this point. MRS. MOORE-The petition reads as follows, “The signatures on the next page are for the partitioning against the variance requested for relief from the minimum road frontage requirements Tax Map # 131-8-26 in an SR-1A zone. Also we are against the approval of application for subdivision for a two lot residential subdivision located on the So. side of Fifth St. Ext., Queensbury, N.Y. Tax Map # 131-8-6. Signed by the residents of Fifth St. Ext. and surrounding neighbors on Sept. 21 and Sept. 22, 1999”. I would say there’s approximately 54 signatures on this. stnd MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other letters, correspondence? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s ask the first big question. Mr. Clute, do you own other property behind there? MR. STEVES-As far as the property that is in the other side of the railroad bed where the wetlands are delineated, that is not owned by my client. It is owned by people by the name of Bishop. The only other lot that he owns here, as I depicted and told you right off the get go, was this piece down here at the corner of Richardson and along Fifth Street at the sweeping curve. This lot here he does own. MR. BREWER-Does it abut the lands of Briggs? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. BREWER-And why couldn’t he come in there with a driveway? MR. STEVES-We discussed that at the very beginning. MR. BREWER-It costs too much. MR. STEVES-Well, the cost, and coming up the grade of the old railroad bed, and then you’re bringing in a driveway now for a residential home, and you’re worried about access and length and disturbing the neighbors around three homes. It doesn’t make any sense, and then he’d be putting it through his other lands, that is a separate lot as it is, okay. So that’s the reason, and as far as the statement made by some of the people of the public, this road, what they’re referring to is the old railroad bed, and it’s at road grade here where it crosses Richardson Street, naturally. That’s the old railroad bed that’s through there. That basically looks like a road. MR. MAC EWAN-That corner parcel that you’re referring to right now, he owns that? MR. STEVES-All this area that I’m tracing with my pen right now, he owns. MR. MAC EWAN-How many houses could you put on that? MR. STEVES-One. MR. BREWER-He could put one on that? How big of a piece of property is it, Matt? MR. STEVES-That is approximately 1.2 acres, 1.3 acres. MR. CLUTE-I’m Larry Clute. The setback requirements in Queensbury would also only allow one on that lot, and it would be difficult to situate one, because just the shape of the lot is as you see. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. STEVES-I correct myself. It’s .818. MR. BREWER-So you’d even need a variance to put a house on it. MR. CLUTE-No, a house could be put on it, pre-existing, and it would have to border the Briggs’. You’d really only make use of that one side of the property. The property on Richardson and Fifth Street is just useless, not only by shape, but by elevations. If you physically went over and looked at this lot, it’s looking like this. So the elevations, it’s pretty extreme. MR. BREWER-A tough situation. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t particularly like that. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve never been a big proponent of it. Okay. Well, we’ve heard from the public a little bit. Bob, we’ll start with you. Any questions? MR. PALING-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Alan? MR. ABBOTT-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Have you been going in through your property and clearing the lot, the land out in back like that nice lady said? MR. CLUTE-We did come in on the lot and take out some of the oak, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-How did you access the lot? MR. CLUTE-Via Richardson Street, not the lot that we’re talking about tonight, though. Most of the clearing was done on the other lot, the one that I’m not, I’ve no application on. MR. RINGER-The .81 acres? MR. CLUTE-That’s correct. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-So that’s how you came in to clear is through this section here? MR. RINGER-That’s the old railroad bed you drove through? MR. CLUTE-Yes. It looks like a road, but it’s the old railroad bed. MRS. KENNY-It is a road actually cut through there. The shrubbery’s all cut down. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s his property. He can put something on it. MR. STEVES-He accessed that .81 acre lot to cut some trees, via Richardson Street. That’s correct. MR. CLUTE-But to call it a road or to make use of it as a driveway, to go there and look at it and see it as a curb cut, I’ve already been in discussion with both Paul and Rick of the Highway Department, and it’s just common sense. It wouldn’t be a wise place for a curb cut for an actual driveway for a permitted use driveway, extremely dangerous. Queensbury, they’re in the process, or they have been for a few years, trying to obtain that corner. They want to obtain that corner and straighten out Fifth Street, so if indeed that were to take place, that would eliminate that road as well, or that railroad bed, but both Paul Naylor and Rick really want this and they wanted it prior to my ownership. They just couldn’t get a dialogue with the previous owners, but they do want it. There’s no question. They want to straighten that road. Do they have a, do I have a timeframe? No, I really don’t. I don’t know Queensbury’s business, but I just know Paul Naylor definitely wanted it, and I know Rick, as well, wants it, and it would be a wise thing to do. The visibility on that corner, it would just be a wise move for the Highway Department to straighten it out. Whether they do or not, I can’t say. I don’t know whether they will. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. STEVES-That’s just one of the reasons. The other reason is it’s just not for suitable for a driveway, and the other reason is as Larry has stated. I also want to reiterate the point that Bob had made earlier. This is, we’re going to restrict this to only single family residences, just two, and I don’t want anybody to feel this is a road. This is not a Town road that’s going back here. It’s just a 12- foot wide common driveway. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Two things, and on each side of that driveway, you will have 18 feet? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right, and where are the wetlands? MR. BREWER-It’s not on that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The wetlands that everybody keeps talking about. They’re way in the back. MR. STEVES-The wetlands do not fall on our property. This is the edge of DEC wetlands as flagged by the DEC, and that’s that heavy line. The original owner of this home piece, Villinous Neilands, went in with property, and it did actually go onto his property. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Mrs. Johnson lead me to believe that the wetlands were closer on the property. Okay, and once, lets say you were going to start construction on something like this, then, I guess my concern is that, I asked you a question at the beginning, you know, and I asked you, and if she hadn’t come up here, I would have been totally misinformed, and maybe it’s because I didn’t phrase my question right, because I’m not an attorney, by I asked you if that land, if the land bordered up against Richardson Street, and, right, the land we’re talking about doesn’t, but in essence, the applicant does own the rest of the land, and I just feel that you could have given me privy. I could have been privy to that information, Matt. MR. STEVES-I said that right up front. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, you didn’t. MR. STEVES-Yes, I did, too. I stated that he owned the land on the sweeping curve on Fifth Street, and the reason he went in for the variance is because, I said right off the get go, Cathy, that we could come in that way with a driveway, but we’d have to go behind three other residences. Now I think we can go right back to the tape. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. They’re in the minutes. I guess I wasn’t sharp enough to catch that. I guess that’s why I asked my question, and that’s when I didn’t get the answer I was looking for, and it mislead me, but that’s okay. Now I’m not mislead anymore. The people in the audience set me straight. No, I’m okay. I’m done. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-In looking at this plat, I’m just wondering, and this question may sound to you like it’s not relevant right now, but I’ll play it through. Approximately, what do you think each of those two houses would sell for, roughly? MR. CLUTE-They’re going to sell for roughly $70,000 a piece. MR. VOLLARO-All right. Now let me ask you. Could you, that’s $140,000. If you were to build one house for $150,000, just one, in other words, build a bigger house, and now only have the drive coming in for that one house, and you would then put that on approximately 2.3 acres. MR. CLUTE-Right. MR. VOLLARO-What would you say to that? From the bottom line, you’re going to be looking to make a profit. MR. CLUTE-From the bottom line, it won’t sell. MR. VOLLARO-That neighborhood won’t support it, is that what you’re saying? MR. CLUTE-Yes. It’s a $70,000 neighborhood, and that’s what sells. In order to sell, in my opinion, you’d need to stay $80,000 and under, simply put, and I’ve sold four in there, recently, on Caroline Street, under the $80,000 mark. The previous owner tried to sell, in the higher numbers, against my advice. I was in touch with him prior to taking possession of the property, and nothing moved. So it's an under $80,000 neighborhood. It has to stay under $80,000 in order to move. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MRS. LA BOMBARD-That was a good suggestion. MR. RINGER-I agree with you that that would overbuild the neighborhood, more than the $70 or $80,000 house. MR. CLUTE-Sure. Just for conversation a duplex, a duplex which would fit on that lot, I’ve considered that, and if that’s something that could be done, we have the area to do that, too, but that, I don’t even think that would reach the $150,000 mark, and that would be more, I think that would be even more, I thought about it as an overall neighborhood improvement. I think that would be more detrimental. It’s how I ended up with residential. I mean, just stick with two single family residences, but I’ve looked at it from a lot of different ways, and I just couldn’t come up with anything else. MR. RINGER-A duplex would be an allowed use? MR. CLUTE-With the area, yes, I think so. MR. BREWER-Is a duplex allowed in that zone? MR. MAC EWAN-Suburban Residential. MR. CLUTE-That might need a site plan review, too. MR. STEVES-SR-1 Acre? Yes, SFR is not. MR. RINGER-Even if we denied it, he could still end up with a two family home there. MR. STEVES-And effectively, in our opinion, have the same, if he had a duplex. MR. RINGER-You’d have the same traffic considerations and. MR. STEVES-And we understand. He’s a homebuilder that has built numerous, numerous homes in the Glens Falls and Queensbury area. We’re not putting in a six-unit apartment building or twelve-unit apartment building. Voicing the concerns of the neighbors, the area that is set aside for the house and septic has basically been cleared except for maybe a couple of trees that might need to be cleared for that, but we would also be receptive to leaving the buffer of trees that are there along the setback of our lot that borders the neighboring properties, in place, and not disturb them. MR. MAC EWAN-And we also need, for the Board, you need to keep in mind that if a duplex was put in there, it requires site plan approval. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-So, I mean, it’s not like a fait accompli where it’s done. It has to be in front of this Board. MR. RINGER-Duplexes require site plan approval? MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Tim? MR. BREWER-I sympathize with the concerns of the neighborhood, and with the concerns of the builder, but I’m not thoroughly convinced just because a piece of land is two acres it has to support two homes. I’m not saying this can or can’t. I don’t know. It’s a tough decision to make. Just because you can put it on paper, doesn’t mean that it has to be, and maybe the person that buys the land has to look at it, and understand that not every piece of land can be built to the maximum potential. I don’t know. It’s just a tough decision. I don’t know what to decide. MR. STEVES-And if you look at the lots, we’re not denying that statement, but at the same time, a two acre lot back there is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. These are still considerably larger. MR. BREWER-Understood, but houses stacked behind houses doesn’t keep with the character of the neighborhood either, Matt. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. STEVES-What do you have in a subdivision with two roads and houses. MR. BREWER-What I’m saying to you is, there’s not road separating the houses. MR. STEVES-You don’t in subdivisions. You have lots that butt against each other. MR. BREWER-Back to back. MR. STEVES-Yes you do. MR. BREWER-And there’s no road in front of these, though. We can debate all night. MR. STEVES-I’m just saying, if you have a road in a subdivision, and a road, and they have lots facing each other, or with the back yards, that is not preventing somebody from turning their house 90 degrees on the lot. MR. BREWER-Understood, but these two houses are surrounded by houses. MR. STEVES-Yes, correct, larger than the surrounding houses, not larger than the lots proposed. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask you a question. How serious is your negotiations with the Town to acquire that parcel of land? Did you talk with them last week, last month, last year? MR. CLUTE-You can keep right on going. I’ve talked to them two years ago. I’ve talked to them a year and a half ago. I’ve talked to them a year ago. I’ve talked to them six months ago. I’ve talked to them two weeks ago. MR. MAC EWAN-So it is something that’s ongoing? I mean, it’s a relatively recent issue that you’ve been dealing with them? MR. CLUTE-Yes. It’s been communicated left and right, yes. Nobody’s committed to anything. Nobody’s, I’ve offered to give just the corner. I have no use for it. So it’s of no use to me, other than that access road. If this were to be denied, then that obviously would be my only access, my driveway in, to service the property, but otherwise, I’d have no use for the property. It’s not a dollar amount, anything like that. It’s just take the property and do with it as you wish. Because we can come back on in via that road off of Richardson and service the second house via Richardson. It’s just not the wisest way to go. MR. VOLLARO-Matt, what does the profile look like off Richardson on that road, the profile of the road? He talks about a dip. MR. STEVES-Of which road? MR. VOLLARO-The railroad bed. MR. STEVES-Coming off, just like any other railroad bed, as you can see on the contours, it’s raised up from the rest of the properties. You can see to come on that, and then you’d have to drop down in about eight feet onto the lots. MR. VOLLARO-So that could be filled in off Richardson, to make the contour a lot easier, I suppose. You’re talking about fill. I understand. I know every time we speak it’s dollar signs. I understand what’s going on. I’m trying to trade that off against this driveway coming in on Fifth, in my mind, to see whether or not we can use that as an access road to service these properties. MR. RINGER-You’d still have a driveway coming in off of Fifth, one of the lots. MR. STEVES-There would still be one driveway here, regardless. MR. VOLLARO-You’d put that in anyway. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. BREWER-There’s no way you could put two. I don’t know. How did that land or lot ever get configured like that? Just out of curiosity. MR. STEVES-The way it’s shaped, with the Town roads and such curving in there, and then the abandonment of the old railroad bed being reverted to the people that owned all that. There was originally seven lots in there owned by Neilands, and one of them was the old railroad bed that cut through there. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. BREWER-But how did it ever get to be a flag shaped lot like that, with the, between these two property owners on Fifth Street? MR. CLUTE-The fifty-foot lot was originally a building lot. MR. STEVES-That was. MR. CLUTE-Because all these lots were originally 50 foot lots. MR. BREWER-Okay. You answered my question. MR. STEVES-That was one of the original subdivision lots of that old subdivision back then. MR. BREWER-So if that’s the case, how did this back lot line get opened up? Whoever owned this, bought that? MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. BREWER-It’s a crazy way to do things, isn’t it? MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? Well, I think what I’ll do is I’ll close the public hearing. Did anybody want to make anymore comments to this application? I’ll leave the public hearing open, and I’ll ask you to come on back up to the table, please. MRS. KENNY-This property, when I bought my two lots, which gave me 100-foot frontage, I bought from Viola Combs. Dunn and Stevenson built the other homes up there. They acquired the property from Viola Combs, and they built the homes, they started out with 50 foot frontages, and they had to change it to 75, and that’s how that one lot got stuck with nothing built on it, all right. Now the property back where they’re building also she owned, and she sold it to some guy that I don’t know his name. He used to be a forest ranger, and he had all that property back there. He put a well in, and he planted some trees, some evergreen type trees. Then he sold it to this Neilands who used to live on Caroline Street, and he went in there and logged it. Then I guess he started investigating on building homes back there, and it didn’t go through. So he sold it to these people, and they started to put up homes on Caroline Street, and they had a road cut in there that this first owner had put in to get in there, to do planting and this and that, but they closed that in when they put the homes in, and those homes on Caroline, he built them all up in the front, so they’re up high to correspond with the road. The back of the property is all low, and their driveways come up like this and drop off. I don’t even know how they could put a garage in there, but that’s beside the point. I mean, people bought the homes and what not. Now he wants to put homes in the back, and he does have a road cut through, because I went in there and looked, and he’s cut down brush. It used to be just a path like where the railroad bed went. Now it’s a wider road that they have cut in but they don’t want to use. Why I don’t know, but that’s my impression. So that’s how that extra lot was there. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you very much. MRS. KENNY-It was 50 foot and they couldn’t build a home on it after they changed the Codes. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Was that a lot, in other words, a complete, it was too small to do anything with because of the way they? MRS. KENNY-Because they changed it from 50-foot frontages to 75. MR. VOLLARO-So that’s kind of like a leftover lot? MRS. KENNY-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Understood. I just wanted to make sure of that. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MRS. KENNY-So, evidently, that guy bought that lot, too, along with the land out back. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. SUE JOHNSON 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MRS. JOHNSON-My name is Sue Johnson. I just wanted you to know that I did call the Highway Department and I spoke with Rick’s secretary who was corresponding back to Rick back to me, and she told me through him that it was a rumor, that there were no concrete plans. They didn’t know if, when or if ever that road would be straightened out. I guess what I don’t understand, I realize he owns that bed. He’s coming in behind Richardson Street, which is quite a ways down where he’s coming in, where everybody’s saying the railroad track is. Does he own that also? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. JOHNSON-Okay, and you’re telling me that’s not enough frontage for him to put a drive back to a house? MR. MAC EWAN-No, what he was saying, it’s not enough that he feels to develop it, to put a house on. MRS. JOHNSON-That’s not what he told one of the neighbors. He told one of the neighbors he’d put the two houses in off of Fifth, if it was passed, and that he would still come in off Richardson with a drive and a house. So he’s going to put three back there. Otherwise, he would put two, the one off of Fifth, which would be a one family, one driveway, which we knew could happen, and then one coming off Richardson as well. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Now I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Can I get you gentlemen to come back up, please? Before we do our SEQRA, I have one question for you. This leftover, undersized existing lot that’s on Fifth Street Extension, did you purchase that lot as separate and then want to combine these two to make one lot out of it? Is that how I’m understanding this? MR. STEVES-Was the .81 acre a separate purchase? MR. MAC EWAN-No, no, no. I’m talking about the one that’s facing on Fifth Street Extension that you’re going to use for your driveway? MR. STEVES-No, that was all one lot, purchased as that way. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So someone, at some time, bought that parcel, with the intent of using it as access to get to this back parcel, they would have had to? MR. STEVES-When my client bought it, Larry bought it, everything you see for the two lots was one lot, and Villinous Neilands owned it as the same way back until I think it was ’94, as far back as I can go. MR. RINGER-It wasn’t part of Neilands property on Caroline? It wasn’t? MR. STEVES-He had seven tax lots, all total, and still has, and we’re taking one of those and breaking it into two lots. MR. CLUTE-Five of them being the homes that are up on Caroline Street, and then two being what’s left. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right, we need to do a SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. PALING-No. MR. VOLLARO-I can’t just say no to that with surface and groundwater quality. I’d like to know a little something about the depth to groundwater here. With that surface or groundwater quality or quantity, I’d have a hard time saying no to that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I would have a hard time also, because that driveway is going to serve two homes. It’s more like a road, not a driveway, and I think that’s existing traffic patterns. MR. VOLLARO-So we’d have to find a way to mitigate C. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. PALING-I think you better poll the Board, Craig, or something, because I’m not sure I agree with those observations. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll start right with you. MR. PALING-I don’t know where the groundwater thing came out all of a sudden. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s because we’re so close, well, a little bit of testimony from the audience, Number One, and, Two, where we are at the edge of wetlands here. MR. PALING-Where are you at the edge of wetlands? MR. VOLLARO-I see it says edge of wetlands flagged by DEC, in back of those lots. MR. PALING-Okay. What’s in violation of that? MR. VOLLARO-Bob, I’m just saying that I can’t just plain say no to this SEQRA question, when I see a septic tank and a septic field sitting in this thing at approximately 80 feet, where they say the edge of wetlands is. MR. PALING-Staff, do you agree with that? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think it’s really an issue for Staff to say one way or the other. It’s an issue for the seven of us to say. You don’t agree with it? MR. PALING-Yes. I’m on a different page on both of those categories. MR. MAC EWAN-Alan? MR. ABBOTT-I think there’s some concern. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-You know how I feel, yes, there is concern. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I’d have difficulty with “adverse” effect. I don’t think it’s an adverse effect. I don’t think it’s an adverse effect. MR. MAC EWAN-Tim? MR. BREWER-I don’t think it has any adverse effect either. The wetlands, the edge of the wetlands is where they’ve written up there on the edge of wetlands? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It says edge of wetlands as flagged by DEC. It’s right at the dotted line. MR. BREWER-And that’s up ground of the lots? MR. VOLLARO-It’s down below. MR. BREWER-It goes way down into here. All right. MR. STEVES-Can I make a quick statement that may clarify? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. VOLLARO-I’m saying that I’d like to know what the depth to groundwater is here, with respect to that question. That question raises a question in my mind about the effects of groundwater. It just does. MR. RINGER-Then every other home in the area that has septic systems would be in the same situation. MR. VOLLARO-They’re not that close to the wetlands. Hey, listen, that’s my opinion. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe we can put it in this perspective. It seems to be the Board is somewhat split on the issue of whether it’s an impact or not. I’m inclined to believe that it’s probably going to 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) be some sort of an impact, that whatever impact it is could be mitigated. So I don’t really think it’s a big issue at this point. MR. BREWER-How do we know that that’s the exact way they’re going to build them, either? MR. MAC EWAN-You don’t, but you also have the opportunity, that you’re dealing with two stages of a subdivision here that, if it went, progressed along tonight and you felt comfortable in wanting to pass it at Preliminary Stage, you could pass it with conditions that, in order to approve final stage, that you have to meet this criteria of stormwater, depth to groundwater and that sort of thing, just like you would do with any other subdivision. MR. BREWER-It would be up to whoever made the motion, but you’d still have to answer the SEQRA question first, right? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, and I responded to it, I thought that it could be mitigated. If it can’t be mitigated, then you don’t approve Final. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m getting confused. I don’t know about anybody else. You’re reviewing the Short Form Environmental Assessment Form. That’s the first step you’re undertaking. If the Short Form Environmental Assessment Form does not lead to a conclusion that precludes you from granting approval, the purpose of this tool, which is what it is, is to decide whether there are potentially significant adverse environmental impacts, and if there are potentially significant environmental impacts, then you need to require an Environmental Impact Statement. That’s the purpose of the review of the Environmental Assessment Form. That’s your inquiry when you answer these questions. If you find there are potentially significant impacts on the Short Form EAF, then the next step is either to require more information in a Long Form EAF, or to jump right ahead to an Environmental Impact Statement. That’s your charge, or your mandate if you find potentially significant adverse environmental impacts at this stage, not to deny the project. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So what’s the Board want to do with that question? Tim, we’ll start with you. MR. BREWER-I said no significant adverse environmental impact. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-Same, no significant. MR. VOLLARO-That’s subject anyway. Under Mark’s definition, I would like to go for an Environmental Impact Statement. MR. SCHACHNER-Could I just jump in for one second? Whether it’s a significant adverse impact is your ultimate conclusion at the bottom of the EAF. The question you’re looking at now, all the items, C1 through 7, are all under one question, and the one question is, could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following, and your first step is to decide whether it will result in adverse effects, and you then write something or describe something about those effects. If you find effects, which it sounds like at least some of you are finding, you then proceed to Part III, and you then have to determine whether a particular effect is significant or not. So I just want to make sure you do this in a step by step process, because that’s what the law requires. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So we’re back up to you, Bob. We have two members that say it’s not a significant impact. You’re tussling with whether you think it is or isn’t. MR. SCHACHNER-And what I’m telling you is, you shouldn’t be wrestling, right now, at this stage, with whether the impact is significant. You should be deciding, at this stage, you will ultimately have to do that, but at this stage, you should be deciding whether the action is going to result in any adverse effects of these seven types, whether it will result in adverse effects of these seven types. If the answer is yes, you say yes to the particular item and you describe it, and go through C1 through 7 in that fashion. You don’t have to decide yet whether they’re significant, and you shouldn’t decide yet whether they’re significant. You do that afterwards. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. So Bob and I kind of feel that there could be an adverse effect associated with C1. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. What you need to figure out is whether four of you agree that there could be an adverse effect associated with C1 or whether you feel that there could not be. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So we have two that say no, two that say yes. Alan? 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. ABBOTT-Yes, there could be an adverse effect. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. PALING-No. MR. MAC EWAN-And I’m going to go along with the other three and say no, as well. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. So the Board’s answer to that question is no. MR. BREWER-We’re beyond that question. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Lets move on to the next one. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Could action result in any adverse effects associated with aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic or other natural or cultural resources or community or neighborhood character?” MR. PALING-No. MR. MAC EWAN-I think so. MRS. LA BOMBARD-With the neighborhood character, definitely. MR. MAC EWAN-Our Subdivision Regulation, 183-1-B, gives you the definitions of what you need to come to conclusions for when you approve a subdivision, and in consideration of that, you’re talking about everything from fire safety, health and safety and welfare of the neighborhood, and it says also, the proposed lots shall be so laid out and of such a size to be in harmony with the development pattern of neighboring properties, and the proposed streets encompass a convenient system accompanying the official map, and it goes on to say about potential traffic facilitating and providing for easy access for fire protection. It goes on, so there’s a number of things in that Subdivision Regulation I think that are very apropos to this question, and I can see it having a neighborhood character impact. MR. PALING-Name two? MR. MAC EWAN-The layout of the lots, number one, the way that this proposed subdivision is laid out and configured is not in harmony with the neighboring neighborhood, and the character of the existing neighborhood. MR. BREWER-What does that have to do with the significance of the environment, Craig? MR. VOLLARO-It talked about neighborhood character. MR. BREWER-Understood, and I’m not saying that there isn’t out of character in this. What I’m saying is, how does that pertain to the significance of an adverse effect on the environment? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s what you’re living in. The environment is your surroundings. It doesn’t necessarily have to mean the dirt and the trees and the fauna and the flora. MR. PALING-And you’re saying that the layout of these lots has an adverse effect on the neighborhood? MR. MAC EWAN-The neighborhood character. Mark, will you address that? How does the SEQRA law? MR. SCHACHNER-Neighborhood character is expressly deemed to be part of environmental impacts. MR. MAC EWAN-As I read it in that Subdivision Reg. MR. SCHACHNER-Not exactly the same words. Neighborhood character is expressly, under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, is expressly included as an area of potential environmental impact, meaning if somebody feels that something will have an adverse effect on neighborhood character, that is expressly defined to be included as an environmental impact. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. Well, lets poll the Board on this one. We’ll start with you, Bob. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. RINGER-Mark, I have a question. Now we get into significant again. So any of these we can say has some adverse effect. MR. SCHACHNER-That is correct, and after you’re done answering C1 through 7 you then have to assess overall all of them, and decided whether any of them are significant or not, and you’re correct. Because you can have 15 adverse effects here, and you then have to. MR. RINGER-None of them can be significant enough? MR. SCHACHNER-That is exactly correct. MR. RINGER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-And if you’ll recall, when you go through a Long Form EAF, that actually happens very frequently. You often have a number of effects identified, but when you get to Part III, you don’t find any of them are significant. That’s actually very common. MR. RINGER-Any time you get a neighborhood, you get 33 signatures, that does have a neighborhood effect. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I generally say, the signatures alone, there has to be some credibility to it. I wouldn’t necessarily say that, as a blanket statement, but I think the Board should exercise its judgement independent of the signatures, but if you feel those are valid issues, then one could certainly conclude that there seems to be an impact on neighborhood character, but you should exercise your independent judgement in that regard. MR. RINGER-I guess I’m struggling with the end result being significant. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and I’m just telling you take it a step at a time. MR. RINGER-Right. Okay. Thank you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Then would you like me to continue on then, or do you want? MR. MAC EWAN-No, I want to answer that question. Bob, we’ll start with you. MR. PALING-The houses are going to be built here limited to single family. They’re going to be, as I understand it, at the same price level as all other houses in the neighborhood. They’re not infringing on any by crowding. It’s not an overcrowding situation, and I don’t see that it does have an adverse impact from that standpoint in the neighborhood. MR. VOLLARO-That’s a no. MR. MAC EWAN-Alan? MR. ABBOTT-Yes, there will be an adverse effect. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, there will be an adverse effect. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Tim? MR. BREWER-Yes, it could possibly. I said yes, it could. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The answer is yes. MR. BREWER-Potentially, but when we get to the final question, we’ll determine our answer. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Lets move on to the next question. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MRS. LA BOMBARD-“A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” MR. BREWER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess my question would be, what does the Comprehensive Land Use Plan call for that neighborhood? MRS. MOORE-That’s something I’d have to review. I don’t know off the top of my head. MR. RINGER-I’m sure it’s single family. MR. MAC EWAN-You don’t have one, you don’t walk around with it? MR. VOLLARO-I would say no to that, Craig. MR. ABBOTT-They’re single family. Everything else is single family. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. The consensus I’m getting up here is no. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action.” MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. BREWER-No, Cath. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I was just thinking subsequent development on the other lot there, that piece that he mentioned to other people he was planning on putting a house up on. Okay. “Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” See I think there is controversy at this point. There’s people in the audience that are not happy with this proposal. MR. MAC EWAN-How does the rest of the Board feel? MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. BREWER-Yes, we have to say yes because they talked about the character of the neighborhood. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. BREWER-That would be my. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, then we can’t make a motion for anything here until we go back and resolve some of this. Okay. “For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important or otherwise significant, and each effect should be assessed in connection with its setting, that is rural or urban, it’s probability of occurring, the duration of it, if it’s irreversible, geographic scope, and its magnitude.” So we have two that we’re concerned about, and the first one is the surface or groundwater quality or quantity. MR. MAC EWAN-No, we ended up with four saying that wasn’t a concern. MR. SCHACHNER-The only one you’re evaluating is Question Two. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, what about the existing traffic pattern? That was my concern. MR. VOLLARO-It was voted no. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s right, we voted on that. Pardon me. MR. SCHACHNER-That was your concern, but I believe, that came up in C1, and C1, the majority of the Board felt was not an adverse effect. