Loading...
2000-09-28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/00) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 2000 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN LARRY RINGER ROBERT VOLLARO ANTHONY METIVIER JOHN STROUGH CHRIS HUNSINGER MEMBERS ABSENT CATHERINE LA BOMBARD PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. RINGER-Good evening. We’ll open tonight’s meeting up. The Chairman is tied up in traffic down in Albany. Hopefully he’ll be here shortly, but in the meantime, we’ll start without him. The agenda tonight, we have several items that are being tabled. The first item, Laura, do you want to read off the items that are being tabled? MRS. MOORE-Yes. SITE PLAN NO. 73-2000 TYPE II ROBERT WALL OWNER: SAME AGENT: KEVIN MASCHEWSKI ZONE: WR-3A LOCATION: 15 ANTIGUA ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVERSION OF A SEASONAL DWELLING TO A FULL TIME RESIDENCE WITH THE ADDITION OF A SECOND STORY, ENTRANCE FOYER, A LAKE SIDE ADDITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 79-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/13/00 TAX MAP NO. 1-1-5 LOT SIZE: 0.44 ACRES SECTION: 179-79 MRS. MOORE-It’s being tabled pending a zoning variance determination, or Zoning Board of Appeals resolution. MR. RINGER-Read them all, and then we’ll make one motion to table them all. MRS. MOORE-I would find it better if you tabled them one at a time. MR. RINGER-All right. Then I’ll need a motion to table Site Plan No. 73-2000 for Robert Wall, for an October meeting. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 73-2000 ROBERT WALL, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: For an October meeting. Duly adopted this 28th day of September 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan MRS. MOORE-And just as a comment, you should open the public hearing. MR. RINGER-Okay. That’s right. We do have a public hearing on Robert Wall tonight. So I’ll open the public hearing. I’ll leave the public hearing open for next month’s meeting. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/00) MRS. MOORE-Okay. The next item is Subdivision No. 7-2000 for John and Kathleen Salvador. SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2000 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE JOHN, JR. & KATHLEEN A. SALVADOR OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, RR-3A LOCATION: DUNHAM BAY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 6 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.8 ACRES AND 4.2 ACRES CROSS REFERENCE: TAX MAP NO. 10-1- 17.3 LOT SIZE: 6 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MRS. MOORE-This application is to be tabled, pending Staff notes. MR. RINGER-Okay. I need a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL STAGE, SUBDIVISION NO. 7- 2000, JOHN, JR. & KATHLEEN SALVADOR, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: To an October meeting. Duly adopted this 28th day of September 2000 by the following vote: MR. VOLLARO-Just before we get to that motion, having looked at this a little bit myself, do you think there’s any benefit, it’s not your average subdivision. Do you think there’d be any benefit to letting Mr. Salvador try to explain this to us at all? MRS. MOORE-I’ll leave that opportunity up to the Board. MR. RINGER-I would think, without Staff notes and stuff, give Staff the opportunity to really review it so they can get back to us. I’d rather do it all at one time than try to do it piecemeal, but again, I’m only one man up here. MR. VOLLARO-Why don’t you try polling? MR. RINGER-All right. John? MR. STROUGH-Well, I’ll go with however the Board feels on this one. MR. RINGER-Okay. Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I’d just as soon table it, do it all at once. MR. RINGER-Okay. Tony? MR. METIVIER-Me, too. MR. RINGER-Okay. So we’ll table it. AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer NOES: Mr. Vollaro ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan MRS. MOORE-And you also have to open the public hearing for that, also. MR. RINGER-And again, we have a public hearing scheduled for Subdivision No. 7-2000, John & Kathleen Salvador, and I’ll open that public hearing now, and keep that open until the October meeting. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-I’d like to speak, Mr. Ringer. MR. RINGER-Well, right now I’m going to turn it over to our Chairman, John. So I’ll bring him up to date on what we’ve done and let him decide. We’ve tabled Robert Wall and we’ve tabled John’s, by a vote of the Board, and it’s all been down to there. We’re up to here now, and John has just requested the opportunity to speak, but the Board voted not to hear it. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Right, because Staff hasn’t reviewed it yet. You’re welcome to come up, John. We’re not going to spend a lot of time on it, because Staff has not had the opportunity to review it yet. So I see no point in even progressing along with it until they have the opportunity to review the application. MR. SALVADOR-We submitted our application in a timely fashion. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. Larry, did you open up the public hearing’s on Wall? MR. RINGER-Both of them, and I kept them open until the October meeting, but we didn’t set a date, just the October meeting for both of those. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-As a point of departure this evening, I’d like to refer to a subdivision application that was before this Board and approved last year at this time. If you’ll recall, those of you who were on the Board at that time, we made application for a three lot subdivision of our lands south of Route 9L. MR. MAC EWAN-John, before you get going too far, let me just ask, are you going to go through your entire application here? MR. SALVADOR-I can be brief, if you’ll let me, okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Be very brief. MR. SALVADOR-Again, as a point of departure, we had this subdivision approved last year. One of the conditions on the approval of this subdivision was to land hook this lot, Lot Number Three of the subdivision, with a lakefront lot. Now the primary reason for this is that we were, there was a present use on this Lot Number Three that was associated with the Marina operation, commercial marina activity, and therefore it seemed logical to land hook that with the activities going on on the lakefront which is also commercial marina activity. Now, in formulating this Lot Number Three, we certainly didn’t need to include all of this land, but we had to meet the minimum three acre zoning requirement, or we would be creating a sub standard lot. So we were required to include all of this land, and that land got land hooked with the waterfront land. Now, as you know, we have a plan to sell a portion of our property, and such that we can have a clean sale, and separate the lands that are encumbered, for one reason or another, from lands that we can offer a clear title to, we have taken this Lot Number Three from the subdivision of last year and we are making application at this time to further subdivide it, and this map that you have before you, the one that has the erasures in it, that clearly show the acreage and the lot and everything, is the most current map and has the most information on it. To simply draw the line at the subdivision is quite easy. That’s no difficulty at all. We can meet the area requirement, the acreage requirements for the two lots. The red shaded is one lot and the black shaded is the second lot. That is no difficulty whatsoever. Defining the boundaries is no difficulty, but meeting the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, which are, the Subdivision Ordinance is patterned around a residential type subdivision. All of the hoops you have to jump through to create what is called a buildable lot, deal with residential construction. We are not making application here for residential construction. This lot and the two lots that are being created, have always been used in a commercial sense, in a commercial recreation sense. There has never been any residential use of this land, and it’s not likely in the future that it will. The Town’s appraiser, on two occasions in the last seven years, has verified that this land is being used to it’s highest and best use. That’s a statement in your Town appraiser’s appraisal. The land is being used to its highest and best use. Now, the reason for the divide is that we have problems, in this area, in the red, where we can’t offer a clear title. Up here in the upper right hand corner to the east, we have our boathouse and boat docks that extend beyond the property line into the lake. We don’t have an easement from the Office of General Services for the use of that land, and we couldn’t sell that property without a challenge that we have a right to have them there, have the boathouse and the docks there. We have a dispute going on with the Zoning Board of Appeals, concerning the definition of a Town road in this area. That’s in litigation and is yet to be settled. That’s going on in this area. We have a dispute with a neighbor on this side, as to the ownership and the rightful use of these two docks. It’s been up and down, to the Appellate Division the second time now. It’s been argued, and we’re expecting a decision momentarily. So, the use of these two docks in this area is not clear, and we’re not at liberty to sell that land, to convey that land underneath them. So what we’ve done is divided all that stuff out, divide it out, and we have here a marketable piece of land. Now but for the ordinance that patterns the subdivision requirements around a residential use, this is really quite simple, and the requirements that we have to meet, to map and all, we’re doing it. It’s just a cumbersome thing, and this is why I believe Staff is having such a difficult time getting to this, but we’ve addressed the issues in our papers. We’ve done everything, measured it, but it is true, you can’t put a square peg in a round hole. Do you have any questions? