Loading...
2000-11-28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 28, 2000 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY LARRY RINGER ANTHONY METIVIER CHRIS HUNSINGER JOHN STROUGH ROBERT VOLLARO PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI SITE PLAN NO. 66-2000 TYPE II MR. & MRS. JAMIE GREGG OWNER: SAME AGENT: JOHN CREEDE ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: TAKUNDEWIDE, HILLMAN RD., CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF NEW 10’ X 40’ OPEN SIDED BOATHOUSE WITH SUNDECK. PRIVATE BOATHOUSES AND COVERED DOCKS IN WR ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. REQUESTING MODIFICATION – SEE LETTER DATED 11/15/00. LGPC WARREN CO. PLANNING – 9/13/00 TAX MAP NO. 11-1-1.10 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION: 179-16 MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing tonight because it was tabled back on the 20 of th September. MR. MAC EWAN-We shouldn’t have a public hearing on this. This is a modification. You can start the ball rolling by giving us an overview. MRS. MOORE-What I’ll do is I’ll read his letter into the record. It’s addressed to Mr. MacEwan. It’s dated November 15, 2000. “We hereby request a modification of the approval granted by the Planning Board for the construction of a dock and boathouse at the October 17 hearing, th eliminating from the approval the reference to the “mean low-water level” as the point from which the fourteen-foot height limitation for our dock and boathouse should be measured. Under the Town of Queensbury’s Zoning Regulations § 179-60 [10], boathouses and covered decks shall not exceed fourteen (14) feet in height “measured from the water level to the highest point of the structure…” Nowhere in the zoning regulations is the term “water level” defined. We submit that the reference to the term “”mean low-water level” in our approval is a restriction of our ability to build a covered boathouse that is not supported by the language of the Queensbury Zoning Regulations for several reasons. First, under New York law, zoning regulations must be enforced as written, and that plain language in regulations must be construed in favor of the property owner and against the municipality should it seek a broader interpretation of the language of the regulation. City of New York v. MR. STONE- Hommes, 94 N.Y.2d 267 (1999); Matter of Raritan Thomason Ind., Inc. v. Village of Port Washington, North, 27 NY2d 537, 39; 440 East 102 Street Corp. v. Murdock, 285 NY 928, nd 304. The term “water level” in the Queensbury regulations is at best ambiguous and we would certainly be in our right to argue that we should take our height measurements from the “water level” at a time of our choosing. Second, in anecdotal conversations with Mr. Craig Brown, Queensbury’s Code Enforcement Officer, we learned that Mr. Brown is unaware of another dock and boathouse approval in which the height limitation was referenced from the mean low water level. His recollection is borne out by the fact that other docks in the immediate vicinity of our project appear to be in compliance or out of compliance depending on whether they are measured from the mean low water level of 317.74 or t he mean high water level of 320.2 feet. Third, because the language of the Queensbury regulations is ambiguous as to the meaning of the term “water level” as a point of reference, it is worthwhile to compare Queensbury’s regulations to that of another relevant jurisdiction, the Lake George Park Commission , to shed light on the intent of the drafters of the Queensbury regulations. The regulations of the Park Commission specifically refer to the “mean high water mark” as the height from which the dock structures height should be measured. Lake George Park Commission Regulations, Part 640, subpart 646-1, subsection c 8 (copies provided). Given the fact that the Lake George Park Commission was extremely precise as to the reference point from which structure heights should be measured, it would be unreasonable to assume that the Queensbury regulations, which are not so precise, would by implication refer solely to the mean low water mark. Rather, we would argue that if the promulgators of the Queensbury regulations 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) intended the reference point to be the mean low water level, they would have specifically stated so. The practical effect of our request on the zoning scheme of the Town of Queensbury is minimal because the difference between the low water mark (317.74 feet) and the mean high water mark (320.2 feet) is 2.46 feet, or less than thirty inches. We would respectfully suggest that the Town of Queensbury consider the adoption of the Lake George Park Commission’s use of the mean high water mark as the standard from which Queensbury’s fourteen foot height limitation is measured for future applications to avoid the ambiguity that gave rise to this request for modification. We would further ask that the Planning Board consider adding our request for modification to the agenda of the next meeting by a 2/3 vote. The construction season is drawing to a close and we would like to proceed with the building of the boathouse, if possible. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Respectfully submitted, Jamie Gregg Sheila Gregg” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-So, basically, when we did our resolution, we said mean low water mark instead of mean high water level? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any discussion from Board members? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, there is. That wasn’t a mistake. When I made the motion, I meant mean low water mark for a reason, and I’m going to stick by that. I’m not going to debate it tonight here, but if somebody wants to determine whether it should be mean high or mean low, we can talk about it. Just because the Park Commission chose mean high doesn’t mean we have to. I think Mr. Gregg is correct, however, when he says we should adopt one standard, but we certainly ought to take a look at how that standard is developed, and I think I can prove that the mean low water mark is the correct way to put the height up. Now, there’s no sense in debating it here tonight, because I don’t think anybody wants to do that. So I’m not in favor of changing this, but I don’t believe the rest of the Board would go along with me. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comment? Okay. Does someone want to introduce the resolution, then? Not much discussion. Basically what we’re doing is changing the wording that says from mean low water level, changing our resolution to read mean high water level. That’s all we’re doing, which is historically what we have done when we approve sundeck boathouses anywhere on the lake. We’ve always referenced them to the mean high water level. MR. HUNSINGER-In this particular case, we referenced the mean low. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Incidentally, it wasn’t unintentional, by the way. You know that from what I had to say here. That was intentionally put in as low. It wasn’t a mistake. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, the only question I would have is, if Mr. Brown goes out to measure, how accurate can he measure the difference anyway? I mean, does he have a reference point of the water height at any given property line? MR. VOLLARO-He could shoot the top. He could shoot the top of the water, from where that is, and make a determination. MR. HUNSINGER-But does he know if, at the time of the measurement, where the lake is. MR. STROUGH-Well, you can call the Lake George Park Commission. They’ll give you the current height, and then you can say, well, it’s four inches above the low mean water mark, or whatever, the high mean. MR. HUNSINGER-So it is enforceable? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, and it’s something we’ve historically done. We’ve referenced it to the high water mark. Does someone want to introduce a resolution to amend our original approval? I’m just looking for a modification, if someone wants to introduce it. MOTION TO MODIFY SITE PLAN NO. 66-2000 MR. & MRS. JAMIE GREGG, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) To change the wording of the original approval from mean low water level to mean high water level, and that the original SEQRA findings haven’t changed. Duly adopted this 28 day of November, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Vollaro ABSTAINED: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. JAMIE GREGG MR. GREGG-All right. Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 75-2000 SEAN GARVEY/GARVEY VOLKSWAGON OWNER: LONG RIFLE ENTERPRISES, INC. ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 188 SPACE AUTOMOBILE STORAGE YARD WITH A 352 SQ. FT. OFFICE BUILDING. ALL USES IN LI ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 11/6/00 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/8/00 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-1.27 LOT SIZE: 2.84 ACRE SECTION 179-26 SEAN GARVEY, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing was last week on November 21, and it was left open. st MR. MAC EWAN-Staff Notes. MRS. MOORE-I’ll just go through. You tabled the application at the last meeting for five items. One, for the Planning Board to review the submission; Two, for Staff to respond to the lighting information; Three, the applicant to revise the site development data sheet; Four, Zoning Administrator clarification; Five, for a Beautification definition of Preliminary approval. You’ve received, tonight, correspondence from Staff in regards to the light poles. Their preference is the Lighting Plan Number One, with the original submission. The applicant has submitted a revised data sheet, and in regards to the Zoning Administrator clarification, I would just refer back to the letter, and one sentence in the letter dated October 16, 2000, says “This determination is made with the understanding that the parcel would only be used for the secured storage of vehicles awaiting display or sale at your Quaker Road dealership, and that no sales or customer traffic occur on the site”. And in regards to the Beautification comment, you’d received a notice from the Beautification Committee, in regards to the type of landscaping they requested. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. GARVEY-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. GARVEY-I’m Sean Garvey from Garvey Volkswagon/Hyundai. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and everything with C.T. Male has been satisfactorily addressed? They’ve signed off on that on the 21. So I guess what I’m seeing in here is the only thing that may be is left st open is in reference to the lighting, that Staff is encouraging us to adopt the original lighting plan? MRS. MOORE-Correct. The Board does have an opportunity to lower the poles. My understanding is that it’s possible for them to go lower, based on the security camera level is 17, and there may be an opportunity, you can open discussion with the applicant, whether there’s an opportunity to lower those poles, and it goes from, maybe 25, something to that, but you should, we haven’t pursued that avenue, because we would prefer Lighting Plan Number One, just because of the intensity of lighting. MR. VOLLARO-Are you recommending we go with our current Code, as far as height is concerned, on the lighting poles? Is that what you’re suggesting? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) MRS. MOORE-We have a proposed guidance for lighting poles, and it’s an opportunity for you to review whether the lighting poles, I think the guidance gives us 20 feet in height, and the applicant proposes 30 feet in height. There’s a reason why I believe the applicant wanted 30 feet in height, and that was because of the security level. MR. VOLLARO-The last time you mentioned that was for security cameras, I believe. Wasn’t that the reason? MR. GARVEY-That is correct. MR. RINGER-What is Staff saying on the 30 foot versus the 20 foot? I guess I didn’t understand? MRS. MOORE-Okay. It’s an opportunity for you to decide that. We don’t have a preference as to. MR. RINGER-Well, I realize you don’t, but I thought you were making recommendations. You’re just saying you recommend we go with the original plan, which was 30 foot? MRS. MOORE-But then again, you don’t have to do that. The height of the poles, in the vicinity of that area ranged from I believe K-Mart ranged from 40 to I think 30. So, I mean, you want to take that into consideration of how high you’re going to make light poles in that area. I’m not saying that K-Mart’s too high or too low, but you don’t want to put an applicant’s light poles so they’d look out of place. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything you wanted to add, Mr. Garvey? MR. GARVEY-No, not at all. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, we’ll start with you. Any questions? MR. METIVIER-You need a 30 foot light pole? MR. GARVEY-Yes, the idea behind 30 foot lights is two fold, actually more than that. It’s so there’s less poles, so there’s less obstacles in the lot, better distribution of the light, but primarily it’s for the security cameras. If you use a 20 foot pole, which is shorter than an average utility pole, or any other lights in the area, as Laura’s pointed out, you actually have to mount the camera below the light fixture and you’re actually shooting across the lot, versus looking down at the lot. It’s not very effective. MR. METIVIER-So where would the cameras be positioned? MR. GARVEY-They’d be on the 30 foot pole, below the light, but it would be, obviously, 27 to 28 feet high, versus being 17 feet high. MR. METIVIER-But I guess I heard somewhere 17 would work but it’s just not effective? MR. GARVEY-Well, the cameras would work, no matter where you put them. It’s just a matter of how effective, when you’re shooting across a row of cars, you’d just see a head, versus if you’re shooting down, you’d see more than just a head of a person that’s doing something to the cars, or doing something that you don’t want. MR. METIVIER-Do you need to see more than the head? MR. GARVEY-Absolutely, as much as you can. You want to see what they’re doing. Maybe, occasionally throughout the Town, especially in the warmer seasons, there’s damage to a lot of lots. Some dealers have incurred substantial losses, breaking into vans, VCR’s and radios and CD’s, and some of them it’s just, some of the damage is just mischief, and some of it is actually, they do a tremendous amount of damage inside the car, rip out a stereo or, because they just take a small chainsaw to the dash, or something like that, and these things are very costly, and most of the dealers have a high deductible on insurance, because it’s so expensive to insure so many vehicles. So, the use of security cameras at the Volkswagon/Hyundai store has helped deter that, not totally, but it has helped out a lot, and we have used them to obviously make felony convictions. So, having an effective deterrent is more important than catching someone doing something. You want people to see the cameras, see the blinking lights, and if they do chose to be so stupid as to do something, you’d want to be able to get a good picture. So you need light that’s bright enough, so the cameras work, and you also need to have a good camera angle, on many cameras, many angles. You’d have one camera mounted on the building that’s in the corner of the lot, to take pictures of the license plates as they come in and out, if they do choose to do that, or if they can do that, and that once they’re on the lot, you want to make sure you can identify the people that are there. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) MR. METIVIER-I guess in that respect, from what you just said, though, if you wanted to use the camera as a deterrent, I would almost think you’d want them lower so people would see them, as opposed to up higher. MR. GARVEY-Well, you normally put flashing lights on them. MR. METIVIER-Right. MR. GARVEY-For years, actually for the first few years that I had them at the Volkswagon/Hyundai store, we found that they didn’t help at all, we still had damage, or vandalism, and then I decided to put flashing lights on them, and that seemed to have helped a lot. MR. METIVIER-Now the one at your store now is, what, maybe 12 feet up? MR. GARVEY-It depends on where they are located. There’s so many more cameras. Actually, the lot size at the Volkswagon/Hyundai store is a lot smaller and there’s more cameras there. I feel that the size of this and the seclusion of it, there’ll be much limited traffic there. We thought it would be better having a better camera angle. That’s what I was advised by Ray Supply, and that’s what they strongly recommend. We’ve learned a lot from the location of the cameras at the Volkswagon/Hyundai store. MR. METIVIER-If I’m not mistaken, they have worked, just in the past few weeks at that store, correct? MR. GARVEY-They have worked. MR. METIVIER-Where do you stand with the Beautification Committee at this point? MR. GARVEY-When I sat down with the Beautification Committee, it was a very relaxed atmosphere. The plan is, and there’s a small picture of the plan on the site plan. We do have a larger one here if you wish, but basically, they liked what they saw, but they really wanted more, and they also wanted, which is on the revised site plan that you have, the one that you received last week, there’s two berms in the front, which they want raised, with flowers and other trees or bushes on them. I said, no problem, I’ll do whatever you want, and their discussion with me was, when you’re done with the lot, when you’re done paving, come back and we’ll tell you what we want. I never got the impression from them, at that minute, that I needed to have it completed for you to give me an acceptance. If that was the case, I would have taken out my pen and said, okay, where do you want this? Do you want the berm here? And they stamped it, and you have a letter stating that they’ve given me approval, preliminary approval, and the confusion last week was, I guess you never had that before, and, obviously, as I may have expressed last week, but I expressed to them, everything I sell is outside. It’s not like driving to a retail store where everything they have to sell is inside. I need to display what I have to say. So I understand the need of the Town of wanting to beautify existing or soon to be retail or business locations, but the only thing I said, I didn’t want to block what I have there with lots of trees. Next to me, for example, is the car wash. It’s very beautiful what they’ve done. They’ve got low bushes, high bushes, and lots of trees. The trees I would want less, to be very honest. I’d want low bushes, arborvitae, or something to that effect, something that you can still see around, but still look presentable and professional. So, I would want that anyway. So it wasn’t a big deal. So that’s why we added it. This is the only thing they wanted. They really wanted more. MR. METIVIER-So, to the naked eye, if there were no cars in it, do you think you’d still see a lot of pavement? MR. GARVEY-Yes. MR. METIVIER-Even with what you’ve done here? MR. GARVEY-From the front, no. I would say from either side, you might. MR. METIVIER-That’s all I have. MR. GARVEY-They wanted me to leave some trees on the side, like there’s an apple tree and certain things. Most of them are, there’s a funny term that he used here, this is from Richard Meade From Meade’s Nursery. He called the Poplars are really weed trees, and if they were mine, I’d remove them all, but we have left, on either side, a large, long patch of the Poplars, but there really isn’t much on either side toward the front. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I guess I’m having some trouble. You keep using to display cars. This is to park cars, not to display cars. You’re going to be displaying cars over on Quaker? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) MR. GARVEY-Absolutely. MR. RINGER-Not displaying cars here. So why do you have to show the cars? Why do the cars have to be so visible? I mean, when Chris Round made his determination for the use of this land, it was for a parking lot, not for the display of cars, or the sales of cars. MR. GARVEY-For a storage facility, exactly, but there’s quite a lot of traffic on Dix, more than I ever thought. I wasn’t aware how much traffic was there until I started spending time on the lot, which that influenced my parking plan. I had many different parking plans for use of the lot. I actually got more spaces using the horizontal display. By putting the cars in the L-Shape down the corner, I can display them. They can be seen from the road as people drive by, and there’d be a sign that says it is a storage facility, but, obviously, I’d want to show what I have to sell. If you want to buy them, they’re available for sale at the KIA and the Hyundai and the Volkswagon location. MR. RINGER-I guess I’m just struggling with that a little bit, because of Chris’ interpretation. It would seem to me we’d want to keep customers out of there, not bring customers into there. MR. GARVEY-Absolutely. I’m not licensed in the State of New York to sell vehicles from other. MR. RINGER-You went through that last week, and I understand that, but whenever we mention something, you’re always using the word display and customer seeing, and that takes away from the. MR. GARVEY-It would probably be easier if I told you no customers would be on the site. MR. RINGER-Yes, I would like to hear that. MR. GARVEY-And then there would be no discussion, and I would rather not say there will never be a customer there, because, honestly, there’s bound to be someone that wants to see that color car, and there might be a situation that I cannot drive it up there right away. Maybe the guy that’s there isn’t there. MR. RINGER-I understand that there’ll be exceptions to that, but it seems that we’re not making exceptions. We’re making it easier for the customers to get in there, versus discouraging them from going in there. MR. GARVEY-If I could back peddle through the timeline, and this might address some of your concerns about that. It took me a long time to buy this from the government, much longer than I’d planned, and I was in a crunch, when it comes to paving, which I had mentioned last week. Many of the plants are closed now, and some are about to close. Once I received title to the property, I wanted to make sure that it was an unencumbered title, and that took an additional week. Once I felt safe with that, I asked the Town for a determination, if I could use this as a storage facility, and I listed four light industrial, Type II uses that were very similar to storage of cars. In my application, on page two, it mentions these four uses. Basically, they are a freight terminal, a truck repair facility, heavy equipment storage, and passenger limousine storage. Those are very similar to what I was going to store there, and I did not have time to ask, because of the timeframe of trying to get this paved for my use for the winter, to ask for a zoning variance, and call it a Highway Commercial use. So, what Chris did, which I appreciate, he determined with my explanation of what I was going to use the lot for, that’s why he called it Light Industrial, but he felt that I shouldn’t let customers on the lot. Though if I could point out the 17 uses which are lawful uses under Light Industrial, Type II uses, and there’s 17 of them. I’m not going to list them all, but freight terminal, restaurant, lumberyard, warehouse, lavatory, office building, truck repair, heavy machinery, t.v., construction company, and heavy equipment sales all allow customers on their lot, and I don’t understand, nor do I understand the legality of you saying that I can’t bring customers onto my property. MR. RINGER-I think it’s because of Chris’ interpretation of the land as light, well, the land is Light Industrial, and Chris’ interpretation to give you the right to park, you have that as a parking lot, I thought Chris made it quite clear that it was to be a parking lot, and not a display of cars. MR. GARVEY-Yes. MR. RINGER-And I’m not against you, Mr. Garvey, at all. MR. GARVEY-I understand. MR. RINGER-It just seems to me you seem to be talking more about displaying cars and showing cars than actually using that as an overload storage parcel. MR. GARVEY-Would you feel better if I gated it, gated the property? I’ll put a gate on it. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) MR. RINGER-I would like it closed at night. I mentioned that last week. MR. GARVEY-Would that address most of your concerns, in reference to that? MR. RINGER-Yes, and maybe we can lower the poles, then, to, by making it harder for someone to come in there at night and vandalize the cars. It just seems to me, for what you want to do there, parking lot, or if this isn’t open, there should be a gate restricting people in there. MR. GARVEY-Absolutely. MR. RINGER-And, you know, it’s an opportunity for us to go with the 20 foot poles. I won’t necessarily vote against it because of the 30 or 20 foot poles, but I’d like to see them. I didn’t have anything else, Craig. MR. GARVEY-Gating it might be beneficial, obviously, to restrict traffic, and it’s something that I, personally, don’t want to do, to be honest, but if that’s what I need to get your approval, I’ll be happy to gate it. MR. RINGER-Okay. It’s an idea I had. I’m only one of the seven. I didn’t have anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Just carrying on what Larry said, and reading Chris’ letter of October 16, 2000, where he says that, “The understanding that the parcel will only be used for the secured storage of vehicles awaiting display or sale at your Quaker Road dealership, and that no sales or customer traffic occur at this site”. It’s pretty specific what he said, and for us to totally discount that, so, what I’ve written in the resolution, as part of, if it approves or disapproves, I’ve written a statement that says storage area is not to be used as customer viewing or supplemental sales facility, and I referenced Chris Round’s letter dated 10/16/00, and I don’t see how we can get out from under that rock, I don’t, personally, and that’s really all I have to say about that subject. I have other things that I’d like to talk about just briefly. In taking a look at the original plan that you submitted back up stream away, called the landscaping plan, which, when I was in my review, I said, tells very little, that’s this plan here. MR. GARVEY-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-But I think that what you’ve done is come a long way in that landscaping plan by what you’ve done on the updated drawing, by agreeing to raise the planting area with supplemental planting as per the Beautification Committee. I don’t understand how the Beautification Committee has given us a preliminary approval. I don’t know whether we’ve heard of this before, but I haven’t. MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s why we asked for clarification, and she sent clarification. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-“She” meaning Mary Lee Gosline. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got you. One of the things I’ve been wrestling with is there was some information that the lighting plan was transferred to the drawing dated November 21, 2000, and that was by your engineer. I guess what he’s talking about is the foot candle statistics that he’s put on the drawing. MR. GARVEY-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-He hasn’t given us a lighting spread of candles on the ground, so we can get some feeling for that, but what he has done is come up with an average, max and min, in the parking lot. MR. GARVEY-If I could address that quickly. I pondered at the C.T. Male’s statement about, they wanted a separate lighting plan, or they wanted it superimposed on the site plan, and in my original application, it shows the site plan, which is obviously a small drawing, and I honestly thought that would be easier for everyone here, and later on in this application, it shows the site plan outline with a lighting pattern. So I don’t quite understand your question or his, because it shows the foot candles right there, and it gives you an average. MR. VOLLARO-The reason that they tried to put it on the drawing is the drawing might be the survivable document. That’s where I’m coming from anyway, but I understand the relationship between the other drawing and this. That drawing could be superimposed on this, and you’ve got it. MR. GARVEY-C.T. Male, apparently, were satisfied with this rendition. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I don’t want to belabor that issue any. As far as the height of the poles are concerned, I’ve taken the position that I’ll go along with the 30 foot poles. That’s what your current spec says. The other thing is an objective that we’re trying to reach, but I’ve never believed in putting people under that gun, until we, the Town, tend to resolve what that zoning law is going to look like, and from what I can gather from discussions, that zoning law is out there, and it may take a while before we resolve a lot of issues within that. So I’m going to go along with the 30 foot poles. MR. GARVEY-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-And I think that’s about all I have. That’s all I had in my notes. I don’t have anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I listened carefully, and I’m fine, thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I’ve pretty much asked all of my questions last week, but I guess I have a question more for the Board than the applicant, and that is related to the preliminary approval from the Beautification Committee, and I guess I’m sort of thinking out loud as to, you know, what this were to mean if we were to go ahead and approve the site plan submitted, and then the Beautification Committee wants there to be additional plantings that weren’t shown on the site plan that was filed, they really have no enforcement capacity to require that. MR. MAC EWAN-We can make a conditional approval, that would require him to go back to the Beautification Committee for final approval of the planting schedule. MR. HUNSINGER-And that would be the other delay, and then that would sort of be open-ended on their part. MR. MAC EWAN-Because obviously he’s not going to do any plantings now, if he was to get approval. You’re looking at the spring before you can do anything, and certainly that’s not unheard of to do that, to do a conditional approval, pending an approval from another Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that, has that been done in the past? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-With the Beautification Committee? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I can think of a couple of occasions where it’s happened. MR. HUNSINGER-I wasn’t aware of any. MR. VOLLARO-I haven’t heard the Beautification Committee come up with a preliminary before. MR. MAC EWAN-This is a first. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-But we’ve had approved site plans before, or conditional that they go to the Beautification for further recommendations on enhancing a planting plan. I mean, that’s not unheard of. MR. SCHACHNER-So, just a question/comment, but are we understanding the direction, no commitment at this point, but if you do something along those lines, then the condition would be that the applicant seek and obtain final approval from the Beautification Committee at some point in the future, and if you do that in the context of, obviously, a motion to approve, that is carried by a majority of the Board, then your approval won’t be in effect until and unless the applicant fulfills that condition. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct, I understand that. MR. GARVEY-If I could mention that the new plan that we have submitted has the berms that they were requesting. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Although your plan says, the plan I have in front of me just says that it’s a raised planting area with supplemental planting as per Beautification Committee. It needs to spell out exactly what you’re going to put in there. MR. GARVEY-What I’m stating is that what they want I will put there, per the Committee. MR. MAC EWAN-Right, which means that you have to go back. I mean, do they want one maple tree or do they want 20 maple trees, and 5 Rhododendrons or whatever? That’s what you need to get a definitive quantity and caliper size from them. Anything else, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I guess if the applicant’s comfortable with it, why should I have a problem. I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Well, as far as the full height goes, normally I’d be a stickler about trying to keep to the new Code. This particular area is mixed, and mostly higher. So you wouldn’t be really out of form, as far as height goes, and I can see your argument, too, about security cameras and the need for that, although I could also argue that if you extend the mast of the light pole ten feet, you’ve accomplished the same thing with the security cameras, but I do have a concern over the strength of the lighting. The strength of the lighting, as proposed by you, is 3.6 foot candles, and that’s horizontal aluminum. That’s fairly strong. Let me just give you an idea. I went to the Code standards that are being proposed in the new draft zoning ordinance. For example, and I’ll repeat again, yours is 3.6 foot candles. A gas station/service area is 3.0 foot candles. A commercial parking lot is 2.5 foot candles. MR. GARVEY-What is an auto dealer? Is it 25 foot candles? MR. STROUGH-Automobile lots are 25. MR. GARVEY-Okay. This is a lot under that. MR. STROUGH-It is a lot under that. MR. GARVEY-Tremendously. MR. STROUGH-But it still is, it’s over a gas station/service area. Okay. So my understanding would be that if this was for sales, then you would be looking at 25 foot candles. MR. GARVEY-I’ve never experienced 25 foot candles. At the Volkswagon/Hyundai store, we have something a lot less, around 10 or less, and obviously something as bright as maybe like Della has, the new lights at Della would be extremely nice, but not necessary. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So 3.6, you’ve convinced me, isn’t really out of line. MR. GARVEY-What the Town was concerned with was the ratio of lights. You have a lot of dark spots in this plan that I have, and apparently the ratio wasn’t to their satisfaction. So that’s why we submitted another plan that had more light in it and more poles, which you have that. MR. STROUGH-It seems to be not as preferable as your original. MR. GARVEY-Obviously there’s more poles and greater expense to me, but that wasn’t what my original idea was. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, that’s the only concern that I have, and as far as the pole height, you know, I’m kind of ambivalent about it, but I would go with the feelings of the general Board on that, whichever way they go. MR. GARVEY-Thank you. It’s on the very corner of Queensbury, within 100 feet is the Town line. As we mentioned earlier, there are many businesses in the area that have higher poles. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Anything else you wanted to add, Mr. Garvey? MR. GARVEY-I’ve tried to address the Board’s concern about customers on the lot. It’s not to my benefit to have them there, and that’s why, if you choose, and I’m trying to address Chris Round’s concerns about gating it, so that would make it a secured lot. He was very concerned because he perceived this lot, from my understanding, as a, that it could be used as a sales, and I never really had a discussion with him explaining to him about the laws, and how it really wouldn’t benefit me to sell cars there, and that my plans were to just store vehicles there, and he wanted to make sure that it wasn’t going to encroach on a Highway Commercial use, and that’s why he mentioned that. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) MR. STROUGH-Well, Mr. Garvey, if you’re going to gate it. MR. GARVEY-Yes. MR. STROUGH-It’ll, I assume, correct me if I’m wrong, it’ll generally be open during the business hours, in the day. MR. GARVEY-Yes. There’s quite a lot of traffic. MR. STROUGH-And generally it’ll be closed. MR. GARVEY-It’ll be closed at night at seven o’clock, and some days earlier than that. MR. STROUGH-I mean, if you need to go down and get a car, you go down and get a car. So, I mean, generally, it would be closed around seven p.m.? MR. GARVEY-Right, and some nights at six, and other nights at five, depending if it’s Saturday or Friday or another work day. It would be locked up all weekend. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you plan on having perimeter fencing? MR. GARVEY-I did not feel that would really be very pleasing to the eye. I thought that putting a swale, continuing that front swale, there’s a swale. On the left side of the lot, there is a, the large open ditch, the drainage ditch, and the front will be the two large berms, plus the gated entrance, and the back side of it and all the way down the right side, almost is a swale, and I was considering just extending that front swale to prevent. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, there is a natural drainage ditch in there. MR. GARVEY-It just loops around like a question mark. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Okay. Anything else from Staff? MR. VOLLARO-I just have one other question, and that is related to David Hatin’s memorandum to Sean, dated November 21, and that has to do with, you understand that one of the requirements that st the Building Inspector has asked for is that leaching fields cannot be placed under any of the parking areas? MR. GARVEY-I’m aware that they need air, yes. The plans we submitted to him are not under the parking area. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That was going to be my question. I haven’t been able to locate the location of the septic field on this map. MR. GARVEY-It is not on that. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not on this map. MR. GARVEY-As I mentioned earlier, I had only three days to prepare everything that you have here, and I, maybe in my simplistic thinking, I wasn’t quite sure if I was going to ask to extend the sewer district, or if I was going to put my own septic tank. I did not show water supply to the building because I wasn’t quite sure what was involved, but I knew I had to get a tap permit, which I have. I knew I would have to get a septic plan approved, and therefore I thought, there’s no way I could get them without approval from the Town, and therefore I did not put them on the plan at the time, but they have been submitted, though. MR. VOLLARO-Would you accept the statement in the resolution that the leaching fields shall not be installed under the parking area? MR. GARVEY-Absolutely. I have that letter from him anyway. I could supply that to everyone, if you’d like. MR. VOLLARO-That’s it, Mr. Chairman, for me. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled tonight. Does anyone want to come up and address this application? You’re welcome to do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. In North Queensbury we had a similar situation where we had a boat storage, rather than a car storage, and the Planning Staff at that time, under the direction of Mr. Martin, and this question came up about showing, selling from that storage area, determined that simply showing the item, whether it’s a boat or a car, it does not constitute a sale. It’s the point of sale that constitutes the sale, that is where you draw up the paperwork, and so this facility was allowed to show the boats, in this case, and trailers, to their customers, although the site plan was for storage, boat storage only. I’d just like to mention that. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? Any letters or correspondence? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 75-2000, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: SEAN GARVEY/GARVEY VOLKSWAGON, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 28 day of November, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce the resolution? MRS. MOORE-Before you introduce your resolution, I want to discuss some of the conditions or the topics that you’ve brought up. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) MR. VOLLARO-I can tell you what I’m going to condition the resolution on. Is that what you’d like to know? MRS. MOORE-Yes, before you do your resolution. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. In addition to the prepared resolution? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-One, storage area shall not be used as a customer viewing or supplemental sales facility, reference Chris Round’s letter dated 10/16/00. Second, conditioned on final approval from the Beautification Committee. Three, leaching fields shall not be installed under parking area. Four, gating will be closed during evening hours. Now, if you want to specify the hour, we can, but evening hours, I think, gives him some latitude to be able to not run out there at 6:15 and a half and lock the gate. Either that or we can be very specific and say seven p.m. I’ll defer to the Staff. MRS. MOORE-Would there be a problem with having the entrance gated all day? And I’ll direct the question to the applicant. MR. GARVEY-Would there be a problem all day gating? Absolutely. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. He has to get cars in and out of there. Customers that are in the showroom want to see a blue, green or yellow, whatever color you want to look at, he’s got to go and get that, open the gate, do all his stuff. I think it should be ungated in daytime hours. That’s my opinion. MRS. MOORE-Okay. It’s a question because it is considered a storage area. MR. VOLLARO-Those are the conditions that I plan to apply to the resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-I just wonder if, on two of those conditions, if we need to state them in the resolution, since the documentation is already listed as supporting documentation. MR. VOLLARO-True, except that. MR. MAC EWAN-Sometimes redundancy is a good thing. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m just asking the question. MR. VOLLARO-I’m just trying to, because I think Chris made such a point in his letter about not having this as a sales facility, that I think that the resolution ought to clearly state that for the future. MRS. MOORE-I would encourage that these conditions be placed on the drawing, as part of your conditions, so that, for future reference, everybody understands what the conditions of the resolution were right on the drawing that’s filed as final site plan approval and stamped for the ZA, and then I just have a question for the Board, whether they all were in agreement about the lighting and the light pole height. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m flexible with that. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the consensus of the Board is that height wasn’t a real issue with us. MRS. MOORE-Another question that I had was in regards to the Beautification Committee. On the plan I believe the raised berms are on the front as noted as being two foot, and Mary Lee’s letter to the Board, she mentions that it was noted as a three foot berm. So if the plans can be changed to a three foot berm, along with the condition that the final planting plans are approved by the Beautification Committee that’s fine. I just thought maybe that change would be helpful. MR. GARVEY-I’m sorry. You said it says there’s two feet? Where does it say two feet? MR. MAC EWAN-My plan doesn’t specify. MR. VOLLARO-No, neither does mine. MRS. MOORE-Okay. That’s correct. I know we had discussed it. I wasn’t sure if it was part of your discussion last week of the two foot versus. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) MR. VOLLARO-There’s a statement on the plan that talks about the invert to be two feet above the base elevation of the swale. MRS. MOORE-That’s in regard to drainage. That wasn’t the comment. MR. VOLLARO-I thought maybe you might have misinterpreted that. Okay. MRS. MOORE-But it could be beneficial to add, because the Beautification Committee did make a direct statement about having the berm at three feet in height. Maybe you want to add that to the plan. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t see, did the Beautification Committee make that? Is that a condition that they put on? I didn’t see that. MRS. MOORE-In Mary Lee’s letter addressed to the Board. MR. GARVEY-Are you referencing the letter of November 6? th MR. MAC EWAN-November 28. th MRS. MOORE-No, I’m not the Committee provided the Board with a letter that was dated today. MR. MAC EWAN-It clarified their definition of preliminary approval. Just reference that letter in your motion. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I plan to do, because it’s not in the resolution. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You’ve got to make sure you reference that. Okay. Is everything resolved? MR. VOLLARO-I think so. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Introduce a resolution, please. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 75-2000 SEAN GARVEY/GARVEY VOLKSWAGON, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 75-2000 proposing a 188 space Automobile Storage Yard with a 352 sq. ft. office building. All uses in LI zones require Planning Board review and approval. Tax Map No. 110-1-1.27, and; WHEREAS, the application received 10/26/00 consists of the following: 1. Application materials as listed in the Official File WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 11/27/00 New Info – Revised Site Dev. Data sheet, Lighting info 11/21/00 Planning Bd. resolution – tabled 11/21/00 CT Male Associates - Final eng. Review sign –off 11/21/00 S. Garvey from D. Hatin 11/21/00 C. Round from D. MacElroy – response to CT Male letter of 11/13/00 w/ map revised 11/21/00 11/21/00 Staff Notes 11/20/00 Rec’d, - Qu. Water Dept. application 11/20/00 Rec’d. – Warren Co. DPW permit 11/15/00 S. Garvey from. McNamara of EDP- revised stormwater man. report 11/14/00 Notice of Public Hearing 11/13/00 CT Male Associates – Eng. review 11/8/00 Warren Co. Planning Board recommendation - Approved 11/6/00 Beautification Committee recommendation – Preliminary approval 11/6/00 Fax to S. Garvey from L. Moore – PB member list 11/3/00 S. Garvey from C. Round – regarding clearing & grading 11/2/00 GIS map prepared by Planning Office 11/2/00 Fax to C. Brown & L. Moore from S. Garvey 11/2/00 Rec’d – Copy of Deed 11/1/00 C. Round & L. Moore from S. Garvey 11/1/00 Meeting Notice 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) 10/30/00 S. Garvey from L. Moore 10/24/00 Pre-application meeting notes 10/16/00 S. Garvey from C. Round WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 11/21/00 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 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 the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application is approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff, with the following additional conditions: 1. Storage area not to be used as a customer viewing or supplemental sales facility, reference Chris Round’s letter dated 10/16/00, and 2. Conditioned on final approval from the Beautification Committee in accordance with their letter dated 11/28/00, signed by Marylee Gosline, Chairperson of the Committee. The implementation of that letter shall not be required until the first of May, the year 2001, and 3. The applicant may proceed with the other elements of the plan prior to that time, and 4. leaching fields shall not be installed under parking area, and 5. The gating will be closed during evening hours, and 6. It is also a requirement that these above conditions be placed on the final drawing. Duly adopted this 28th day of November 2000 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Before you go on with your vote, I’ve raised a question with Mark in regards to getting, obtaining a conditional approval about the Beautification Committee, and the understanding is that he cannot proceed, even with paving the parking lot, until he satisfies the Beautification Committee comments, the way the resolution is worded. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the intent of the resolution. If that intent’s going to be changed, fine, but that’s the intent of the resolution. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s what they want, in other words. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. GARVEY-Could you explain that one more time to me, so I understand. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll give you the condition again, and then I’ll let you talk to Staff. This resolution is conditioned on the final approval from the Beautification Committee, in accordance with their letter dated 11/28/00 signed by Mary P. Gosline, Chairperson of the Committee. What the Staff is intimating to me is that you cannot proceed on this site plan or application until such time as you’ve satisfied the 8/28/00 letter. Is that correct? MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. MR. SCHACHNER-Except that I think you said 8/28, and you mean 11/28. MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry, 11/28, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-When does Beautification meet again? MR. GARVEY-On December 11. th 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) MR. RINGER-When did you want to start paving? MR. GARVEY-A week ago. MR. METIVIER-I think my feeling on that is we have all winter to put together a plan for Beautification because he can’t do any plantings now anyway. So give him the latitude to pave, with the stipulation that he has to, and I don’t know if you can enforce it, but at some point it has to go back to Beautification and get everything settled for the spring. MR. MAC EWAN-I think maybe the appropriate way to think about this is that no CO issued until Beautification approval. MRS. MOORE-My concern is that there’s no CO, if he doesn’t construct the building on the site, if he just chooses to pave, I don’t believe there’s a CO required. That’s something I’d have to look into, but typically a CO is issued. MR. VOLLARO-We could put a time certain on this. I think that’s what we can do. We can throw a time certain on this, conditioned on final approval from Beautification Committee, letter dated so and so, and recommendations in that letter shall be implemented no later than April of 2001, May, maybe, to get his plantings in. MR. SCHACHNER-So, if you do that then, if I’m understanding your new intent, you’re not doing a conditional approval. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s obvious from some comments on the Board that conditional approval would be considered a hardship on the applicant. MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t know. That’s up to you as a Board, but that’s the reason that, 15 or 20 minutes ago, I said that I want to make sure the Board understands the nature of conditional approvals. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that, but some new light has been shed by Board members. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Yes, that’s fine. I don’t have any problem with that. So what I’m understanding, just so we’re all on the same page here, is that what you’re now contemplating doing is not a conditional approval, or rather it’s a conditional approval, but it’s a condition that he can fulfill immediately, essentially, by preparing a plan that complies with the recommendations in the November 28 letter from Beautification Committee. It’s not some intangible, off in the future th condition that we don’t know when it will be fulfilled. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we can put a date certain on if you like, the first of May of the Year 2001. How does the Board feel about that? MR. HUNSINGER-I agree. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, it’s open ended. That’s why I asked that question. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Then you’re amending your resolution to read April 30. th MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-To get approval from the Beautification Committee. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I don’t think the applicant understands that that still does not allow him to pave until he fulfills that requirement. MR. VOLLARO-I’m not following you now. Now I’m really confused. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. SCHACHNER-It depends on how you word your motion, and we haven’t heard the motion as modified yet. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Then I’ll read it as the way I intend to modify it. It’s conditioned on final approval from the Beautification Committee in accordance with their letter dated 11/28/00, signed 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) by Mary P. Gosline, Chairperson. The implementation of that letter shall not be required until the First of May, the Year 2001. MR. SCHACHNER-And I think if this is your intention, I think you might as well make it clear, but the applicant can proceed with the other elements of the project prior to that time. MR. VOLLARO-And the applicant may proceed with the other elements of the plan prior to that time. MR. SCHACHNER-Prior to that time, if that’s your intention. MR. VOLLARO-That is my intention, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a second on that? MR. METIVIER-I’ll second that. AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Mr. Garvey. MR. GARVEY-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Don’t forget to go see the Beautification Committee. MR. GARVEY-I understand. SITE PLAN NO. 67-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED CONNIE GEBO OWNER: CONNIE & WILLIAM GEBO ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 1,248 SQ. FT. DAY CARE CENTER. DAY CARE CENTERS IN SR ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 18-94 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 9/11/00 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/13/00 TAX MAP NO. 138-1-15 LOT SIZE: 0.20 ACRES SECTION: 179- 19 CONNIE GEBO, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the two public hearings on September 19 and October 24 were tabled thth so she could come back with some more specifics. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 67-2000, Connie Gebo, Meeting Date: September 19, 2000 “Project Description The application was tabled at the October 24, 2000 Planning Board meeting. The Board requested the applicant provide additional information for the project. Project Analysis The applicant was requested to provide information on six items: 1. Site Visit: -Mr. Lieberum of Warren County Soil and Water District visited the site on November 3, 2000. Mr. Lieberum indicated the site has sandy soils that are considered to have good drainage. A letter has been provided for the Board’s review. 2. Site Lighting: -The applicant has provided information from Glens Falls Electric in regards to lighting. A sensor light will be installed that has the ability to have a 110 feet radius for fifty feet. The board had indicated the lights should provide sufficient lighting in certain areas of the site. There will be two lights, they will focus on the parking area, drop-off-area, and the play ground area. 3. Hours of Operation: -The Daycare Center will be open from 6:30am to 6pm, Monday thru Friday. Hours may be subject to change based on client needs. 4. Maximum number of children anticipated: 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) -The applicant anticipates 25 children from infants (6 months) to school age (13 years). The applicant has provided the calculation used to obtain the number of children for the Daycare center. 5. Handicap access and elevations: -The applicant has met with the building and codes department to review the proposed use and handicap access. The Department has provided a letter indicating the dimensional requirements will be reviewed upon submission of a building permit. 6. Floor Plans: -The applicant has provided the floor plans identifying the kitchen and bathrooms. The remaining rooms will be used for sleeping, playing and office area. The applicant has previously addressed the following items: Neighbor’s access: The applicant and neighbor are aware the matter is considered to be a civil matter. The owner of the property (138-1-16) behind Gebo’s (138-1-15) owns an adjacent parcel (138-1-16.2) that has access to Big Boom Road. Septic disposal: The applicant proposes an Elgin system to be located in the rear yard. If the rear yard septic system fails (unable to repair) the applicant may locate an Elgin system in the front yard. A percolation test was also performed in the location of the rear septic system (1 minute 45 seconds per inch). Children drop-off area: The applicant has provided a drop off zone that could accommodate three vehicles at a time. A trip generation report for the proposed building size indicates that fifteen vehicles would access the site between 7am-9pm. This would be 8 vehicles entering and 7 exiting. Parking: The applicant has provided four spaces including one handicap. The ordinance does not specify the number of required spaces needed for a day-care use. The American Planning Association “Off Street Parking Requirements” provides suggested requirements such as one space per each employee, one space per four persons of licensed capacity. Utility location: The installer will determine the location of the major utilities such as water, telephone, cable, and electric. Building and lot-layout: The applicant has provided elevation drawings of the proposed building, identifying the entrances. The plans include a description of the handicap access to each of the doors to the building. The internal layout identifies the different proposed rooms. The rear property will be used as the play area and will be fenced in. Areas of Concern or Importance The applicant has indicated the funding for the project is promising based on the income levels of people within in Warren County and demand for daycare facilities.” MRS. MOORE-And that’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Good evening. MRS. GEBO-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you identify yourself for the record, please. MRS. GEBO-Connie Gebo. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to bring us up to date on what we requested you to do, Connie? MRS. GEBO-You requested me to have a letter from Mr. Lieberum of the Warren County Soil and Water, and I’ve done that. That’s in you’re packet. The site lighting, as to where the lighting would be, that is on the design of the home, it shows where the lighting is going to go. I also have the lighting from Glens Falls Electric that shows how far the lighting will range, 110 feet out 50 feet. The hours of operation I stated would be from 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The maximum number of children would be 25. The ages would range anywhere from six months to thirteen years. Handicap access is drawn on the plans, and there’s also a letter from Mr. Hatin, from Building and Codes, stating that all of these items will be addressed at time of building permit application, and the floor plans, you have those, and those will also be addressed and make sure I meet all the requirements, as per the State Code, per the Building and Code Department. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. GEBO-No, that’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, I’ll start with you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The first thing I’ve noticed, the SEQRA form needs to be corrected. It has, and I don’t think that’s a problem, but it’s just a procedural thing, and I’ll get to the SEQRA form in a second here, if I can find it in all of this paperwork here. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s wrong with it? MR. VOLLARO-The size of the building is stated in the SEQRA application as 26 by 48 for day care centers, it should be 28 by 46, or 1,288 square feet. MRS. GEBO-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Is that correct? MRS. GEBO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Minor detail. MR. VOLLARO-A minor detail. As far as the lighting plan is concerned, when you talk about getting to see the lighting plan on the drawing, we’ve got several drawings that we talk about here. MRS. GEBO-On the elevation drawing, it shows where it’s going on the building, by the doors. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I saw that, and then I tried to convert that from the information that we got from your lighting, the lighting company, and it’s a little difficult to do. MRS. GEBO-The house is only 48 feet long, and the light ranges 110, so it apparently is going to cover that whole ground area, and it goes out 50 feet. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the only thing, Connie, that I looked at is that, on our Number Two requirement, it said that the site plan clarify a lighting plan for the drop off area, the parking area, and the playground area, and when I took a look at the lights on the building, I tried to understand how those lights were going to illuminate those three areas, and I just couldn’t come up with it. MRS. GEBO-In the front of the building is where the drop off zone and parking area is. There’s going to be a light out there. The front area is 85 feet wide. MR. VOLLARO-I know that. MRS. GEBO-So with that light on the front of that building, ranging out in the front yard, it’s going to cover that area, and if I put one on the back door, which shows in the other picture, the back yard is 85 feet wide, and the light is going to range 110 feet. So it’s also going to cover that area. MR. VOLLARO-It’s going to range 110 feet this way, or 110 feet out? MRS. GEBO-On the lighting plan it shows it ranges 110 feet this way, and 50 feet out. MR. VOLLARO-Out, okay. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s more than ample to light that up. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. All right. I guess one of the questions I had, and I’m just reading from my notes, when I did the review of this, that there’s really no way to reference the site plan or building plan from, you know, if you take a look at the recent plan you submitted for the building itself, if I were to try to reference that plan in the future, there is no way for me to do that. It’s not identified by a date. It’s not identified by a title. MR. MAC EWAN-We could do that. That’s not a big issue. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s just labeling, label it Exhibit A or whatever. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m just going through my comments at the time I went through this. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-The replacement area for the septic in front, now I know that I believe Mr. Hatin made a comment on that in his letter, but he also, in a previous site plan, we just talked to Mr. Garvey here a few minutes ago, and Mr. Hatin made a very definite point, in that application, not to put the septic field underneath the paved area. He made it very explicit in there, and I thought that we ought to say the same thing here, because I don’t know whether you plan to pave that drop off area, or are you going to put stone on it? MRS. GEBO-Stone. It’s going to be gravel. MR. VOLLARO-It’s going to be gravel. MRS. GEBO-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Even though it’s an impervious area, according to the way we think up here, it’s still able to be gotten to, I suppose. I think the final drawing should state that the septic system must be designed by a PE, including the replacement area. MRS. GEBO-In the packet you have, it states, it tells you about an Elgin system. It says it has to be engineer approved. MR. VOLLARO-Right, and I just wanted to make sure that that becomes part of the motion. That’s really all I’m saying, and I’d also like to see the construction of the site be subject to 179-65C, which are standards, and so that you don’t get behind the curve on what that is, I’ll just tell you what it says. These are soil and erosion standards, and in a lot of applications we’ve gone through and drawings we’ve stated that we’d like to have guidelines for erosion and sediment control in urban areas of New York State, by the United States Department of Agriculture. It’s a statement that’s put on the drawing, because even though this site, when I walked it, looked as dry as a chip, and it probably is, one of the standards that we have under 179-65 says, “cuts and fills shall not endanger adjoining property nor divert water onto the property of others”. The chances are, in your site, that won’t happen, because it looks to me like it’s pretty sandy, but I’d like to have an assurance, you know, in the motion, that that will be fulfilled. So I’d like to include 179-65C, under standards, that those standards be applied to this, because there’s no, even though it’s as dry, and I notice the comment that was made by the gentleman who went to the site, and I think. MRS. GEBO-Mr. Lieberum? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. He says, “The site is very flat, no visible grade”, etc. This is based on his visit, and then he talks about, “since there is no surface water nearby, there does not appear to be a concern for untreated stormwater affecting a surface body, which really makes stormwater runoff a minor issue”. Stormwater runoff is not a minor issue. It says that “cuts and fills shall not endanger adjoining property nor divert water onto the property of others”. All I’m going to try to do is make sure that when we approve or disapprove this tonight, that that gets included, and with that, Mr. Chairman, I’m finished. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Bob, I have a question. Did you just say that stormwater is a minor or is not a minor issue? MR. VOLLARO-It says in his letter. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’re talking about the guy from the water resource specialist in Warrensburg? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and he says that, in his letter, he claims that, “which really makes stormwater runoff a minor issue”. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. VOLLARO-What he’s saying is the site’s fine and it looks dry as a chip, and nothing should happen. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I just want to make sure that that’s what you said. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Because that’s the way I feel, too. All right. I’m fine. I think it looks good, Connie. You did a good job. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) MRS. GEBO-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I really didn’t have any questions, either. I just wanted to, I guess, sort of explain to the applicant the reason why we were asking about the handicap access, is because the handicap ramps impact the site plan, not because we were concerned that the project wouldn’t comply with the handicap accessibility, but because it affects the site, and that’s why we had asked you about it at your prior meeting, but I’m okay with the new information. I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, Connie, in your handicapped parking, I’m just going to assume, from what it says, that the gravel is going to go up to your handicap access sidewalk? MRS. GEBO-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Because there’s no sense in putting a grass strip that might get muddy in there. So I’ll also assume that your drop off zone will also be gravel, up to your handicap access sidewalk? MRS. GEBO-There will be an area between the drop off zone and the dwelling, which will be, there will be grass and bushes, and where the sidewalk comes out, it will have a ramp, it will lead down to the gravel parking lot. MR. STROUGH-So the ramp will go down to the gravel parking lot? MRS. GEBO-A portion of it. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Grass (lost word). Okay. MRS. GEBO-Right. MR. STROUGH-Now, for parking spaces, I went to the New York State Code, 418.5, Paragraph K, before I read this, what’s a large motor activity area? Well, you got me, too, but here’s what it says, and this is reference to day care centers, specifically to this case. “Areas used for large motor activities, staff lounges, storage spaces, halls, bathrooms, kitchens, offices, may not be included in calculating the 35 square foot per child requirement”. MRS. GEBO-Right. MR. STROUGH-So basically, in looking at your plan, we’re talking about that large open area in front, and I’m going to assume that you’re going to use those two southern rooms for day care activity, the ones closest to Big Boom Road. MRS. GEBO-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And the back one is going to be an office. MRS. GEBO-One of the back rooms, yes. MR. STROUGH-You made reference to the potential future use of that bathroom for office personnel, right? MRS. GEBO-That bathroom is actually for either/or, employees or children. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, you do need some place for the employees. You do need some place to do your office work. MRS. GEBO-Right. MR. STROUGH-So that seemed to be a natural way to look at it. So the square foot that we have available, if I do it in accordance, now the reason why I’m doing this is I’ve got to get that kind of a number for parking spaces that we need here, okay. I know this is your business, and maybe not mine, but I do have to go through this thought process, to see how many personnel are there. So anyhow, I get a total of 628 square feet, okay, that will be child accessible and won’t be a storage space, won’t be a hall, won’t be a bathroom, won’t be a kitchen, won’t be an office, that can’t be included, and so that says you can have a total of 17.9 children, if you divided by 35 square feet per child, which is the State Code. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) MRS. GEBO-I don’t know, because when I calculated it out, I had figured that I had room for 25 children. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask, what does all this have to do with us? MR. STROUGH-Well, as I said, I have to determine how many parking spaces we need. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s determined by site plan review, by what Staff recommends that they need to have for the square footage of building. If she gets this approval, then she has to go through the permit processing. MR. STROUGH-In Staff notes it’s suggested, one parking space per employee. MRS. GEBO-And if I have 25, that would be three employees. MR. STROUGH-So I need to determine how many potential kids she can have, and still meet State code, because she should have done it, but she didn’t. In other words, you should have found out how many children you can have given the space you have. MRS. GEBO-I did. That’s when I came up with the figure of 25. I had estimated all of the, I took out two bathrooms. I took out the size of the kitchen, and I took out an eight by ten room for an office, and based that on my calculation and subtracted that from the total square footage of the house, and came up with how many remaining and divided that by 35 and that’s how many children I was allowed to have, and it actually came out to 27. something, and I put it to 25. MR. STROUGH-Did you run that by any State personnel to get that verified? MRS. GEBO-No. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, let’s go with the 25 that you say you can have. Okay. Now, and I’m working on how many parking spaces we’re going to need here for personnel. One parking space per person, per employee that’s working for her, seems reasonable. MRS. GEBO-And you need one for every ten children. MR. STROUGH-Now, hold it there. Six weeks to eighteen months, you have four children per adult. Eighteen months to three years it’s five children per adult. For kids three years old it’s seven children per adult, for four years old kids it’s eight per children per adult. It varies, if there’s a scale. MRS. GEBO-And so does the need. I can’t tell you who I’m going to have. MR. STROUGH-I’m just trying to figure out how many parking spaces we’re going to need. MRS. GEBO-But I can’t tell you exactly how many children of what age I’m going to have because I can’t tell you the demand of who needs what. I mean, if I have 20 kids that need infant, then I have to know that I can’t have that many infants, because I can’t staff that many people. So I have to limit my. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So if you have 25 kids, six weeks to eighteen months old. MRS. GEBO-No, to 13 years old. I’m sorry. MR. STROUGH-All right. Twenty-five kids, six weeks to eighteen months old, probably not the likely scenario, but the worst case scenario. You would need six employees. MRS. GEBO-I would have to be able to tell the people that, no, I don’t have room for you. There’s no more space available, and then I can range it from, I can take this many of this age group, this many of this age group. MR. STROUGH-All right. So what we have here, we have, basically, we have three parking spots. MRS. GEBO-Actually, we have four. MR. STROUGH-Well, four, if you want to count the handicap, but usually, I usually like to think of that as staying open. MR. MAC EWAN-Has Staff come up with any recommendations of how many parking spaces they would like to see? MR. STROUGH-One per employee. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) MR. MAC EWAN-And you anticipated, previously, I think, three employees. There will be three total employees, including yourself. Right? MRS. GEBO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you satisfied with that? MR. STROUGH-The basic minimum I figured, if all of her kids were four years or older, at 25 kids, she would need three people working there. That’s if she limited it, said, I will not take any kids under eight years old, because I don’t have parking spaces to take them. The minute that she jumps down a year, she jumps to four adults. Do you see what I’m saying? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. STROUGH-All right. So anyway, let’s go on. So I’ve always had a concern about this. Nothing against you, Connie. It’s just that it’s a very small lot, and you are going to run a commercial enterprise, and we’re talking about kids. It’s a day care center, and I hate being tough, but this is the Town code. Another thing I have here, according to the State law, 418.5 Paragraph P, one sanitary toilet and one wash basin must be available for every group of 15 children or part thereof. MRS. GEBO-Yes, but if you have more than 45 children, you need a separate bathroom, if you read on, you need a separate bathroom for the Staff. If you have less than 45, the Staff and the children can share the facilities. MR. STROUGH-I see where you have labeled here potential second bath, but I don’t see any toilet, I don’t see any sink in it or anything else, not that that’s my business. All right. So you do have. MRS. GEBO-The handicap bath has to be, I have that here, the size of a handicap bath has to be five foot by eight foot, I believe, and I believe that’s just the exact size of that, five foot by eight foot. So that could also be a handicap bath. They both could be handicap baths. MR. STROUGH-If both of them are, that’s fine. That will work. MRS. GEBO-They have to be, according to Building and Code regulations. I already checked that out with Mr. Hatin also. MR. STROUGH-Good. Now, when I checked out the size of the building, like Bob said, it’s two feet larger than what was originally put in this site development data. MRS. GEBO-Yes, you’re revised plan showed. MR. STROUGH-Now, has this site development data been revised accordingly? MR. VOLLARO-No, it has not. It’s got 1248 on it should be 1288, but the calculations shows it’s 49.41. She’s underneath 50. MR. STROUGH-Well, no. Did you put the sidewalk in? MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t put it in. I used her figures, and I didn’t want to presume to put the sidewalk in. MR. STROUGH-Well, I took out my ruler and measured the sidewalk, and I went small, and this does not include the concrete stoop out back, does not include the concrete stoop out in back. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. If you include the sidewalk, it’ll go over 49, it’ll go over 50. MR. STROUGH-Yes. It goes to 51% not permeable. MR. VOLLARO-Fifty-one? I didn’t put the sidewalk in. MR. STROUGH-She’ll need a variance. MR. MAC EWAN-At this point I think I’d like some guidance from Staff. MRS. MOORE-The applicant’s provided the calculations on the drawing, and she’s measured them. I took her, the data that she’s provided. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) MR. VOLLARO-Under porches and decks, 240 feet, is that something that she estimated to include this handicap sidewalk, do you think, in your opinion? You do? MRS. MOORE-Yes, include the porch. MRS. GEBO-I won’t put the porch on it. I won’t put the 12 by whatever porch. You can take that right off. There you have the extra feet. MR. VOLLARO-I would go with the benefit of the doubt on that, myself, John. I know where you’re coming from, and you’re probably very close to correct. MR. STROUGH-Well, and I do wonder, too, if the original paved and gravel and other hard surface areas included going all the way up to the sidewalk from the handicap parking area. I mean, I don’t know how that was figured. I tried to figure this out, but the dimensions I’ve got here, I didn’t have the dimensions I need to figure it out. So I went back to the old and I’m just assuming that that figure may or may not include the total graveled area that is actually being proposed. I can set that aside. MR. VOLLARO-It’s a tough call, and it’s a little over one percent we’re talking about. I’m inclined to go along with the site development data, so long as the building footprint is changed to 1288 to comply with the actual size of the building, which is 28 by 46. I would buy the data. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I don’t fully understand this letter from Mr. Hatin. It refers to the handicap accessibility area being a concern of the Building and Codes Department, suggesting it is not a concern by us. I have a problem with that. MR. VOLLARO-I had the same problem, John. MRS. GEBO-Because I wasn’t given a reason as to why you needed it, and they were just under the assumption that you wanted to make sure I was handicapped accessible, according to State code. Therefore, they were saying that it’s actual their concern that I comply with the State regulations. MR. STROUGH-Do you really feel that there’s a need for putting sensors on those exterior lights? Wouldn’t they be better just to be switchable, since they should be on? MRS. GEBO-You can have them sensored, but you can also have the switch so you can turn them off and on yourself. MR. STROUGH-I know, but when they’re not turned on, if they’re just sensored, they’re not on, unless somebody approaches them, or a commercial center that’s talking about children and parents, I’d rather see the sensors not be there, in my mind, but again, I mean, I may be alone, I just think the lot’s too much. I don’t think it has the carrying capacity to do what you want to do with it, and I’m sympathetic to you, and I’ll give you a pat on the back for trying to do something. I just think the lot’s inappropriate. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing further. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I was at the September meeting, when this originally came, and it came for a 35 to 40, and immediately I said there’s no way. This lot’s not big enough to accommodate that. So I was turned off completely. I wasn’t at the October meeting, but I did get the minutes, and I’ve read all the minutes to make sure I was up to date on everything that went on. I now see we’ve got a revised plan and we’ve got 25 children. So I decided I’d take another look at it, and I have looked at it, and it seems to me the lot is too small for what you’re trying to do, and I really don’t think that trying to fit this into a two tenths of an acre lot is the right thing to do and, really, I can’t support this. MRS. GEBO-If I can meet all the setback requirements, and have the permeability that is required, why? MR. RINGER-It just seems too dense an operation for such a small lot. It’s just my opinion, Connie. I don’t want to argue with you, and I know you’ve done a lot of work on it and stuff, and a day care in that area, I certainly have no objections to. Putting this day care on two tenths of an acre, for me, is just too much. I don’t think the drop off zone is big enough. From my own experience, bringing my grandchildren to day care and picking them up, the day care they go to only has seven or eight children, and they have a circular drive similar to what you have, only it’s on the back instead of the front. When I pick the kids up, or when I have picked the kids up at four, five o’clock, they have room for six cars back there, and two of them belong to the owners, and then four for the people, with only seven to eight children, that’s backed up. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) MRS. GEBO-Where does the rest of their staff park? MR. RINGER-Well, it’s because they only have, it’s an unlicensed day care and they only have seven or eight in the house, okay, but it’s backed up. That’s a bigger lot, twice the size of what you’ve got, and it’s backed up. I just have trouble. I think it’s too much to put on that size of a lot. I don’t have any questions on it or anything. I just wanted to express my opinion. I don’t have anything else, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything Staff wanted to add? Anything you wanted to add, Connie? MRS. GEBO-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled tonight. Does anyone want to come up and address this application? You’re welcome to do so. Please come up and address your concerns to the Board. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MIKE BRANDT MR. BRANDT-I’m Mike Brandt. I operate West Mountain Ski area, and if you approve this application, I’d ask you to not restrict it to Monday through Friday, because I’d sure like to talk to Connie about the possibility, in ski season, of sending her some of the skiers that are looking for a place for their young children while they go skiing. It’s something we can’t provide, and we’d sure like to find someone who could, if that would work for her, but I’d sure like to have that opportunity. So I’d just ask you not to restrict it to Monday through Friday, at least in the winter time. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Yes, ma’am. ROSE CORBETT MRS. CORBETT-Yes, I’m Rose Corbett. I caretake for some property up there for a Mrs. Anable that owns property in back of that, and I was just informed by her lawyer that I may still own 50 feet of the property that Mrs. Gebo wants to use. I didn’t know this. I inherited it from my ex-husband who passed away, and Mr. Mulder just told me this yesterday when I saw him, and he was here tonight, but he had to leave. I have no objections to her doing this, but Mrs. Anable does need a right of way back to the property in back of hers. That’s the only concern I have, and if I do own 50 feet of it, I don’t see how that we’re going to have a piece to go back and still have the day care center. I have no objections to a day care center up there. I lived up there for 50 some odd years, and I know the area. I lived on this property that Mrs. Gebo now owns, and I was just informed that I own 50 feet of it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Was there clear title here? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, if you’ll recall a similar issue, or maybe it’s the exact same 50 foot issue came up at one of the previous meetings. It’s neither this Board nor the Staff’s responsibility to establish if the applicant has clear title. Our burden is merely to make sure that the applicant has a right to the property. The applicant has demonstrated that she has a deed to the property. There is apparently either a potential or a real private property dispute among the civil parties, the applicant and one or more of her neighbors. You’ll recall this came up at a previous meeting when the attorney that this woman was referring to was here and made a statement about access to a back property, and our advice at that time, and our advice remains that it’s not incumbent on the Board or on Staff to sort out competing private property claims among neighbors. Our burden is merely to make sure that the applicant has some colorable title, by virtue of some deed, and the applicant has met that burden, in Staff’s and my opinion. So, again, that’s not to suggest that the commentor is wrong or that the attorney was wrong when the made the comment he made, but if they’re right, there are other avenues to pursue that before the Planning Board. That’s not really something the Planning Board should get involved in. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MRS. CORBETT-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 67-2000, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: CONNIE GEBO, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 28 day of November, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Is someone offering up a motion here? Discuss some conditions? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’d like to make a motion, but I’d like to talk about it first. MR. MAC EWAN-Talk about it with everybody. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. I’d like to make a motion to approve the site plan. MR. VOLLARO-Did you want to talk about your additions with us? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll put it up for discussion. What kind of conditions do you want? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Put it up for discussion for a minute or two. MR. VOLLARO-One of the things that I would like to have is the construction of the site shall be subject to 179-65 standard. In particular standard number eight, which says cuts and fills shall not endanger adjoining property, nor divert water into the property of others. You don’t have to copy all that down. Just say 179-65C, standard number eight. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. Okay. Do you want me to take the porch off? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m going to take a pretty broad view of that site plan detail and say that what she put in there, 240 feet, includes the porch and the possible gravel up to the grass and so on. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) That’s my, the only thing I want done here is that, in my opinion anyway, is that the site development plan reflect the proper square footage of the building, which is 1288. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. VOLLARO-That’s just my feeling. The other Board members certainly have input, as well as myself. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments? It’s pretty status quo with that. MR. VOLLARO-The SEQRA form does need correction also on the building size. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I thought that that’s where the 1288 goes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Well, that’s where the 1288 goes. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, it goes on the site development data sheet. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, both, yes. It was on the SEQRA, too. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Make the proper changes. MR. MAC EWAN-Associated applications should denote the change in building size, reflect the actual building size. MR. VOLLARO-We can say, which is 28 by 46, and that’ll nail it down. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have anything else. How about other Board members? Does anybody want to put something in this? MR. METIVIER-My question is, how much can the State get involved in this, in the review process? MR. VOLLARO-A lot. MR. MAC EWAN-Lots. MR. METIVIER-So, really, we’re just approving a structure. The State’s going to approve the license, the day care. So some of our questions that have been raised with children, employees, bathrooms, really are almost. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Out of our jurisdiction, basically. MR. METIVIER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-The State will ultimately set the limits on how many. MR. METIVIER-Right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And she’s going to have to file a complete report, when she gets here, on what the enrollment is and, I mean, they’re going to know every child. MR. METIVIER-So some of our concerns might just be null when it comes to the State anyway. Correct? MR. MAC EWAN-Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I guess I was just going to say basically you’re talking about two independent authorities here. It’s certainly correct that, as I understand it, the State will be actively involved in the licensing process, which will focus on, especially the number of children at the facility and things like that, but all of the concerns that you’ve already discussed at some length are still valid concerns from your authority under site plan review. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but I don’t want to get into the detail of how many children she’s going to have in each age group. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m certainly not suggesting you should, but to the extent that you’ve already done some of that discussion, just to make sure you’re comfortable with the proposed parking 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) arrangement and the layout an all that, I just was, I guess, trying to make the Board feel comfortable that the inquiry you’ve already undertaken has been perfectly appropriate. MR. METIVIER-I mean, the State could possibly come and, after this structure’s built, and say that it doesn’t comply with their total area needed for children to play, or whatever. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, as I understand it, there’s a licensing process, and the State is or is not going to issue a license, and if that license is issued, as I understand it, it has certain limitations in it. For example, I mean, principally with number of children, and the applicant will have to comply with that license or not, and that’s a State matter to take care of. MR. VOLLARO-Dave Hatin’s letter of November 14 is not in the resolution, at least the one I’m th looking at. Should it be? MRS. MOORE-You can add it. Pam generally adds those the next day. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-So just add that in. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. We’ll see where it goes. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 67-2000 CONNIE GEBO, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 67-2000 for a 1,248 sq. ft. Day Care Center. Day Care Centers in SR zones require Planning Board review and approval, and; WHEREAS, the application received 8/30/00 consists of the following: 1. Application materials as outlined in the Official File WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 11/28/00 Staff Notes 11/16/00 New Info received 11/14/00 Planning Board from D. Hatin 11/2/00 Meeting Notice 10/24/00 Staff Notes 10/5/00 Meeting Notice w/ Project ID marker attached 9/27/00 New Information – letter of clarification w/ drawings attached, 9/26/00 - Maine Ent., Inc. – perc test results, map, front & rear elevations 9/21/00 Note to File – Summary of discussion between applicant and staff clarifying items needed 9/19/00 Planning Board resolution 9/19/00 Staff Notes 9/19/00 Planning Office from Marie Anable 9/18/00 Fax to Tim from GF Ready Mix showing location of applicant’s property at his request 9/13/00 Warren Co. Planning Bd. recommendation – No County Impact 9/12/00 Notice of Public Hearing sent 9/11/00 Beautification Comm. recommendation - approved 9/11/00 L. Moore from J. Lieberum, Warren Co. Soil & Water Conservation Dist. 9/7/00 Warren Co. Soil & Water from L. Moore 9/7/00 Meeting Notice 8/29/00 Pre-Application meeting notes WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 9/19/00 and 10/24/00 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 Queensbury (Zoning); and 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) 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 the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT, The application is approved as per the resolution prepared by the Planning Staff with the following conditions: 1. In the zoning book, “179-65C, standard number eight be upheld, and that any associated applications that have to do with the building itself should reflect the correct building size, which is 28 by 46 feet, which is a total of 1,288 square feet, and 2. Dave Hatin’s letter of November 14, 2000 be put into the prepared resolution. Duly adopted this 28th day of November 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Strough MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2000 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED BEAVERKILL CONSERVANCY AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SR-1A/WR- 3A LOCATION: SOUTH END OF OGDEN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 94.75 +/- ACRE INTO THREE LOTS. TWO PARCELS WILL BE RETAINED FOR THE FAITH BIBLE CHURCH. THE CHURCH WILL BE LOCATED ON THE 20 +/- ACRE SITE AND THE CEMETERY WILL BE LOCATED ON THE 6.16 +/- SITE. THE 68 +/- ACRE LOT IS PROPOSED FOR CONVEYANCE TO THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY FOR RECREATIONAL USE. TAX MAP NO. 148-1-1 LOT SIZE: 94.75 +/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 8-2000, Preliminary Stage Final Stage, Beaverkill Conservancy, Meeting Date: November 28, 2000 “Project Description The applicant proposes to subdivide a 94 acre parcel into three lots. The Faith Bible Church will retain two of the lots. The 20 acre parcel contains the existing church and the 6.16 acre parcel contains the cemetery. The remaining 68.59 acres is proposed for conveyance to the Beaverkill Nature Conservancy. The property is split zoned with a majority of the property in the Suburban Residential Zone (SR-1A) and a smaller portion in Waterfront Residential Zone (WR-3A). Project Analysis (Section 179-38) The proposed use as reviewed by staff was found to be compliant with Chapter A183 of the Town Code. The proposed subdivision is an allowed use through subdivision review and approval. Study of plat (§ A183) ?? Lot arrangement– The purpose of the subdivision is to promote access to the Hudson River and connections to adjacent open space areas. ?? Location and design of streets- The subdivision proposes to dedicate .86 acres to the Town Highway to connect Division Road and Ogden Road. This provides the property with the correct frontage requirements per the ordinance. This also provides the Town with a snowplowing removal area. ?? Topography- The applicant has requested a waiver from grading and erosion plan. The applicant does not propose any new buildings or site alterations. ?? Water supply- The existing water source for the church will not be altered; any future water connection will need to meet the Town requirements. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) ?? Sewage disposal- The existing church septic will not be altered, and any new septic will need to meet the Town requirements. ?? Drainage- The applicant does not propose any grading or other earthwork that would effect the existing drainage patterns. ?? Lot sizes- The property is zoned SR-1A and WR-1A that requires a minimum of one acre per proposed permitted uses. The lot sizes for each of the proposed parcel exceeds the zoning requirements. ?? Placement of utilities- The applicant does not propose any new utilities. ?? Future development- The twenty acre parcel being retained by the church will accommodate future expansion of the church. There are no plans to expand the church or cemetery at this time. The Town of Queensbury Recreational Department is currently reviewing the 68.36 acres for recreational use. The 68.36 acres is proposed to be utilized to connect to adjacent open space areas. ?? Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance- The subdivision is located in Neighborhood 13. The 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan identifies this area for a proposed Town Park (Neighborhood 13 and 14, Page 2) ?? State Environmental Quality Review Act- The applicant has completed a short environmental assessment form ?? Town departments- The application has been referred to the Highway Department and Recreation Department for review and comment. Areas of Concern or Importance The applicant has requested waivers from some of the preliminary and final application requirements. The waivers are appropriate because the subdivision does not require site alterations.” MR. MAC EWAN-Before we begin, historically, we have done preliminary and final subdivision for two lot subdivisions only. I see this as a three lot subdivision. You’re looking at me weird. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Historically, that’s what we’ve done. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve done two lot subdivisions in a one step process, doing both of them in one evening. Why are we doing a three lot subdivision in a short fashion? MRS. MOORE-Because I didn’t think this was complex. There’s no new structures being developed, and the property has been in discussion with the Rec Committee and the applicant, and the other agent involved for a long time, and it’s being proposed to be donated to the Town, and I felt that it was not a complex project. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m just asking for clarification. MR. SCHACHNER-None of which suggests that you have to do it in one night. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m just asking for clarification. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That makes sense to me. MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. My name is Matt Steves. I represent the Beaverkill Conservancy on this application. What you see in front of you is a three lot subdivision, as the Staff has noted. No new construction of roads, buildings of any such at this time. It is only for the division of the property. The church building will be as it is now. Will remain that way, with 20 acres exactly with the building. They have a small cemetery on the northeast corner of the property, and they just want to preserve that with the six acres around that. The rest of their property, of approximately 68 acres, Beaverkill Conservancy plans on turning that over to your Town Rec Department, and that’s what’s in front of you at this time. There is a small area between the two roads, where on the map that you have in front of you it says “proposed to be dedicated to the Town” or conveyed to the Town. It’s going to be conveyed to the Town, all that area anyway. There’s a letter from Rick Missita that states he has no problem with it, but if it’s going to be dedicated to the Town for highway purposes, then it must be made a road. That’s not the intent at all. It’s going to all be conveyed that way now. The Town, as the Planning Board I’m sure is aware of, uses that during the winter time because there’s no way to turn around, and basically the plows drive right around and come right back out the other direction, and it would allow for that, without it being a Town road. The Town has the right to do so, and therefore, serves a dual purpose. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) MR. VOLLARO-Am I lead to believe that the Town would plow this road? MR. STEVES-The Town does now. MR. VOLLARO-It does now. MR. STEVES-It’s not a road. They just, the plow trucks, when they come down Division Road, there’s no turn around. So they go right through and right back up Ogden. I think anybody that lives down there can testify to that. MR. VOLLARO-When I read Rick’s letter, it says, “please understand that it is their responsibility to build a road to Town specifications prior to its acceptance”, and I read into that that if he was going to maintain that road, it was going to be built to Town specs, but that’s not what he means. MR. STEVES-That’s not what he means. What he means is that if it’s going to be dedicated as a Town road. I mean, we’re not say that. It’s just part of the Town ownership. What effectively happens there is that Beaverkill is going to convey all this to the Town anyway, but in the slim chance that does not happen, the Town has that small piece at the end. Therefore, if they ever wanted to make the connector across there, they have the ability to do such. I discussed that with Staff, with Laura and Craig Brown. With the discussion with them on our pre-submission conference, that’s where it came in, and I agreed with them and modified the plan accordingly, and then discussed that with Rick Missita, and he has no problem, as he stated in his letter. It’s pretty straightforward. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Chris, I’ll start with you. Any questions? MR. HUNSINGER-I did not. I thought it was a great project. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-No. I think it’s a great project, and I think Marilyn, when we open it to the public, was going to share some of her concerns about a part of that project. So I’ll let her take care of that, but as far as, I just want to point out to the other Board members who might already be well aware of, that that proposed conveyance between Division Road and Ogden Road, it will enable the public to gain access to that site. Because from that, even though when I took you over and showed you the site, I didn’t take you from the Division Road site, but there’s a trail that goes through and accesses this whole site. So it’s a rather convenient location, and even though we’re not accepting that as a road, and I don’t think that we should accept it as a road, it will make a convenient public access to this particular site, which I hope will remain natural and just used for passive recreation. So, like I said again, there’s another concern on the site that I’ll let Marilyn share. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing. I like it. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I just was wondering how the Rec Commission plays into this. Are they looking at this piece of property, the Rec Commission at all? In other words, being turned over to the Town as a conservancy, but does the Rec Commission get involved with this as a recreational area? MR. STEVES-As passive recreation? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. STEVES-Yes. It’s, the discussions that I have been involved with, between the Open Space, Beaverkill Conservancy, and Harry Hansen’s Department, is that they are going to take the title to Beaverkill and then are in the works already with Mr. Hansen to convey it directly to him, as a passive recreational area, to connect the paths along, as you can see on the southerly border, it connects to the Open Space property along the southerly bounds of Hudson Pointe, and that trail system there. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So there’s certainly ample public access to this piece? MR. STEVES-There will be. MR. VOLLARO-There will be. That’s all I’ve got. I don’t have anything else. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything from Staff? MRS. MOORE-I can just add the comment that I did speak with Harry, in regards to this project, and asked them to, you know, how the Rec Committee was pursuing this, and he did indicate to me by phone that they are interested in the piece of property. They haven’t completed their site visit yet, and he wasn’t able to write a letter, due to his daughter had a baby. Otherwise, he would have provided me with a letter. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, but to finish up the answer to Bob’s question, I don’t know what the letter would say. I would assume it would be an interim report saying what Laura just said, but the way this works is the Recreation Commission does have an opportunity to review the proposed property, or the property that’s proposed for conveyance to the Town. The Recreation Commission then makes a recommendation to the Town Board as to its feeling regarding the suitability of the property for acquisition by the Town for recreational purposes. The Town Board then decides whether to accept it or not, and notice that the application accurately, the summary of the application, accurately describes the subdivision as the three lot subdivision. It describes what use the two parcels will be kept as, and then it says the 68 plus or minus lot is proposed for conveyance to the Town of Queensbury for recreational use. Neither the applicant nor the Planning Board can mandate that to occur, but that’s what the applicant is proposing to offer, and the Town Board will ultimately decide whether to accept it for that purpose or not, based, in part, on a recommendation from the Rec Commission. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Got it. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? I’ll ask you to give up the table for a few minutes. We’ll open up the public hearing. Marilyn, do you want to come up first, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARILYN VAN DYKE MRS. VAN DYKE-I’m Marilyn VanDyke, and I’m the Historian for the Town of Queensbury, and in that respect I represent also Staff. I just became aware of this plan yesterday for the first time, and I’ve been looking at the proposed subdivision, and I had a few questions. One deals with the fact that the Faith Bible Church is going to divide a parcel for the Church and a parcel for its cemetery, which I believe is called The Hope Garden Cemetery, and are those two parcels contiguous to one another or are they separated by that road? MR. VOLLARO-They’re separated, from what I can tell. MRS. VAN DYKE-All right. That would mean, then, that in some instances, if the Church chose not to maintain its Church on the property that it will then have, that it could sell that, at some point, and retain and only have the cemetery, and what guarantee would we have, then, that they would continue to maintain their cemetery as a Church cemetery? That would be one question that I would have, but even more important, on the 68 plus acre lot that the Conservancy will be holding, and then passing on to the Town, we have another cemetery on the height, overlooking the Hudson River, which is known as the Old Ogden, the Ogden Cemetery, and it’s an isolated cemetery, in a way, but it’s not remote and it’s possible to access it, and the members of a very early Quaker family, the Ogdens, who settled in the Town, were buried there, and I first saw this site when I first became the Historian in 1990. There are approximately eight burials there. An inventory was done by Dr. Eisenhart, who was my predecessor, in the late 1980’s, and at that time, there were, all of the tombstones that were intact at that time became a part of the inventory. Today, I understand that there is only one tombstone that is still intact. Now, this is an example of extreme vandalism of a cemetery in our Town, and we shouldn’t be very proud of this. Hunters have shot at these stones, and I have seen the stones where the bullets have gone through them. Travelers or hikers have gone over there and unearthed these stones and tipped them over. There possibly, at one time, was a fence around the cemetery, although I’ve never been able to prove that there was. There is some possible evidence that even bones have been removed from the ground. I think that, if the Town is going to acquire this, at this time, that we should make every effort to identify this as a burial ground of one of the earliest families of the Town, and that we should continue to preserve the one stone that is still intact, and also determine if there are any others on the site that might be in pieces or whatever, so that they can be. MR. VOLLARO-There are pieces there. MRS. VAN DYKE-So that they could be found and put back together. As you may know, tombstones are the property of the family that has the burials there. There may or may not be any existing Ogdens that would claim these stones, but I am aware of one descendant of the Ogden family who still lives in this area, and I have not contacted them regarding the cemetery. I think we should take this as a serious effort on our part to preserve both of these cemeteries, both the one that the Faith Bible Church has, 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) and I presume they would own it and would care for it, and also this other cemetery that would then come under the jurisdiction of the Town, so that it can be saved and noted and preserved to the extent that we’re able to today, in spite of its obvious abuse over time. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much, Marilyn. Anyone else? PLINEY TUCKER MR. TUCKER-Pliney Tucker, 41 Division Road, Queensbury. I’ve been a resident there for 40 years. This unauthorized turnaround on the Church property there. When that was allowed to happen by the Church, it eliminated a dead end street on Division Road and Ogden Road. Over time, the kid in the area have grown up, and they’ve got cars, bikes, four wheelers and what have you, and they use this thing here. I spoke to Rick, a couple of months ago, about putting up guardrails at both ends of this thing so that Division Road and Ogden Road would again become dead end roads, and he said if they did that, they wouldn’t have, they’d have a tough time plowing the roads. So what I’m here to ask for tonight, in this three lot subdivision, is that provisions be made for turnarounds at the end of these roads, and we eliminate that unauthorized road at the end of the Church property there. Now, the people that live right next to this thing have, when I was on the Board, voiced complaints, and since then, there are, I believe, 14 residents on Division Road, and I’ve been authorized to speak for nine of them, and we’d like the road returned to a dead end road, what it was originally, and the only reason that, it’s still a dead end road, the only reason it isn’t is this access point there on the Church property. MR. VOLLARO-What does that do to the plowing situation, Pliney, if we dead end the roads? Are the plows currently turning around in that turnaround that’s next to the Church, that I have on my drawing here? Is that? MR. TUCKER-Well, what they do now is they come right down and come across there, and right up Division Road, and makes for traffic from Ogden Road coming on to Division Road, and from Division Road going onto Ogden Road. MR. STROUGH-Well, Pliney, when the Parks and Recreation Commission gets this, I mean, let’s look at this possibility and see if you find anything wrong with this. That maybe we could make, maybe there is enough property there, we’d have to check with Rick, to make turnarounds, but we could also put up guardrails, maybe in the middle of the property, and make a small parking area for the few people that might want to visit this and use the trails. I mean, you know, there are possibilities, in the future. I think we’re going to have to work with the Park Committee. I think that something could be done to make everybody happy, though, but I don’t think we can do that here, but I think that’s something that can be worked out with the Highway Department and the Rec Department and everybody working together to coordinate something that will make everybody happy. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you looking for an instant answer? MR. TUCKER-I’m looking for an answer. You’re accepting something here that has a problem. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the problem? MR. TUCKER-That tract of land right there that they have allowed access between the two roads. MR. STROUGH-But at this point we’re just going to accept the property. Now how we develop the property and how, what plans we have for the property, I expect that you have input on that in the future, as we go through this, because the next stage will be for the Rec Department, the Highway Department, and interested parties to sit down and see what we can do with this. MR. TUCKER-At the present moment, the Town is not involved in it. MR. STROUGH-It will, I mean, I’m assuming. What do you think the Planning Board can do? All we’re doing is suggesting that we accept the subdivision as proposed, which I see where your concerns can be taken care of down the road, but not at this point. I don’t see where we can say, okay, we’ll put a guardrail here. We’ll put a turnaround here. We’ll put a parking lot there. We can’t do that at this point. MR. TUCKER-You could recommend that two places be created, one at the end of Ogden Road, and one at the end of Division Road, if this subdivision all comes together, and the Town acquires the 60 some acres, 68 acres, and the Church acquires their 20 plus acres, that they make provisions. MR. STROUGH-Well, that kind of a plan would get in the way of what the Rec Department might want to do with it. I’m not the Rec Department. I know they’ve got plans, I mean, or at least thoughts. We don’t know. We can’t say we’re going to put a guardrail there, or would suggest one. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) MR. TUCKER-I’m not saying guardrails. I’m saying make provisions in your subdivision that there be two turnarounds for the plows. MR. STROUGH-Well, we could suggest to the Town Board that when they look into the matter, that they take into concern that if there is a problem with the Ogden Road/Division Road connection, and t that the people live in that community should be taken into account when making plans for the recreational future of this property. MR. TUCKER-Okay. I’ve got a couple of other questions. I guess you can answer them. MR. MAC EWAN-Direct your questions right up here, please. MR. TUCKER-I don’t think you can answer it. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we’ll get it answered for you. That’s what our job is. MR. TUCKER-There was a dump on this property, and it was contaminated. Has that been cleaned up? Is there any records? MR. VOLLARO-Where was that dump, Pliney? Is it, do you know where it was? MR. TUCKER-Right near the cemetery. MR. MAC EWAN-Which one? MR. VOLLARO-The big one? MR. TUCKER-The one that the Church maintains. They filled in a natural drainage gully. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it, Pliney? MR. TUCKER-Right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. Mr. Salvador? JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Are Division Road and Ogden Road dedicated roads, dedicated dead end roads? MR. TUCKER-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-They’ve been mapped? MR. TUCKER-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-There’s a deed on file? MR. MAC EWAN-When did you get appointed to the Planning Board, just out of curiosity. MR. TUCKER-I can answer him. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, he’s asking the questions of the Planning Board. MR. SALVADOR-Again, is Division Road and is Ogden Road a dedicated Town dead end road? That would mean, if it’s dedicated, that would mean that it’s been mapped, and there’s a map on file with the Town Clerk. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t have that answer for you. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. If, in fact, they are dedicated roads, as Mr. Tucker seems to have knowledge of, then they have been improperly laid out. Because a dead end road is supposed to be laid out with a turnaround. That’s the Highway law. Now, as the Highway Superintendent plows this connector between the two roads, and if this connector is being used by the public, and this has been going on for a specified number of years, it’s a Town road by use, unless the owner of the property has maintained, somehow prevented the public from coming onto that property, and the Highway Superintendent has absolutely no authority to leave a Town road and do work like snowplowing on private property. I don’t have anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) WILMA THEOBALD MRS. THEOBALD-I received a certified letter with a lot of the neighbors in Hudson Pointe. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you identify yourself for the record, please. MRS. THEOBALD-Wilma Theobald. I have no idea why. So I kind of need some information, if you can tell us why we’re involved in this and how, and how it connects with Hudson Pointe, and what’s going to happen? MR. MAC EWAN-As the crow flies, your back property line is probably 500 feet or closer to this back property line. I’m guessing you probably live on Danford Court? MRS. THEOBALD-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Because as the crow flies, that’s where you are. You’re probably about 300 feet away. That’s why you got noticed. MRS. THEOBALD-Okay. So how does that tie, like where does it tie into Hudson Pointe land? MR. MAC EWAN-If you look at the lower left hand corner of that map, and very lightly you can see that cul de sac, with the pie shaped lots on it? MRS. THEOBALD-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s Danford Court. MRS. THEOBALD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-So you can see how close it is to the southwesterly corner of that parcel. MRS. THEOBALD-Okay. So does that land tie into Morningside Circle there, that road behind our lots? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. THEOBALD-No? Okay. So what will that land used for, as recreational use? Just throwing out ideas right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Land conservancy and passive recreation. MRS. THEOBALD-Which would be what, hiking, basically? MR. MAC EWAN-Hiking. MR. VOLLARO-Hiking, walking. MR. RINGER-Cross country skiing. MRS. THEOBALD-Kind of what they have there in open space now, then, in Hudson Pointe, right? MR. MAC EWAN-Correct. MRS. THEOBALD-The same kind of idea. MR. MAC EWAN-The idea is to try to link all these properties together, eventually. MRS. THEOBALD-And maintain that same thing. Is there going to be roads brought back into that? MR. MAC EWAN-Not to my knowledge, at this point, but I don’t know what future plans hold. MRS. THEOBALD-Neither do I. That’s why I’m asking. MR. MAC EWAN-And that would be a different process in front of the Town’s Recreation Committee. Ultimately, I think the Town Board has some approvals under this process, but if they were going to develop that land for passive recreation, some sort of formal plan would be set forth. MRS. THEOBALD-Okay. So, basically, what kind of impact would this have on us at all? 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) MR. VOLLARO-Zero, I would think. MR. MAC EWAN-Minimal, at this point. MRS. THEOBALD-I mean, it doesn’t seem like there’s really major impact. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s nothing really, at this point, nothing, if this gets approved, nothing more than a change of ownership of the property. MRS. THEOBALD-At this point, but in the future, what could it hold, anything that you can see? MR. MAC EWAN-Just the passive recreation, and what the Town plan calls for is to continue the theme, like you see in Hudson Pointe, by putting all these properties together that are abutting the Hudson River, and just leaving them as a passive recreation area. MRS. THEOBALD-And this has been in place for a long time, because I saw the paperwork way back when, when we first came. So they kind of had it planned all along, right? MR. MAC EWAN-It’s been a work in progress for many years. MRS. THEOBALD-Right. Okay, but they still don’t know what they’re going to do with it for sure. MR. MAC EWAN-For sure they don’t, no. MRS. THEOBALD-All right. That’s about all I need, then. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? MRS. VAN DYKE-I have one other comment. Just in terms of the concept of passive recreation, I think that because this area was so open in the past, it was one of the things that lead to the mistreatment and abuse of the Ogden Cemetery. So we want to be careful, if we’re going to continue to have passive recreation, that we define that, and that we also take some definite steps to save that cemetery. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe it would be appropriate for you to write a letter to the Town Board and the Rec Commission as to what mechanisms that you think might be the best to put forth to preserve that cemetery. MRS. VAN DYKE-Has it already been defined that the Recreation Department will be in charge of this property? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think that’s been formally defined at this point, no. MRS. VAN DYKE-All right. I can send a memo to you, in regard to the plan. I don’t know whether I should comment to the Rec Department yet. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe we can do that, and then we’ll circulate it to where it’s got to go. MRS. VAN DYKE-All right. MR. VOLLARO-It might be even pertinent to make carbon copies to each of the Town Board members, so they have a feel for what you’re telling the Planning Board. MRS. VAN DYKE-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-I think it’s important to state on the record, at the Planning Board meeting, and especially in reference to the previous woman’s comments, Mrs. Theobald, if I have her name correctly, that all the things that the Planning Board and the applicant have discussed, in light of passive recreation as opposed to more active or intensive uses, potential impacts to the properties nearby, as the commentor asked about, I think all the answers that have been given are what’s planned, but none of that is definite yet. I think you need to make sure that the public understands that. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-We talked about, one of the Board members said no impacts, and passive recreation at the most and all that. That’s all that’s proposed at this point, but none of that is cast in stone, and as somebody mentioned, in addition to the Recreation Commission, this Board and the Highway Superintendent, the Town Board has a lot to say about it as well, and all that stuff is down the road yet. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Very good. Thank you. Is that it? Anyone else? MIKE BRANDT MR. BRANDT-Just a question. Doesn’t that property adjoin property that’s already owned by the Town of Queensbury? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Anyone else? MRS. THEOBALD-If it joins other lands, doesn’t it actually join into Hudson Pointe somewhere, or join into Morningside Circle or any of those things? MR. MAC EWAN-Some of the lands that are currently on this map that are owned by the Open Space Institute abut residential properties in Hudson Pointe. MRS. THEOBALD-Okay, and to you, you’re saying nothing’s set right now with this passive recreation? This could be something different? MR. SCHACHNER-That’s essentially correct. I’m the Town’s Attorney, the Town Counsel, and I just wanted to make sure that the Planning Board minutes and the Planning Board record don’t indicate that anything is cast in stone by way of this proposed passive recreational use, and it sounded like the Board agreed with that. MRS. THEOBALD-Okay. The other options could be what? MR. SCHACHNER-The other options could be whatever anybody proposes to the Town, if, in fact, the Town acquires the property, more active recreational use than passive, or who knows, something else all together. That’s why I made the comment I made. I want to make sure that the public understands that we don’t know for sure, as we sit here. All we know is what’s proposed. Those proposals have not yet been acted upon. MRS. THEOBALD-Okay. MR. STROUGH-And as the process progresses, (lost words) there will be requirements and requests for public input. MRS. THEOBALD-Okay. MR. RINGER-And also, Mark, when the land is turned over to the Town, won’t the Conservancy give restrictions? MR. SCHACHNER-I believe that that’s what’s currently envisioned is absolutely there would be very significant restrictions that, in fact, would likely limit it to the very use we’re talking about, the passive recreational use. That is definitely what’s proposed. MR. RINGER-Right, and it’s pretty well covered. MR. SCHACHNER-If it’s handled in that way, the deed will cover it. That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STEVES-Again, Matt Steves, representing Beaverkill. To go over a few of the concerns, and I believe myself and my client, we have an open ear to these concerns. We just don’t want, we want to make sure we reiterate again that there’s no proposed change of use at this time. It’s just the, you know, the cutting up off the property for the use that is to come, and that’s going to have a lot to do with the interplaying between this Board, the Town Board, and the Town’s Staff itself. The Beaverkill Conservancy, key word there is Conservancy, though, they don’t usually go into the market of buying property for development purposes. So I think you can be pretty much assured that in some manner, the reason for the strip across to the Town of Queensbury is if that conveyance to the Town for recreation purposes does not happen, Beaverkill Conservancy will still own this property. They are going to be the next owner of this property. They are, in turn, looking to convey that to the Town, once all that thing is worked out. At this point, we’re looking at a three lot subdivision. To get back to that, the concerns of the cemeteries, that’s one of the concerns of the Church, and as you can see on the map, there’s just a small area there on the northerly end, not quite in the center of the six acres that is currently used as a cemetery, and they definitely have a concern of maintaining and buffering that. That’s why they wanted the six acres around that. So they definitely have a concern of maintaining that also. As far 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) as any other sites that would be on the property, as far as cemeteries, the Conservancy is most definitely interested in preserving those, if it does get conveyed to the Town as something that the Town should look at, to maybe fencing it in or finding other avenues of protection for it. Making it a Conservancy or some type of passive recreation area, definitely enhances the ability to be able to preserve those areas. As far as other comments, as far as landfills and such, this is a property that is being looked at by Open Space Institute/Beaverkill Conservancy now for almost four years, and all these concerns have come up, and they’ve gone through all of their independent studies, as far as hazardous waste, all this other information so that they can close the books on that and acquire the property. They have assured me that they have closed the books on that information, as far as any potential hazardous sites, and that they’ve been, Allen Oppenheim, of ACO Properties, has been involved with that to make sure of that, and that’s why they went ahead with the subdivision. As far as other comments, yes, those are all Town roads, and, yes, they abut our property on the northerly bounds, and as far as the fact if somebody drives over that or not, that is not a road by acquiescence or by use or by anything else. That is owned by Faith Bible Church, and at this time, the ability to convey that small strip to the Town allows maybe the Town Board and the Town Highway Department and the Rec Department to work on the scenario where they can now incorporate a “T” or a turnaround or a gate or a fence. At this time, they don’t have any opportunity to do that. So we think this is a strong case to help accommodate that, but I think that that is not something that should be looked at at this time, other than the point that conveyance to the Town would help resolve that problem, by getting the facets of the Town together to resolve it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. STEVES-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything from Staff? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, please. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 8-2000, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: BEAVERKILL CONSERVANCY, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 28 day of November, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a motion? MR. STROUGH-I’ll introduced a motion that we approve preliminary and final stage. MR. MAC EWAN-You’ve got to do one at a time. MR. STROUGH-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2000 BEAVERKILL CONSERVANCY, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Sub. 8-2000 Beaverkill Conservancy for subdivision of a 94.75 +/- acre lot into three lots. Two parcels will be retained for the Faith Bible church. The church will be located on the 20 +/- acre site and the cemetery will be located on the 6.16 +/- acre site. The 68 +/- acre lot is proposed for conveyance to the Town of Queensbury for recreational use. Tax Map No. 148-1-1, and; WHEREAS, the application received 10/24/00 consists of the following: 1. Application materials as outlined in the Official File WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 1. 11/28/00 Staff Notes 11/20/00 PB from R. Missita, Highway Superintendent 11/2/00 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 11/28/00 concerning the above project (certified mail received); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision requirements of the Code of the Town 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 the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application is approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by staff is subject to the following condition: 1. That the waivers as listed in the letter of October 30, 2000 from Van Dusen & Steves be approved as well. Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 2000 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Before you make your motion. MR. VOLLARO-You want to say, subsequent to conveyance, recommend that the Rec Commission and the Town Board explore Ogden and Division Road for purposes of future use. I think we want to make a recommendation that, subsequent to this conveyance, that both the Rec Commission and the Town Board explore what Pliney was talking about there. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d also like to see in there that preservation of the Ogden Cemetery site be incorporated into any plans or future plans for this parcel, too. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) MR. STROUGH-Do you want that condition on Preliminary or on Final? MR. MAC EWAN-Do it on the Preliminary and do it on the Final. Do it on both. MR. SCHACHNER-It makes a lot more sense to do it on the Final, so it’s not deemed to be a condition of Preliminary approval that’s not fulfilled at the time of Final approval. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. MR. STROUGH-I’ll add it to the Final. MR. MAC EWAN-Let your original motion stand, then. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Do we have a second on that? MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll second it. MRS. MOORE-You have a second. However, he has a list of waivers. Are you going to grant those waivers? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I just was looking at that. Sketch Plan, landscape, clearing plan, grading, erosion and drainage report. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I looked at the waivers. I don’t see any problem. MR. MAC EWAN-Just amend your resolution, John, to say that the letter of October 30 from th VanDusen and Steves requesting waivers to Sketch Plan, landscaping, clearing, grading and erosion and drainage plan be approved by the Planning Board. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-John, maybe you can just include the letter. I thought it was part of the resolution, but it’s not. It’s dated October 30. th MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll have to approve that. MR. STROUGH-In a letter from who? MR. MAC EWAN-VanDusen & Steves. MR. VOLLARO-VanDusen & Steves in a letter signed by Matthew C. Steves. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and the letter dated October 30, by VanDusen & Steves, okay. So, a th condition of Preliminary, and the only one that I know of, is that the waivers, as listed in the letter of October 30, 2000, from VanDusen & Steves, be approved as well. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll still second that. AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, I also move that we approve the Final Stage, Subdivision No. 8-2000, for the Beaverkill Conservancy. In a resolution prepared by Staff of November 28, 2000. With, well, it wouldn’t really be a condition. It would just be a notation or recommendation. MR. VOLLARO-It would be a recommendation. Subsequent to conveyance, recommend that the Rec Commission and the Town Board explore Ogden and Division Roads for purposes of future use, and then leave that up to them to determine whether they’re going to make that a one way road or not. MR. MAC EWAN-What about the plans to preserve that Cemetery? MR. STROUGH-Yes, that, too. MR. VOLLARO-That, too. I don’t want to be too definitive on that last motion. Let the Rec Commission and the Town Board wrestle with what they want to do with that road. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) MR. STROUGH-We’re just sending a concern to the Town Board. I mean, it’s not really a condition, and all we’re doing is just trying to, at this time, send a message to the Town Board that when they see this material, whether they could just read this or not, that the Planning Board urges that the Town Board take extra special concern and note that there are possibilities for recreation on this piece of property, and there are concerns by some of the neighbors that live on Division and Ogden Roads that these roads be not connected, and then I’m not even to the Cemetery. MR. VOLLARO-I think you want to leave this up to the Town Board and the Rec Commission to determine the future use of those roads. Let them wrestle with this. They’re the people. MR. STROUGH-I’m almost thinking that those concerns, rather than add it to the motion, is something that I think will be brought up as a matter of fact, in the course of things anyway. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you just don’t want, if they get dropped through the crack. That’s all my concern is. MR. SCHACHNER-You’re all saying the same thing. It’s just a question of what’s the best procedure and vehicle, and I think that the answer to that is not a very, very, very long motion. I think you should separate out, if you want to have a motion to approve the subdivision, and I didn’t hear any conditions, on Final. There was a condition at Preliminary waiving the, some of the requirements, then you should just approve the subdivision. If you want to have a separate motion making some kind of recommendation to the Town Board or the Recreation Commission and the Highway Superintendent, for future consideration, I think you should do that in a separate motion. So it’s very clear what’s what. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I’ll tell you what I can do. I can either draft a letter, so that at our next workshop, we’ll send our concerns to the Town Board with a draft of this letter, rather than clutter this up now. Okay? MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s a good idea. MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. Then my resolution stands without conditions as stated previously I don’t know if there was a second on that. MR. SCHACHNER-Without the recommendation? MR. STROUGH-Without the recommendation. I told them that I’ll draft a letter. MR. SCHACHNER-No, I understood. I heard that, but that’s not how the motion was made. That’s my concern. MR. STROUGH-The motion, with the one condition of the acceptance of waivers from the letter from VanDusen & Steves dated October 30, 2000. MR. SCHACHNER-You’ve already done that, accomplished that with Preliminary. MR. STROUGH-Well, then, okay. No conditions that I know of in the Final. Right? MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine. All I was pointing out is that the motion, as I heard it for Final, it did include a bunch of the recommendation language. MR. STROUGH-We retracted that. You were just looking for a clarification. MR. STROUGH-That’s a neat, clean motion. MR. STROUGH-A clean, clean motion. Do you want me to start over again? MR. MAC EWAN-That would be a good idea. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2000 BEAVERKILL CONSERVANCY, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Sub. 8-2000 Beaverkill Conservancy for subdivision of a 94.75 +/- acre lot into three lots. Two parcels will be retained for the Faith Bible church. The church will be located on the 20 +/- acre site and the cemetery will be located on the 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) 6.16 +/- acre site. The 68 +/- acre lot is proposed for conveyance to the Town of Queensbury for recreational use. Tax Map No. 148-1-1, and; WHEREAS, the application received 10/24/00 consists of the following: 1. Application materials as outlined in the Official File WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 1. 11/28/00 Staff Notes 11/20/00 PB from R. Missita, Highway Superintendent 11/2/00 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 11/28/00 concerning the above project (certified mail received); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision requirements of the Code of the Town 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 the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application is approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 2. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. STEVES-Thank you. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 21-1999 MODIFICATION MICHAEL VASILIOU OWNER: MICHAEL VASILIOU, CONTRACT VENDEE AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: PEGGY ANN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION. THE MODIFICATION IS TO REDUCE THE 16 LOT SUBDIVISION TO 10 LOTS AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TEMPORARY TURN AROUND (HAMMERHEAD) FOR FUTURE CONNECTION. ANY MODIFICATION TO A PLANNING BOARD APPROVED SUBDIVISION REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 6-2000 TAX MAP NO. 121-1-2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1.3, 10.1 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is no public hearing scheduled, for a modification. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 21-1999, Modification, Michael Vasiliou, Meeting Date: November 28, 2000 “Project Description The applicant proposes to reduce a sixteen-lot subdivision to a ten-lot subdivision. The modification includes a replacement of a cul-de-sac with a temporary hammerhead. The applicant intends to create a loop road for future subdivision of the remaining parcel(s). Currently, the site contains several parcels, many of which are under a contract with Mr. Vasiliou. Project Analysis The proposed use as reviewed by staff was found to be compliant with Chapter A183 of the Town Code. The proposed modification is an allowed use within the zone through Planning Board review and approval. Study of plat ?? Lot arrangement – The modification occurs on lots 1-5 and 12-16. The lot layout of these original ten lots will not be altered. The remaining six lots will be eliminated from the application. ?? Location and design of streets –The modification allows for a temporary hammerhead. The hammerhead will facilitate future road connection and allow for turn-around for Town vehicles working in the area. ?? Topography –The modification does not alter the proposed grading plan. The project site is level with very little elevation change. ?? Water supply –The water connection is being reviewed by the Water Department ?? Sewage disposal –The septic systems are proposed to be located to the rear of the properties. ?? Drainage –The stormwater management of the site does not change with the modification proposal. The report for the original subdivision indicated the site contained well-drained soils. ?? Lot sizes -The applicant received an area variance for lots 1 to 4, 12-16, 5, 7, 9, 11. The variance granted relief for average lot width less than the 150 feet requirement. The modification does not change the variance granted. The lots affected will remain as 1.00-acre parcels. ?? Placement of utilities –The waterline location was reviewed by the Water Department and found to be acceptable, see letter 11/6/00. Other utility connections have not been proposed yet. ?? Future development -The modification allows for future development of adjacent lands. The board has reviewed a concept plan for the development of the adjacent Land. The zoning board recently granted an area variance on the adjacent land to be developed, (AV 95-2000). ?? Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance –The property is located in neighborhood 11. The 1988 CLUP recognizes this as an established residential area. ?? State Environmental Quality Review Act –The modification alters the location of the proposed utility(s) and allows for future development. This may be interpreted as being a significant change in the application. A revised short environmental assessment form should be considered. ?? Town departments –The application has been referred to the Highway Department and the Water Department for review and comment. Suggestions Planning Staff would suggest ?? the conditions of the previous subdivision and variance approval be reaffirmed for the modification, no-cut zones on all of the lots. ?? a revised environmental assessment form be submitted.” MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t understand why, because it’s less now than it was. MRS. MOORE-Correct. It’s less now, but the current subdivision, or the current SEQRA Form for the subdivision references 16 lots, as just a clarification for the file. MR. MAC EWAN-I vaguely remember this. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) MR. STEVES-Good evening. Again, for the record, I’m Matt Steves. I represent Michael J. Vasiliou, Inc. on this application. What you have in front of you is an approved 16 lot subdivision, and since he acquired or obtained the approvals for the 16 lots that you see on the Board in front of you, the then property directly to the east of this came on the market, after his approval was granted. He went to the people. He accepted his offer. So he went in for a loop road, went to the Highway Department. They would much rather have a loop road. We went to Ralph VanDusen, the Water Department, would much rather have a loop road. Staff would much rather have a loop road through there. So, instead of building all the way to the cul de sac, we will have to come back in front of this Board for the subdivision, the extension of that subdivision, which you looked at last month under conceptual approval, if you’ll recall, and were granted conceptual approval, and then we had to go to the Zoning Board to obtain some variances, which we did obtain last week, and we’ll be submitting tomorrow the remainder of the subdivision. So the only change to this subdivision, as you see it right now, before the next one comes in for approval, which pushes the loop road around, is nothing more than he didn’t want to build the entire cul de sac and then rip it out, if we’re going to have an approval for a loop road. Now, if the subdivision does not get approved on the remaining portion of it to be looped around, then in the spring you’ll construct the cul de sac. So at this time, he constructed down to that temporary turnaround, and it just states, in the Regs of the Town, that any modification to a subdivision, even though it’s not a modification to the size or the shape of the lot, but it is a modification to the length of the road at this time. That’s the only reason we’re back in front of this Board, is to accept the modification that the road does not go to the cul de sac. It goes to the shown hammerhead, and the reason for the 10 lots is because of the fact that you can’t, you can only have one building permit beyond the Town road. The reason for 10 lots is because there’s only going to be 10 lots fronting on the Town road that will be accepted by the Town Board. MR. VOLLARO-How does the conceptual approval for 26 lots under Subdivision 6-2000 relate to this, or am I creating a false relationship here? MR. STEVES-If I can overlay a quick map. MR. VOLLARO-I couldn’t put this together. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Where are the 10 lots, Matt? MR. STEVES-Actually, well, the 10 lots would be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, right where the “T” goes to. It’s actually only eight lots. The “T”, because of the fact that this road extends. It’s not going to curve around. It’s just a slight modification. This gets slightly complicated, the fact that you have an existing cul de sac that’s approved. It goes straight through. The proposal is for a loop road. So we put the turnaround at a juncture in the existing approval that wouldn’t be in the middle of the lot. That’s the only reason for the location of the hammerhead. If we were to push that into the cul de sac, and then this does get approved, we’ve just now clear cut a large area in the middle of two lots for a road that we didn’t need to do. So, I mean, it’s slightly complicated, but it shouldn’t be, and the fact that the only reason we’re here is to pull that hammerhead back. Instead of being a cul de sac, we’re pulling it back to access eight lots, and then in the spring, once this is approved, or denied, if it’s denied, he will push this through, create the cul de sac, and have the 16 lots as originally approved. If the continuation of this subdivision is approved, he will build the entire road and have the 28 lots. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It would be helpful if we had some transparency, we could overlay Number Two on Number One here. MR. STEVES-Yes. I believe the map that you have in front of you does show the cul de sac dashed in there, a very light line. It’s basically, the only thing you’re looking at is the original subdivision is go back to that, because, see, now what’s proposed then, what you’ve granted conceptual approval for, is just to bring that hammerhead back to a point where it aligns with the proposed road, so it doesn’t create any problems inside of the lot. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I see that. MR. MAC EWAN-John, I’ll start with you. MR. STROUGH-Well, first of all, I like this idea better than the idea that you could have come for, with the clustering, and for the same number of lots only smaller. I like the idea of the larger lots, and I know some of the neighbors do, too. It helps assure the property values can be up there with the larger lots, and what will be the price range of the homes here, do you know, offhand? MR. STEVES-As far as Mr. Vasiliou was telling me, he’s ranging between the $160,000 to $280,000 range. MR. STROUGH-Yes. With that size of lot, it stands to reason. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) MR. STEVES-One of the concerns or questions of the Board, does this change any of the no cut zones? No, it does not. As a matter of fact, on the proposed subdivision, the 75 foot no cut zone carries around on all the lots, but it does not affect the existing approved subdivision. It does not affect any of the no clear zones. MR. STROUGH-Is there a fire hydrant nearby or is one being proposed? MR. STEVES-Yes. There is a fire hydrant. There is actually two, and Tom Nace is the engineer on the project. He’s here also, but they’ve put in a temporary one in at the end of the turnaround. MR. STROUGH-So there’s going to be one across the road? MR. STEVES-There is one. MR. STROUGH-There is one? TOM NACE MR. NACE-There’s two new ones already. MR. STEVES-Right, one at the end of the turnaround, which will be abandoned and then pulled around, once and if the rest of the road is approved. MR. STROUGH-Now are the no cut zones going to be written into the deeds? MR. STEVES-Absolutely. MR. STROUGH-That’s all I have, thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No, nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No, it’s pretty straightforward, once you get the professor to tell you what it’s all about here. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-It might seem like a silly question. I just want to make sure that we’re all clear. We’re being asked to reduce a 16 lot subdivision to a 10 lot. If the loop road is not approved, your intention is to come back to the 16 lot. Would that necessitate you to come back before the Board? MR. STEVES-I would want to reiterate what I said before, as far as the 10 lot. It’s the number of lots that will be served by the existing road that will be dedicated to the Town. It doesn’t change the underlying approval of the subdivision, no. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-But what he said, we go back to 26 lots, and not to? MR. STEVES-No, you go back to 16 lots, if the rest of the subdivision was unapproved, absolutely, and the spring, he would just build the cul de sac and have 16 lots. MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s pretty clear that, in any approval, that the hammerhead is a temporary? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. That’s what I’m here for right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) MR. STEVES-That’s right. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else from Board members? Staff? MR. VOLLARO-You’re only going to actually do eight lots, not ten? Because two of those are encumbered by that hammerhead situation? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. I guess it gets complicated on a pretty simple issue here. If you have a road, and you build it this far, I’m just saying that the only reason I’m in front of this Board is because of the fact that we didn’t build the road as far as the original plan called for, and that I’m not changing any underlying, anything on that subdivision at this time at all, except saying, I’m coming back to the Board because in your Regs it says any modification, and I didn’t, you know, my client didn’t build the road as far as it was intended to be built at this time because of the fact that he acquired the property to the east, and is coming back in front of this Board for the proposal to loop the road entirely around. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I don’t have any other questions. MR. STEVES-It’s like a phase without being a phase. Right. MR. SCHACHNER-I thought Chris asked a very important question, and I don’t understand myself exactly whether this is a temporary, whether the request is for a modification that would only be in effect temporarily, and then the underlying approval of the rest of the subdivision would remain in effect and the applicant would not have to come back to this Board for future development of the lots. I think this is what Chris was asking. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-And I didn’t, I’m not sure I, at least, am not clear on that. I don’t think Staff and I are clear on that. MR. HUNSINGER-I was just commenting to John, it seems silly that he’s here tonight, especially if he had to come back if he decided to build the cul de sac. MR. SCHACHNER-Which, apparently, remains the intention. MR. STEVES-If we don’t get approval on the rest of it. Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-They’d prefer to build a loop road. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-But if we don’t approve that, then eventually they’ll. MR. VOLLARO-Go back to this. MR. HUNSINGER-Build the cul de sac. To me, it’s silly, but I understand why he’s here. MR. STEVES-I would more than tend to agree with that. MR. MAC EWAN-Are we all clear? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We don’t have any public hearing scheduled tonight, but we’ll take public comment if someone wants to speak to this application. Does someone want to introduce the motion? MR. STROUGH-Well, I just had a couple of more things. The Planning Staff has said that a revised Environmental Assessment Form be submitted? That doesn’t apply here, Laura? 45 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) MRS. MOORE-It was a suggestion, because it’s reducing the number of lots. Your current SEQRA Form indicates that it’s for a 16 lot subdivision. The suggestion, you can indicate that there’s no significant or non-significance in regards to SEQRA. MR. STROUGH-So you’re just saying that we amend the original SEQRA Negative Declaration to say 10 lots instead of 16? MR. MAC EWAN-No. I think we just want to simply say that this modification, this subdivision doesn’t change the original SEQRA findings. MR. SCHACHNER-I think that makes more sense, because, ultimately, the applicant, as I understand it, may build the lots that were previously approved, and I don’t think it makes sense to have new SEQRA submissions, for each permutation of this, as long as everything that’s been proposed falls within the ambit of what was originally approved, and my understanding is that that’s correct? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, I don’t want to use the phrase “worst case scenario”. One could argue that what’s now proposed is less intense development, and less significant and therefore has less potential environmental impacts. Since we’ve already reached a negative declaration before, I don’t see the need to go through that again. MR. VOLLARO-And I think that it’s stated right in the resolution. MR. SCHACHNER-About the modification, you mean? It’s always in the form resolution. MR. VOLLARO-So it covers that. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 21-1999 MICHAEL VASILIOU, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a modification request for Sub. 21-1999 Michael Vasiliou to reduce the 16 lot subdivision to 10 lots and the construction of a temporary turn around (hammerhead) for future connections. Any modification to a Planning Board approved subdivision requires Planning Board review and approval, and; WHEREAS, the application received 10/24/00 consists of the following: 1. Application materials as outlined in the Official file WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 1. 11/28/00 Staff Notes 11/1/00 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was not held concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision requirements of the Code of the Town 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 the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application is approved based on the resolution prepared by staff and is subject to the following conditions: 46 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) 1. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 2. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by the Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. Duly adopted this 28th day of November 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2000 SKETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES/BAYBROOK PROFESSIONAL PARK OWNER: GUIDO PASSARELLI AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: EAST SIDE BAY RD., OPPOSITE WALKER LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 81 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS: ONE 18.5 ACRE LOT FOR A 21 LOT PROFESSIONAL OFFICE PARK AND THE REMAINING 63 ACRE LOT TO BE RETAINED FOR FUTURE MR-5 USE. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 4-1992, UV 130-1992 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 11/6/00 TAX MAP NO. 60-2-4 LOT SIZE: 81 +/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-Before we start the proceedings here, I would just like to make a statement. I’m fairly intrinsically involved in one of the portions of this, as far as the sewer design and build is concerned, and I don’t know whether I should be recusing myself, and I want to ask my fellow Board members what they think. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Stay here. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So noted. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t understand your question. MR. VOLLARO-Because I think that this application or this sketch plan is highly premature at this time, because there’s no guarantee that Baybridge will get to build this sewer system, and this plan is predicated on that sewer system, not a sewer system, but that sewer system, and, you know, I would give myself maybe a 60% probability of actually building that sewer. MR. LAPPER-Give yourself more credit than that. MR. VOLLARO-Not after pursuing this thing for nine months. We’re getting weary. MR. MAC EWAN-You’ve got a better chance of finding 10,000 votes in Florida. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STROUGH-But this was just a Sketch Plan, Bob. So I think you’re safe. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that, but I wanted to put this forward. MR. MAC EWAN-Mark, please jump in here. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, two things. First thing, for what it’s worth, I do think Mr. Vollaro is selling his own advocacy skills short, and I do agree with Mr. Lapper’s prediction, but that’s neither here nor there. Bob, it’s not really appropriate to have the decision as to whether you participate or not be based on the input from your fellow Board members. If you perceive that this application is dependent on construction of a facility that you’re instrumental in advocating for, and you feel that nexus is close enough to prejudice your or your judgement or your view of objectivity, or lack of objectivity in review of this application, then it’s appropriate for your to recuse yourself and not participate in consideration 47 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) of this application at every stage, Sketch, Preliminary, Final and anything else. If you don’t feel that’s the case, I don’t believe this is an application that has any direct economic impacts on you, I don’t believe. MR. VOLLARO-No, it doesn’t. MR. SCHACHNER-So if you don’t feel that’s the case, then I think you can participate, but I want to mention, for your benefit and for the benefit of your colleagues on the Board, the way to decide that issue is not by taking a poll of your fellow Board members. You have to make that decision. You can confer with Counsel in that decision, if you like, but it’s not really appropriate to have others make that decision. MR. VOLLARO-Well, based on the fact that I don’t have any economic gain here, certainly, then I would decide to stay on the seat. MR. SCHACHNER-I think that’s fine. If you have no direct economic interest in this, and I don’t see how you do, by the way, and if you feel you can be objective, despite your involvement in a somewhat related facility issue, that’s fine. If you feel you can’t, that’s fine too, go the other way. Whichever way you go is fine. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 9-2000, Sketch Plan, Schermerhorn Properties/Baybrook Professional Park, Meeting Date: November 28, 2000 “Project Description The applicant proposes a twenty–one lot subdivision of 81.86+/- acres. Twenty of the lots are proposed for a professional office use. The remaining 62 acres or lot number 21 may be utilized for residential/office use in the future. The project is located in the multifamily residential zone. Study of plat (§ A183) ?? Lot arrangement: The parcels are arranged around the wetland setback requirements and the zoning requirements of the Multi-family residential zone. ?? Location and design of streets: There are two proposed access points from Bay Road, an internal cul-de-sac, and an interconnection provided to lot number 21. ?? Topography: The site requires approximately two feet of grading. ?? Water supply: A municipal water supply connection is proposed ?? Sewage disposal: A municipal sewer connection is proposed. ?? Drainage: The proposed project will use a series of catch-basins, culverts, and drainage easements. ?? Lot sizes: The lots exceed the 10,000 square foot required for non-residential establishments. ?? Placement of utilities: The sketch plan identifies the water and sewer lines. ?? Future development: The applicant proposes 20 professional office buildings. ?? Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The project is located in Neighborhood 9. The CLUP recommends commercial office, cultural and mixed uses to be developed along Bay Road. The proposed ordinance design guidelines encourage a corridor affect along Bay Road and buildings with residential appearance. ?? State Environmental Quality Review Act: The applicant has completed a short environmental assessment form. The Board may want to consider requesting a full environmental assessment form be completed to evaluate the impact on the wetland area. ?? Town departments: The application was provided to the Water, Wastewater and Highway Department for review and comment. Areas of Concern or Importance The following items should be addressed in the preliminary application: ?? Density: Information should be provided indicating Lots 9, 10, 13, 17, 19 have the 10,000 square feet of buildable area. The wetlands square footage on each of the lots should be subtracted to determine the buildable area ?? Wetlands: Army Corp and DEC wetlands should be identified on the plan ?? Landscape Plan: Clarification should be provided for Sheet S-4 note "Buffer Planting Between Commercial and Residential". If all 20 lots are for offices (commercial), it is not clear why a buffer planting is shown ?? Southern access point - street should be at right angles for approx. 100 ft. This plan shows 5-60 feet. Per section A183-23 of the Town Code ?? Pond to be filled in: The pond is located within the 100 feet wetland buffer area. Does the pond have a DEC classification? 48 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) ?? Encouragement of cultural and educational operations along with the professional office based on the 1998 comprehensive plan. ?? Full Environmental Assessment Form due to the wetlands on the property.” MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Rich Schermerhorn, Tom Nace. Just to answer Bob’s concern, to start with, I just want to make some little preliminary comments. This parcel has access to the Hiland sewer line, along Meadowbrook, as well, so that in the event that Bob was unsuccessful and the sewer line was not put up Bay Road, which we have every confidence will ultimately happen in our lifetimes, the sewage could be pumped to the Meadowbrook line. It would require a district extension there, rather than a district extension on Bay Road, but we think that there’s an alternative means of providing sewage capacity. MR. VOLLARO-The only reason I made that statement is that the Sketch Plan shows the, and mentions the Baybridge sewer itself. MR. LAPPER-And that’s what we anticipate, and certainly if it stays as designed, any approval would be conditioned upon the extension of the sewer line. So I think that covers the second issue, that you can deal with it as a condition, but we fully expect that that will happen. In general, this is a case where we felt it was appropriate to come before you, in Sketch Plan, which is optional, and people don’t always do, because it’s an 80 acre parcel and we wanted to get your input before going any farther with the design, but what Rich is proposing, to begin with, the land is owned by Guido Passarelli. Rich has an agreement with Guido to purchase it, and the only plan he has now is for the first 21 acres, but the land is zoned MR-5. So it allows office use and multifamily use, and the plan would be to use the first 1,000 feet as is permitted in the zoning code in the Bay Road corridor for an office, professional office park. This is complimentary of the office park across Bay Road that was built by John Hughes, that I understand is now completely full. It shows the success of this part of the Town for an office park, and what Rich has in mind is something very similar to that, well landscaped, individual lots for sale for a development for separate professional offices. This particular property underwent a detailed review, and in fact received a Use Variance in the early 90’s to be instead developed as single family residential, but because of the travel corridor, and the utility access, ultimately with sewer, this is in the MR-5 zone. So it’s really deemed under the Code to be more appropriate for a more intense use than single family, and that’s the office use. I think that’s it for preliminary comments. I’d like Rich to just explain what his concept is for the office park. RICH SCHERMERHORN MR. SCHERMERHORN-Rich Schermerhorn, for the record. As we can see, there’s 20 lots I’ve proposed. I do have a, I brought a plan with me that is just kind of a rough design of what I’d proposed to put there, but based on all the articles in the paper and the new Comprehensive Land Use, a lot of the notes and things I’ve been hearing, I’m basically just proposing Cultural Professional lots. I believe it’s in the right area of Queensbury, and I do know that, you know, there’s no guarantee with the sewer on Bay Road, but I would hope that, with my proposal coming in, it would just help maybe strengthen things along, and for the record, we did have a Town Board, or I guess not a Town Board, a workshop meeting with Chris Round and Laura Moore, and we just kind of discussed this a little bit, and I kind of got a little guidance from them, but I do realize the sewer is not there yet, and I would hope that with the hopes of getting this approved contingent upon the sewers, maybe this would help Baybridge and it would help Bay Road. MR. NACE-Okay. Basically, the design of this front end is very parallel with a proposal that received contingent final approval back in the early 90’s, in which the front end of this was going to be developed as an office park and the back end was single family residential that Jon referred to. We’ve extended the office park back a little further than it had been before, and added a few more office lots up here, behind the stream. You will see on one of the drawings, there’s a buffer, on the landscape drawing, there’s a buffer that’s referred to as a division between residential and commercial. That buffer, we’re still proposing in there, sort of as a stream buffer, but it doesn’t separate residential and commercial anymore because of the commercial behind it, I’m sorry, commercial office. The design is basically the same as we had proposed before, except before we had sewers going over to Meadowbrook Road. Now we’re bringing the sewers out to hopefully what will be a sewer system along Bay Road. The drainage, you’ve seen some of the comments from the Town Engineer and from Staff. The drainage system is exactly what’s been proposed before. We were in the process of negotiating with DEC for the outflows from that drainage system, but the storage for that drainage system was not an open detention pond, but subsurface along the roadway, and some fill trenches. Those issues will be re-visited with your Town Engineer during the preliminary design, as will most of the comments he had. I think the other comment that might change the layout of this just a hair was the length of tangent here, on the southern entry, coming in at 90 degrees, needs to be lengthened a little bit, and that will change the geometry of this road just a little bit, but not significantly. The other comment was this lot size that engineering review had to 49 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) make sure that there was buildable area on each of the lots, with the stream buffers, the wetland setbacks, and the zoning setbacks. We had looked at, before we had determined that the smaller lots did, in fact, have adequate buildable area for a small, two, three man office type of buildings, which there is some market for, and there is always the potential, if someone wants larger parcels for the development of larger offices, to combine lots. So our intent was to have a mix of small lots that could be used by an insurance agent or, you know, a couple man office, and larger lots, which would be appropriate for larger facilities, but again, lots can always be combined. It’s harder to subdivide. MR. VOLLARO-Tom, on the road to the south, your tangential road that runs into the Bay Road. If you look at the original Guido Passarelli, the Valente service road was put in there to be directly opposite to what Mr. Vasiliou had put together, not Vasiliou, but Mr. Passarelli had put together for that entrance. In other words, they were to face one another. Now what I did is I paced this office from our tax maps on the map plan and report and came back and I see where the Valente road, by my measurement, sits about 150 south of where your road comes out. So, I may be wrong on that, maybe 100 feet, but certainly this road that you have here does not come opposite the Valente service road. MR. NACE-Okay. This is the very same layout that we had with the Passarelli proposal, exactly. That part of it is exactly the same. Has not been changed. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Then, I don’t know. I looked at your scale one to fifty, scaled the tax maps off, and got to the one to fifty scale, and I see where this is, something doesn’t jive there, but that’s. MR. NACE-On the preliminary we will locate the driveways and accesses on the opposite side. MR. VOLLARO-The reason I picked that up is the Valente road is one curb cut, because we will develop that road. Because part of our line is going to dump into the right of way of that road. Then there’s the second curb cut. Then there’s Walker Lane, then there’s your curb cut, then there’s Baywood Drive and then there’s Bayberry Drive. We’ve got six curb cuts within probably 1400 feet. It’s tight. MR. LAPPER-(Lost words) parcel of this size with the 80 acres, the fact that we’re only proposing two curb cuts is a lot less than if you subdivided it with a lot of driveways. MR. NACE-Yes. These are. MR. VOLLARO-That’s true, but I can’t get out of Walker Lane now sometimes. Believe it or not. I mean, I’m going all the way back to when Rich built Baybrook, and I was pleading for a traffic count there. I don’t know how often any of you have stayed on Bay Road when the College is either coming in or going out, but I’ve watched the clock and it’s three, four, five minutes before I can get out of there. MR. NACE-I agree with you, but that occurs for a five minute period in the morning. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That’s why I watch when I leave, okay, but I think six curb cuts along that road has got to be looked at, I believe. MR. NACE-Okay. Well, one of the things, as Jon said, is that all of the lots in here would be required to have internal access. None of the lots would be allowed to have a driveway on Bay Road. MR. MAC EWAN-Whereabouts is this pond that you want to fill in? MR. NACE-It’s down, let’s see. It’s an old farm pond that was dug, and it is right here. It’s just a very shallow old farm pond that, again, part of our preliminary work is going to be to re-visit all the issues with DEC that we had worked on seven years ago, and they will be reviewing that. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that considered a wetland, or no? MR. NACE-It’s really, no, it’s hard to say, at this point. They did not flag it in their original flagging, seven years ago, DEC. MR. MAC EWAN-How big is that pond? MR. NACE-It’s very small. It’s a mud puddle, really. We’ve had the wetlands flagged. The Army Corps has flagged, well, the Army Corps doesn’t flag. We’ve had Charlie Maine flag Army Corps wetlands, and I don’t, no, it did not get transferred to this map. It’s on our master map, and will be included in Preliminary. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, it’s at least 100 by 100. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) MR. NACE-This is 50 scale. It’s about 60 feet, maybe, by 70 feet, if that’s a real depiction from the original survey, but that will be visited and thoroughly gone over with the DEC. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I just wanted to state for the record that I realize that anything that was approved in 1992, I’m re-visiting everything. Like the wetlands, as far as, I just, 1992 all the wetlands were delineated on the original plan. About three months ago I had them all re-delineated again, the whole 82 acre parcel, because I knew when I re-submitted, this would all come up again. MR. MAC EWAN-What kind of building architecture are you thinking of? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, I just happen to have one here with me that I could put up. It happens to be someone that wants to purchase two of my lots. I know a lot of the comments that have been made about future cultural professional or office buildings, I want to have more, I guess, friendlier residential look. This particular building is called Toddler Tech, and it’s been built in Albany, Route 9 in Clifton Park, which is where the new rest stop is off the Northway. Remember they took that big hill down? There’s one right on the Northway, and then this one was just built in a professional park in Saratoga, and it’s mixed in with a cardiologist, and I think it’s a nutritionist, and then other doctor’s office. This happens to be an individual that’s approached me already, that if I did seek approvals for this, this is something that they would propose to put in there, and again, this would be brick on the lower half. I’d like to incorporate some brick, at least on the front of all the buildings, and carry that throughout the subdivision. Still possibly people like the idea of vinyl siding. The snow shield, they only did that on one building, and they wouldn’t recommend it. So we carried the architectural shingles down, but that would be a similar look. Just something to bring up, it may be premature at this time, but this Toddler Tech is licensed through the State as a day care center, but they teach preschoolers. They have a program, and I gave the program to Chris Round, and people pay to have their children educated. It doesn’t fall under the MR-5 zone, because they’re classified as day care, but they do have educational programs. So we may have to take it to another step, whether it’s a Town Board variance, but I do understand that it’s in the Comprehensive Land Use that’s being proposed to allow a day care and MR-5 zones. MR. MAC EWAN-Is your intention to retain ownership of all these subdivision lots and develop them? MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. I would strictly just do what I’m showing here, subdivide the lots, sell them off individually. Of course I would like to build the buildings. This individual does want me to build the building, but I will not retain any of them. If I retained one, it would be one for myself, or I might build my own office. MR. MAC EWAN-Then how would we be able to work it to keep a uniform building design throughout the subdivision? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, because everyone would have to go under site plan review, and there would be covenants that would be established, just like a subdivision, that would say each building has to have half brick veneer, vinyl siding. We say that they have to have architectural shingles to give it that cedar shake look. There are certain things, like the Hiland Park PUD has in their covenants, that we could do to insure that it’s going to stay that way. MR. LAPPER-We wouldn’t want them to necessarily all look identical. MR. SCHERMERHORN-But I do believe from experience of living in Queensbury, and the 13 years I’ve been in business, there is a demand for these lots, but I have a lot of individuals, insurance agents, like was mentioned, accountants, people that just want fairly affordable lots where they can have an office, and there’s really nothing site ready, available, at this point. I know Mr. O’Connor’s was just approved, across the street from my Hunterbrook complex, but it’s not site ready yet. There’s a lot of grading and work that has to go into that, but that’s it for now. MR. LAPPER-I just want to clarify, on the issue of this day care use, that’s separate and apart from what we’re here to talk about tonight, in terms of the subdivision, but after the subdivision, when we get to a site plan for the first building, Rich has been approached, and if the Comprehensive Land Use Plan is implemented, a day care would be permitted in an MR-5 office park, because it’s been deemed in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan to be a compatible use to service the kids of people that, office workers. We may, if this moves ahead quickly with this potential tenant or owner, we may go to the Town Board, if it seems that the zoning amendments aren’t happening quickly, to ask them to make that change in the MR-5 zone now, so that we can go ahead and do that lot, that that would be separate from the subdivision that we’re talking about tonight, and that’s, Rich just wanted to put that on the record, just so you knew what he was thinking. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, we’re back to you. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) MR. METIVIER-I really have no questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I have nothing on the Sketch level. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’d just like to ask Rich, on C.T. Male Associates question, their Number Six, they talk about, “The size, location, and capacity of water main…Also is the proposed Baybridge sewer pumping station being designed/built to accommodate a potentially large scale development such as this…” Now, our original design on that pumping station is 45,000 gallons. We’re designed to go max out at 186,000, and that’s using the four inch line, the six inch line and new impellers on each pump. Mike Shaw has said that they, the Town, may want to make certain design changes to that pump. They like flight pumps. We’ve got gold pumps, that kind of stuff that goes into that. My question to you here is what’s your timeline? What do you think your timeline is where, because I know on ours, at least, and I divide mine by 10 or something, but. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, if this was approved, the subdivision, the individual I have, if this gets approved, which is another issue right now, they want to start immediately, which means, I’d like to start spring, put the roads in and get going with the project. So I would start as soon as weather permits, if this was approved and our sewer issue was worked out and everything. MR. VOLLARO-Our construction design is scheduled to be completed probably, we probably look to start actual work, based on subsiding groundwater, because we’ve got a couple of streams to cross, as you know, so we probably want, by May 1, May 1 or May 15 we’d like to get started. We think ststth our end to end production schedule is probably five months, we’re done. So, I just wanted you to know where we are and what our capacity, at 186,000. How many thousands of gallons do you think you’re going to need on the pump? MR. SCHERMERHORN-That would be a question for Tom, but I think it’s going to vary. MR. NACE-I don’t know yet. That’s one of the next things I’ve got to do is sit down and work out projected development for each lot, and so many gallons, and get that to Mike Shaw and start coordinating with Mike Shaw. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. See, there’s 18,000 gallons spoken for, on that pump, out of the first 45. Eight thousand is for Baybridge and 10,000 is for Valente, but if, in the design, we know that you’re going to exceed the 45,000 gallons of its original capability, we ought to know that so that we start building that pump right from the beginning, and not start to mod it out before it’s even used. MR. NACE-Within the next couple of weeks I will have those numbers, and be sitting down with Mike Shaw. MR. VOLLARO-All right. Is Mike going to be the focal point here? In other words, the liaison member? MR. NACE-I would assume, you know, probably using Mike as an intermediate, or, simply to keep the Town informed, rather than go directly to you and your engineer, but we all ought to be sitting at the same table. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Understand. As far as the traffic is concerned, Number Three on C.T. Male Associates’ letter says, “The applicant should provide a worst case traffic peak hour generation”. I think you’ve really got to take a good hard look at the traffic situation there on Bay Road, whether it, because he talks about, as the site expands, the off site mitigation problem, that’s something we’ve got to take a look at. MR. LAPPER-We will for the preliminary. MR. VOLLARO-I’m pleased at what I see, because I live across the street, and I think that’s going to be, especially the Cultural Professional. Incidentally, did you take into account this 75 foot setback there? MR. NACE-The 75 foot drainage, it’s on the plan. MR. VOLLARO-It is? Because I drew my 75, and it look to me like it cuts right, just to the very left of your circle, or am I wrong? 52 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) MR. NACE-Okay. Yes, you mean on Lot 11 and Lot 6? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. NACE-Yes, it does, but there is other buildable area back behind that. There, again, at Preliminary I’ll have all those setback lines shown and I’ll have, you know, some typical, on the smaller lots, some typical development shown with parking and building and, you know, so you can see that things fit. MR. VOLLARO-Just in case our project goes west, for some unknown reason, you have the ability to go off the Meadowbrook, then, the pump station to Meadowbrook? MR. NACE-Our original proposal, back seven years ago, was across to Meadowbrook, yes. Actually, back then, it was proposed, and nobody wanted to venture the extra money. MR. RINGER-You might have some money now. MR. VOLLARO-The other question I have, and it’s just an academic question, with all of this stuff going on with Bay Road, digging the sewer line, what’s the chances of you bringing Baybrook on line? MR. NACE-Say that again? MR. SCHERMERHORN-He means Baybrook, my apartment complex. MR. VOLLARO-I know you’ve got an investment up there, but. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. I had this discussion with another individual. It’s not that I’m opposed to it. It’s just that the project was so fresh, and I actually, it had nothing to do with the Planning Board, but when I first started the project, I would have been willing to leave stubs, or whatever I had to do with the sewer, but it just, it didn’t, two years ago, two and a half years ago, it just didn’t even sound, the letters in the paper, like sewer was ever going to get here. So I didn’t make. MR. VOLLARO-It was never going to get here. You’re right. MR. SCHERMERHORN-And I don’t know if it is now, but it wasn’t designed for it. I’m not saying I couldn’t do some re-modifications. It’s just I’ve spent substantial money in pumps, in mound systems, and, I mean, a lot of money, and I mean I know some people tend to differ with me, but if the property maintained, I could get it, you know, 20, 25, 30 years out of them, as long as they’re properly maintained. I’m not saying I wouldn’t be opposed to tying into the sewer, but just at the, this point in time right now, I have a large investment in there and I just, economically, have to be, watch my dollars and cents, that’s all. MR. VOLLARO-I understand. It’s just a question. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have anything to add, other than what was in the Staff Notes and the comments from C.T. Male. There are some things I really liked about the project, the limited access onto Bay Road probably the most important. Then there’s certainly some areas of concern, you know, some homework needs to be done. The wetlands and traffic are certainly the usual culprits, but I think certainly, for Sketch Plan (lost words). MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Conceptually, I like the idea of putting the office park adjacent and along Bay Road, and (lost words) residential, (lost words) discussed will follow between that and Meadowbrook, and so I like that, and I’m really hoping that, again, some maybe provide an incentive to get sewer up here over on Bay Road. I like that, but I just, you know, I went through in pink, I went through and removed all the areas that were wetlands, or a stream and no build zones, and the 75 foot setback from Bay Road, and then you look at what you have left with some of the lots, okay, not a picture in the offices, just in keeping with this line, I’d favor the idea of offices, and then I went through the stream proposed in the Zoning Ordinance, design suggestions for office/office park, interconnected parking, not necessarily parking lots that are, you know, butting up and to one 53 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) another. Sometimes there might be shared roads, okay, and if you look at that design and what they’re suggesting as design standards, and the cut of some of those lots, I mean, what you have left, after we take out the no build zones, now some of these are pretty funny configurations. Do you see what I’m saying, and I’m just wondering if the layout couldn’t be improved, given, you know, once you draw it out like this, and you see what you have as built areas, or buildable areas, in terms of parking and the building, I wondered if this is really the best design for you to go, okay. So I’m just thinking out loud, because this is Sketch Plan, okay. MR. SCHERMERHORN-That is definitely something I will re-visit. MR. STROUGH-The other thing I was thinking, too, is, you know, it’s entirely possible that this road will reach all the way to Meadowbrook, as shown, and so I’m just, then I’m thinking, this would be an ideal situation for a PUD, wouldn’t it? I mean, you have a mixed use. You’ve proposed nurseries. You’re proposing offices. You’re proposing multifamily, maybe single family residential. MR. LAPPER-That certainly makes sense, but the problem is that Rich has his hands full with the Hiland Springs project that he’s only just used Phase I. So in terms of the rest of it zoned for residential, and we anticipate that the Planning Board would probably want to see a road connect to Meadowbrook, although there’s another school of thought that maybe it shouldn’t be, and we would look to you, eventually, to tell us what you’d want on that, but it’s just, Rich doesn’t have a plan for the rest of the property now. It’s just too far in the future. He just can’t do that much. MR. STROUGH-Well, I know Rich is busy, but I don’t represent Rich, you do. I represent the community, and I’m looking at something that, you know, is going to be a big project here, and I’m worried about segmenting it, and doing it in pieces, and we’re going to have traffic impacts, and we’ve got impacts on the sewer system, and we need to know what size lines we’re going to need up through here. Are we going to come from Meadowbrook? Are we going to come from Bay? I mean, I can see where we need the coordinated design concept here. That’s why I suggested a PUD. MR. LAPPER-Yes. I think that we could, that those are all legitimate issues and that we could address a lot of that by looking at some worst case numbers, in terms of the SEQRA, and in terms of traffic, in terms of sewer, but just in terms of what, and it’s not that we couldn’t get into it. It’s just that, at this point, Rich doesn’t know exactly what he’s going to want to do, four or five years ago, in the back, specifically. MR. STROUGH-Well, okay. Those are what I’m thinking. MR. LAPPER-And I’m not disagreeing with you. I think we can accommodate that. MR. STROUGH-I’m sharing that with you. I mean, who knows how this is going to pan out. This is Sketch Phase, right. So I’m just opening up and showing you what I was thinking. This would be a great PUD. I’m worried about segmenting the project, because I’m already seeing concerns about tying in to sewer here and what the lines will be, what kind of housing that we’re going to have in back of here. I’d rather see it coordinated, but that’s my opinion. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I certainly wouldn’t be opposed to doing it. The only thing is I don’t know what the future holds, and I’d hate to propose a whole PUD and then have something fall apart, for example Hiland, and I live there, but I would just hate to propose (lost words) large piece that I’m purchasing and it is a large financial move, and I would just hate to propose something that would possibly change in the future. That’s all, but I totally understand where you’re coming from, and those are all concerns. MR. STROUGH-Well, right. I don’t want to put in an eight inch sewer line, and then find out, boy, we really could have used a ten inch sewer line. MR. NACE-And that’s going to be one of my jobs, in the next couple of weeks, is to sit down and not just tell everybody how much sewage is coming from the office park, but also put a number on anything back into the property far enough that it would make sense to come out to Bay Road, okay. Some of it will obviously go to Meadowbrook Road, eventually, but I need to analyze that portion coming to Bay Road, and know what the impacts are so that we can have real numbers in front of us. MR. VOLLARO-You and I probably ought to talk about how our basic design is done, in terms of being able to use the four inch, the six inch. The way our pipes are in the ground, they’ll handle 186,000 gallons, but you’ve got to be careful that you don’t, you can’t put a great big pipe, because you know the story with snow and all that stuff. So I’ll have to talk to you about that. MR. NACE-Sure. Let me get some numbers generated, first, and then we can have a meaningful. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? 54 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) MR. LAPPER-I think we understand John’s comments, and we will address that, one way or the other. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Staff comments? MRS. MOORE-No comments. MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s going to be a nice project. MR. MAC EWAN-You’ll take serious what everyone’s comments were up here and also, you know, pay attention to, as you get into Preliminary, the comments that came from both Staff and C.T. Male and the Highway Department and the Water Department. MR. LAPPER-I think you had this subject for a public hearing. MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t usually do public hearing’s on Sketch Plan. MR. LAPPER-Okay. I thought it said. MR. MAC EWAN-It did on the agenda, but. Okay. Good luck. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Before you, do you want to make a formal recommendation, or formal resolution in regards to the conceptual? You’ve done that in the past. MR. VOLLARO-We normally don’t, do we? MR. SCHACHNER-You sometimes do. You sometimes don’t. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think it’s necessary. MR. LAPPER-I just have one question, in terms of the day care. Does the Board have any feelings about that recommendation, in the MR-5 zone, that there should be day care in an office park? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know if that’s something that’s appropriate, and we discuss that at a subdivision level. MR. LAPPER-Okay. We just let you know that we’re looking at that and we’ll probably pursue it with the Town Board, and then we’ll come back to you. MR. STROUGH-I like the mixed use, included in the PUD. MR. LAPPER-We’ll think about that. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good luck. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Now, next item on the agenda. Let’s do nominations of Officers. OTHER: NOMINATIONS FOR CHAIRMAN, VICE CHAIRMAN, AND SECRETARY FOR THE YEAR 2001 MOTION TO NOMINATE CRAIG MAC EWAN FOR CHAIRMAN, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: Duly adopted this 28 day of November, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan 55 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) MOTION TO NOMINATE LARRY RINGER FOR VICE CHAIRMAN, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: Duly adopted this 28 day of November, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Ringer MOTION TO NOMINATE CATHERINE LA BOMBARD FOR SECRETARY, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: Duly adopted this 28 day of November, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. LaBombard MR. MAC EWAN-Two other items of business. Did I hear Staff mention something last week about discussing a second meeting date for December? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-We have available to us the 26 or the 28. thth MRS. LA BOMBARD-The 26, the day after Christmas? th MRS. MOORE-That would be the 27 and the 28. thth MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute, now, doesn’t the ZBA meet the 27? th MRS. MOORE-They’re anticipating one meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-They are? MRS. LA BOMBARD-The 27 is a Wednesday. th MR. MAC EWAN-How about the 21? st MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, what are the meetings in December? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, normally it’s the 19 and the 26. thth MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, what’s wrong with the 19? th MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing’s wrong with the 19. We have to fluctuate the 26. thth MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Schachner, when are you available? MR. SCHACHNER-No date that you’ve mentioned yet, but I have colleagues. MR. MAC EWAN-If Cathi covers for you, that means that we’re guaranteed to be out by nine. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s exactly so. MR. MAC EWAN-So we have the 27 and the 28 available. thth MR. SCHACHNER-Excuse me. The 26, your regular meeting date, I’m available, because I th assumed you were meeting. MR. VOLLARO-What’s wrong with the 26? th 56 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/00) MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have no idea. MRS. MOORE-It’s still available. MR. VOLLARO-I’m okay the 26. th MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I mean, why are we changing it? Does Staff have plans that we’re not aware of? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Laura, seriously, I’m flexible. Any date you want. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s take a vote here. Is the 26 okay with everybody? We’re keeping it the 26. thth Mark, we’ll see you then. MR. RINGER-So we’ve got the 19 and the 26? thth MR. MAC EWAN-Site visits are the 16, nine o’clock. Did you want to discuss this? Executive th Session? MR. SCHACHNER-I think if we’re going to discuss it, we should do it in Executive Session. MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Duly adopted this 28 day of November, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough MOTION TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Duly adopted this 28 day of November, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 57