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’re right. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. SCHACHNER-So you’re now limited to reviewing your answer to C2, which is the only one that you answered yes as a majority. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Community or neighborhood character. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Excuse me. Thank you, Mark. All right. Is there a probability of it occurring? MR. VOLLARO-I’d say there is. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And it’s duration, is it going to last for a long time? Forever. MR. PALING-Could I ask a question, please? MR. MAC EWAN-Certainly. MR. PALING-What is the adverse effect on the neighborhood that this subdivision brings? MR. VOLLARO-Well, from my point of view, it’s out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. MR. PALING-What is it, the size of the house? The size of the lot? The setbacks? MR. MAC EWAN-To me, the layout, the subdivision layout. MR. PALING-Just because there’s a house behind the house. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s two houses with shared access, Number One. MR. BREWER-I’m struggling with that. I believe it’s out of character, but I don’t believe that a two lot subdivision, in my mind, and maybe I’m wrong, these questions should create an environmental impact statement for a two lot subdivision. I believe we can reasonably say that it’s out of character, but how much further can we go? MR. SCHACHNER-Again, the ultimate conclusion, and somebody said something earlier about it being subjective, what’s significant and what’s not, and you’re absolutely, 100% correct. It is subjective. The ultimate conclusion is whether you feel that the adverse effect that the majority has identified rises to the level of significance so that you feel you require either a full environmental assessment form or an environmental impact statement, because you have potentially significant environmental impacts. That’s what you now need to evaluate, whether this adverse effect, this is what Larry Ringer asked about a few minutes ago. Now we’re there. You need to subjectively evaluate whether, in your opinion, in your collective opinion, the adverse effect that you identified under neighborhood character rises to the level of a significance adverse effect. That’s the subjective determination you now have to make. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think it does. MR. SCHACHNER-Let me just finish. The guidelines that Cathy’s reading, letters a through e are the guidelines that you should use in making the determination, but you’re not constrained to those. Those are just guidelines. MR. VOLLARO-I think, in my mind, the most significant statement there is probability of occurring. That’s the one that seems to drill into my head. If it said no probability of occurring or absolute probability, it says probability of occurring. So there’s some probability equation going on there that you’ve got to look at. MR. SCHACHNER-In that particular factor, that’s correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I think the magnitude. If I lived in those two lots on either side of that driveway, and every day I’ve got cars driving, literally, in my back yard. I think that that’s a great change in the environment. I mean, it’s not as if the back yards are butting up against each other like in a normal configuration of a street. You’ve got people’s front driveways in your back yard, and I think that that is, you know, it’s not a nice thing to be confronted with something like that. MR. RINGER-You would have it anyway if it were a one lot subdivision though, Cathy, one house instead of two houses. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MRS. LA BOMBARD-I didn’t say I was for the one lot subdivision. MR. RINGER-You wouldn’t have a choice on it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, you’re right, but one lot, the impact isn’t as great as two. You only have one car coming in, maybe two instead of four, because usually one residence has two cars. MR. RINGER-That’s where you get the significance, I guess. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But once this is done, that’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is this a significant impact? We’ll start with Tim. MR. BREWER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Alan? MR. ABBOTT-No. MR. PALING-Bob? MR. PALING-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Craig? No. Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-And now a motion is appropriate, on the SEQRA. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, does someone want to make a motion for a negative dec? RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO.18-1999, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: CLUTE ENTERPRISES, INC., 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. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 28 day of September, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to put a motion up? MR. STEVES-Can we make a statement before you go there, please, or no? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. We’ve never denied an applicant to speak. MR. STEVES-Okay. We understand the concern, but we want to also let you know that two houses can be built on this, in the same configuration where we’re proposing, and not come through this subdivision, because he can have a boundary line agreement with himself, on this other lot, and bring a driveway in behind those other three lots and the leave the house right where it is, because it’s the only place on that property it can go, and as far as the concerns of septic and the separation, we’re about 12 foot higher in elevation than the wetland, and you have to meet, when you go for a building permit and inspections by the Town of Queensbury, your own Staff, to meet the minimum requirement of separation between groundwater, septic and wetlands. We will guarantee we will make all those requirements. MR. MAC EWAN-Your opening statement, though, said that it was cost prohibitive to develop that one acre lot. MR. STEVES-We didn’t say that it wasn’t cost prohibitive. I just said we could do the exact same thing we’re doing now, without a subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-To use your words, we’ll back up the tape and listen to it again, because that is basically what you said, because we asked about having access come in there. You said two things. You said you were working with the Town to try to get them to buy that end of Fifth Street Extension so that they could straighten out that curve, and you also said that property really drops off there. It would take a lot of fill, and it would be cost prohibitive to build access in there from that point. MR. STEVES-From Richardson Street. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. We’re talking about, this was during your discussion. Mr. Clute had a discussion with myself, he could explain it, with my discussion with my client, I’m not talking about bringing in a driveway from Richardson Street. I said bringing both of them in from Fifth Street. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. CLUTE-It seems people are getting confused, including the Board. What Matt was saying that’s cost prohibitive is coming in off of Fifth Street, up here, coming into this other property that I own, not the right of way of the railroad tracks that is in place. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s true. That’s the way I understood it. MR. CLUTE-This could be very well a driveway. The reason I’ve chosen to come in front of the Board is because of the interest in the last two years. Whether it ever takes place or not, that’s not my concern. Queensbury wants it. I think it makes a lot of sense. I have no use for the property. There’s no sale. It’s not a dollar amount I’ll give it. So if I’m giving up this driveway to accommodate this home, common sense prevails, I’ve got to come in and get access for it. That’s why I’m in front of this Board. I’m not asking for the two homes. I think the neighborhood’s 43 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) confused into thinking that I can’t do two homes. I can do two homes. I can get one driveway here, and I can get one driveway here. The only reason I’m here is because Queensbury showed an interest in this corner and wants it for safety reasons of that neighborhood. If I don’t, then a driveway can come here. That’s not of my concern. I was just looking for the best of the property. I can access this house right here via here. So these two houses are going to be there. Characteristic, those houses are what they are. The only thing is whether they access one spot, or one access here and one access here, and I don’t think that’s been made clear. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think it’s necessarily a given that houses are going to be there, because it takes approval from this Board to do that. MR. CLUTE-Not true, sir. I can get a building permit on this one right here, and I can get a building permit on this one right here. I can get building permits on both of them. MR. MAC EWAN-But you’re talking about totally reversing the subdivision so that there’s separate lots and not shared access on? MR. CLUTE-Well, that’s what I’m trying to say, that’s what I’m trying to make clear to everybody. People seem to think that they’re going to stop two homes. That’s not true. What they’re going to do is create two curb cuts, rather than one. That’s all that’s happening, in a denial or an approval. Two houses are going to happen. This layout’s going to happen. That’s no question. That’s all I’m trying to make clear. It just seems like that’s lost. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But, Larry, you did specify earlier this evening that that would be kind of not very cost effective for you. MR. CLUTE-What would not be cost effective is what Matt was describing, again, trying to avoid this corner for a curb cut. I have no problem laying stone along the existing railroad bed, and calling it a driveway. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I’m talking about where you originally said, right next to that lot, have that person drive behind those three lots. MR. CLUTE-Yes, no, that would not be wise. It’s not only cost, but it would create a hazard for whoever that driveway would have to maintain it, because not only is there a substantial drop from this property to the wetlands, there’s a substantial drop from Fifth Street down to this property. So this is probably an eight-foot drop. So if we were to do a curb cut here and drop down a driveway, they’d have a substantial drop to get into that driveway. So rather than do that, I just simply cut into Richardson. It’s already there. I don’t even have to cut into it. The railroad bed is in place, 50 foot wide, all the way in. All I’ve got to do is bring a driveway in right there, but I was avoiding that because of discussion with the Highway Department for years, it’s more than two years, and again, they’re right. It’s all rumor, it’s all discussion, but it’s been discussion. It’s been discussion. Whether it ever happens, I don’t know. Can I build on that corner? No. So, it didn’t matter to me, but the issue of the two houses, they’re going to be there. MR. MAC EWAN-Is it good, though, design to have a driveway, if you didn’t advance on this subdivision tonight, who would want to purchase a lot that would have a driveway that’s roughly somewhat between 5 and 700 feet long? MR. CLUTE-There’s a line a mile long. $70,000 is what it is. That’s what they’re buying. The negativity of a long driveway will easily be overcome because they’re going to buy a home at $70,000, which is a hard thing to come by in Queensbury. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think the hardest thing would be, who would want to purchase a house that was seven feet below the grade of the road? MR. CLUTE-It’s not over there. It is over here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It is over there. Okay, you’re right, okay. MR. CLUTE-It’s a very odd piece of property. That’s a given as well, but it is buildable, without question. MR. VOLLARO-You could mitigate that grade by some fill. There isn’t very much there to fill, when you look at it. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. CLUTE-That’s if I’m forced in to working this area here. That’s why I’m in front of this Board. I’m trying not to work that area. I don’t think it’s a wise thing for anybody for me to be working this area, with heavy equipment, and adjusting grade or anything like that. This grade right here is very suitable for what we seek, and this is where I would be putting two houses, exactly what is here. I wouldn’t be trying to put a house over here. I’d just simply extend a driveway into this home. So the two homes, like I said, I’m just trying to make it clear. These two homes are taking place. The question is whether I’m going to access one or access two. MR. BREWER-Well, I think we still have to look at the impact if we have two driveways going through between two houses. Does it create less, you understand what I mean, to accommodate two houses, is what I meant. MR. CLUTE-One of the people had said that I had talked to the neighborhood. I had tried to talk to the neighborhood, and somehow some information got mislead. Essentially, what I just described is what the neighbor is thinking, a long driveway in back of the property. Never was there more than two houses. It’s always two houses. That’s what I’m trying to make clear. It’s going to be two houses. There’s no way around it, whether it’s denied or not, it’s still two houses, because I’m not here to get approval for two houses. I’m really just trying to get approval for access for two houses via one driveway, and I just think the neighborhood’s a little confused in that respect. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to put a motion up? MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 18-1999 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Abbott: As written in the resolution, with the addition that only single family homes will be built on each of these two lots. Duly adopted this 28 day of September, 1999, by the following vote: th MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, and I’m going to cite Article I in General Provisions, for Section A183-1, Part B. MR. VOLLARO-No, for the same reasons, under General Provisions of Article IB. AYES: Mr. Abbott, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling NOES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan MR. MAC EWAN-So that motion went down in defeat. MR. SCHACHNER-That is correct. MR. MAC EWAN-So does someone want to put another motion up? MR. ABBOTT-What was the reasoning? MR. MAC EWAN-It didn’t have the votes to carry. Does someone want to put a motion up, another one? We’ve got to do something, folks. MR. BREWER-We don’t have to make a motion tonight, do we? MR. SCHACHNER-Tonight? No, you have 62 days from tonight in which to make a decision. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that’s true, but it’s always been the policy of this Board, in the seven plus years I’ve sat on it, that we’ve extended the process, whether we favor or not favor the project, we at least give the applicant their due, and give reasons why, or put a motion up. I think that’s only just we do, and this is the time, if the Board feels that they don’t want to approve this project, then put a motion up that says you don’t want to approve it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And if we don’t, then we have 62 days to have closure on this. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, I’m certainly not, I hope nobody’s thinking I’m suggesting you take 62 days. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MOTION TO DENY PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 18-1999 CLUTE ENTERPRISES, INC., Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: According to Section A183-1, I believe that the land, the lots are laid out and they’re not in harmony with the development pattern of the neighboring properties, and I am concerned about the safety of possibly four cars for two homes going through that little access to Fifth Street Extension, which is supposed to be the driveway. I’m concerned about the safety of the children and the neighbors, and as far as not being in the configuration as the rest of the neighborhood, and the fact that we had some neighbors here that spoke out, I thought quite well, and they were very articulate about how they felt. Duly adopted this 28 day of September, 1999, by the following vote: th MR. PALING-Question. When we did the SEQRA, there was a vote in favor of a negative dec, and now we come up with these reasons, which if we had used them then, would not have allowed the SEQRA to become a negative dec. This seems like a contradictory process we’re doing here. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I don’t know that I agree with that, Bob, and I guess I hearken back to what we talked about a week, now it would be a week or so ago, when we were talking about a different application and we were talking about SEQRA review versus site plan review, and remember we talked about, wait, were you here last Tuesday? MR. MAC EWAN-He wasn’t here a week ago. MR. SCHACHNER-I apologize, you weren’t here last Tuesday. I just realized that as I said what I was going to say. In your absence last Tuesday, we had a little discussion about SEQRA review versus site plan review. Now this is subdivision review, but the answer to your question is that your authority and your responsibilities to look at potential environmental impacts under SEQRA are not identical to looking at the criteria you look at under subdivision and site plan review, and I think that Cathy’s motion does adequately reference provisions in the Town of Queensbury Subdivision Regulations that list some factors and some criteria that are different than those listed in SEQRA. So I think you’re okay in that regard. I understand how it could be perceived that way, and there is a gray area here, but I think what I’m understanding is that the majority of the Board felt that although there were adverse effects on the neighborhood, they were not so significant as to warrant the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. That’s not the same thing as saying you therefore approve of the subdivision. MR. BREWER-I still second the motion. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott MR. BREWER-It’s denied. MR. MAC EWAN-Sorry, folks. SITE PLAN NO. 50-99 TYPE: UNLISTED F.W. WEBB OWNER: SAME ZONE: HC- 1A LOCATION: HIGHLAND AVENUE AND THE BOULEVARD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 14,700 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK, RELOCATED DRIVEWAYS AND PARKING LOT FOR ADDITIONAL BUILDING AREA FOR LARGER SHOWROOM AND WAREHOUSE. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 68-90, UV 92-1990, SP 87-90, UV 88-1999, AV 89-1999 BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE: 9/7/99 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/8/99 TAX MAP NO. 110-4-1.1 LOT SIZE: 2.53 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 50-99, F.W. Webb, Meeting Date: September 28, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes to construct a 14,700 square foot warehouse addition and increase the parking area. The applicant has received a use variance and has received an area variance for relief from roadside setbacks. The project is located in a highway commercial zone and requires site plan review. Staff Notes: The applicant has complied with the site plan review requirements. The proposed use is considered an industrial activity and the use is not allowed without a use variance. The applicant has received a use and area variance on the adjacent parcels to expand the business. The applicant proposes no new outdoor lighting and the Beautification 46 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) Committee recommends approval of the landscape plan as submitted. The application has been reviewed by Rist Frost Associates with no significant comments. Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the site plan.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is there anything from the County? MR. RINGER-No County Impact. MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to read the County’s comments? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. MOORE-It says “No County Impact with the stipulation that this is the intended build out at this point in time.” MR. MAC EWAN-I can’t quite figure that one out. So you’re built out now, but a year from now, you could build again? MR. NACE-I don’t know how they come up with the minutes. For the record, my name is Tom Nace, representing the applicant. They had a comment. They asked me whether we would be coming back with future building expansion, and then I told them that, hey, we were near the permeability requirements of the site, if we wanted to build more buildings in the future, we’d probably have to give up parking lot or do something else, but I don’t know how that got into the minutes. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyway, could you identify yourself for the record? MR. NACE-For the record, my name is Tom Nace, representing the applicant, F.W. Webb. Here also is Mike Burns, the Manager for this F.W. Webb site. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. MR. NACE-Okay. Real quick. It’s late, I’ll walk you through the project very quickly. The existing building, F.W. Webb, is right here, approximately 140 by 140 feet. We’re proposing to add on to the end of that, another 105 feet by 140 feet. In doing that, we will be taking up some of the parking area, and some of the outdoor storage area that they presently have. A lot of the stuff that they sell is pipe, large items that are stored outside on racks. They do a very neat job, if you’ve looked at the site. They keep a very nice outdoor storage area, very organized and neat, but at any rate, to replace that parking and outdoor storage area, we’re paving down into the two new properties that are being acquired. The existing building has a septic system out to the north. We are not planning any expansion of personnel that would go beyond the capacity of that existing system. So that simply will remain as is. The new addition will be primarily additional showroom space. Where their needs have changed, they need additional space to show set ups of various plumbing fixtures or kitchens and bathroom type setups, and also warehouse space. The existing truck docks will be relocated out to face the new building. The site has been planned so that we get a little better truck circulation. Right now when you have trucks coming through, entering off of Highland, they’ve got to actually pull out onto Boulevard to back into the loading docks. That will be changed. So there’s enough space here they can do that all on site. Both entryways, if you look, are being moved to the west. The one on Highland is on a State road. We’ve submitted, talked to the people at DOT. They don’t foresee any problems. I’ve submitted plans for a permit for that. The other one’s on a Town road. Drainage, the existing drainage is all collected into a low point in the existing paving, and it’s stored on the pavement, in some of their storage areas, and metered out through a weir into an existing drainage system along the Boulevard. We are modifying that a little bit because we’re reducing some of the amount of area available for storage there, but we’re also reshaping the parking lot so that half of the building, and a lot of the parking area, will now funnel down into a new stormwater retention system again on the pavement, behind a concrete curve, it’ll be down here in the new paving. That will be metered out into the existing storm drainage system as well. Landscaping, the existing site is fairly well landscaped. What we’re going to be doing is continuing with a hedgerow of arborvitae and some other plant material that will, some Honeysuckle that will tend to shield this fence that fences in their storage area, and buffer that. We’re also planting some larger deciduous trees along the outside to give a little depth to the landscaping, so it’s not all just a single hedgerow up against the fence. Any questions? MR. PALING-Are you removing any bushes or shrubs in this? MR. NACE-Yes, we will be. It’s hard to see. The landscaping plan doesn’t show the existing building or any of the pavement, existing paved area. There will be a little place up in here where we’re putting a new catch basin, and modifying the existing retention basin a little bit. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. PALING-How about on the west, the other, that’s going to stay? MR. NACE-On the west? Well, there is, okay, the existing curb line is back here. I think there’s maybe one tree out in here. MR. PALING-Okay. I’m sorry. MR. NACE-Here? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. NACE-Okay. The existing paving, the driveway ends right here. I think there are a few shrubs right at the edge of the driveway that will get taken out, but we’re doing some new landscaping around this new fence line. MR. PALING-But the Beautification Committee’s approved it, though. MR. NACE-They have approved it. I think when it’s all done, there will be, between what’s existing and will remain, and what’s new, there’ll be fairly good buffering of the entire fence line. The only place that isn’t buffered is here where the existing septic is, and we just don’t want the root system, trees into it. MR. PALING-That’s all I had. MR. ABBOTT-I’m all set. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think with the three big businesses that are there, in that whole triangle, and Warren Tires’ main office and LoCasio’s, I think it’s just going to be very nice when you finish this addition. MR. NACE-It’ll fit in, and I think if you’ve looked at these two existing properties, it’ll be a great improvement. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, excellent. MR. BREWER-The only use for that addition is going to be a warehouse, and they’re going to expand their showroom, is that the essence? MR. NACE-It’s a warehouse on one side, and Mike can speak to this, if I speak out of turn, don’t be afraid to yell. As far as I understand it, one side will be warehouse space, and the other side will be showroom and additional setups of typical plumbing applications. MR. BREWER-I agree with the rest of the Board, that you’ve done a good job down there, and I presume that the addition will add to the essence of the building. It’s a good project. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything from Staff? We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need a SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 50-99, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: F.W. WEBB, 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 48 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 28 day of September, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put a motion up? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 50-99 F.W. WEBB, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Site Plan No. 50-99; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 8/31/99, consists of the following: 1. 8/31/99 – Application, Stormwater Man. Report dated 8/25/99, Map SP-1, SP-2, SP-3 dated 8/25/99 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Undated – Fax to T. Nace from L. Moore re: Zoning Administrator 2. 9/21/99 - Notice of Public Hearing 3. 9/7/99 - Beautification Comm. Comments 4. 9/2/99 - RFA comments 5. 9/2/99 - Meeting Notice Letter 6. 9/1/99 - W. Levandowski from C. Round 7. 8/31/99 - W. LaMothe from C. Round 8. 9/28/99 - Staff Notes 9. 9/22/99 - ZBA resolution for Use Variance and Area Variance 10. 9/1/99 - Warren Co. Planning Bd. Resolution Whereas, a public hearing was held on 9/28/99 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 49 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Site Plan No. 50-99. 2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution. 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. Duly adopted this 28 day of September, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck. SUBDIVISION NO. 17-1999 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED JOHN SALVADOR, JR. & KATHLEEN SALVADOR OWNER: SAME ZONE: RR-3A/LC-42A LOCATION: RT. 9L & ALEXY LN. ON DUNHAMS BAY APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 135 ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS OF 13 ACRES, 116 ACRES AND 3.08 +/- ACRES. APA, CEA TAX MAP NO. 10-1- 17.1 LOT SIZE: 135 +/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JOHN, JR. & KATHLEEN SALVADOR, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-I’ll make a note that I have amended Staff Notes. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 17-1999, Preliminary Stage, Final Stage, John Salvador, Jr. & Kathleen Salvador, Meeting Date: September 28, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes a three lot subdivision in a split zone, Lot One – 13 +/- acres, Lot Two – 116 +/- acres, and Lot Three – 3.08 +/- acres. Lot’s One and Three are located in the Rural Residential-Three Acre zone (RR-3A), Lot Two is located in the Land Conservation-42 acre zone (LC-42A). The Adirondack Park Agency is currently reviewing the project. Staff Notes: Amended – The Planning Office received notice of an incomplete permit application from the Adirondack Park Agency. The Agency has identified proposed developmental issues that need to be clarified at the Town level. Our Office has identified the following items to be clarified. Lot Number One, at 13 +/- acres. This parcel is to be retained for the existing resort facilities. The drawing should identify the location of the existing wastewater facility, any replacement area, if designated, with location, proposed setbacks, well locations, and number of dwelling units. This information will be useful to determine if there is sufficient land to accommodate the existing use. Lot Number Two, 116 +/- acres. This parcel is proposed to be utilized as it currently is, for boat storage. The drawing should identify a proposed use on the parcel that is allowed under the current zoning regulations, an example, single family home. A conservation easement precluding development may be considered in lieu of a proposed use. Clarification is requested on this lot in regards to required road frontage. The drawing identifies a 50 foot marking. It is unclear if Lot Two has the required 40 feet of road frontage on Alexy Lane. Lot Number Three, at 3.08 +/- acres. This parcel is proposed to be combined with parcel 4-1-11 to be used for overflow parking of the marina facility. The drawing should identify a proposed use that is allowed under the current zoning regulations, or a condition indicating that the parcels merge with parcel 4-1-11. If this area is to improved (graded or stoned or in some way developed) into a designated parking area for the marina, it may be subject to a use variance or site plan review for expansion of a nonconforming use. The improvement of this parcel may impact the marina permit from other agencies. The applicant has indicated that the area has been historically utilized for overflow parking. We would recommend additional documentation and support of this assertion. The New York State DEC permit issued for the marina indicates parking for 75 cars. Does this parking area include a portion of this? The Zoning Administrator is reviewing the status of the 10 lot subdivision called Alexy Subdivision and a decision is forthcoming. The 50 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) following information was not identified on the plot plan and may require the applicant to request for waivers. The applicant provide the information or request waivers from the subdivision requirement. Existing and proposed two foot contours that extend 100 feet off site; Current zoning classification of existing parcels; Setback requirements; Location of existing and proposed septic systems and wells; Clearing Plan; Grading Plan Recommendation: Staff would recommend the Board delay approval of preliminary and final stage until the information requested is submitted.” MR. MAC EWAN-So the stemming of this, before we go too much farther, basically, the last section of your staff notes with the Zoning Administrator’s reviewing the status of the 10 Alexy subdivision lots directly correlates to the September 27 letter? Is that a yes or a no? th MRS. MOORE-Yes, it corresponds with that. MR. MAC EWAN-The September 27 letter that Mr. Salvador wrote to Matt Steves. th MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, because there’s some issue as to whether those things were ever formally filed with the County or whomever? MRS. MOORE-Correct. Would you like me to read those two letters in, as well as the APA? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, probably at this point it would be a good idea to do that. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I’ll read the APA letter first, and it says date application received is 9/10/99. MR. BREWER-What letter is that? MRS. MOORE-This is from the APA. I’m not certain if people have received a copy of this or not. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t have that one. MR. BREWER-I don’t, either. MR. BREWER-Who was it to? MRS. MOORE-This is addressed to Mr. Salvador, actually, Kathleen and John Salvador, and it was received in our office on 9/27. So, it says “Thank you for taking the time on September 22, 1999 to discuss your proposed project with me and to show me around the property. Again, I apologize for my unscheduled stop and appreciate the time you spent with me. During our meeting, and in the application for the project, you noted that the project does not involve the construction of new or expanded structures or land use at this time. Rather, you are only proposing to undertake the subdivision of the land such that 13 +/- acres would be allocated with the existing Dunham’s Bay Lodge, 116 +/- acres would be retained and 3.08 +/- acres of land (Lot 3) would be created as a lot to be combined with the lot upon which the marina is located but that no expansion of the marina is proposed. Further, at some time in the future, Lot 3 might be used to create a parking area for the existing marina. At that time, I noted that Lot 3 has some limitations as to the areas on it that would be appropriate for the development of a parking area at such time as it were to be developed for use as a parking area. As such, it is not possible to guarantee the number of vehicles and trailers that could be parked on the site at this time. I further stated that at the time the lot is to be developed as a parking area, a grading and construction plan would be required and a final assessment would be made as to its capacity. During the interim, I acknowledged that, if the Town of Queensbury did not object, I did not think that it would be inappropriate to use the existing disturbed area within the right-of-way of Alexy Lane as parking for vehicles. I further stated that because you are not currently planning any new or expanded land use or construction that I would defer the need for design and construction plans until such time as any of the lots being created are to be further developed. I also noted that the proposed subdivision will require approval from the Town of Queensbury Planning Board and that the Agency may not approve the project until it knows if the project is approvable under the Town’s zoning and subdivision ordinances and that I would render the application incomplete until such time as the Town approval is granted. Therefore, please provide the information that follows. 1. Since approval of the proposed subdivision is required from the Town of Queensbury, provide a copy of the approval (e.g. permit or signed subdivision plat) and the minutes of all meetings at which the project was discussed.” For the letters from John Salvador, is there a preference as to which ones I read into the record first, the one addressed to Mr. Steves or the one addressed to Mr. and Mrs. Alexy? MR. BREWER-Do the 24 first and then the 27. thth MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, do the oldest, first. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MRS. MOORE-Okay. This is addressed to Mr. and Mrs. Alexy, and this is from John Salvador. MR. SCHACHNER-I think Mr. Salvador is likely referring to a letter from the Alexys. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, please. MR. SCHACHNER-I haven’t seen it, but I’m sure that’s what he was referring to. MRS. MOORE-I’m sorry. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have that? MRS. MOORE-Yes, I do. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead, read it. MRS. MOORE-This is dated September 16, 1999, it’s addressed to “Dear Mr. Chairman: We have received the subject notice, but because of prior commitments, are unable to attend the hearing on September 28 next. We are holding comment on the subject application until we know how the th subdivided lands will be used. We ask that the Board withhold a decision until everyone has digested the application, after a full disclosure of all the specifics of how the subdivided land will be used, and all interested parties have had a chance to comment. Sincerely, Fred H. Alexy Jane A. Alexy” Okay. I’ll go on to the letter from Mr. Salvador to the Alexys. “In accordance with the State Freedom of Information Laws, we have obtained a copy of your letter of September 16, 1999, addressed to the Chairman of the Queensbury Town Planning Board. We are sorry that previous commitments preclude your appearance before the Queensbury Planning Board on September 28, 1999. A schedule conflict such as you outlined can happen to almost anyone. Such conflicts are recognized by local government as strong possibilities in that all permit review boards allow any interested party to submit their comments in writing or even for your properly authorized representative to appear in your stead. We have often been assured that written comments are given equal consideration to verbal arguments. As to how the subdivided lands are intended to be used, we reiterate that we would expect ourselves as well as our successors to be bound by all existing and future legal laws, rules and regulations in effect at the time any permit might be required to further develop any and all of the lands being sub-divided. We consider your request that the Town Planning Board “withhold a decision until everyone has had time to digest the application” to be inappropriate. What sphere constitutes “every one”? Has “everyone” agreed that you represent them in this matter? How long do you estimate it might take “everyone” to digest the application? We submit that full disclosure of all specifics concerning this sub-division request have been encompassed in our application and proposed sub-division plan. By copy of this letter to the Chairman of the Queensbury Town Planning Board we are strenuously objecting to your request and further that the review process continue to move forward as a part of the proper and regular course of business of the Planning Board on September 28. In this manner the Board will be treating our sub-division application as all the others appearing before it. Yours truly, John Salvador” And I’ll go into the letter addressed to Mr. Steves, from John Salvador “As you are aware, Tom McCormack has mapped a proposed 3-lot subdivision of our property at Lake George known and defined presently as Queensbury Tax Parcel 10-1-17.1. During the mapping process it came to our attention that John B. VanDusen had mapped a portion of the lands of Fred Alexy (Sr.) forming a 10-lot subdivision in 1961. A map of said subdivision was apparently filed with the Queensbury Town Board. (See meeting minutes of 12-25- 61 attached). In addition to the granting of land for a roadway, Fred subsequently sold only 4 lots (No. 1, 2, 3, and 4), the other 6 lots remain in our title and have not been given tax parcel numbers by the County Town Tax Mapping Services Department. As a result, the Queensbury Town Community Development Staff has raised a question of the legality of the remaining 6 lots being a portion of the original subdivision. I have not been able to ascertain that this subdivision was ever filed with Warren County. In this regard, might you have a record or file on this project which could shed light on why this subdivision plan was not filed with Warren County, if indeed such filing was at all necessary at that time. Finally, is it too late to file the VanDusen subdivision map of 1961 seeing as it was filed with the Queensbury Town Board in 1961? How could the Town have accepted the land for the road without approving the subdivision? We are scheduled before the Planning Board on the 28 of September. Therefore, your earliest response will be much appreciated. Yours truly, th John Salvador, Jr." MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes, it is. MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing else? MRS. MOORE-No. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. I’m John Salvador, and I’m here tonight with my wife Kathleen. MR. MAC EWAN-In the interest of saving you some time tonight, and the Board some time and stuff, I don’t think we ought to get too heavily involved in anything, with so many unanswered questions at this point that need to be resolved, but right off the bat, I’ve got a question for Staff, and my question for Staff is revolving around Section 183-7 B-2 in reference to this subdivision’s proximity within the Adirondack Park. They’re referencing in here that things should be started off at the sketch plan stage. MR. BREWER-183 where, Craig? MR. MAC EWAN-183-7B-2, if the subdivision is located within the Adirondack Park, the Board shall also determine at this time whether the subdivision shown by the sketch plan, which we aren’t, we’re at preliminary, is a regional subdivision and thereby subject to the special requirements of Article 9. What does that mean? MRS. MOORE-If you’ll give me a minute to review it. Mr. Salvador did request for a waiver from sketch plan. So you may consider that, but if you’ll give me a second. I don’t know what the regional subdivision is. MR. MAC EWAN-Typically, who grants those waivers? Is it the Planning Board or is it the Zoning Administrator? MRS. MOORE-For a waiver. MR. MAC EWAN-From Sketch Plan. MRS. MOORE-The Planning Board has, in the past. MR. BREWER-Do we have a request for that waiver? MRS. MOORE-Yes, you do. MR. MAC EWAN-We do? MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to read it? It wasn’t as part of his application MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I’d like some definition, too, to this Section in the Regulations. I’d like some clarification, just for me. I don’t fully understand what is the regional subdivision, and what is Article 9? MR. SCHACHNER-Article 11, I think it is. MR. MAC EWAN-Article 11, I’m sorry. MRS. MOORE-Okay. In a letter dated August 25, 1999 from Mr. Salvador to Chris Round, it says, “Attached are an original and nine copies of our preliminary stage subdivision application. In this regard, we would like to request a waiver from the requirement that we first submit a sketch plan for Planning Board approval.” MR. MAC EWAN-So he didn’t ask of the Planning Board. He asked of the Zoning Administrator. MR. SALVADOR-I was instructed to do it that way. MRS. MOORE-Yes. Typically, the Planning Board has granted that approval in the past, or reviewed the request in the past. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. At what point do we review it? That’s what I’m asking you, because we’re sitting here with an application in front of us tonight that’s preliminary. MRS. MOORE-An applicant has requested, in writing, if he could have, if that waiver could be granted by the Board. MR. BREWER-But doesn’t it have to be approached to the Board, the request? 53 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. MAC EWAN-That’s all we’re looking for, Laura, is clarification, because I’m reading things in here that’s referring to APA jurisdiction in this, as far as our review process, that says it’s supposed to be at sketch plan, but yet we have an application in front of us tonight that’s preliminary. So I want to know where a waiver came along. That’s why I’m getting confused on this. MR. SCHACHNER-Let me see if I can shed some light on this. The Section you first referred to requires a sketch plan of any subdivider, okay. What was the Section you first referred to? MR. MAC EWAN-183-7B-2, and it says if the subdivision is located within the Adirondack Park. MR. SCHACHNER-I understand, but lets back up a second. I’m going to ask, if you don’t mind, to look on 183-7A, just above B-2, the same page, called submission of sketch plan. It says, “Prior to any subdivision of land, the subdivider shall submit to the Planning Board, 21 days….copies of a sketch plan”. So I think you’re, I just want to make sure that you understand that the requirement of sketch plan is not unique to things within the Adirondack Park. You’re looking at B-2, and talking about a regional subdivision and things like that but to the extent that your concern is, why isn’t there a sketch plan, you can have that concern, but it’s not unique to subdivisions in the Adirondack Park. Am I making sense? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but what I was tying in to, and I didn’t know, what do they mean, lets stick with just this B-2 part for a second. What do they mean as a regional subdivision, and therefore subject to the special requirements of Article 11? What does that mean? MR. SCHACHNER-I do not know that. MR. MAC EWAN-Then back up onto this other thing for a moment. Okay. Then just quickly backing up to A183-7, we didn’t get a request 21 days before the scheduled meeting. The first I’m hearing about this request for waiver is tonight. MRS. MOORE-I would say that was a Staff miscommunication that we didn’t send that letter with the rest of the application. I assumed that everybody received that information. MR. MAC EWAN-Did anybody else on the Board receive that? MR. PALING-No. Couldn’t we act on it anyway? MR. BREWER-We wouldn’t have gotten it 21 days before anyway, because we didn’t get our packets. MR. PALING-Yes, we don’t get them that early. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we might have overlooked the 21 days, but the fact that we didn’t get it. MR. MAC EWAN-And now the technical question for you. Is there a provision in our Subdivision Regulations regarding creation of lots that don’t have frontage? MRS. MOORE-You’re not allowed to do it without a variance, is my understanding. MR. MAC EWAN-What does this big lot number two on here have frontage on? MRS. MOORE-Alexy Lane. MR. BREWER-That’s a Town road. MR. MAC EWAN-Where’s Alexy Lane? MR. BREWER-That’s that 10 lot subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, right where that cul de sac circles. All right. Thanks. Okay. The floor is yours, okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Excuse me. I can answer your question about regional subdivisions, if you’d like. MR. MAC EWAN-Go for it. MR. SCHACHNER-Regional Subdivision is defined in our Zoning Ordinance as applied to any subdivision wholly or partially within the Adirondack Park, which I believe this is, and means any Class A Regional Subdivision or Class B Regional Subdivision as defined in”, and then it gives some 54 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) lists of things defined, and I believe, and I don’t believe the applicant would disagree, that this is, in fact, a regional subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-And those are the special requirements of Article 11? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. I think we should put aside the Adirondack Park issue, first. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re not going to put any issue aside. MR. SALVADOR-Well, I would like to comment on it. Shortly after we filed our application for this subdivision approval, I contacted the APA because I understood that I would need their approval as well. I contacted a Mr. Brian Ford by telephone, and we talked about the project. He asked me to send him this preliminary drawing that you have in front of you. I sent it to him by mail. Three days later I got a telephone call from him, and he said it looks like your project is jurisdictional, simply because of the wetlands on lot number, the big lot. MR. VOLLARO-Under who’s jurisdiction? MR. SALVADOR-The APA. MR. VOLLARO-APA. MR. SALVADOR-Okay, and he sent me a packet of information, the application form for the APA approval, which I have completed and sent to him, parallel to this application, parallel. As Laura read, the APA visited our site, and I believe we got an excellent letter. I’m very pleased with this letter. There’s one little misconception that the gentleman had, in the fact that we intend to develop some formal parking. We don’t intend to do that at all. We’re using Lot Number Three right now for parking, as need be. We park anything and everything there, our guests, our marina people, our own work vehicles, but it’s just, you know, we’re just pulling off the road. You’ve probably visited the site. You see what we have there now, but in any case, the APA letter is not, Staff Notes, the amended notes read, by the way, on the subject of the amended notes, when did you receive those? MR. MAC EWAN-Tonight. MR. BREWER-Tonight. MR. VOLLARO-Tonight. MR. SALVADOR-Tonight. When do you usually receive your information? MR. BREWER-A lot of times tonight. MR. MAC EWAN-Not a lot of times. MR. BREWER-A lot of times. MR. MAC EWAN-Most of the time on the Friday before. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-But I think we’ve also made the stipulation on this Board that we would like to have all the information before tonight, before the night of the meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s no doubt about it. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. It says here in Staff Notes Amended, “The Planning Office received notice of an incomplete permit application from the Adirondack Park Agency”. The Planning Office did not receive a notice of incomplete permit. They received a notice of additional information request, and the additional information request is understood to us. It’s simply your approval, evidence of your approval of this subdivision, and until that’s received in their office, our application is deemed to be incomplete, but otherwise, everything has been done. They are satisfied. They are ready to issue the permit, pending arrival of your permission. MR. SCHACHNER-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I think it’s important, and I don’t mean to interrupt, and it’s up to you when you want me to chime in on this, but if Mr. Salvador is going to extend his 55 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) comments for any significant amount of time, which is certainly his right, I want to make sure I point out to you that already he’s made some extremely significant misstatements of fact and law. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-I can address those later, or I can address those now, that’s up to you. MR. MAC EWAN-Like I said, I don’t want to sit here and just go back and forth all night long. I see a lot of problems with the application that need to be clarified, and to sit here until one o’clock in the morning going through this is not going to serve anybody’s needs. MR. SCHACHNER-I certainly agree with that. I’m concerned about the record here, and you have an applicant who has just before us here on the record stated that Staff is completely erroneous as characterizing the communication from the Adirondack Park Agency, as any sort of incomplete permit application notice, and he reads the title of page two, which is additional information request. This applicant has a track record there that I need to be concerned about in protecting the record, and I point out to the Planning Board that the document received from the Adirondack Park Agency has a title, and that title is “Notice of Incomplete Permit Application” and the first sentence of that document says, and I quote it verbatim, “This is to notify you that the application for project permit described below is incomplete”, so part of my job is to make sure that the accurate information is produced on this record, and Staff’s characterization of this document as a Notice of Incomplete Permit Application cannot not, in my opinion, fairly be questioned. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-What was the other thing that you said that he misspoke on, that you wanted to clarify? Was there another item? MR. SCHACHNER-No, but I don’t think he misspoke. I don’t believe that it’s fair to characterize that as a misspeaking. Mr. Salvador conveniently takes page two and reads us the title, and conveniently manages to avoid page one, and he read accurately from page two. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-The point I’d like to make with regard to the use of lot number three, we have no plans to expand, alter the use of that lot. We’re using it as we’re using it today. We’ll use it as we need it. It’s our land. It abuts a Town road. We access it from the Town road. Nobody’s ever said we can’t, shouldn’t. We’ve never been shutdown. We’ve never been cited. By the way, if you did visit the site today, and you drove down Alexy Road, you might have noticed a boat parked on a trailer in the right-of-way, maybe a pickup truck there with it. That doesn’t belong to us. It doesn’t belong to any of our guests, any of our clientele. It belongs to one of Mr. Alexy’s tenants. Why the gentleman is not allowed to park the boat and his vehicle on the property, I do not know, but it’s parked in the right-of-way. That’s not our doing. Our people park on our property. The primary reason why we’re subdividing this land is in the end analysis, we hope that the use to which this use can be put will be better tailored to the characteristics of the land and the zoning. Everything, everything we do on this land today is nonconforming. Everything we do is nonconforming. We have never enjoyed, in North Queensbury, a situation where our business, which precedes zoning in this Town, precedes the APA Act, has been a conforming use, and yet the nature of the business has not changed over the years. We’re basically a recreation oriented facility, and that has never been recognized in the Town’s zoning. MR. MAC EWAN-What is the purpose of the subdivision? What’s the reasoning for it? MR. SALVADOR-It’s not unreasonable to foresee the day when some day we may have to liquidate, sell pieces and parts of this property. We don’t think it’s saleable, the way the zoning is, in its present form. This very large parcel is zoned three acre, rural residential, and land conservation 42 acres. Land Conservation 42 Acres is fundamentally residential zoning. It’s just a very low density. The allowable uses that this parcel can be put to under those conditions fit very much what we’ve ever done with the property, and it does front here on this road, Alexy Road. I have the deed for the road that shows that that 50-foot extension there exists. That’s purposely put there so that the road can be extended some day. There’s concern that the land, the 13 acres of parcel number one, is sufficient to support the activities that go on that parcel. I can tell you that we operate within the limits of all of the permits we’ve had, we have. We have been inspected, most recently, by the New York State Department of Health. They take care of our septic systems, our water supply. We have, in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations, we have mapped all the buildings on the property. They’re there. We have an enlarged drawing of this area that shows a little better detail, and you can scale a little bit better, if you have to. We’ve noted this previously approved subdivision here, and this parcel number three that we have here, that fronts on Alexy Road that we use now for parking, what have you, storage of materials. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. PALING-Excuse me. How wide is that access? MR. SALVADOR-Fifty feet. MR. PALING-It is 50 feet? Okay. MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Paling, Alexy Road, I submit, Alexy Road is one of the very few legal Town roads in North Queensbury. MR. PALING-I didn’t mean Alexy Road when I asked the question. I meant, you do have access to Lot Three by that Alexy lot there. MR. SALVADOR-Beside it. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-That fronts 40 feet on Route 9L. MR. PALING-Forty on 9L? Okay, because the line’s too thick to measure it. That’s 40 feet, okay. Thank you. MR. SALVADOR-But on another drawing we have, it’s 40 feet. MR. MAC EWAN-So the basic premise for wanting this subdivision is so that some day, if you so choose, you can divest yourself of some of the parcels? MR. SALVADOR-That’s right. The important thing with Lot Number Three is, and by the way, I should mention this. We have only one deed, one deed to everything you see here, including the north side of the road. We are the dominant deed holder in this area. Everything has been taken out of our deed, including the road. Now we did not, I don’t know where this came from, but there are different tax parcel numbers on the north side of the road than there are on the south side, but I say again, we had nothing to do with that, and that, in and of itself, is a subdivision. So we foresee the need, and we do have a permit, you saw in the filings, we do have a marina permit, a DEC marina permit, wherein we stated we had 75 marina customer parking places. The only way we could accomplish that was to utilize this area. In this regard, our marina permit application, when we submitted it to the DEC, the DEC put the Town of Queensbury on notice that they were granting a permit to these levels of use, and I have that submission to the Town, a copy of that. So the Town is cognizant of the fact that we were using this area for parking for the activities on the north side of the road. MR. BREWER-How can we proceed with the information we’re lacking, that the Staff states we are missing? MR. MAC EWAN-We can’t. MR. BREWER-Then why are we going through all this dissertation? MR. MAC EWAN-Because you give everybody an opportunity to speak. MR. BREWER-I understand. MR. MAC EWAN-Like I said, I’m not going to sit here until one o’clock in the morning, going back and forth with this, when there’s so much information that’s missing. To me, in my mind, I think the crucial missing information is the validity of the 10 lot subdivision, and the other thing that I’m having trouble with, as far as requesting the waivers from the two foot contours and the current zoning classifications and setback requirements, the location of existing and proposed septic systems, clearing and grading plans, considering it’s in a CEA, I’m not inclined to want to grant those waivers. That’s just one person’s opinion. MR. SALVADOR-To survey 116 acres, two-foot contours, is a lot of work. I don’t know if you’ve visited the site. It’s a gently rolling. The topography is not. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the Board’s been flexible in the past, too. I think in some cases we’ve done five and ten foot contours. MR. BREWER-Ten foot. MR. SALVADOR-And how do you do 100 feet on somebody else’s land? 57 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MRS. MOORE-That’s the way the Subdivision Regulations read. The Board can modify the contours. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s part of the requirements. MR. SALVADOR-I don’t know how you’d, without permission. Okay. With regard to that subdivision, do you have, in your packet, a letter from the, it’s resolution number 133 of 1961. I got this from the Town Clerk. MR. MAC EWAN-No, and at this point, John, I think it would be in this Board’s best interest to await a determination from the Zoning Administrator, and he’s the one that’s researching this. MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Chairman, the Zoning Administrator has had a month, practically, to do this. I made this information available to the Zoning Administrator. Did I not? MRS. MOORE-We have that information. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. I made this available to you, when the question came up. The Planning Staff has on record, in its file, a map of this. This map, although it wasn’t filed at the County, that I could find no evidence that it was filed at the County. MR. VOLLARO-John, before you start this, I’d just like to ask Staff a question, so I can get something clear in my mind. The Staff Notes, prior to the amended Staff Notes, had a statement in it, under the Staff Notes section, that said, and I’ll just take it out of context, the intent is to retain the parcel with the resort marina buildings, and to maintain the other two as vacant parcels. I guess what I want to try to get in my mind, as this rolls on, is this still the intent? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. We have no development plans on any of the land, other than the resort, and if we did, we’d have to get permits. MR. VOLLARO-I just wanted to make sure that that statement in the original notes is still a valid statement. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. As I mentioned, everything we do, in all of the land, is nonconforming. Okay. It’s nonconforming. We need site plan to put a door on the side of a building. We’ve had that experience. So there’s really nothing we can do without permits. Anyone can do, but anyway, resolution number 133 of 1961, “Whereas Mr. Fred Alexy has filed with this Board a map of a proposed development on property near Dunham Bay, Lake George, and Whereas Mr. Alexy has executed a deed to the Town, conveying land for a Town highway in this proposed development, to be known as Alexy Road, Now, Therefore, Be It, Resolved,” etc., etc., that it’s accepted. It was adopted by the following vote. That was in December of 1961. There’s another letter on the record. This is a letter from the County Attorney, to Mr. Webster, the Town Supervisor at that time. “Dear John: As a result of our meeting with Alexy, and Bartlett and Dier,” Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Dier were Mr. Alexy’s counsel in those days, “I handed to you on Monday the executed deed from Alexy to the Town conveying the land to the Town for the Town highway, in his proposed development, with two copies of a letter in which he pledges he will not deviate from the requirements of the subdivision. Emerson Bank has a mortgage on the Alexy property, and I enclose herewith a release, by Emerson Bank, of this proposed Town highway for the lien of their mortgage.” I submit that no way can this subdivision be illegal, in any way. The Bank would not give a release unless it was, unless they were satisfied that it was legal. Not only that, we have two neighbors here tonight who presently own property, are the original buyers, and I’m sure they’re not of a mind that the subdivision was illegal. So that’s the only thing I can offer. There’s no record at the County that it was filed. I can’t find out from anyone that a filing was required in those days. Now, other than that, I would ask what is sufficient to, what is required to legitimize, if you will, at this time, that subdivision? MR. MAC EWAN-That will have to come from the Zoning Administrator who’s reviewing it. MR. SALVADOR-Well, you know his first comments, when he drafted them, he said something about checking the legal status of the subdivision. The Zoning Administrator’s reviewing the legal status of the subdivision, and the word “legal” has been dropped out of the amended minutes, the amended notes. Are there other statuses of a subdivision, other than legal? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know. I can only tell you that, as one of seven members sitting up here looking at this, we saw this for the first time tonight as well. So what the status is, what he’s reviewing, what he’s looking for, I don’t know, but set that issue aside. Let’s suppose that was AOK. There’s several other issues looming over this subdivision that need to be corrected or addressed before we even move on. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. SALVADOR-Okay. It says here the drawing should identify the location of existing wastewater facilities. Those are all identified. Our wastewater facilities are regulated by the DEC, through our SPDES permit program. MRS. MOORE-They’re not on that map. MR. SALVADOR-Not where? MRS. MOORE-They’re not identified on the drawing that you submitted for subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-Subdivision Regulations are very specific what they look for in items. I mean, you saw with the one we denied earlier tonight. That showed cutting areas and it showed the building footprint. That showed septic layouts. That showed setbacks. That showed ingress/egress. That showed it all. This subdivision’s no different. MR. SALVADOR-It didn’t show existing. It showed proposed. We’re not proposing anything new. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s true. I won’t argue that one with you. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Any replacement area, if designated, the location, proposed setbacks, well locations. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask you this. Is there a problem for you to address any of these things that Staff’s looking for? MR. SALVADOR-It’s a lot of work, and it’s going to delay the process. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d rather delay the process and have the process done right then to do a ship shot job. One point you brought up last week with another site plan that we were doing over on Route 9L, where you spoke during the public hearing. You encouraged this Board to do the right thing and go through the review process. Why should we do something different tonight? MR. SALVADOR-Well, how do I address these? Do I work with Staff? What do I do between now and? MR. MAC EWAN-Considering the amount of information that’s being looked for, being requested here, you’ve got options galore available to you, whether you want to hire a consulting engineer to help you, which most applicants do, whether you want to try to work with Staff, and they can offer some guidance to you. They’re not going to engineer it for you. That’s not their job. They can offer you some guidance. MR. SALVADOR-I don’t expect them to do that. MRS. SALVADOR-If this was needed, and Staff knew it was needed, why didn’t you let us know? MR. BREWER-It’s on the application. MR. MAC EWAN-When you get your application, there’s a set of checked off items that’s required with the application. Shake your head all you want, ma’am, but you’re asking for a waiver from a whole bunch of things that are part of the subdivision requirement. MR. SALVADOR-We’re not asking for any waivers. I don’t believe we need any waivers. MR. BREWER-Well then, John, what the point is. MR. MAC EWAN-Then why didn’t you submit all this stuff with your application? MR. SALVADOR-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a reasonable question. What’s the answer? Why wasn’t it submitted with your application that’s on the checklist? MR. SALVADOR-Under the circumstances, and the relative size of the big lot, we didn’t think that two foot contours were needed, okay. MR. BREWER-So at that point, you request a waiver. That’s all we’re asking. We’re not trying to treat you any different than anybody else. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. SALVADOR-Okay. The location of existing and proposed septic systems and wells. We don’t propose any new septic systems nor wells. MR. BREWER-Then that’s what you write down, none proposed. Simple. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. A clearing plan. Would we need a clearing plan? We don’t plan to do any clearing. MR. BREWER-Then that’s what you put down. MR. MAC EWAN-Then you ask for a waiver, but you have to do it in the form of a letter. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-You have to do it in writing. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff Notes. You have a copy, obviously, of Staff Notes, the amended ones tonight? MR. SALVADOR-Yes, I do. MR. MAC EWAN-So you’ve got Lot Number One, Lot Number Two, Lot Number Three, all have issues looming over it as well. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Back to the boards. MR. MAC EWAN-I think what we’ll do is, I’m going to poll the Board on the Sketch Plan aspect of it. I think basically we’re there right now. I mean, it’s not moving along any farther. In my mind, it’s sketch plan right now. MR. BREWER-Yes. I think if he gives us a letter asking for a waiver, I don’t have a problem with it. MR. PALING-Not with the sketch plan. MR. BREWER-Absolutely not. MR. SALVADOR-I did that. MR. BREWER-Okay. Well, then Staff should forward it to us, and, personally, I don’t have a problem. MR. SALVADOR-Can Staff forward that to you tonight, right here? MR. BREWER-Is that legal to do, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-Sure. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t have a problem. Does someone want to introduce a motion to? MOTION TO GRANT A WAIVER FOR SKETCH PLAN SUBDIVISION NO. 17-1999 JOHN SALVADOR, JR. & KATHLEEN SALVADOR, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: Duly adopted this 28 day of September, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-See, we’re workable. MR. SALVADOR-Now, am I too late for application at the next month? MR. BREWER-Can we grant an extension for that? 60 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have no problem with that. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not that he’s making application. He has an application already with us. He needs to address some outstanding issues, before we consider reviewing this for a preliminary vote. MR. SALVADOR-Can I do that for the next meeting, is what I’m asking. MR. MAC EWAN-If you can get the information and compile it for Staff. MR. SALVADOR-Tomorrow is the closing date, I believe. MRS. MOORE-Tomorrow is the closing date, and that’s where, I believe, his concern is. MR. BREWER-Can we grant an extension? We, typically, have done it before. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-The 19, and tomorrow is the 29. If you have all the information by close of thth business to Staff on the 13 of October, two days to review it before Staff Notes go out. Is that th okay with you? MR. BREWER-No, give her a week. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. By the end of business October the 8, and that’ll give you a full week. th MR. BREWER-Can you do that, John? MR. SALVADOR-What is the date, please? MR. BREWER-October the 8. th MR. MAC EWAN-October the 8 by close of business. th MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s a week from Friday. MR. SALVADOR-Well, I’ll make contact with Staff tomorrow and start working on this. This is just, plow through it, that’s all. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. BREWER-Keep it simple. MR. SALVADOR-I’m trying to. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll open up the public hearing. We’ll leave it open, seeing the public left. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-Mr. MacEwan, can you make that into a formal tabling resolution? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we can make that a formal tabling motion. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 17-1999 JOHN SALVADOR, JR. & KATHLEEN SALVADOR, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: Until the first meeting of October, provided the applicant has provided all the information by close of business October 8. th Duly adopted this 28 day of September, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, John? 61 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. SALVADOR-All set. MR. MAC EWAN-All set. MRS. SALVADOR-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The next item on the agenda. One more item and then we’re out of here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Any further business that may come before the Board.” MR. MAC EWAN-That’s where we fall into. Larry and Bob Vollaro had a joint meeting with Staff and representatives of The Great Escape, Monday afternoon, regarding their ongoing desires for projects up there. So, without further ado, I’ll turn it over to them and let them give you an update. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Larry, why don’t you start it off. MR. RINGER-Okay. We attended the meeting yesterday with The Great Escape people. The Great Escape people brought in several people to address us, and they wanted to get a feeling as to what the Board would require of them, and some things they offered to the Board, and they wanted us to come back to the Board. Some of the things they’re looking to do, this is all in regard to an EIS. They would like to do an EIS on the west side of Route 9, the parking lot, on all that additional property they bought. If they do that, then they would like us to consider not asking for an EIS on some additional rides that they plan on putting in, two water rides that they have right now, and they would like to do it on a site plan by site plan. So they were just making that offer to us, and they brought up several points about, it isn’t segmentation, and the way we’ve been doing it on a site plan by site plan is the way that it should be done, and they cited the letter that our current Town Attorney wrote defending the Town against segmentation, years ago, which Craig brought before this Board, not too long ago, at a meeting that Craig attended with The Great Escape. MR. BREWER-In all fairness, that was how many years ago, how many projects ago? They’re asking us to trade a tit for a tat, and I don’t think we can do it, is my personal opinion. MR. RINGER-Their concerns are noise, you know, they’re concerned we’re going to ask for an EIS that’s going to involve noise. They don’t feel that, you know, we have a noise ordinance. They don’t know if, really, we can do that. They would like to participate with the Town in a noise ordinance, coming up with a law, and they would abide by whatever it is. They did a whole mess of things trying to get a consensus and a feeling as to what we would accept or wouldn’t accept. They have done some studies that they didn’t share with us, but they say they’re willing to share with us, in regard to traffic, noise, stormwater, an overall view of the Park. We had asked them for some things to consider, which was a five year plan, for what their plans would be for five years. They weren’t really willing to do that, because there’s so many things that are subject to change, and you can take it from there, Bob. You can add more. I’m really going fast over this because I realize that it’s 11 o’clock and we want to get out of here. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the one thing I think we made some headway on, after much discussion back and forth and bantering whether or not they would sit still for a Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the east side of Route 9, etc., etc., finally got John Lemery to agree to write us a proposal of what they would do, and what areas where they would participate in a Generic Environmental Impact Statement, what areas they would not, qualifying why they would not, and I think from that point of view, we will get a proposal from them to evaluate how we feel. I think what we’ve done, Mark, iteratively, is made a slight move forward. We’ve gotten them to say yes on a portion of their property, as far as a Generic Environmental Impact Statement is concerned. MR. RINGER-I didn’t quite get that they agreed. They’re going to present a proposal to us. MR. VOLLARO-I think it got so complicated that I want to see it on paper. I don’t want to characterize this, because Larry and I made it very clear that we were not, A, speaking for the total Planning Board, and that we were just gathering information, and one way to gather it the best is let them make us a written proposal, because that’s the thing they’re going to lay on the table. All this bantering and discussion and so on, it’s almost meaningless, sitting across the table and chatting. Let them put it on paper and we’ll look at it. MR. RINGER-This lasted over two hours. So it was quite lengthy, and they are going to furnish us with the data they have accumulated throughout the summer, regarding traffic counts and stormwater and. MR. BREWER-How can we just even consider one half of the street? MR. RINGER-We can’t. 62 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. MAC EWAN-The thing that they keep referring to here is the west side of the highway, which has nothing to do with The Great Escape. MR. BREWER-No, it’s parking lot. Parking lots don’t make noise. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, they’re referring to up as far as The Coachman and the Samoset properties, and the Holtz properties up there, but that’s nothing to do with The Great Escape. MR. BREWER-It’s an element of it. It’s an element, because it’s traffic, etc. It’s not the main element. It is an element. It’s the least intrusive element. MR. RINGER-And they have, apparently, good data on what their plans are and what they’re going to do, and they will have an EIS for us, on that, but the other, Lemery’s concern is he feels the Park is here, and he’s already got all the permissions he needs, and he’s got the EIS for the Park, and since he’s not expanding the Park, but only adding rides and so forth, that he’s concerned that that would jeopardize the current EIS that he has. MR. BREWER-He’s already expanded the Park by buying these other properties. MR. RINGER-That’s why he wants to segment it over to the west, he wants to separate it to the west side. John feels that, the way he said it was he’s already got this Park, and he’s already gotten all these approvals for the Park. If he agrees, not that he has to agree, but he kept using those words, then he may lose something that he already has in the Park, okay, and he’s concerned, and he kept changing with the flow. He’d become somewhat aggressive, and then when he didn’t get agreement, then he’d become more docile, and willing to negotiate, and the redder he got. MR. PALING-Larry, did I understand you, when you started out, that you said that he would like to do a partial EIS on the west side of Route 9, and that we wouldn’t ask him about noise and such if he put a ride in the Park? MR. RINGER-No. We would take each item, each site plan, separately, and do a SEQRA as we have been doing in the past, and not do an EIS for the whole Park, with each new ride that he proposes. MR. PALING-Well, he could control that just by submitting a site plan, and we would act on the site plan. MR. RINGER-His concern is if he submits a site plan for two new rides, which they feel they have to start right away, their two water rides, and no noise would be generated by these rides, but he feels that if they submit these site plans, we will ask for an EIS for the Park, and he doesn’t want that. He’s concerned with that. So what he’s willing to give us is an EIS for the west side, if we’ll forget an EIS for the east. MR. PALING-I don’t even think that’s our job to do. We do site plans and subdivisions. This other stuff, I. MR. BREWER-That is part of it, though, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-One of his biggest concerns, the biggest concern that he had, that I caught, in all of that rhetoric that took place over a couple of hours, is that we, if we had, if he comes up with a Generic Environmental Impact Statement, that has envelopes not to be exceeded, envelopes of noise, envelopes of traffic, and those kinds of things, that a new ride may be developed in the future that would exceed that, and he said as soon as that happens, we’re going to say, no, you’re out. MR. PALING-That’s right. What’s wrong with that? MR. VOLLARO-So I told him, look, go take a look at what your envelope is today and expand it to whatever level you want. That’s all, and he said, what I did ask him is, if I called up his Chairman, and told his Chairman that if Mr. Collins, John Collins, was to give us an EIS, that he wouldn’t have to come before this Board again, I said that Chairman would jump through the telephone to find out how to write an EIS. MR. RINGER-Well, we couldn’t guarantee him that he wouldn’t come before the Board. We said we couldn’t guarantee it. MR. SCHACHNER-Be careful. It’s not only that. It’s not that you don’t have to come before the Board again, you still have to come before the Board for site plan approvals, but if there’s an 63 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) Environmental Impact Statement in place, you don’t have to do a new SEQRA review process. Be careful when you say, don’t have to come before the Board again. MR. VOLLARO-For SEQRA. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. You’d still have to come for site plan. MR. VOLLARO-I think that was understood in the discussion, but it’s SEQRA that’s really bugging them, in terms of the word “segmentation”. MR. BREWER-You see, they could do an EIS if they just went and did it. Look at how they did the one with the roller coaster. Just go do it and bring it back. MR. SCHACHNER-How many months, I mean, my own opinion is, the number of months and the number of hours already invested in this debate is less than the number of months and the number of hours that would have been involved, had the applicant simply prepared the Environmental Impact Statement. MR. BREWER-Absolutely. MR. VOLLARO-Mark, I think everybody, they’re stuck on the idea that they’re going to submit a Generic Environmental Impact Statement, and some place down the line, we’re going to say, you’ve exceeded it. MR. SCHACHNER-I understand. MR. VOLLARO-And just, you know, take your dB levels, and as somebody at the meeting was, it was their consultant, said that the acceptable residential decibel level would be approximately 68 dB. So I said, well, go to the end limit, just go there. Just do it now. MR. MAC EWAN-Could the Planning Board work with the applicant and devise a, I’ve talked about before, a window, a threshold, a five year development plan or strategy for them that was inclusive of an Impact Statement, that gave them development opportunities to add rides or replace rides in that Park for a period of five years, that they wouldn’t even have to require site plan review on those, as long as all those rides and attractions met certain thresholds as were identified in the EIS? MR. SCHACHNER-That’s a little tricky. I don’t think your current Zoning Ordinance would allow you to give such a blanket approval without subsequent site plan review. MR. VOLLARO-I think they acknowledge that in their discussion, that they were only. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, the answer to how you could do it is you’d have to amend the Zoning Ordinance, but that sounds a little cumbersome. MR. RINGER-They were concerned about any of that, because they felt a 200 foot roller coaster is something now, but they could have a 400 foot roller coaster down the road, and if they agreed to something, and two years later they had an opportunity to get a 400 foot roller coaster, they’re blocked. They can’t do it, and so they didn’t want to be committed to that extent either, really. The last thing I wanted to mention, I really don’t feel that we should meet with applicants on a one on one or two on one basis. MR. SCHACHNER-I agree. MR. RINGER-I think if an applicant wants to talk to the, they should talk to Staff, and then the Staff can come back to the Planning Board, or then the applicant can come back to the whole table. MR. BREWER-But they won’t do that. First they met with Craig, then they met with Staff. MR. MAC EWAN-There was a reason why I asked Larry and Bob to go to this thing. I wanted them to see what I had gone through with Staff a month ago. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, but I think Larry’s making a different point, if I’m not mistaken. If I am, I hope he tells me. I think Larry’s making a different point, and that is that he seems to believe that it’s not appropriate to have, it’s not who they’re meeting with, within or among you. It’s that it’s not appropriate to pick apart the Board and meet with small groups of Board members, either individual or two. MR. RINGER-In a formal setting. 64 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MR. RINGER-I mean, they can call us, if they want to call us at home and ask us questions, but to call a meeting with one member or two members or three members. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and I have to say it’s not illegal, but to the extent that he feels it’s not appropriate, I think it’s good. I will say it’s a good legal practice to refrain from those sorts of meetings. No question about it. MR. RINGER-It’s very difficult for two people or one person to come back, because now you’re getting something second hand or third hand or fourth hand, and something can get lost in the interpretation. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you know, Mark, the fact that they’re going to give us a written proposal establishes a point of negotiation, however. It establishes a mark. MR. MAC EWAN-But there’s nothing negotiating, here. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. You keep seeming to address these comments to me, and my opinion has been for at least, 19 years now, my opinion has been, and I don’t know anyone who’s knowledgeable about SEQRA that disagrees with this opinion, that this is not something that’s a point of negotiation, that it’s not a subject of negotiation. You are the lead agency. You have the responsibility to make certain determinations under law. In my experience working for this particular Planning Board, which only dates back until April 17, 1994, so we’re talking about five and a half years, I’m not aware of any other applicant that understands this differently and believes that this is something to negotiate, as to what the applicant is or is not willing to do, and notice that you both reported that the tenor of the applicant’s statements is what they are or are not willing to do, and what I’ve said before, on many, many, many occasions, to this Planning Board and others, is it’s not up to the applicant to determine what they are willing to do. It’s up to the Planning Board, or whoever is the SEQRA lead agency, to determine what they’re required to do. To the extent that you’re addressing your comments to me, indicating that you’ve gained significant ground just because you have a proposal from which to negotiate, my opinion, just my opinion is, you haven’t gained anything. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll tell you what, you’re right, but we haven’t done anything in the past. We’re not getting anywhere. Unless you want to go into some court of litigation, we’re not moving. MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute, Bob, we’re not litigating anything. MR. VOLLARO-No, I didn’t say that, but I’m saying we’re also not getting anywhere, and we’re trying to find a way to dance around the subject a little bit. MR. SCHACHNER-I can’t legally prohibit you from dancing if you want to dance. MR. VOLLARO-One of the things they talked about in segmentation, and they laid this out very heavily, and my mind flashed right back to you, and they said, we have it in case law, that this is not segmentation, and I said legal question, I don’t know anything about case law. That’s your bag. MR. SCHACHNER-Not true. The statement is false. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-An applicant, about an hour and ten minutes ago, sat here and made a statement that he made as the gospel truth, and I happen to have been here to point out to you that the applicant was simply fabricating that fact. MR. VOLLARO-But what I said in my mind, when they say that, I said that’s Mark’s bag, case law, period. I don’t want to get into that subject. I don’t know anything about it. MR. RINGER-And that’s when he said, well, Mark’s the one who wrote the thing, and there were several things. He said, well, we don’t make as much noise as the go-cart. They’re not before us. You’ve got to come before us. We don’t make as much noise as Mike Brandt makes making snow. If Mike Brandt comes before us, he’s probably going to have a problem, he may have a problem. MR. MAC EWAN-Considering Larry’s comment here regarding sitting down with applicants who would want, either the Chairman or two members of the Board or three members of the Board, maybe what we should enact is from here in out is a policy that we won’t sit down with any applicant, individually. If they want to sit down and discuss a project with us as a Board in its unity, then we’ll do it. 65 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. PALING-I agree. MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s a good idea. MR. RINGER-I do, too. MR. MAC EWAN-From henceforth, it avoids all of this. MR. RINGER-In a formal setting, and I say a formal setting is, when they call a meeting with Staff or whatever, and ask one or two or three or whatever. MR. MAC EWAN-In fact, I’m willing to even put it into a formal resolution right now. Introduce a resolution that says, from this day forward, individual members or sub member s of the Planning Board won’t entertain meetings with applicants to discuss proposed or pending projects, unless it is within a quorum of the Planning Board itself. MR. PALING-Well, wait a minute. I don’t think you really want to eliminate the phone call from an applicant who’s looking for a little information. MR. MAC EWAN-I didn’t say that. I said sit down in a meeting to discuss a pending or proposed project. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Why are you shaking your head, Laura? MRS. MOORE-That’s a Board decision. There may be an opportunity in the future that’s going to lock you into something that you didn’t want to say. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re getting a consensus from everybody here they don’t feel comfortable doing it. MR. SCHACHNER-Ever? I think all we’re saying is, ever, or all Laura’s saying. I’m not saying you should. I mean, I think all Laura’s really saying is make sure you think this through. Are there any occasions where you might feel it wasn’t inappropriate, and therefore you’re being too broad in your resolution? MR. RINGER-How about, without prior approval of the full Board? That way if something comes up where Craig feels, hey, this is important, and maybe we should, he can poll the Board and say, Joe Blow called me and would like to meet, and the Board can. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s reasonable. MR. SCHACHNER-The only thing there is, how do you get the Board together to give that approval? MR. RINGER-Well, you can poll them on a one on one. MR. SCHACHNER-Without an informal approval of the Board, in other words? MR. RINGER-Yes. All right. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got to remember, too, when they do that, and ask for two members of the Board, the philosophy at the other end of the table is divide and conquer. MR. RINGER-Absolutely. There’s no doubt. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s where Larry’s coming from in raising this issue. MR. RINGER-I enjoyed being there, but I felt, I’ve got to relay something back, and so Bob’s going to get my interpretation. Fortunately, we had two people. So we have two interpretations. MR. MAC EWAN-Really, what I got out of all of this tonight was you brought back the message tonight that I brought back a month and a half ago. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, but Larry’s point is well taken. I mean, if somebody does this for a living, the fact is that when I meet with Person A, and I then go report that back, it’s not the same 66 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) thing as whoever I’m reporting back to having met with Person A, no matter what your intent is, with the best of intentions. MR. RINGER-When I was working, my company always put us through those drills where they put three people in a corner to tell the story, and I’m sure everybody’s gone through that in training exercises. The third person has to repeat the story, and I mean, it’s unbelievable, absolutely unbelievable what you’ll get out of it. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, if you guys don’t want to put that motion out, I’ll rescind it. MR. RINGER-No, I thought you did. I’m sorry. MR. MAC EWAN-I was waiting for a second. MR. RINGER-I’ll second that. MRS. MOORE-Why don’t you repeat it again. MR. MAC EWAN-How do we want to word this and phrase it? MR. SCHACHNER-Isn’t there an easy way to do it? Aren’t you basically saying, this is up to the Board, as Laura says, it’s clearly a policy decision of the Board, but it sounds to me like what you’re saying is, no individual members of the Planning Board will participate in formal meetings with applicants or would be applicants without the prior consent of the other members of the Planning Board. MR. RINGER-The majority of them. MR. SCHACHNER-The majority of the other members of the Planning Board. MR. PALING-I like that. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll introduce that as a motion. MR. RINGER-Okay, and I’ll second it. MOTION THAT NO INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD WILL PARTICIPATE IN FORMAL MEETINGS WITH APPLICANTS OR WOULD BE APPLICANTS WITHOUT THE PRIOR CONSENT OF THE MAJORITY OF THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: Duly adopted this 28 day of September, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-I don’t think Laura’s convinced. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, Laura’s point was well taken, so that we gave that the opportunity to leave that open, so that with some applicants we may want to do it. With some other applicants, or applications or projects we may not want to do it. MR. RINGER-And there may be an isolated case, but obviously, this thing has happened two or three or four times. MR. VOLLARO-Unless we get some inventive ways to approach this, Mark, I understand where you’re coming from. The Planning Board has the obligation to. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, I don’t see the need for creativity here. I just don’t understand. MR. VOLLARO-You don’t? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. 67 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. VOLLARO-Well, then you and I would have a difference of opinion there, because I think we may have to slowly come to this. If we both sit at both sides of the table, obviously, we’ll go on for years and years. We won’t have an Environmental Impact Statement, and we’ll be screaming for one, and they won’t give it to us, unless what? You don’t agree, that’s fine. What would you do instead? MR. SCHACHNER-No, I wouldn’t do something instead. That’s what I would do. MR. VOLLARO-But if you can’t accomplish it, Mark. MR. SCHACHNER-You can accomplish it. I believe you can accomplish it. MR. RINGER-Bob, they told us that they’ve got two projects that they’ve got to get started right away. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, how is it that you envision these projects getting constructed without this Board? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, if this Board, then when you review those projects, you’re going to make some kind of determination under SEQRA, are you not? MR. VOLLARO-Sure. MR. SCHACHNER-And if your determination under SEQRA is that you need certain things accomplished, then the applicant’s got two choices. As I see it, and maybe I’m just being dumb and simple here, but there are two choices. I’ve represented as many applicants as I have Planning Boards in my life. There’s two choices. One choice is, do whatever it is the Planning Board asks. The other choice, I’m sorry, there are three choices. Choice One, do whatever the Planning Board asks, Choice Two, ignore the Planning Board, ignore the Town, and just start building whatever it is you want to build, and I’ve been involved in situations like that, I’ve not seen that work, and Choice Three is, try to get a court of law to say that the Planning Board, in making that determination, is legally incorrect. MR. MAC EWAN-Or the fourth choice is, withdraw your application. MR. RINGER-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-Thank you, correct. Four choices, correct. So, again, I guess I’m not that bright. I don’t see the need for creativity here. MR. RINGER-Some of the threats they used were, they’re getting comments from the Warren County Economic Development to, what are your plans, how are you going to grow your business, and what we tell them is, unless the Board gives us approval, and that’s just trying to put the knife in and twist it a little, trying to force your hand. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the style. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m sorry, I don’t understand. MR. VOLLARO-Well, maybe I’m coming from a different place, you know. I’ve seen creativity work in the past, in some very difficult situations. MR. SCHACHNER-Amen, same here, and I’m always impressed by it. I just don’t see how this (lost words). MR. MAC EWAN-Unfortunately, in order to be creative, it takes two parties willing to want to do it. We don’t have two parties right now. We have one. MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s a forcing function here. The one party wants to grow. This Planning Board doesn’t have to grow anything. They do. They have to grow a business. MR. RINGER-Yes, the monkey’s on their back. MR. VOLLARO-And their Chairman’s going to demand that they grow a business, and that’s the forcing function we use to get them to come closer and closer to our position. 68 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t have to use any function, any force. If they want to do anymore projects within the Park, they very simply have to put together an application, submit it to Staff, get on for site plan review. During site plan review, we either make a determination on SEQRA positive or neg dec. It’s that simple. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s exactly right. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now let me ask you a question. If they feel they’ve been wronged by this Board, they’ve got what? MR. MAC EWAN-They can go to court, an Article 78. MR. SCHACHNER-That depends on how they’ve been wronged. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t say how they’ve been wronged. If they feel they’ve been wronged, in their mind, they’ve been wronged, period. MR. SCHACHNER-But what I’m saying, Bob, is if they feel they’ve been wronged because somebody insulted them, that’s one thing. If they feel they’ve been wronged because somebody illegally required something of them that wasn’t appropriate, that’s another thing. So when you’re telling me it’s irrelevant how they feel they’ve been wronged, I can’t answer your question articulately unless you tell me wronged how. MR. VOLLARO-If they feel they’ve been wronged because we were discriminating against them for some reason or mistreated them verbally, no, I don’t mean that. MR. SCHACHNER-Been rude and impolite? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I don’t mean anything like that. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re referring to SEQRA. MR. VOLLARO-I mean that when we’ve made a decision that says we’re not going to grant this based on some sound reasoning, and they disagree with that, and they say they’ve been wronged by a bad decision of this Board, then they go to an Article 78. MR. SCHACHNER-Precisely. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. PALING-Fine, let them go. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the worst that’s going to happen. The worst case that’s going to happen is the judge is going to find in our favor or he’s not going to find in our favor. MR. VOLLARO-Well, is it beneficial for us to go that route? MR. RINGER-That’s not the route we take. That’s the route they take. MR. SCHACHNER-We would never choose to go that route, but I guess now what maybe I’m understanding from you is that for some reason you’re so petrified of that route. MR. VOLLARO-I’m not petrified of anything. To me, there isn’t a dime out of my pocket that petrifies me. MR. SCHACHNER-You’re saying can we risk going that route, as the gentlemen on your flanks have said, we wouldn’t be going that route. You would be making whatever decision you feel is the right decision. This applicant seems to have some exalted status that’s different than the rest of the applicants. There was an applicant here tonight, okay, who had a proposal before you that some might characterize, in fact some of you would characterize, as a fairly modest proposal. Others of you felt it was a very intrusive proposal, but the majority of the Board took a position. You felt a certain way. Five of you felt one way, two of you felt the other way. The five of you that felt the way you felt felt that what was proposed was not in compliance with your subdivision regulations, okay, and although the applicant was denied, and I’m sure the applicant’s not too happy about it, and somebody, Bob Paling, asked a very bright question, which was, gee, you know, can we deny this on some of the same grounds that we sort of approved it under SEQRA. You sent an applicant out of here tonight that may go confer with an attorney, that may take an Article 78 proceeding against you for denying something on environmental grounds, when you approved it under SEQRA. Nobody seemed to lose any sleep about that. Nobody seemed to shake in their boots about that. Nobody 69 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) seemed to get a lot of anxiety ridden feelings about that. This is an applicant. This is an applicant. You’re the lead agency. MR. VOLLARO-I think in that situation, you clearly identified that there was a difference between SEQRA and site plan review. MR. SCHACHNER-You’re correct, but if you’re looking for a clear identification from me, I can’t possibly, in my own opinion, I may be wrong, have been more clear in my recommendations to this Board over the last five years about this issue. MR. VOLLARO-I’m not denying that. I’m talking about what you said tonight. In my mind, you relieved me from Bob Paling’s question, because I also thought his question was good. MR. SCHACHNER-But I have not relieved you from whatever anxiety you feel about the notion that segmentation means the division of the environmental review of an action, such that various activities or stages are addressed under this part as though they were independent, unrelated activities, and I have not relieved you of your anxiety when I read to you actions commonly consist of a set of activities or steps. The entire set of activities or steps must be considered the action, whether the Agency decision making relates to the action as a whole, or to only a part of it, and I have not relieved you of your anxiety when I read to you, considering only a part or segment of an action is contrary to the intent of SEQRA. I don’t know what else to say. This is your decision as a Board. When this Board, not the same members, but when this Board made the decision it made, in whatever year it was, that that was subject to an Article 78 proceeding from a disgruntled constituent feeling that there should have been an Environmental Impact Statement, the decision of this Board was made contrary to our recommendation, but, you know, basically I’m here to represent the Board. I don’t tell you how to decide things. I don’t tell you what to do. I don’t think it’s appropriate to do that. We make recommendations on legal points, but on points that are not legal points, we don’t make recommendations. You didn’t hear me say what you should determine under SEQRA for that application, or whether you should approve it or deny it. MR. VOLLARO-No, you just made the definition between SEQRA and site plan. Understood that. MR. SCHACHNER-My point is, when the previous action was taken by the Planning Board, it was contrary to our recommendation, but you’re free to disregard our recommendations. Once that happened, an Article 78 proceeding was brought, the Board’s instructions to me are, defend us as best you can. That’s what I did. In the context of doing that, I have no choice but to argue that that action did not constitute segmentation. If faced with the same set of circumstances today, I would make the same recommendation. You may disregard that recommendation, and if you do so, and you tell me to defend you to the hilt, I will go to that, and I will defend you to the hilt, and I will stand up in a court of law and do my best to explain why a piecemeal review of site plan by site plan by site plan applications at this location are not segmentation. It’s not my recommendation, but I’ll do whatever you ask. MR. VOLLARO-What is the comment that they made that there was, when they said this was in case law, that it was already decided by a judge? MR. SCHACHNER-The only thing I can think of, my first answer to your question is, I haven’t the faintest idea. I made an analogy. Another applicant sat before us and said something absolutely black and white, as if it was the gospel truth, and it was flatly incorrect, and I will make that analogy and say to you that the extent they’re referring, in general, to case law in the State of New York, the statement is flatly incorrect. As incorrect as the other statement I’m referring to. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Now, they may have been referring to the specific case brought by the Reverend Canterbury against this Planning Board about this applicant, not this application, but this applicant about The Great Escape. That’s what I’ve been referring to. That’s what Larry referred to, that’s what I’ve been referring to. MR. RINGER-You followed that up with a question, and John said, well, it was your own Counsel. MR. SCHACHNER-It sounds like the position they’re trying to take is that, they’re trying to say the case of Canterbury versus Queensbury Planning Board, pretend I’m waving that decision, shows that it’s not segmentation to consider Great Escape applications on a piecemeal basis, and that may be what they’re saying. I mean, I don’t know. MR. MAC EWAN-What site plan was that, do you remember? MR. RINGER-It seems John said it had to do with the roller coaster, when Charlie Wood was there, and Charlie first put it in. 70 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. SCHACHNER-Which one? It’s not the Screamin’ Demon. MR. RINGER-He said, I thought, again, a two hour meeting, you do forget a lot of stuff. It seemed like he said it was when Charlie owned the Park. MR. VOLLARO-It related back to when Charles Wood owned the Park. MR. PALING-They re-installed the Comet under Charlie Wood. MR. SCHACHNER-The Comet, something was subject to an Environmental Impact Statement. Wasn’t that the Comet? The Comet was subject to an Environmental Impact Statement. So that’s not what the Canterbury case was about. The Canterbury case, for some reason, I don’t know what the rides are because I don’t go to The Great Escape. For some reason Cobra sticks in my head, but the answer is, I don’t know. I mean, it’s simple to find out. I just don’t remember. What happened was, at the time it probably was not called The Great Escape, but whatever, made application for something. I don’t remember what it was. Some neighbors objected to approval without requiring an Environmental Impact Statement. Their objections were not approved, so to speak, by the Planning Board meeting. The Planning Board said, no, we’re not going to require an Environmental Impact Statement, issued its approval, and one of the neighbors brought an Article 78 proceeding against the Planning Board, with a number of claims in it. One of the claims was that it was segmentation to allow this ride, whatever this ride was, to be approved without requiring an Environmental Impact Statement. That was the case. Whatever the ride was, I don’t remember which ride it was. The Planning Board, as I said, our role is three fold, in my opinion. If somebody has a different idea, please tell me. Our role is, Number One, to give you advice during the meetings, so that you do things in as lawful a manner as possible. Number Two, and this is really the same way of saying Number One, to try to keep you from getting involved in situations that are litigation, and Number Three, if you get in litigation, to defend you to the best of our ability. We made a recommendation in that particular case. The recommendation was not favored by the Planning Board as a majority. The recommendation was that it probably would be appropriate to require an Environmental Impact Statement. The Planning Board felt otherwise, and by the way, that’s not the first or last time that that recommendation was not followed by this Planning Board. I mean, that recommendation’s been made probably a dozen times and not followed by this Planning Board, and that’s fine. There’s no magic to our recommendations. You don’t have to follow them, but the Article 78 proceeding was brought by this particular neighbor. We defended the Article 78 proceeding, and we were successful. So there is that case, and that case probably says somewhere, the Planning Board’s review was thorough enough so that this does not constitute segmentation. That’s correct, and if you want to use that to continue to approve rides, that’s fine. I mean, without requiring an Environmental Impact Statement. MR. PALING-Well, there’s been no progress, real progress, with Great Escape. So the ball is in their court. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, right now the ball’s not in anybody’s court, because I don’t think there’s any application of any kind yet. MR. PALING-Well, if they want something, they’ve got to start the ball rolling. MR. SCHACHNER-Absolutely. That’s one of the reasons, just so you know, and maybe this is not a perspective that others have, but as somebody who works with many, many Planning Boards, and Laura certainly does as well, it’s, I want to say unusual, but I think unusual is too wimpy a word. It’s unheard of for a Planning Board to spend, and I’m not saying don’t do it. This is totally up to you, but I’m not familiar with any situation anywhere in this State, at least any place that I’ve worked, which is a lot of places in the State, where any lead agency, but especially a local, town lead agency, a Town Board, a Planning Board, or a ZBA, is willing to spend this much time and this much effort trying to negotiate, for lack of a better term, with an applicant about how they’re going to comply with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. Now that is not a criticism of this Board. That’s actually a compliment of this Board. I am astonished at your willingness to work with this applicant. More power to you. MR. PALING-But should we entertain this proposal that they’re talking about writing? That’s not what we’re here for. We’re here for site plan review and subdivisions, and they’re putting some kind of proposal in. MR. RINGER-I don’t think they’re going to present it as a proposal. I think they’re going to present it as data to us. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that was the word they used, and they’re not going to present it to this Board. They’re going to present it to the Planning Staff, not to us. We didn’t say. 71 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, I don’t have a professional opinion about that. Bob Vollaro felt it was very significant that they’re going to reduce in writing to some proposal. My own personal opinion is, it’s a complete waste of time, but it’s not my time being wasted, and if it is, that’s okay, too. I don’t care. MR. RINGER-I think it’ll come to the site plan for these two additional rides they want to put in. MR. SCHACHNER-That would certainly be a logical way to do that. MR. RINGER-Because the engineer said, if they don’t start those things ASAP, they’re not going to get it done. They’ve got to lay the concrete. MR. SCHACHNER-I’d note that this is the third month that we’ve heard they have two new water rides that they need to start immediately. So, again, I have no position on any of this, other than to say to you that when you find yourselves under extreme pressure from an applicant saying, we’ve got to have this now. We don’t have time to comply with SEQRA. We don’t have time to do this, this and this, it seems to me you should bear in mind that this is the third month we’ve heard about the two water rides that have to be started immediately. MR. VOLLARO-If they ever came before this Board for me, with those statements you just made, we’ve got to have because we don’t have time, in my mind, I’d have an automatic click. The answer is, no. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Vollaro, I have a ton of respect for you and I think you and I have a pretty good personal relationship. You are suffering from memory failure. Those statements have been made by this applicant to you, since your tenure as a Planning Board member. The applicant has sat before you and said, I’m not willing to do such and such. The applicant has also sat before you and said, we need to have things done by blank. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but obviously I, as a single member, didn’t make a Board decision. I have one vote here. MR. SCHACHNER-No question. I’m just troubled that you think that if the applicant were ever to say those things, you would immediately turn them off. I think you turned it off so much that I think you’ve forgotten that the applicant has already said those things. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I wasn’t the only one that turned it off. This was a Board decision. MR. MAC EWAN-No, we’re getting lost here in the translation. The bottom line here is that this process started some time back in February, when they initially talked to us about expansion projects, with plans for The Great Escape, that somehow we sat down and said, lets have a joint meeting with the Town Board as soon as possible. As soon as possible in their book became the middle of June. MR. SCHACHNER-The last day of June. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, okay, you’re right, the end of June, which turned out to have another pre- application meeting with myself and Laura and Chris, some time in mid-July or end of July, which turned around to have a pre-application, pre-application, pre-pre meeting with you guys, yesterday, and we’re not closer to them making an application than we were back in February. MR. SCHACHNER-As we say in the law game, no more questions, Your Honor. MR. RINGER-I think John has to get his money as quickly as he can, because if he doesn’t get it, it’s going to go to some other Park. MR. MAC EWAN-Site visits are on the 16 at 9 o’clock in the morning, and our regular meetings are th the 19 and the 26 . thth On motion, meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 72 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/99) 73