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/00) MR. MAC EWAN-No. I don’t think we’re going to really ask any questions because we want to wait upon Staff’s review of this application before we really fully give this a review. MR. SALVADOR-Could I request that this be scheduled as soon as possible in October? MR. MAC EWAN-I would guess it will probably be put on the October agenda. MR. VOLLARO-It is being put on the October agenda. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that what your intention is? MRS. MOORE-Yes, it is. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-John, before you leave that, I would just make one recommendation, so that the rest of the, because I’ve had an opportunity just to look at this, since I looked at it before I knew it was to be tabled. That the chart that you’re looking at there is the 7.14 acres, as opposed to six acres. So one of the maps that each of them have gets discarded, so they don’t get into the same quagmire I did. MR. SALVADOR-The map that you have that has the erasure, I have erased the pencil mark here, that clearly shows the acreage, and the lot number and all that designation. That’s the one to use. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that it, John? Thank you. MR. SALVADOR-You’re welcome. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and you already did your motion to table. MR. RINGER-Right. We already tabled that. MR. VOLLARO-Salvador. You’re going to go to Jamie Gregg. MR. RINGER-You’re up to Gregg. 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 A SUNDECK. PRIVATE BOATHOUSES AND COVERED DOCKS IN WR ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. LGPC WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/13/00 TAX MAP NO. 11-1-1.10 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION: 179-16 MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’re tabling this application as well, because we weren’t able to locate it on the site visit. So we want to reschedule it to be on our site visits for next month. I’ll open the public hearing. I’ll leave it open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 66-2000, MR. & MRS. JAMIE GREGG, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: To our October agenda. Duly adopted this 28th day of October 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. MAC EWAN-Did you do Hunt Lake as well? MR. VOLLARO-No, not yet. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to skip by you for one second. We’re going to take one second. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/00) MRS. MOORE-Mr. MacEwan, you don’t have to do Hunt Lake. MR. MAC EWAN-They removed it? MRS. MOORE-They removed it. It was removed prior to advertisement. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2000 SKETCH PLAN STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED MICHAEL VASILIOU OWNER: PETER & EILEEN WEEKS, WILLIAM HOWARD, JUDITH WHITE, RAYMOND LEMERY, WALTER HOWARD, MORTON & FLORENCE PHILLIPS, SARAH MC ECHRON, MICHAEL VASILIOU AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES/NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: PEGGY ANN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 32 +/- ACRE LOT INTO 26 LOTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 21-1999, AV 26-2000 TAX MAP NO. 121-1-2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 1.3 LOT SIZE: 32.10 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 6-2000, Sketch Plan Stage, Michael Vasiliou, Meeting Date: September 28, 2000 “Project Description The applicant proposes a 26 lot subdivision on a loop road connecting to Peggy Ann Road. The proposed lots are one acre or larger. Study of plat (§ A183) (1) Lot arrangement: The lot lay out is consistent with a loop-road subdivision with the corner lots having narrow road frontage with a wide triangle-like back yard. (2) Location and design of streets: The loop-road is beneficial to the subdivision for access for residents and emergency vehicles. (3) Topography: The applicant has requested a waiver from the two-foot contour requirement. The applicant’s prior subdivision in the area (SUB21-1999) identifies the area in the 470-foot elevation range. There does not appear to be any significant topography change in the area that would warrant additional topography information. (4) Water supply: The applicant proposes to connect to a municipal water supply. (5) Sewage disposal: The applicant proposes on-site septic systems (6) Drainage: The applicant’s prior drainage report for SUB21-1999 indicates the soils are well drained and currently all rainfall filters into the ground prior to leaving the site. (7) Lot sizes: Lot numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 21, 22, 23, 24, 24, 26 were part of Sub21-1999 and received an area variance for average lot width AV26-2000. The additional lots numbered 10, 11, 12,13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 meet the acreage and average lot width requirement. (8) Placement of utilities: Utility locations are not shown as part of sketch plan (9) Future development: The one-acre zone in the area does not allow for any future development. The zone does allow other uses in the area through site plan review i.e. professional office incidental to home use. (10) Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The subdivision is located in neighborhood 11. There is no specific recommendations about subdivision within this area. (11) State Environmental Quality Review Act: The applicant has completed a Short Environmental Assessment Form (12) Town departments: The application has been referred to the Highway Department for road design. The application will be forwarded to the Water Department if the Planning Board sends the application to preliminary review. Areas of Concern or Importance The applicant currently has an approved subdivision for 15 lots adjacent to the proposed. The approved subdivision SUB21-1999 utilities will need to be adjusted to be constructed along the loop road. The proposed loop-road is a better alternative than the cul-de-sac. The proposed subdivision is located in a Natural Heritage Ranked area because of the proximity to the Karner Blue Butterfly Habitat. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/00) Suggestions Planning Staff would suggest the plat be revised showing a no-cut zone along all 26 parcels. The approved subdivision SUB 21-1999 should be rescinded if the Board moves this application to preliminary and final. Planning Staff would also encourage the subdivision plat to include a provision for Karner Blue Butterfly habitat protection” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent the developer, Michael J. Vasiliou, Inc. This is a parcel of land that we’re asking for concept approval or your okay to go to Preliminary Stage of application, and it’s immediately to the east of a parcel of land that we were in on last year and put through the approval process. I’ll give you a tax map, if you want to take a look at it. MR. VOLLARO-Is this the Land Of Pines? MR. O'CONNOR-It’s east of the Land of the Pines. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s actually between Queensbury Forest and. MR. O’CONNOR-This is Land of Pines right here. This is Peggy Ann Road. This is West Mountain Road, and this combination of lots is what we got the approval of last year. When we got the approval, this parcel was not available. In fact, we finally got a contract just this last month to purchase it, although we’ve been negotiating with them and talking about it. This is the map that you approved for the piece that’s adjoining it. It was a straight in and it was a cul de sac at the end of it. I think we filed that map yesterday with the County Clerk’s office. There was some difficulty getting it through the Health Department, simply because of their back log and what not. MR. MAC EWAN-That actually expired and we re-did it again because of that, if I remember. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I think we finally straightened out that it doesn’t expire until, the time window on filing doesn’t start to run until it’s been signed, and that every one of your approvals is actually conditional because we have to go to other agencies, and that’s automatically by operation of law, and until we get the other agencies to sign, we’re not under a timetable. I think you may end up putting a provision in your ordinance. MR. MAC EWAN-New approved Ordinances? MR. O'CONNOR-In your new and improved Ordinance, you’ve got another regulation to put in there, but this is the piece right here, and it was a straight cul de sac going in. Okay. It makes a lot more sense to come in with the loop, and that’s what we’re proposing, now that we’ve got the other piece under contract. MR. MAC EWAN-So this one that we approved in the Spring is going to come back to us for a modification, is that what’s going to happen? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-But also because of the timing and everything else, we honestly are going to go ahead, and would like to go ahead. We’ve talked to Rick Missita and he has no problem with it, and I think, on the map that you see, there are a couple of issues, the one for concept. This is the one that you have for concept. I was told that a map was being delivered, with a slight modification to that. MRS. MOORE-I haven’t received any updates. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The slight modification is, if you look at this, I believe there are 28 lots on there. We have 28 acres over and above what is required for the road, and it’s a one acre zone. So the density will stay constant at 28 lots, or 26. MR. MAC EWAN-And this drawing that we have tonight reflects the combining of the two subdivisions to make one. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it does. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The map that you have in front of you shows 26. Okay, but when they saw the map and they saw the frontage, the question was asked, we have a density provision here that we can have 28 lots. Why don’t we make the lots in different configuration, same shape, same “U”. So for concept approval, I don’t think it really makes a difference, where we will be able to get the 28 lots. This is the map that I thought was being delivered to the Town. It shows 28 lots. It’s the same layout. Basically, the lots are narrower in here. It will require us to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to get Area Variances for these lots that are in this area here and I think a couple of the lots here. They approved, before, going to 137 foot frontage as opposed to the 150 foot frontage, and that’s what our request will be for the variance, but I didn’t want to go, or I think the proper thing is to get your concept approval of the loop road, as opposed to the potential of two dead end cul de sacs and then let us go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to go below the 137.5? MR. O'CONNOR-No. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got 137.5 on mine. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think we are going to. I don’t think we’re going to. There’s a question, Mr. Vollaro, on this lot here. It’s kind of an odd shape, and we may swing that a little bit, and the lines may actually go a little bit above 137. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-This lot here has 1.24 acres. We could make it one acre, and then expand these lots a little bit as we go along there. What we’re basically doing is lining the lots up with the lots that are behind them. MR. HUNSINGER-So where did you grab the other two lots? Is there one inside the circle and then one outside the circle? MR. O'CONNOR-No, I think it’s just better lining up of the lots. Yes, there might be one inside, one outside. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-I’m not that familiar with it, but we know that it falls within the density of the two pieces. This is just a better layout of the two pieces, and if you take a look at these lots that we’re creating with that tax map, we’re still far in excess of the lots that are to the south of us and to the north of us. So we probably won’t have, I don’t think we’re going to have a real tough time with the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-To make this thing work, what we’ve done is talked to the Superintendent of Highways about putting a temporary turnaround in what was going to be the old cul de sac. That would allow us to put the road in, to this point, and actually we could market these lots and begin the process. We don’t expect that probably that this will get approval before maybe by the time they get everything done. We’ve got work to do, not necessarily the process, but by the time we come through the Boards with our Zoning Board of Appeals, and then come back to you and then go to Health Department, this is not going to be ready to go until some time this spring. So, what we would like to do, and I’m not sure. MR. MAC EWAN-When do you think you’d come back and start the process for preliminary and final reviews? MR. O'CONNOR-Probably we’d come back here in either December or January. MR. MAC EWAN-It might be quiet by then. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know. We would like to get a modification, and we’ve done this before by letter, saying, we can put our, do our temporary turnaround and have a letter from the Superintendent of Highways saying that that’s okay, and then we’ll just do it by easement. We’ll take it out when we end up putting the road in through here, and that would be a modification, I think, of the existing subdivision, which is what we’ve just filed. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/00) MR. MAC EWAN-And when would you want to come in and do that? MR. O'CONNOR-During October, if we can. We’ve done them by letter. MR. MAC EWAN-The deadline for submissions for October was Wednesday, it just passed. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. It’s been filed. It’s on for concept now. You would typically move it, the map itself has been, everything’s here. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, you’re talking two different subdivisions, though. You’re talking one that’s already been approved that you’re looking to modify so you can use this cul de sac, so you can market part of the properties that you have in there. MR. O'CONNOR-I probably can live with November. If that’s an issue, I can live with November. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m just thinking, because I know our agenda for October is already loaded right up. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Can I ask if you have any heartburn or problem with doing that? MR. MAC EWAN-Making a modification of the existing one so you can get going on it, then come back in December? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t have a problem with that. As a matter of fact, I embrace this concept much more than I did the cul de sac. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, it makes more sense. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it does, just for safety reasons. MR. O'CONNOR-You can loop your water system. You can loop everything in there. That’s basically what we’re here for. As to Staff comments, I guess I had no problem, or was told that we’d have no problem with any of the comments, one through twelve. I guess I would have a couple of comments on the area of concern. We may be in some general, broad brush natural heritage ranked area, but there is no Karner blue butterfly up there, that I’ve ever been involved with. The only place that it know of in the Town that actually there was a site for Karner blue butterfly was north of the Corinth Road, on the power line that went through there. MR. MAC EWAN-We just had an application in front of us the other night for a subdivision on Sherman Avenue, west of the Northway, and it’s been identified as a habitat in there for both Karner blue and, what was it, the Pine. MR. RINGER-That was the power lines, Mike. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, the power lines, it has to be an open area for those. MR. MAC EWAN-It’ll give Staff some time and opportunity to research this between now and December to check with DEC and make sure that they haven’t flagged any sites over there, and get that squared away. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. All right. That was a concern. We may try and get somebody from DEC to go out and walk the property, I forget the person’s name that does it. MRS. MOORE-Kathy O’Brien. MR. O'CONNOR-Kathy O’Brien, I think, and the set aside, or potential set aside for Karner blue, if there is habitat, then you have to have a set aside. You can’t disturb it, and that we acknowledge, but I would say that I think that the likelihood on this site is very little. There’s not open space that would generate that type of habitation. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you know, Laura, is she scheduled to come and look at that other site here in the next couple of weeks or so? MRS. MOORE-I don’t know. MR. O'CONNOR-She’s generally available. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Make arrangements, if you can, to have her, the one we did the other night, and have her walk this one as well. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Two for the price of one. MR. O'CONNOR-No cut zone is not a problem. We think it promotes our sales, and we suggested it on the other one, and I think they were the only two comments that I would have. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. John, any questions? MR. STROUGH-No, it looks like a better project than the other one, in my mind. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I feel the same. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have no comments on this one. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No, it’s better than the cul de sac. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I agree. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add, Mike? MR. O'CONNOR-No. So we’ll go to preliminary when we’re done with our variances. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to introduce a motion, then? MRS. MOORE-Prior to you introducing your motion, I just have a concern that, or just mentioning that my understanding is that the applicant’s going to come in for a November submission to modify the previous subdivision of 21-1999 for the cul de sac for a temporary turnaround? Is that what I understand? MR. O'CONNOR-You can either take it as a modification or a request for phasing. MR. MAC EWAN-It would have to be a modification because it’s an existing subdivision that we’ve already created, and you’re going to modify this thing and adjoin it with another parcel of land to combine the two into one subdivision, right? MR. O'CONNOR-Not under the request of November. Under the request of November, all we’re doing is asking that we phase the approved subdivision. We want to put in a portion of the road with a temporary turnaround, as opposed to the full road with cul de sac. MR. MAC EWAN-How are you going to work out the scenario of abandoning the cul de sac down the road, and creating that loop road that ties into your existing subdivision? MR. O'CONNOR-We will give the Town a temporary easement, which will terminate when the road is connected through to Peggy Ann Road by a continuation. Typically, a subdivider tries to avoid phasing, and this time I guess I’m doing the opposite. I’m saying, it’s more to our advantage to phase it, let us phase it with the first 10 lots or something like that, and then we’ll go to the same. You do temporary turnarounds in most phasing applications. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we have, when it’s been one subdivision, though. See, that’s where I’m getting confused is because you’re creating a new one, to adjoin an existing one. MR. O'CONNOR-Right, and as part of the final approval of this looped area, we will ask, at that time, that the original subdivision be modified. The Staff, in their comments, also talk about rescinding the prior approval. We won’t ask for rescinding of that approval. We will already have sold lots on that, and we don’t want to have the lot, the subdivision approved. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, you just filed that, too. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/00) MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-You just filed that. MR. O'CONNOR-We’re required to file it, with our purchase contract, with those parties that are involved in that. In fact, we probably will close on it before the end of next week. We’re required to file it immediately upon all the final approvals, and we’re required to close immediately. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. MOORE-My concern is that you have two subdivisions. You have an approved subdivision and a proposed subdivision overlapping on top of each other, and my concern is that if they’re going and being reviewed at the same time, that, I don’t know how to word this. MR. O'CONNOR-One subdivision is not being reviewed. It’s already approved. MS. RADNER-But you’re asking us to assume the fiction that now you’re going to proceed with your first subdivision which has a cul de sac, with everybody sitting here knowing that your true intent now is to turn that cul de sac into a loop road. So, Laura’s concern is that you’re going to be proceeding to build on an approved subdivision, when you’re not really planning to comply with that subdivision approval at all. MR. O'CONNOR-We will comply except for the temporary turnaround in the cul de sac area, and we can put provisions in that, if for some reason. MS. RADNER-But you’re have no intentions of ever having the permanent cul de sac any longer. MR. O'CONNOR-We can put provisions in that that if, for some reason, this second approval isn’t obtained, we will complete the cul de sac. We will have one subdivision, and it’s gone. The other property is not going to be there. MS. RADNER-I don’t follow your logic. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. If we were doing a 50 lot subdivision, you can only build 35 lots as Phase I. You put a temporary cul de sac at the end of the road, wherever the 35 come to, and then you remove that cul de sac when you go to Phase II. MS. RADNER-That’s not where the hang up is, though. The hang up is the fact that the approved subdivision has a cul de sac. That’s been filed. That’s been approved. That’s no longer the intent. MR. MAC EWAN-I understand where he’s coming from, and what I think he’s trying to say here is that he wants to start on this subdivision. They’re going to mark their lots. They’re going to start building the lots. They’re going to put the temporary turnaround at the end, where the cul de sac is intended to be. As this other subdivision progresses through the review process, once they get their approvals, then they’re going to come back in and ask for a modification to that original subdivision, to eliminate that cul de sac and tie it in to the new one. MS. RADNER-I think that is the intention, but I think you’re going to have to look a little bit at the legalities of it, because you don’t want to create an impression that you’re treating this applicant different than you treat most applicants, which is, once you approve a subdivision, they’re required to follow that subdivision (lost words). MR. O'CONNOR-I’ve come back and gotten modifications many times. MS. RADNER-Right, and you can get a modification. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s what I’m talking about. I’m talking about coming back. MS. RADNER-What Laura’s suggesting is that maybe you do is get a modification before you begin your work on the first approved subdivision. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s a temporary modification. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know that I agree with you. MS. RADNER-I’m not sure of the outcome, either, but I think it’s something that needs to be looked into. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll let Staff research that. Conceptually, I don’t have any qualms with what you’re trying to achieve here. I think it’s going to, in the long run, be a better subdivision than what you have now. I think it’s going to be an improvement. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? In the meantime, Staff’s going to research this and find out if the process that they want to take here is going to be the right course of action, and if it’s not, they’ll be advised to it and we’ll have to do whatever we have to do. MR. VOLLARO-What is the agreed to date to come back in with the preliminary for this? MR. MAC EWAN-There is no agreed to date. You don’t have to. All we’re going to do, if you like it, you’re going to make a recommendation that this subdivision, 6-2000, advances to the preliminary review stage. That’s all you’re going to do. MRS. MOORE-The other question is that the applicant has provided you with a new conceptual plan that Staff hasn’t reviewed yet. So when you make your conceptual acceptance, the only plan that you’ve had in front of you is the 26 lot. So please keep that in mind. MR. MAC EWAN-He needs to go to the ZBA first and get an Area Variance, and if he doesn’t get an Area Variance, he’s going to come here, back with the 26 anyway. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t qualify for the 26 unless I have the ZBA variance. MRS. MOORE-Rather the 28. MR. O'CONNOR-Or I don’t qualify for the 28 unless I have the ZBA variances. MRS. MOORE-Correct. So when you conceptually approve it for acceptance. MR. MAC EWAN-The 26. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Thank you, just to clarify what the applicant provided. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I mean, we’ll do it for the 26, but I don’t think there’s a great deal of difference, conceptually, changing it from 26 to 28. I don’t think the impact is great. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t want to have to come back for another conceptual approval. MR. MAC EWAN-No. I don’t see it that way. MR. O'CONNOR-You’re conceptually approving, in the concept stage, and you know it better than I do, the layout, and the road connections that we propose. Whether we have 50 lots in there or 20 lots in there, really, is not what you’re approving. MR. MAC EWAN-And your subdivision may change if DEC determines, you know, you’ve got to give up two lots to protect the butterfly, too. MR. O'CONNOR-This guy doesn’t know that yet. Don’t tell him. With me at the table is Michael J. Vasiliou, who’s President of the developing corporation. MR. MAC EWAN-You can fill him in on the butterfly. Okay. I’m looking for a motion. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make the motion to give conceptual approval to Subdivision 6-2000 for Michael Vasiliou. Conceptual approval being for 26 lots. That’s what we want to do now. MR. MAC EWAN-I think I’d rather have you re-phrase that to say that you’re recommending that this subdivision move on to the preliminary review stage, instead of saying conceptual approval. Because that’s basically what we’re doing. MR. VOLLARO-Well, usually on the sketch plan we give conceptual approval to that sketch plan and then it goes forward, but the amount of words don’t, how did you want to word that? MR. MAC EWAN-Just recommend that this subdivision 6-2000 move to the preliminary review stage, based on the 26 lot design. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/00) MR. VOLLARO-All right. Okay. MOTION TO RECOMMEND SKETCH PLAN STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2000 MICHAEL VASILIOU MOVE TO THE PRELIMINARY STAGE, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: For a 26 lot design. Duly adopted this 28th day of September 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Vasiliou has a concern that we’ve got to start the process all over again if we go from 26 to 28. Is there any way of indicating that your approval of concept is of the loop system and if we can get the necessary? MR. MAC EWAN-I think our record’s already showed that. I mean, if you just look at the record and the way we’ve talked about this tonight, I’m not concerned about it, and I wouldn’t be worried about it. MIKE VASILIOU MR. VASILIOU-Can I interject? Thank you. Mike Vasiliou for the record. We bought this first piece, this parcel, and of course we got the 16 lot approval there. We have 14.4 acres in the second parcel. We can do a conventional plan there that will allow us to put in 11 lots, and 16 and the 7 are 27. Our road costs if we do the loop is significantly greater than doing the two cul de sacs, but we think it’s better planning, and better for the Town. Rick Missita said he was going to be here tonight, and he was in favor of doing, really in favor of doing the loop, for plowing and all. MR. MAC EWAN-I think that the consensus of the Board is that they like that concept much greater than they did the cul de sac. MR. VASILIOU-Okay, but our need is for the 28, in order to do this. MR. MAC EWAN-When you make your application, we’ll review it, and I think there was also favorable review of that aspect of it tonight, as well. MR. VASILIOU-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-You’ve got the butterflies to worry about first. MRS. MOORE-I just wanted to mention that generally if you needed to go back to Sketch Plan for review, it would have been a significant change, and I would assume going from 26 to 28 is not significant. MR. O'CONNOR-We will so quote you. MRS. MOORE-Okay. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO.11-1999 MODIFICATION GARRY & SHIRLEY NELSON OWNERS: SAME ZONE: LC-10A LOCATION: WEST OF THUNDERBIRD DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION. MODIFICATIONS TO PLANNING BOARD APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. TAX MAP NO. 85-1-24.1 LOT SIZE: 25.65 +/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS GARRY NELSON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/00) Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 11-1999, Modification, Garry & Shirley Nelson, Meeting Date: September 28, 2000 “Project Description The applicant proposes a modification to a two-lot subdivision. The applicant was required to obtain an agreement with the Fire Department that indicated Fire Apparatus could negotiate an 11% grade and the agreement was to be provided to Staff prior to signing of the plat. The applicant had made attempts to contact Queensbury Central to discuss the subdivision and conditions of the Planning Board resolution. The applicant was not able to meet or discuss the issues of the subdivision. The applicant contacted Staff and described the inability to get in touch with Queensbury Central. Staff contacted the Chief of Queensbury Central to review the subdivision issues. The Chief’s primary concern was the physical width of the driveway and Highway’s review of the application. The Highway Department was concerned about the run-off from the driveway onto Thunderbird Drive. The applicant contacted the Warren County Soil and Water District for a site visit. The Warren County Soil and Water District submitted a letter to the applicant dated June 5, 2000 on driveway design to minimize stormwater runoff from the driveway to Thunderbird Drive. The Highway Department provided a comment letter that indicates there acceptance of the driveway design proposal. The Chief requested a twenty foot wide driveway based on a prior subdivision (Wiley Sub 5-1990) that had a lengthy driveway. Staff submitted a letter to Chief Jones dated June 19, 2000 explaining the conditions of the resolution, the Warren County Soil and Water District driveway design, the Highway Departments acceptance of the driveway design, and the minutes of the referenced subdivision (Wiley Sub5-1990). Staff requested a response to the letter by June 30, 2000, which to date there has been no response. The Wiley subdivision required the applicant to provide a 16 foot gravel driveway for the entire length and provide a 20 foot cleared area along the length of the drive. The applicant has indicated to staff that the gravel driveway will be a minimum of 12 feet in width and the area along the driveway may be 20 foot clear area. The applicant has indicated the location of the driveway and the topography may determine the amount of area available to clear along the driveway.” Suggestions Staff would suggest removal of the condition requesting the applicant obtain an agreement with Queensbury Central, (condition #2 and #3) and adding a condition that the driveway be built to specification of the Warren County Soil and Water District letter of June 5, 2000.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. NELSON-Good evening. Garry Nelson, Town of Queensbury. MR. MAC EWAN-What brings you back here tonight? MR. NELSON-I didn’t have any success getting together with the Fire Department to okay the grade. The Highway Department’s fine with it. Soil and Water gave me their layout and that’s fine. So I would like those two steps removed from the plat. MR. VOLLARO-These are the two steps that were on the original approval? MR. NELSON-Yes. It says approval is based on resolution prepared by Staff. The second step is the one I want removed, second and third, to add to that, that based on the agreement with Queensbury Central Fire Department that fire apparatus could negotiate an 11% grade, prior to signing of the plat, notification by the Fire Company that that can be done. I was unable to get any of that information from them. MR. MAC EWAN-The request by Staff, or the suggestion by Staff about the driveway being built to the specs of Warren County Soil and Water, is that basically outlined here in Dave Wick’s letter? MRS. MOORE-Yes, it is. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. What seemed to be the problem we couldn’t get input from the Fire Department on this? This has been hanging out there since early spring, late winter. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/00) MR. RINGER-I might be able to answer that a little bit better, Laura. MR. MAC EWAN-I was hoping you would. I was kind of looking in your direction. MR. RINGER-The concern with the Fire Department signing off on this was a liability situation, that Dick felt that if we wrote a letter, that said that we would have no difficulty getting up there, and a situation occurred that we couldn’t get up there, and it may well happen during a storm, that we’re not going to get up there, he just didn’t want it on file, and supposedly he said he was going to talk to our attorney before he made this decision, and I assume he did talk to our attorney, and our attorney said don’t. MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have any letter on file from the Fire Chief saying that, from a liability standpoint, they weren’t addressing, making any input? It would have saved everybody a lot of aggravation here on this long and lengthy review process had he just sent a letter saying, because of liability concerns, we’re not willing to want to partake in the review, approval, condition or whatever. I mean, we’ve been waiting here, this gentleman’s been here 10 months, 9 months. MR. NELSON-A little longer than that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. NELSON-Just so you know, Thunderbird Drive is 16%, the actual road that I live on, and this driveway is proposed at 11, but it is quite a bit longer, and I can understand your concern, but. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know if I feel comfortable removing that out of here. That’s part of the problem. I can remember that we wrestled over this quite a bit, and that’s why, when I made this motion, we added this to it. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think we wrestled with it so much as we just, part of our review process we said, pitch it off to the Fire Department and let them throw in their two cents, like they normally do on these reviews, and the problem here has not been the fact that the Fire Department hasn’t wanted to put their two cents in, it’s just that they have not responded to this application at all. That’s what’s dragged this thing out. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think the reason they haven’t really responded to it is they have a definite concern on the 11% grade, obviously. MR. MAC EWAN-Fine, that’s what we’re asking for, put it in a letter saying you’ve got a concern or you don’t want to endorse this project because of a liability looming over the Fire Department. Should some tragedy happen up there that they couldn’t respond to a fire in an emergency, I can understand their position, but, you know, put that in the form of a letter and let us know that. MR. RINGER-Dick feels that we’ll be able to get there, but there may be certain conditions, particularly a storm, that we will not be able to get up there. We’ve had situations before in that area where we haven’t been able to get up there. Fortunately it wasn’t a fire, but it was ambulance cases where we’ve used pick up trucks to bring people down. MR. NELSON-I can appreciate that, but there are an awful lot of other driveways, and I realize that this Board probably had nothing to do with those, but there are a lot of driveways in Queensbury that are equally as bad, or worse. MR. RINGER-There certainly are, and the length is also, that’s a long way to go. MR. NELSON-I understand that. MR. RINGER-Running tandems with pumpers to, you know, you’d hook up at the hydrant on Thunderbird, and 1500 or 1,000 feet up the road, you’ve got to put another pumper, and then at the house you had to have another pumper, but I’m not putting this down. I’m only showing the concerns. Dick felt we could be able to handle it, but he just didn’t want to put it on paper that we could handle it because of the liability situation if something came up and we didn’t get up there. MR. VOLLARO-Did you ever have an opportunity to talk to the Fire Chief nose to nose at all? MR. NELSON-I did talk to him one evening, and he said he would get up there, within the next few days, and look at it, and that’s the last time I was able to get through to him, and I think Staff has tried to get to him several times, also. MR. MAC EWAN-I do know Laura and I talked about this back in June maybe? 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/00) MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. NELSON-Yes, that’s when we started the Fire Department thing. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions, comments from Board members? MR. STROUGH-I’m not familiar with this case, and I went up there tonight. I think I may have seen your house. It’s right near the end of Thunderbird Lane, there was a Nelson sign. MR. NELSON-Yes. MR. STROUGH-But I have no idea where this piece of property is. MR. NELSON-Well, before you got to that sign, there was a pink flag and then a stake in the ground, and the driveway goes right up through that hollow. It’s just kind of a steady grade right up through. MR. STROUGH-So, in any event, since I’m not familiar with this, even though I tried to get familiar with it last night, I’m going to have to abstain. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s take an informal poll. Are you going to vote? I don’t care how you vote, but are you going to vote, Tony? MR. METIVIER-I’ll vote. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-Yes, I can vote. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll vote, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Craig. You two are abstaining? Okay. MR. VOLLARO-As part of this motion, I guess what we’re really being asked to do is remove item two and three from the prior motion. Is that my understanding, Mr. Chairman? Is that how you feel about it? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. We’re removing a condition. MR. VOLLARO-We’re removing two conditions. We’re removing “To add that, based on an agreement with Queensbury Central Fire, that fire apparatus can negotiate the 11% grade, and, prior to signing the plat, there be a notification from the Fire Company that that can be done.” So we would be removing those two things from the prior motion. MR. MAC EWAN-We’d be removing those two and adding one to it. MR. VOLLARO-And the add would be? MR. MAC EWAN-That the driveway be built under the specifications of Warren County Soil & Water, as per the June 5 letter from Dave Wick. th MR. VOLLARO-Just an aside comment, I couldn’t read that letter. I couldn’t read it at all. MR. MAC EWAN-Someone must have been having coffee when they were running it through the fax machine. MR. VOLLARO-Either that or the machine had the jitters, but I couldn’t get anything out of this. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. MR. VOLLARO-But I understand where you’re coming from. Yes, I’ll vote. MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to make a motion, then. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/00) MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1999 GARRY & SHIRLEY NELSON, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: To exclude the two conditions that were added to the original motion that was, “To add to that, that based on an agreement from Queensbury Central Fire Company, that fire apparatus can negotiate on 11% grade, and Prior to signing the plat there be a notification from the Fire Company that that can be done”. That we removed those two conditions, and add to the approval another condition that the driveway must be built to specifications from the Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District, a representative from Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District be available for approval of the driveway on completion, and that the modification has not altered the original SEQRA findings. Duly adopted this 28th day of September 2000 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Are you amending your motion to say that it’s not necessary for Dave Wick to oversee this specific project? Because I’m not sure. MR. RINGER-I think he said in his letter that he would. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I’m sure someone in the office may, but if you want to condition it, you can, but I just want to clarify that. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, revise your motion there just to say that a representative from Warren County Soil and Water. MRS. MOORE-It’s up to Larry. I just wanted to clarify it so that I knew that I needed to contact Dave Wick. MR. MAC EWAN-What she’s saying is that Dave Wick himself might not be available, but someone else from the office. MR. RINGER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Vollaro ABSTAINED: Mr. Strough ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. NELSON-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 70-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED GEORGE & GAIL GORE OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-3A LOCATION: 84 FITZGERALD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 216 +/- SQ. FT. BEACH AREA. PLACING OF FILL WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. TAX MAP NO. 42-1-1.3 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION: 179-16, 179-60 GEORGE GORE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 70-2000, George & Gail Gore, Meeting Date: September 28, 2000 “Project Description The applicant requests approval for placing 216 square foot beach area within 50 feet of the shoreline. The proposal requires review for placing fill within fifty feet of the shoreline and alteration of the shoreline. The Code Compliance Officer informed the applicant verbally that the new beach area would require site plan review and approval. The applicant has supplied a letter explaining the purpose of the beach area. The drawing indicates the size and the location of the new beach area. The placement of sand to the shoreline is an allowed use in the waterfront zone. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/00) Suggestions Staff would recommend the beach area be limited to the 216 square feet as identified on the drawing.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The previous application you had in here a couple of months ago, are we in compliance with that right now? MRS. MOORE-Yes, we are. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and I know as part of that approval process, the condition was that that had to be done under Warren County Soil and Water Conservation as well? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Will they play a role in this one? MRS. MOORE-I believe they already have, other than recommending type of sand to the applicant. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. GORE-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are? MR. GORE-I am George Gore, property owner at 84 Fitzgerald Road. Hopefully, you all had a chance to read my letter attached to the application. If not, if you would just take a minute to read that, before I make an additional comment. MR. MAC EWAN-No, we’ve all read it. Go ahead. MR. GORE-Okay. I can’t stress enough the apology that I have that the appearance that we circumvented the rules and regulations of this Board, but hopefully the statement that I’ve made and the fact that that occurred, that you would understand why we did do what we did. Unfortunately, there was a miscommunication originally between John from Warren County Soil and Conservation who drew the original plans up, that he didn’t continue past the shoreline for the beach application also. I wasn’t even aware of it at the time, that my granddaughter had suffered the cut from the zebra mussels, and while I had decided at that point, prematurely, unfortunately, since we hadn’t applied, I found that out later when Craig came over and said that it wasn’t on the plans, Craig Brown. Prior to us putting the sand in, after she did suffer that very severe cut, I did check both next door neighbors. They both have sand beaches. I measured how far out they were. They both are in excess of the 12 feet extension into the water. I did check with Warren County Soil and Conservation as to what type of sand to put in, which was white washed sand, which is exactly what I put in, and I kept it smaller than both neighbors on either side, but again, I can’t stress enough that it certainly was not my intent ever to circumvent any rules with regards to the lack of approval by this Board prior to us actually doing what we did. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Chris, I’ll start with you. Any questions? MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the only real question that I had was, what was the zebra mussel attached to? MR. GORE-The rock. We have boulders probably ranging from this size to this size, that continues from the shoreline down to probably 20, however far. I can’t dive down 20 feet, so I don’t know how far it went in, but it did go in to a level of about six or seven feet, which I can go down and touch the bottom. So that’s why we carried it, and six or seven feet deep was about twelve feet from the shoreline. So that’s why we carried it to the 12 foot from the shoreline, in order that anyone that’s out there swimming the beach, if they put their foot down, that they’re not going to get cut. MR. HUNSINGER-So you put in enough sand to cover the boulders. MR. GORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. GORE-About six inches from the base, but a lot of the rocks are probably this far above the base of the ground where the rocks sit on in the water. So there might be three or four or five inches sometimes, four inches, if they sit above the base of the bed, the rock bed. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/00) MR. HUNSINGER-And you have confidence that that sand is going to stay there and not be washed out into the lake? MR. GORE-Unfortunately, we have a track record, again, I apologize, but, yes, we’ve seen it, and it hasn’t moved. I’ve tried to keep, there’s several posts that we have on the dock, and that’s the way that I’ve gauged if there was any washing of the sand. There was one area that did wash, and where it came from was the side, the other side of the tree. There’s a tree between my dock and that’s exactly where, if you see the drawing, where the sand beach is. The sand had washed down, because the grass hadn’t grown enough to build a base, and the sand that was up on the shore washed down that line and near the side of the tree. So I’m continually shoveling the, when I can, because we still haven’t got a base up there that the sand won’t wash down the other side of the tree, basically the grass base. So I continually shovel the sand from that side of the tree over to the requested area, but I feel very confident that that’s not going to go any further than that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I didn’t have anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-My only question was, are there any other agencies involved with this? MR. MAC EWAN-Warren County Soil and Water was originally. MR. VOLLARO-How about the Lake George Association? Anybody like that talking about lake frontage? MR. MAC EWAN-Wrong lake. MR. VOLLARO-Wrong lake. No questions, sorry, that’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No, I don’t have anything. I believe that it was an honest mistake. It’s unfortunate that in the past three months now this is the second time you’ve made a mistake and come before us, but I really think that it was an honest mistake. I wouldn’t want to see you here a third time, to take a tree down or. MR. GORE-It’s not that I don’t like your company, Mr. Ringer, but I don’t want to be here again either. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-Have you ever considered moving any of the boulders that are in the water off to the side where you swim? Have you ever considered moving some of the rocks in the water there where you swim, instead of filling over it? MR. GORE-Most of them are embedded so deep, you know, probably, I mean, some of those, not only these boulders this big, but they’re probably this deep, and maybe half of the boulder is embedded into the bed. Now, I don’t know what it would take for me, first of all, I’d have to get approval to get some sort of equipment in there to get those boulders out, to move them to any certain point. I mean, if you saw my, if you had a chance to see my two rock walls, I have a boulder, rock walls the size of this table, and it’s higher than this table. So those are the kind of boulders that are in that water there, unfortunately. I’ve moved a few, but there’s several large boulders that we had to cover. MR. METIVIER-And if you find that the sand is shifting or moving, which I honestly think it will within a year or two, what type of measures will you take, at that point? Will you take measures to keep the sand there or are you just going to keep putting more sand in, at that point? MR. GORE-I certainly don’t want that to extend past the requested area at this point. Obviously, I’ll have to consult someone on how to, if it does wash deeper in, because I certainly am not tall enough to get that deep down and rake it back, to find a way to get the sand back into the area that we’re requesting, but as I said, it happened in July that my granddaughter was cut, and this is now three months, and there’s a point on the dock, in between the two stanchions that I have, the posts, where the sand was approximately out into the water approximately two feet past that first support stanchion, and it’s been the same for three months. The only problem that I’ve seen is that area that goes to the left of the tree there that I’m shoveling back into the 18 by 12 area, but I don’t think it’s going to run any farther than that. Most of the wash on the lake, from being a new homeowner on the lake, I haven’t had that long a track record to see what effects that a winter might have, but I’ve seen what the summer does, and I’ve seen the effects of the waves, and all the effects that I’ve seen 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/00) are within the first two or three feet. That the wave will come up and of course it’ll catch some of the sand that I have up and some fill, and pulls it back down into the area where we’ve sanded since, but I don’t think there’s enough wave in Glen Lake that it’s going to push any further than it already has. Let’s hope not, Mr. Metivier. MR. VOLLARO-I could offer you a suggestion, because I’ve done it myself, in putting sand out similar to what you did up on Schroon Lake, and I used jetties, rock jetties, on either side of the sand, so when the Lake rolls in, those jetties, they tend to catch the sand and keep it there. I just poured rock in, a large rock, one jetty and then another on either side of the sand, and it’s been there for about 15 years now, it hasn’t moved. MR. GORE-Yes. I wouldn’t mind trying that at all. All I’ve got to do is find the rocks without the zebra mussels, but I’ll take that under consideration. It sounds like a good idea. I wouldn’t mind doing that. MR. VOLLARO-It’s just a suggestion. MR. MAC EWAN-Did you have anything else, Tony? MR. METIVIER-No, I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-I have just a general concern about the quality of the lake, in talking to people from the Glen Lake Association and the people who are doing the environmental study of Glen Lake, in that, you know, it seems that, to them at least, there’s a fear that the quality of Glen Lake is declining. I certainly would not want to see that, and, I mean, home values would. MR. GORE-I certainly wouldn’t want to see it. MR. STROUGH-Right. I don’t think anybody would. So it’s almost a time to start getting all the Glen Lake people involved in getting and adhering to stricter policies up there, and this sand thing doesn’t seem to be a big deal, but, you know, I don’t want anybody coming to us and saying, you know, well, George Gore did it, so we can do it. We’ll clear down the lake, George Gore did it, we’ll do it. So, you know, I don’t have any problem with this, but I appreciate your efforts, and I’m sure the other Glen Lake people will appreciate your efforts, in trying to give some policies of homeowners around the lake that would help ensure that the quality of the lake is, at least doesn’t get any worse, and may be improved. That’s just a commentary. MR. GORE-And I could only hope that some other homeowner up on Glen Lake doesn’t have the same reason that I have, unfortunately, to presuppose that this was going to be approved, and that was never a thought in my mind that there would be a presupposition on my part that this would be approved when I did that, and I’m sincere in the fact that unfortunately what happened caused me to jump the gun as well as getting up here a little bit too soon, that seems to be my MO lately, but again, I take it all under consideration, and I’m certainly more concerned than many people now at Glen Lake for water quality, because of the amount of investment that I put in that property. So I appreciate your comments, and I’m involved in the Glen Lake Association, and the Protective Association, and I’ve been involved with what’s going on over at The Great Escape, in opposition, also in the club, but I take your comments into consideration and I’m of the same volition. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-We have a public hearing scheduled. Does anyone want to come up and comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We have to do a SEQRA. MS. RADNER-Can I make one comment for the record, before we move on? When Bob was talking about government entities that might be involved, he mentioned the Lake George Association, which, other than it being the wrong lake, just for the record, the Lake George Association isn’t government. I think you meant to say Lake George Park Commission. You don’t want to be on record as saying that the Lake George Association is a government entity. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. So noted. MR. VOLLARO-That’s not quite as bad as the wrong lake. MRS. MOORE-I have a Short Form. “D. Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a CEA?” MR. MAC EWAN-Stop there. Is this in a CEA? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Read the question again. MRS. MOORE-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a CEA?” MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it would, I think. It’s a CEA. He’s putting in sand to create a beach area, and we have to recognize that. Am I right on that? MRS. MOORE-Yes. I’ll quantify it. MR. MAC EWAN-But at best it’s minimum. MR. VOLLARO-If it’s already a CEA, how has this action caused it to become one? MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s not the question. MS. RADNER-The question was the reasons why it became one. They make it clear as mud. MR. MAC EWAN-Re-read the question, Laura. MRS. MOORE-“ D. Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a CEA?” MR. MAC EWAN-The environmental characteristics, in and of themselves, is the lake, and it’s going to have an impact on the lake. The lake is what creates a CEA, right? So this beach that’s being created impacts something that was created which established a CEA. Although the impact, at best, is going to be minimal. That’s the way I’d view it. MR. VOLLARO-You’re not bringing foreign material into the lake. I mean, sand is sand. It’s there now. I don’t see how moving it around, more or less, changes the. MR. MAC EWAN-Whitewashed sand is not sand characteristic to a CEA, in this particular CEA. I mean, I don’t want to beat this thing to death, but the point I’m just trying to raise here is that, yes, it’s an impact because Glen Lake’s a CEA, and you’re bringing something, foreign material, into that CEA. MR. VOLLARO-Well, see, that was the basis of my original question, is any other agency involved here that has any overview on this kind of action, and the answer was no. So, normally there’s an agency that says you can’t disturb the lakefront. I know there are on other lakes. I know there is on Schroon Lake. You can’t get in and just willy nilly disturb the lakefront. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that would probably happen because Schroon Lake’s in the Adirondack Park Agency, but with the case of Lake George, you’ve got the Lake George Park Commission. Here, you don’t have any real government agency overlooking it, other than probably DEC and Warren County Soil and Water. I mean, I don’t think that the impact that he’s putting in there is significant enough that it’s going to create all sorts of havoc. I just wanted to note that, yes, there is an impact to it, and it’s minimal. MR. RINGER-Using the examples in the Long Form, it wouldn’t be an impact. MR. MAC EWAN-No, it wouldn’t. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So noted. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 70-2000, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/00) WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: GEORGE GORE, 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 September, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 70-2000 GEORGE & GAIL GORE, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 70-2000, George & Gail Gore proposing a 216 +/- sq. ft. beach area. Placing of fill within 50 feet of the shoreline requires Planning Board review and approval. Tax Map No. 42-1-1.3, 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: 1. 9/28/00 Staff Notes 9/21/00 Notice of Public Hearing 9/7/00 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 9/28/00 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 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/00) 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 Staff with the following condition: The beach is to be limited to the 216 square feet on the drawing submitted with the application. Duly adopted this 28th day of September 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, George. MR. GORE-Thank you, gentlemen, ladies. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Anything else? MR. RINGER-I had one thing that I wanted to bring up. MR. MAC EWAN-Go. MR. RINGER-Tuesday at our meeting, we, in regards to Veterans Field, I asked Stuart Mesinger a question, in regards to an alternate route, proposing that Luzerne Road, if a crossover road existed, using Luzerne Road as a one way up and Corinth Road as a one way down, or vice versa. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. RINGER-His answer to me was, well, that’s a political football. When I got home, I didn’t, I thought more about that answer. It was a real question that I asked, and I didn’t get an answer, and I felt with an EIS that the idea was to find alternate solutions, and I feel that traffic is a problem with this project in that whole corridor. I felt the question was a good question, and I don’t feel the answer that it was a political football, was a correct answer. My question to myself and the Board, is it the responsibility, in the EIS, for him to come up with an alternate plan, if the question comes up from us to look at this situation? MR. VOLLARO-I think the answer is yes, and I think we put that in the motion, that we would participate with the Town Board and the Planning Board, collectively, to get into what we called the findings on the EIS, and that certainly should be one of them, and I thought, when they did that traffic impact study, that the alternate road would be part of that, and it was missing. So I thought your comment, your question was good, and I agree that the answer was not satisfactory. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s two answers that I would have for you on that question. The first answer is that the answer he gave you wasn’t an appropriate answer when you’re dealing with an environmental impact statement. I agree with you wholeheartedly. If you ask a question to explore other alternatives to get to an end result, then you have to look at those other alternatives. Secondly, the safety net that was put in place Tuesday night is going to give us the opportunity to still participate in a review process, in conjunction with the Town Board, so that we can, again, bring this issue up. I have, personally, I have an issue, and I mentioned it, with the fact that when this project was first brought in front of this Board, the aesthetics, alone, to the project were going to be the tool to sell it, as it was put to us, and those aesthetics seem to have gone right out the window, and I think that that’s important that that part of it stay in, and the traffic is going to be a major problem because that Park is going to be heavily serviced by tractor trailer traffic, and having my office, past office over on Western Avenue, I watched the tractor trailers that go up and down Western Avenue, and to try to get them to turn down Western to go up to that Park and down Richardson, or to turn down Pine Street, is going to be difficult. Do you know what a lot of tractor trailers do now, to make it easier for themselves, they go straight up Luzerne Road, they cut through the States Avenues, and come out and go back down to hit the Northway. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/00) MR. RINGER-They don’t have to fight the traffic. MR. MAC EWAN-Tractor trailers coming out of Curtis Lumber is difficult for them to get out. MR. RINGER-I do that myself. I do the exact same thing. I knew we couldn’t do anything about it tonight, but I wanted, for the record, to have that on the record tonight. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. I would ask that copies of this particular discussion get to Mr. Round, so that he can understand what our concerns are on that. We kind of touched on a topic, the other night, agenda control, and I kind of took an informal survey, because it doesn’t look like our work load’s going to lighten up any too soon. Are we still looking at like 22 new items? It dropped? MRS. MOORE-Yes. We dropped to, I would say about 12, maybe less than 12. MR. MAC EWAN-Twelve new, plus we have like three or four carryovers. MRS. MOORE-Twelve total. MR. MAC EWAN-Twelve total? Two meetings? Hallelujah. Then we don’t have to talk about agenda control, then, do we? Do you guys feel that you want to have a workshop next month? MR. VOLLARO-The answer to that, for me, is yes, and I’d like to have a workshop at least, I know I’m not going to be popular here, but at least once a month. For us, without having, well, once every six weeks. This Board doesn’t get enough chance to discuss issues like traffic or like aesthetics or other things, other than when we have a, we have to do applications and make decisions. I would like to have us discuss a topic once in awhile. MR. STROUGH-And I’m with Bob on that. Bob and I have talked that. I mean, getting on the same plane and the same line with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and with the new Zoning Ordinance. I mean, it’s tough to stay updated, so maybe if we share ideas of what we do know about. MR. MAC EWAN-I think having a round table discussion is always healthy, and I think this Board has worked very well. I’m pleased with the way this Board has worked in the last several months, or actually the last few years. We need to keep that continuity going. If it means sitting down, once every six weeks or so, we’ll do it. The only concern I’ve been having, and I’ve mentioned this to Staff on numerous occasions, that we’ve had so many meetings these last eight or nine months, I’m just worried about burning members out who just say, well, forget it, I don’t want to be part of this anymore because it’s just too burdensome to me, and that’s what I’m concerned about. MR. VOLLARO-I think in that order for meetings, I’d like to see the meetings limited to two meetings a month, for purposes of accepting applications and passing on applications or reviewing applications. MR. MAC EWAN-That, in and of itself, is hard to do, because people come here and they make their submissions by the given deadline that they’re supposed to have it, and they can’t understand why they’re not on an agenda the next month to be reviewed. It’s hard. That, in and of itself, is a very, you know, for lack of a better phrase, a political thing, too, because people expect that, if they pay the money, they are, they have a complete application ready for review, and they should be on the agenda, and that’s difficult when you say, okay, we’re not going to accept anymore than 15 new items per month, and, you know, the guy comes in with a 16 item and he’s really ticked. th MR. VOLLARO-Well, part of the problem that I see, when you have a heavy load, aside from running the meeting until 11 o’clock at night, is the opportunity for every Board member to adequately review each application before he or she gets here. I think that’s mandatory and I know from my own personal point of view, and I know from talking to John about this, that most of the effort that I experience is not here, but at home. MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. MR. METIVIER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-The volume of your work is done at home preparing to be here, and when you have things like Veterans Field on and The Great Escape DGEIS, I mean, that really compounds it. MR. VOLLARO-So, you know, the Town would not be getting the benefit of a halfway decent review on each application, if we, you know, were forced to do, let’s say, 18 or 19 or like we had this month, I think there was 22 at the start of this operation, you know, the Town doesn’t get the benefit of a decent review on each application, and I think that’s unfair. I mean, the whole community. I 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/00) mean, we’re talking about a few people who put the application in, but we represent the entire community here, when we make decisions on these applications, and how this Town begins to forum up as we do that. Because if you take a look at maybe two or three years of Planning Board applications, we begin to slowly form the Town. MR. MAC EWAN-As a Planning Board member, this is the busiest I have ever seen it. MR. RINGER-I’ve seen months when we’ve only had one meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I mean, it’s a given, due to the fact that Queensbury’s grown so much. MR. RINGER-Craig, could I suggest, we’re not conducting any business, why don’t we turn the tape off, then we don’t have to record all these minutes, save Maria a lot of typing. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Before we do that, two things. Site visits are going to be the 14, nine th a.m., and the 17 and the 24 are our meeting dates. Staff will add a workshop date in there. Do thth you want to have a workshop like on a Wednesday night? Are they pretty free down there with that Conference Room on Wednesday night’s, Laura? MRS. MOORE-What I’ll look for is finding out if Counsel, if you want Counsel present there, then I’ll look at what their schedule is. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, let me back up. What is it that we want to discuss? MR. HUNSINGER-Wednesday nights are usually bad for me. MR. METIVIER-Wednesday nights are bad for me, too. MR. MAC EWAN-Wednesday nights are bad for you. What nights are good for you? MR. HUNSINGER-Tuesday or Thursday. MR. MAC EWAN-Thursdays. Okay. Let’s keep it in harmony, then. Let’s either look for having one on the, why don’t we shoot for the 12, October the 12? How’s that? thth MR. VOLLARO-That’s good. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a Thursday, and that’ll give us one meeting a week. Is that okay, Laura? MRS. MOORE-I’ll look into it. MR. MAC EWAN-Follow through on it. MR. HUNSINGER-What time? MR. MAC EWAN-Seven. MR. VOLLARO-As far as the discussion, Craig, on the workshop itself, we could, this one could be, I don’t know how many people here have had an opportunity to read the proposed zoning law, but there’s some things in there I’d like to talk about. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Why don’t we do that. Why don’t we focus that this workshop’s going to be talking about the proposed new Zoning Ordinances and how that’s going to effect the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I’m sure that Marilyn, at the last workshop that you had, you had some old items, so do you want to see if we can combine all those in one? MR. MAC EWAN-Out with the old, in with the new. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’d rather not try to bite off more than. MR. MAC EWAN-An hour and a half, people are about ready to go. MR. VOLLARO-If we stay with a topic and make sure everybody stays on track with that topic, because just talking about that new zoning law, having read it, there’s a lot in there, an awful lot of things, and there’s a lot of things that I don’t know whether I totally agree with either. So I’ve already given my two page comment to Chris on it. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/28/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? I make a motion we adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 25