Loading...
2001-04-17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 17, 2001 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN LARRY RINGER ANTHONY METIVIER ROBERT VOLLARO JOHN STROUGH CHRIS HUNSINGER MEMBERS ABSENT CATHERINE LA BOMBARD PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX SCHACHNER & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES February 20, 2001: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 20, 2001 MEETING, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 15-2000 BAY ROAD PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH ON MAY 25, 2000 THE APPLICANT RECEIVED APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 20,000 SQ. FT. CHURCH, CLASSROOM AND MEETING ROOM. REQUESTED IS A ONE YEAR EXTENSION TO MAY 31, 2002 (SEE LETTER DATED 4/1/01) MR. MAC EWAN-For ease of tracking it, I would recommend that we do it to the last day of the calendar month. MRS. MOORE-Which appears to be May 31, 2002. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to introduce a motion, somebody. MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 15-2000 BAY ROAD PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH TO MAY 31, 2002, Introduce by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard NEW BUSINESS: 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) SITE PLAN NO. 10-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED MIKE RINGER PROPERTY OWNER: SAME ZONE: CR-15 LOCATION: 104 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE AN EXISTING BUILDING FOR A POOL SUPPLY RETAIL BUSINESS WITH AN OFFICE AND STORAGE. THE EXISTING SECOND FLOOR APARTMENTS ARE TO REMAIN AS IS. NEW USES IN CR ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: VAR. 480 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 4/09/01 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/11/01 TAX MAP NO. 134-2-2 LOT SIZE: 0.33 ACRES SECTION: 179-24 MIKE RINGER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 10-2001, Mike Ringer, Meeting Date: April 17, 2001 “Project Description The applicant proposes to utilize the first floor of an existing building to operate a commercial pool supply business. The first floor was previously used as the Glens Falls Carpet Center, sold in April 2000. The owner currently rents the three apartments upstairs. The owner does not propose any site enhancements. Project Analysis (Section 179-38) Site Overview (1) The existing building fronts on Main Street with an open curb cut and a paved driveway around a portion of the building. The building has separate entrances for the residential tenants and the commercial tenant. The applicant intends to redo the exterior of the building to enhance the appearance. The applicant does not propose any change to the existing lighting. The new sign is proposed to be located in the same location. Staff would encourage the exterior of the building be redone in the manner that is consistent with the proposed design guidelines of the new ordinance. In addition, the sign should be converted to a wall sign. Traffic, Circulation, Parking The site currently has one large curb cut to access the site. The site is located on Main Street, which will be under renovation in the upcoming year. The Main Street improvements will include the addition of sidewalks and defined curb cuts to property on Main Street. The retail gross leasable area of 983 square feet requires 5 spaces for a commercial use and the three apartments require 6 spaces. The applicant only anticipates utilizing eight spaces on the site for customer and tenant parking. The drawing should be revised to show parking horizontal to the building to allow for a twenty- foot drive aisle between parked cars and the property line. The reconfiguration of parking spaces on the site appears to be able to accommodate 11 vehicles. Areas of Concern or Importance The applicant should address outdoor display, delivery times, or if there will be a company vehicle. Staff would discourage outdoor display because of the proximity to the road. Suggestions Staff would suggest the following: 1. The final drawings should be revised to address the parking requirements. 2. The final drawings should be revised to show front entrance/ curb cut site enhancements. This would include adding definition to the curb cut. Similar to the Beautification Committee comments in regard to adding green area between the front parking area and Main Street. Staff would encourage the applicant to meet with the Beautification Committee for review of site enhancements.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-What was Warren County’s determination? MR. VOLLARO-I think it was No County Impact. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) MR. MAC EWAN-I think it was, too. I just don’t have a record. MRS. MOORE-No County Impact for Warren County. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. M. RINGER-How are you doing, Craig? MR. MAC EWAN-Good. Could you identify yourself for the record? MR. M. RINGER-My name is Mike Ringer. I’m the owner of the building at 104 Main Street. DAVID BARLOW MR. BARLOW-My name is David Barlow, President of Pools Plus. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours, gentlemen, tell us about your project. MR. M. RINGER-Well, what I’ve done with Dave, here, and what Dave is doing, is the building used to, the Martindale’s owned it, before I bought it, was the Glens Falls Carpet Center, and since then they’ve closed. I bought it, and Dave here is going to open up a swimming pool store, okay, which, I really don’t have a lot to say. Just the front part of the building’s going to be retail, and probably the rest storage. MR. MAC EWAN-He’s going to occupy both sides of the building? I remember, it was split at one time? MR. M. RINGER-Yes. What I’ve done is that I’ve, there’s about 3800 square feet there, and I’ve given that to Dave, you know, and we’re just trying to, right now, the building, I’ve been doing a lot of renovations to it, you know, and we’re working on the front of it. Obviously, it’s been an eyesore before we bought it, and we are doing the best we can to get it looking better and we’ve got a new storefront and stuff going in there, and we’ve done a lot of work on the building. There’s still a lot to be done, and in time, it’ll be done. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. M. RINGER-Not unless you want to add something? MR. BARLOW-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. John, we’ll start with you. Any questions? MR. STROUGH-Yes, thank you. Well, a pool products business seems to be something we could use in the area, that’s for sure. The concerns I have are primarily with parking. Now, I notice on the east side there’s an air conditioner unit out there that extends quite a ways out. MR. M. RINGER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Because I see on the plans, the most recent plans, dated April 12, 2001, that there’s parking right where the air conditioning system is. MR. M. RINGER-What I’d have to do is I’d have to take, this has all been new to me, and to tell you the truth, it’s just totally taken me by surprise, because I was, a couple, three weeks ago, because I did approach a few people a couple of months ago, and things were assumed to be all right, and I did, too, because Glens Falls Carpet Center was there for how many years, and now this parking thing was an issue. I mean, it was there. Let’s face it, it was there, and it was a business that thrived for many years there, and I assumed, now the parking thing, I’m going to have to take and make different arrangements, and I’m going to have to take and build something to go around for the air conditioner unit, or maybe I’ll have to take and put it up on top. I don’t know. I’ve got to come up with something. MR. STROUGH-Well, that does seem to be a problem. Now you’ve got three apartments upstairs. Right? MR. M. RINGER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And are they currently rented, because I didn’t see too many people parking. MR. M. RINGER-Well, I’ll tell you the truth, I’ve only got one person that lives there with a vehicle. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, that may not always be the case, but, are the apartments sizeable? I mean, are they one bedroom? MR. M. RINGER-They’re just one bedroom apartments, and the leases I have with them, one’s a verbal lease and the other two are leases that there will only be one vehicle there, and they are to park in the back. Because when Martindale’s had the building, to be truthful with you, they only really rented probably two apartments, and so when I’ve taken it over, we’ve made, take for grant it I’ve only owned this for a year now, okay, and we’re going in back to make parking in the back for the tenants, so they don’t bother Dave’s business. MR. STROUGH-Well, I see one of the problems with going in back, you have a septic system in the southwest corner, right? MR. M. RINGER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And so you can’t pave over that and you can’t park on it. MR. M. RINGER-No. MR. STROUGH-And you can’t drive around it. MR. M. RINGER-I believe it’s far enough in the corner where it’s not, you know, I wouldn’t drive a 12 ton truck over it, no, but a vehicle driving over it’s not. MR. STROUGH-Well, vehicles driving over it constantly, is that where your infiltration bed is? MR. M. RINGER-Yes, the leach. MR. STROUGH-So, see, the soil gets compacted and takes away from the efficiency of your infiltration system or leach trenches. So that’s kind of, you know, just got me concerned. MR. M. RINGER-Yes, I can see that. MR. STROUGH-And then over on the west side of the building I see an overhead door, that goes to a big storage room? MR. M. RINGER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-So we can’t have parking in front of that. MR. M. RINGER-Well, basically, I think basically he’s not even going to be bringing a lot of stuff through the garage door, I mean, for himself. If we had something, you know, all he’s got are small deliveries in boxes and stuff, and there’s a side door there, too. I mean, it’s not, I’m not going to take and, I’m putting a new garage door in there. MR. STROUGH-But you don’t want them parking in front of it. MR. M. RINGER-Well, I don’t know, is it going to bother you parking in front of it. MR. BARLOW-We’re expecting about seven to ten customers per day, I mean, as far as blocking the door all day, that probably wouldn’t be a problem. MR. STROUGH-Well, there’s four doors in front of the building, and you also have parking in front of those doors. MR. M. RINGER-Well, what I’m doing is when I take and do these, I’m going to leave the three doors there. He can have two of them locked, because down the road, if, you know, if he decides to come back here and talk to you people about renting a little spot out or something, I’m leaving my option open, because I don’t want to take and just put one door in there and have to do all that cosmetic work and stuff like that. Right now, I’m putting a new storefront in there. I mean, it’s going to cost me minimum amount to do that, and I’ll have three doors there. MR. STROUGH-There’s four and there’s going to be three when you’re done? MR. M. RINGER-No, there’s three doors in the front. MR. STROUGH-There’s only three in front? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) MR. M. RINGER-Well, you’ve got the one door that goes up into the apartment. There’s four. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So one door goes to the apartments. So that can’t be blocked, or shouldn’t be blocked by vehicles. MR. BARLOW-Two out of the four will be in (lost words). MR. STROUGH-So that knocks out at least three parking spots, with the air conditioner unit. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Strough, could I interrupt you? There is parking in front of the storefront on that street. There happens a small sidewalk in front of that. So I don’t think that’s an issue to remove those spaces. MR. STROUGH-Well, it doesn’t show that on the site plan. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Well, just consider that when you did the site visit, there appeared to be a slight sidewalk, and maybe that should be added to Mr. Ringer’s site plan, that that sidewalk is to remain there, to add as that buffer between the parking spaces and the front doors. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and the site plan didn’t show the air conditioner unit that extends out. MRS. MOORE-Those are things that you can ask the applicant to add or, you know, those are opportunities to remove the parking. My understanding is the type of business, you can ask him again, the daily traffic of this type of business is not similar to a tee-shirt shop. It’s not like that at all. It’s less traffic on a daily basis. MR. STROUGH-Well, I know that, okay, but does it meet the Town Code, and if it doesn’t, you know, I suppose they could apply for a variance, but I’m just looking at what parking there is, and what it’s listed and what is not realistic. Okay. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. STROUGH-So, I do have concern with the parking. I’ll see what my other Board members feel about that. The landscaping, now the Beautification Committee suggested taking out all the pavement in front, and landscaping that, which isn’t going to work here. MR. M. RINGER-No. What I don’t understand is where, Number One, everybody’s got this big proposed thing for Exit 18, but nobody has any answers. I mean, you’re going to go putting all kinds of stuff here and then, because nobody can even determine how much of this stuff, if at all, they’re going to take any of this parking lot, or what they’re going to do. I mean, to me, this is all, I guess this is all foresight going into this Exit 18 plan, but then again, nobody has any answers to give me straight. It’s all speculation. MR. STROUGH-So you don’t really have an idea how far Main Street’s going to encroach on your property? MR. M. RINGER-Well, where they surveyed it, it looks, to where the pins are, to what I was told, is four feet back outside of the road, back to their right of way and the sidewalk going in there, but what I’m saying is somebody wants me to cut my pavement, this, that and everything, and then what happens on the road is you’ve got to duplicate something? MR. STROUGH-Well, it seems to me that where it’s located probably is going to be where the new street sidewalk’s going to be located. So, yes, you may have to move it back again. MR. M. RINGER-Because I guess what my major concern is, is that when I bought this piece of property there was an existing business there, okay, that had been there since the 60’s, and one of the things that I did spend a lot of my savings on buying this building is, down the road, for it to go, I didn’t expect to run into this, and I guess I’m open to suggestions, because I’m really, I just, I can’t understand a lot of this, I mean, that it wasn’t addressed years ago, do you know what I mean? That now I’ve taken and spent good money on a building like this, and like I say, Martindale’s ran this carpet business for years, and I walk in and buy it and now I’m trying to juggle things. Yes, I do need your help. MR. STROUGH-How about the shoe repair business next to you, do you have a good relationship with that owner? MR. M. RINGER-I don’t really know him that good, but, let’s put it this way, they park over on my side sometimes. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) MR. STROUGH-And he seems to have plenty of parking there. MR. M. RINGER-Yes. I mean, I could probably arrange something like that, because what I’m looking at, too, is I’m looking at buying out the back lot in back of me. MR. STROUGH-Well, especially if the pool supply business turns out to be successful, which I hope it does. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me interject a thought here. I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to suggest that we use someone else’s parcel for parking as overflow or as an auxiliary parking area, especially without that individual being here. I mean, we have to deal with what’s in front of us. MR. STROUGH-Well, I was thinking if he could get the adjacent owner’s permission to use some of those parking spaces, in the event that he has an overflow where he currently is located, because there does seem to be a limited supply of parking in this current lot, and that’s the direction I was heading in. If he could get some letter from the owner adjacent to him saying that he can use some of the parking there that would relieve some of the pressure here. That’s what I was suggesting, you see. Okay. MR. M. RINGER-There is one thing I need to add, too, you know, that this business here is just a seasonal business, too. I mean, what are you looking at, May to September? MR. BARLOW-Six months. MR. M. RINGER-May to September. It’s not even like it’s a year round thing. MR. STROUGH-And I agree, a lot of the people that would come here wouldn’t stay any great length of time, and probably, once you put your landscaping in, in front, that kind of works well for a turnaround. People stop in, pick up their supplies, get out of there, and so that works well, and it works well in the sense, like you and I were talking. You may have to move that, two or three years down the road, but it does work to provide a quick in and quick out for the pool supply business, in my mind. MR. M. RINGER-Well, to tell you the truth, my original plan of the parking, I was only a few feet short of bringing them in at an angle, put the spots in. As a matter of fact, I don’t have the original. Do you have the original? What was I short? MRS. MOORE-Yes. I do. MR. MAC EWAN-The original plan showed seven parking spots and one handicapped. MR. M. RINGER-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Eight total. MR. M RINGER-Eight total on that one side, but what I’m saying is that, to meet the 20 feet and the 20 feet, I think I was only two feet short on it. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have anything else, John? MR. STROUGH-Let me just go down through. Okay. You do plan on re-doing the exterior. Do you know how? I suppose, Mike, you’re going to do that? MR. M. RINGER-Yes. Well, what we’re doing is, we tried to paint around the top, but the guy screwed that up pretty good. So we’re going to come up with a vertical siding that’s probably about the color of the West Glens Falls, the color of West Glens Falls ambulance, they have it going around, something like that. That’s what I tried to get with the paint, but, and, you know, by the end of the month, we’ve got a couple of windows to replace in the one side there, in the front, then we’re going to put (lost words) metal on the front, with a new storefront and stuff. We’re trying to make it look good and attractive. That’s, obviously, a good start for business. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, that seems to address most of my concerns, and like I said, I think the landscaping’s an improvement. It works well for a turnaround. There just seems to be a limited number of parking spaces that are there. I know that you meet the basic requirement with what you’ve supplied, but it doesn’t account for the air conditioner on the east side, and it doesn’t account for the overhead door on the west side, and the access door in the front going to the apartments, but we’ll see what the other Planning Board members say. Thank you. MR. M. RINGER-Thank you. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I had the same concerns about parking, but I think the reality of the situation, you know, the site being what it is, is that, since the spaces are specifically delineated, people will kind of park how they can, and when it’s full, they won’t stop. I mean, it’s the reality of the situation. Having said that, though, I would like to see the sidewalk shown on the final site plan. MR. M. RINGER-You mean in the front of the building? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. M. RINGER-Okay, in the front. I didn’t think of it, to tell you the truth. MR. HUNSINGER-But other than that, I really didn’t have anything else to add. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-On the outer dimension of the drawing, I guess we’re talking 110 by 132.5, or 132, I guess it is, 131.5. This is only a 14,465 square foot lot, and I looked for previous ZBA relief on that and didn’t see any, and just to read off from 179-24, which is our Commercial Residential zone, in CR-15, it says “Commercial Residential zones will allow one dwelling unit or office use in existing residential structure for every 15,000 square foot of land within the zone”. Is there a variance that we’ve got on this? MRS. MOORE-I’m sorry. Craig and I discussed the requirement for having one acre for a commercial business, and because this business was a pre-existing business, prior to whomever, we understood it to be a pre-existing, and still meets the intent of the Code. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I looked at the last ZBA notes, which was variance no. 480, way back, I guess, in 1977, and it didn’t say anything there. So what we’re saying, that this is pre-existing, and therefore your position on that, or Staff’s position, is that the 15,000 square feet is sort of grandfathered out, essentially. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now how about where it says one dwelling unit or office use? We’ve got three potential apartments upstairs, and a business downstairs. Is that grandfathered in as well? MRS. MOORE-That’s my understanding. I’d have to check with Craig. MR. VOLLARO-So really 179-24 does not apply in this case. Is that a fair statement? MRS. MOORE-Other than it requires site plan review for a new commercial use in the CR-15 zone. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. So, in a sense, we’re getting rid of that, for the record, 179-24 does not apply to this application. I happen to agree with the applicant, when we talk about what’s going to happen on Main Street. You’re right. We don’t have a good position, at least the Town hasn’t come up firm on that, and I, for one member of this Board, don’t like to apply zoning requirements that are supposedly coming down the pipe that haven’t been approved yet. MR. M. RINGER-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-I do agree with Mr. Strough that that sidewalk probably ought to be shown in, as a buffer between the front of the building and the three parking lots that are shown in the front. I think that’s to your benefit to show that, by the way. I think Mr. Strough’s right on that, that point. I would say this. I’m just wondering, trying to get some of your feeling on it. I’ve got some notes down here that I’ll just, my own personal notes that I’ll read off. When and if the zoning does come down, in other words, we do get some zoning, would you be willing, at that time, to conform to some of those ordinances, for example, I don’t know how far that street’s going to come in and whether it’s going to affect your parking there or not, up front. MR. M. RINGER-They had no idea, because you talk to some people, they’re going to the street. I was out talking to the surveyors at the time, then you hear that they’re going like this. My personal opinion is just put it one way, make Luzerne one way, and you haven’t got to do anything, put a ramp in there. Make it simple, but I guess it isn’t the simplest way of approaching it I guess. MR. VOLLARO-Other than that, Mr. Chairman, I don’t have any further comments now. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. L. RINGER-No. I don’t have anything other than what’s been put forth. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-No. I don’t have anything further. I just hope that, down the line, they have a plan that complies. MR. M. RINGER-Yes. I’m willing to do, like I said, even the parking the way it was, the way I had it, on an angle, in the beginning it was a few feet short, but. MR. METIVIER-I just don’t foresee, I mean, correct me if I’m wrong, even your busiest season, don’t foresee needing eight spaces, at one time. MR. M. RINGER-No, it’s not. MR. METIVIER-I just don’t know that that would be an issue. MR. M. RINGER-I’ll raise his rent, if he’s making that much money. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Did you go back to the Beautification Committee with a plan? They have a note in their approval to you, under Note to, it says provide a landscape plan of the former front loading area to the Beautification Committee for review and approval prior to Planning Board approval. Did you go back and see them again? MR. M. RINGER-If you want to know the truth, no, I haven’t, because I screwed up and didn’t go to the first one. I can tell you that. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, my thoughts on it, I’ve always been a proponent of beautifying wherever we can in the Town. Given the fact that this particular situation, in this corridor with it’s uncertainty as to how much land you’re going to lose, and how much construction and even if the fact that, you know, whether the poles are moved back or they’re going to be buried, the power’s going to be buried, and what side you’re going to run utilities up, I can’t see having any applicant conform to any kind of beautification requirements until we know what’s going to happen in that corridor. MR. M. RINGER-I’d be more than willing, if we could sit down, if I could sit down with them, once we know what we’re doing, right there, and I would love to, you know, work with them, and I’ll, obviously, do something. MR. MAC EWAN-You’ll probably have a good handle as to how much property you’d lose the day they start moving bulldozers. That’s about when you’ll figure it out. Any other questions, comments from Board members? Staff? Okay. We’ll open up the public hearing on this application. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KATHLEEN SALVADOR MRS. SALVADOR-Kathleen Salvador. I’m at a little loss here as to why this gentleman is here this evening. It says “New uses in CR zones require Planning Board review and approval”. It sounds as though there was a retail business there and there now is going to be another retail business there, and it’s going to be seasonal. I mean, we’re not changing the use. It’s just another retail store, if you will. So why is he even required to be here? To me, that’s not a new use. If he was turning it into a veterinary hospital, okay, that’s a new use. If he was turning it into a, well, a veterinary hospital, because that’s not retail, but he’s going, they’re going from a carpet store to a pool store. It’s retail to retail. So I’m at a loss. What is your definition of retail? It doesn’t say in the zoning code here, number 10, it says retail business. It doesn’t say a new retail business or something. It says retail. So we’re going retail to retail. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess the short answer, and correct me if I’m wrong, but a change of use is a change of use. Whether you are selling carpet one day, you’re selling school supplies the next day, you’re selling pet supplies the third day. It’s a change of use. MRS. SALVADOR-Even though it’s still retail and retail? MR. MAC EWAN-Even though it’s still retail. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) MRS. SALVADOR-So if say, if I had a bagel place, and I’ve been selling bagels for 10 years, and all of a sudden I decide to sell donuts? Is that a change in use? MR. MAC EWAN-That would be an issue you’d have to take up with the Zoning Administrator, and he would make that call, and if an application was warranted to come in front of this Board, he’s send you on your merry way to see us. MRS. SALVADOR-Okay. So he has to be here even though it’s still retail? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the determination. MRS. SALVADOR-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. With regard to any land that might be taken in the future for the improvement of this corridor, I certainly trust that any landowner would be compensated for that taking, and, therefore, I don’t believe that that issue should enter into your decision. Otherwise, you’re discounting the value of that man’s property, as it stands today. MR. MAC EWAN-No one was ever talking about the value or devaluation of the property. MR. SALVADOR-Well, if you’re going to issue a permit, based on the fact that in the future this property might lose some of its land, based on a plan that hasn’t even been finalized, you will discount the value, you will take from the value of that property. MR. VOLLARO-John, that would be only if we make that a condition of the resolution, which I’m not sure we will do. MR. MAC EWAN-No, and it’s not even worth. MR. SALVADOR-Well, I’m just saying, I don’t think it should be a consideration. Because if the land, it has to be taken for the improvement at a later date, he should be compensated. MR. VOLLARO-Then I think it will be dealt with at that time. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, please. MR. STROUGH-I’ve got a Short Form here. Laura, is this going to be a Short Form? MRS. MOORE-This is a Short Form, yes. MR. STROUGH-All right. I’m kind of new at this. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s why we’re having you do it. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 10-2001, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: MIKE RINGER, 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: 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) 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 17 day of April, 2001, 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? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 10-2001 MIKE RINGER, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No.10-2001, Mike Ringer proposing to utilize an existing building for a Pool Supply Retain business with an office and storage. The existing second floor apartments are to remain as is. New uses in CR zones require Planning Board review and approval. Cross Reference: Var. 480. Tax Map No. 134-2-2, and; WHEREAS, the application was received 3/28/01; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 4/13/01: 4/17/01 Staff Notes 4/11/01 Warren Co. Planning Board 4/10/01 Notice of Public Hearing sent 4/9/01 Beautification Comm. Recommendation 4/4/01 Meeting Notice sent WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 4/17/01 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 condition: 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) 1. That the final drawings include the existing sidewalk along the front of the building. Duly adopted this 17th day of April, 2001 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, gentlemen. Good luck. MR. M. RINGER-Thank you. MR. BARLOW-Thank you. PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE – PZ 4-2001 RECOMMENDATION J & J MANAGEMENT PROPERTY OWNER: BLL ACQUISITION RECOVERY, INC. AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER CURRENT ZONE: RR-3A PROPOSED ZONE: HC- 1A LOCATION: 3231 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REZONE 1.8 ACRES OF A 11.25 ACRE PARCEL FROM RR-3A TO HC-1A. CROSS REFERENCE: USE VAR. 120-1989, AREA VAR. 119-1989, SP 54-89, SP 72-95 TOWN BOARD REFERRAL: RES. # 142,2001 (3/19/01) ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/11/01 TAX MAP NO. 48-1-26 LOT SIZE: 11.15 ACRES SECTION: 179-94 JON LAPPER & JIM SHERWOOD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Petition for Change of Zone – PZ 4-2001 Recommendation, J & J Management, Meeting Date: April 17, 2001 “Project Description The applicant proposes to rezone 1.8 acres of an 11.25 acre parcel to extend the Highway Commercial zone. Project Analysis 1. What need is being met by the proposed change in zone or new zone? The applicant proposes to utilize a non-occupied piece of land and associated vacant buildings for a future business use, i.e. Boat storage. 2. What existing zones, if any, can meet the stated need? The Land Conservation zone allows for commercial boat storage but no related sales. The Highway Commercial zone also supports commercial boat storage, and includes sales of boats and other retail sales. Both zones require site plan review for the anticipated use. 3. How is the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones? The extension of the zone by 1.8 acres is compatible with the minimum amount of acreage needed for Highway Commercial One Acre. This area is identified in the proposed zoning ordinance as the Route 149 and Bay Road corridor. The corridor recommends design guidelines to maintain this area with an Adirondack Theme. The businesses on the north side of Route 149 demonstrate the Adirondack theme with log structures. 4. What physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone? The parcel of land contains a field area with greenhouses and an area containing office/storage buildings. The parcel has frontage on three roads known as Route 149, Walkup-Cutoff, and Bay Road. The parcel does contain a small APA wetland located along the southern property line. 5. How will the proposed zone affect public facilities? The impacts on public facilities are expected to be minimal, but include Fire, EMS, Highway, and other business utilities such as electric. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) 6. Why is the current zoning classification not appropriate for the property in question? The portion of the property that is zoned highway commercial is less than one acre; any improvements to the buildings in the HC-1A zone portion may be subject to a variance. In addition, there are some buildings and access areas that are located in the Rural Residential zone that would not be allowed to be used for the proposed commercial use without a use variance. 7. What are the environmental impacts of the proposed change? Anticipated environmental impacts. A Short EAF was submitted. A Long EAF is typically submitted with a zone change request, especially when it is known that there will be land use changes at the site. 8. How is the proposal compatible with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use Master Plan? The property is located in Neighborhood 4, but is associated with Neighborhoods 2 and 5. Neighborhood 4 does not have specific recommendations for this site. The other two neighborhoods recognize the potential for commercial use along Route 149, but encourage the businesses to blend in to the rural area. 9. How are the wider interests of the Community being served by this proposal? The zone change would support additional commercial use. Areas of Concern or Importance The applicant has not submitted a site plan for the future use of the property. The future business use proposed, boat storage, may involve environmental impacts regarding amount of permeable land and aesthetics. Suggestions The Planning Board is to provide the Town Board with a recommendation to rezone the property. Staff would encourage the Board to include in their recommendation the comments suggested by the proposed Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Board may wish to review the Site Plan before making a recommendation for the zone change.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper and Jim Sherwood. Jim is one of the “J’s” of J & J Management, the applicant. As most of you are probably aware, this was the former J.M. Weller office building for his construction business, and included outdoor vehicle storage sheds for his construction equipment. Unfortunately, Jim filed bankruptcy. He had been trying to sell the property for approximately four years. It’s been vacant. It was, ultimately, foreclosed upon by his bank, and the applicant’s have it under contract with the bank that foreclosed on it, contingent upon getting zoning approval. Laura mentioned in her Staff Notes about a site plan, and if the re-zoning is successful, they would come before this Board for site plan review for outdoor storage. MR. VOLLARO-I would just like to ask Staff a question on that. The resolution seeking Lead Agency, submitted by the Town Board in this particular instance, if the site plan is issued, I guess in keeping with past practice, we would probably be Lead SEQRA Agency on this, if a site plan was required. Is that correct? MR. LAPPER-Well, this is not a Type I Action. MR. SCHACHNER-Not exactly, but there is an issue here, Bob, and the issue, and I can tell you that I, myself, am curious about this issue because when this Petition for Zone Change was submitted to the Town Board, as I understand it, the Community Development Department inquired of the applicant as to whether there was a specific proposed use or not, and again, I’m telling you what I understand through the Community Development Department, specifically the Zoning Administrator, who’s obviously not here, but the question was asked, and as I understand, the question was asked of the applicant, and as I understand the question was answered with the applicant saying that there was not a specific proposed use proposed at this time. That is the reason that this application has been processed, with the Town Board as SEQRA Lead Agency. I share your concern because I see in the Staff Notes, and Laura and I were just conferring about this, I see in the Staff Notes the statement that the applicant proposes to utilize this for a future business use 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) consisting of boat storage. I discussed this with Chris Round, while he was still, he’s away this week. I discussed this with Chris Round, prior to his departure, and we discussed the possibility that if there is a proposed use, then the SEQRA Lead Agency Status has not been done in accordance with the previous resolutions of this Board and the Town Board, and I’d like that clarified myself. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. LAPPER-I have two comments on that. First, is that this is somewhat exploratory, because even though there’s a similar use across the street, if this zoning is not approved, they lose the contract, very quickly, with the bank, and there’s no deal and the building’s going to remain vacant for the time being. If the re-zoning is approved, they will then move forward on a site plan, but they are also, they’re not planning on utilizing the entire building. They would want to rent some of the space as well. So in terms of the exact nature of a site plan, that’s, as of yet, undetermined, but, in addition to what Mark said, this is a pretty minor application, in terms of SEQRA. This would be, both of these, the rezoning and hopefully the ultimate site plan review, could be treated with independent review, because neither of them are Type I Actions. So it doesn’t have to be coordinated, and I agree with Bob, in terms of what the policy has been, but most of the time, that’s when you have a pretty major project that involves a rezoning and a site plan review, and this is a pretty minor application, both in terms of the size of the land and the fact that most of what would be built is already there. The rest of this would be, what we’re proposing is for outdoor boat storage or boat sales, which would involve a bunch of landscaping to make the Board happy. MR. VOLLARO-That’s another thing I wanted to try to clear up in my mind. Is this boat storage and sales, or just storage? MR. SHERWOOD-My name is Jim Sherwood. Most of the site will be utilized for the sale of the boats. There will be boats there for the purpose of displaying, but actual storage, I would say most likely not. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. MR. SHERWOOD-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t we get back on track here, and finish your presentation. MR. LAPPER-Okay. When we were before the Town Board asking for the referral and also before the County Planning Board, which unanimously approved it last week, or recommended approval last week, excuse me. The issue came up, of course, about the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which looks at the intersection of Bay and 149 as a Neighborhood Commercial business area, but when that was translated into the Draft Zoning Ordinance, this property was proposed, and of course that hasn’t been acted upon, but it was proposed that this would be rezoned to RR-3, which is what the back part of the property, the remaining 11 acres, is zoned now. We don’t think that that’s appropriate, with all due respect, to the rezoning committee, just because you have an existing two story office building, with a bunch of outbuildings there, and that wasn’t taken into account. So to rezone that to RR-3 doesn’t seem appropriate, since you’re right there in the commercial area where you’ve got a hardware store, a restaurant that’s now closed, the antique dealer across the street, and another marina across 149. I think that’s curious, but we’re just saying that if the HC-1A portion of this site is less than the 1A, it’s less than one acre, what has the building. So to add that to the 1.8 acres that we’re asking to be re-zoned, is just the area by the road, which would be more normally a commercial area, because you’ve got this big intersection, and everything in the back would remain the RR-3A for some future residential use. MR. SCHACHNER-Could I comment? I think it’s important, and this follows on Bob Vollaro’s question and comment. I think it’s important for the Board to understand that the request before you currently is a request for a rezoning, and you have to make a recommendation to the Town Board , and from our position, meaning Staff and Counsel, although the applicant seems to be talking about, again, this specific use and in reference to another marina across the road, you need to be looking at this in the context of a rezoning that would allow whatever the range of permitted uses is and whatever the zone that they’re requesting the change to is, as you’ve done before in other situations, and I want to make sure the Board doesn’t lose site of that, and focus on this mystical and/or mythical boat storage operation. MR. LAPPER-Or sales. MR. SCHACHNER-Or boat sales operation. MR. LAPPER-Mark’s point is correct, and my answer to that would be that, if you look at the map on the bottom right side, the entire corner, including the office building, right now, is all zoned Highway Commercial One Acre, and we don’t know what’s going to happen with the new Zoning 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) Ordinance, but in terms of what’s there now, this is expanding the existing Highway Commercial zone. So anything that could properly be used, be built in that zone now would just be on this additional 1.8 acre extension. So we’re just asking for an extension of the zone that encompasses the corner of 149 and Bay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. LAPPER-Not at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I really didn’t have any questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-What I did notice in here is that what was in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and what’s in the Draft Zoning Ordinance, and by the way, what I said to the previous applicant about the Draft Zoning Ordinance also applies here. It’s not cast in concrete yet. It looks like it won’t be until late Fall. So what I went is to stay with the CLUP, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which seemed to go along with most of this, with a rezoning of this type, and for these uses. It didn’t talk to the other thing that the Draft talks to, and the Draft talks with maintaining and keeping the Adirondack appearance, so on and so forth. That’s all fine, but, to me, this is in the future. So I really don’t have a problem with this, to rezone this as Highway Commercial. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No, I don’t have anything on it. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-No. I think it’s a good idea. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Hi. I was just wondering, why didn’t you apply for a CR-15? MR. LAPPER-Primarily because the land next door is Highway Commercial, in terms of a spot zoning issue. It’s just easier to continue an existing zone, rather than to change to something that doesn’t exist there. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but the CR-15 would allow you to have the use that you’re proposing, and it would be in line with the Comprehensive Plan, and it would be in line with how it may get rezoned in a year or so anyway, or maybe less, whenever they adopt the rezoning. MR. LAPPER-I disagree with nothing of what you just said, but I think that, just going back to what Bob said, we don’t know what’s going to happen with the plan. My personal feeling is that a lot of different things in the Master Plan, the proposed rezoning, may change when it gets to public hearings. So I’m only suggesting just to not be worried about a spot zoning challenge. That if you just take the existing Highway Commercial zone, which also works for this use, it’s just sort of the way I would analyze it, just to say the easiest way, in terms of zoning, and to avoid a challenge, is to just expand an existing zone, even though you’re right, it could have been also done that way. MR. STROUGH-Well, not only that, but even if we grant the, or give a recommendation to the Town Board for a Highway Commercial, it may not stay Highway Commercial. I mean, once they adopt the rezoning plan, if it was adopted as it’s proposed, currently proposed, and that may change as well, that would just change it back to an NC-1A. MR. LAPPER-Well, we would certainly lobby the Town Board, at the time of the rezoning, that public hearings, when it comes to that, that for the Master Plan rezoning, that this was a mistake, and that they never should have, the Committee should not have suggested that this office building go back to RR-3A, so that, you know, obviously, somebody wasn’t thinking about this building, or they just overlooked it. So, I would argue that. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me just interject here. It’s my understanding, I may be wrong on this, but that particular corridor of Route 149, the proposed zoning ordinance is calling for HC-1A right there. MR. STROUGH-No, it’s calling for NC-1A. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) MR. VOLLARO-What page are you on, John? MR. STROUGH-Here’s the map. MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking in the Ordinance itself. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re looking at the book. The book supercedes the map. MR. STROUGH-Well, the map is based on the book. MR. MAC EWAN-Written specs always supercede drawings. MR. STROUGH-But it calls for that whole corner to be NC-1 Acre. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s neither here nor there, because just like you said, it can certainly go either way. I mean, the Town could adopted a Zoning Ordinance that would be Highway Commercial. The Town could adopt a Zoning Ordinance that reflects a Rural Residential through there. MR. STROUGH-Well, see, on the one hand, you know, I don’t see a problem with Highway Commercial there, by the Comprehensive Plan does ask for that to be toned down to be more in character with the adjacent residential area, and that we currently have a zone type CR-15 that would meet their needs and it would seem to meet the Comprehensive Plan’s needs at the same time. I mean, like I said, I don’t have a big problem with Highway Commercial. I’m just suggesting. MR. RINGER-If they were going for the entire property, maybe then I would agree, but since he’s only got 1.3 acres adjacent to a Highway Commercial, I would think it would be more uniform to make the whole thing Highway Commercial now, instead of having a continued split zone. MR. STROUGH-Well, and I agree with what you say, Larry, but then again, I hope the applicant realizes that it may be converted if it goes as planned to Neighborhood Commercial One Acre. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The problem with that, John, is I would hate to rely on the, you know, the last thing that we got from Mr. Round was that this plan wouldn’t be approved until the late Fall, and between now and the late Fall, anything can happen to that plan, and to hinge on that plan at this particular point, because I notice it gets drawn in to a lot of our discussions, and my personal opinion is I don’t want to drag something in that’s not cast in concrete, yet. MR. STROUGH-Well, the only reason why I mentioned it, Bob, is because, if you remember, going through that rezoning process, a lot of people have come to us said, what happened to them back in ’88 was that they thought they had Highway Commercial land, and all of a sudden, it got rezoned to residential. They were never even informed of it until they went to, they see it addressed in the taxes, and this does happen. MR. VOLLARO-Well, see, I would lean in Larry’s direction, of just tying on HC-1A to the piece of property that’s already zoned in that direction, rather than having a zone, one next to the other, of a different type, and that’s not going to do any good either. MR. STROUGH-I can see that argument. MR. VOLLARO-So that’s, I think that that pretty much says where we’re at here. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. STROUGH-No. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Can I just provide some information? You had mentioned that, the existing CR-15 zone doesn’t address the proposed use that they’re proposing, about boat storage and sales. I realize it’s not, in the rezone you’re looking at all the uses in that zone, but this is a contemplated use. So keep that in mind. In regards to things that are rezoned that are all publicly advertised, so just keep that in mind, that they are advertised. It’s not that, no, we don’t send it to a specific resident in the area, but they are publicly advertised, as required. MR. STROUGH-Yes, they will be this time. They weren’t last time. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. STROUGH-No, thank you. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like some clarification. Mark, this is for you. The fact that we’ve talked, two, three occasions now during this presentation regarding a specific use on this site, and given the fact that there have been resolutions passed by the Town Board, and adopted by the Planning Board, as far as the review aspects, in reference to SEQRA, what’s your opinion on how we should advance with this particular application tonight? MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t have a definitive opinion in that regard. I think that the Town Board, as I understand the applicant’s position, and I welcome the applicant to correct me if I’m misunderstanding the applicant’s position. The applicant’s position is that, if the rezoning is adopted, a portion of the property will likely be used for a boat sales and/or boat storage facility. Is that the gist of it? MR. LAPPER-Boat sales, yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. If the rezoning is adopted, a portion of the property to be rezoned would be used for a boat sales facility, only a portion of the property to be rezoned. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-And some other commercial uses would also likely be on the rezoned property, and we don’t know what they are. MR. LAPPER-Right, and some other residential uses on the back. MR. SCHACHNER-Of the portion being rezoned? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. SCHACHNER-No, but of the portion being rezoned, some additional commercial uses would likely be utilized on the property as well? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-I think, when we went through this, Counsel and Staff, several weeks ago, anticipating this issue, I think it was our feeling, or our understanding that, without a specific site plan application, or even a site plan, for a specifically proposed commercial use, that we had no choice but to process this as a “generic” request for rezoning to whatever it is, what is it, Highway Commercial, to that zone, and that means that you all, in making your recommendation, would look at the laundry list of uses in Highway Commercial and make your recommendation, and that the Town board, in acting on the proposal, would undertake SEQRA review of the entire laundry list of proposed, I mean of allowed uses in Highway Commercial One Acre, and with the Town Board as Lead Agency, and I think, I don’t have a basis, right now, to make a different recommendation. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. Anything else you gentlemen want to add? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so. Please come on up and identify yourself for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Any additional comments? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Board members? MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m just going through Highway Commercial, and it does say auto repair and body shop and mobile home sales there, could be allowed. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s a lot of uses under Highway Commercial. MR. STROUGH-I’m just looking at a use that might be objectionable, although the vast majority seem to be okay, a day care center, automobile sales/service, commercial boat storage and repair and 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) sales, farm and construction equipment, car wash, fast food restaurant, professional office, green house, social club, motel, hotel, veterinary clinic. MR. MAC EWAN-All commercial uses in Highway Commercial. MR. RINGER-About any commercial use you can think of, John. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s the most intensive zone. Anything that’s of commercial nature, it can go there. MR. LAPPER-One more argument that I forgot about. Part of the reason why this thing has sat vacant for all these years is because it’s in the tip of the Adirondack Park, so that you also have to, if you’re doing anything that is APA jurisdictional, you would also need an APA permit, which limits the uses. MR. SCHACHNER-What’s the APA land use classification? MR. LAPPER-Moderate intensity. MR. SCHACHNER-A lot of things are going to need that permit. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-So what you’re really saying is that would also limit the use of some of the applications that John just read off. Is that what you’re saying? MR. LAPPER-Arguably, anyway. MR. SCHACHNER-It doesn’t necessarily limit the use, but it’s another significant regulatory approval that could be necessary. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? Would someone like to introduce a recommendation, one way or the other? MOTION TO RECOMMEND PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE PZ 4-2000 J & J MANAGEMENT FOR ZONE CHANGE FOR THE 1.8 ACRES LISTED ON THEIR MAP OF FEBRUARY 6, A ZONE CHANGE TO HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL, TH Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. LAPPER-Thank you all very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. MR. SHERWOOD-I’d like to thank the Board members for their favorable consideration and the time they devoted to this. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Good luck. MR. SHERWOOD-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2001 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED WAYNE KELLOGG PROPERTY OWNER: RICHARD HUBBELL AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: RR-5A, APA, LG PARK CEA LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 55.35 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS: 5.35 ACRES FOR A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND 50 ACRES TO REMAIN UNDEVELOPED AT THIS TIME. TAX MAP NO. 27-2- 5.1 LOT SIZE: 55.35 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; WAYNE KELLOGG, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 2-2001, Preliminary Stage, Final Stage, Wayne Kellogg, Meeting Date: April 17, 2001 “Project Description The applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision of a 55.35-acre parcel. The 5.35-acre parcel is to be used to construct a single-family dwelling. The remaining 50+/- acres contain an existing structure and no further development is anticipated at this time. Study of plat (§ A183) ?? Lot arrangement: The five-acre parcel is cut out of the larger 55.35-acre parcel. This is similar to the parcels near this subdivision where the minimum acres are divided out from a larger property. This creates future lots that have odd configurations. ?? Topography: The site is fairly level with a site elevation at 350 feet as described on the map. The five-acre parcel site contains a non-designated stream. The larger parcel contains an Adirondack Park wetland area. ?? Water supply: The five-acre parcel will be serviced by a well, as shown on the map. The existing home is also serviced by a well, but is not shown on the map. ?? Sewage disposal: The five-acre parcel will have onsite septic as shown on the plan. The plans also indicate a 20-minute perc test rate. ?? Drainage: The five-acre parcel site may need to demonstrate erosion control methods depending on the distance of the house to the stream. ?? Lot sizes: The proposed parcels exceed the minimum lot size required for the rural residential zone. ?? Placement of utilities: The plans show some type of power or phone poles located in front of the property. ?? Future development: The site has the potential to be further developed but it is limited by wetlands on the site. ?? Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The property is located in Neighborhood 2 of the 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Recommendations for this neighborhood are not specified for this area but include maximization of open space and consolidation of access points. ?? State Environmental Quality Review Act: The applicant has supplied a Short Environmental Assessment form. ?? Adirondack Park Agency: The parcel contains APA designated wetlands and there is an intermittent stream noted on the tax map. Suggestions Staff has the following suggestions: 1. The proposed five-acre parcel should be increased to extend to the rear property line of the larger parcel. This would enhance Ridge Road by discouraging odd- shape lots. 2. The final drawings should include a note that the 50-acre parcel, if further subdivided, should not exceed two lots in total. The purpose of this is to have a shared driveway and to minimize impacts on the adjacent wetlands. 3. The final drawing should include the required APA distance from the stream to the dwelling. 4. The final drawing should also include the Town’s required separation distance from the stream, 75 feet in the RR-5A zone.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. MR. STEVES-My name is Leon Steves, and Wayne Kellogg, the applicant, is with me. MR. KELLOGG-My name is Wayne Kellogg. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours, Leon. MR. STEVES-There’s not much to say about this project. It’s 300 feet along Ridge Road. It is on a collector road, which requires double the lot width. Therefore, we propose a common driveway to come in off Ridge Road, to service not only this lot but any lot in the future leading to the south. It’s a five acre zone. We’re in the Adirondack Park. The Staff has made a recommendation that we elongate the lot in the back. The seller only wishes to sell five acres. He wouldn’t give any more along the road, and he certainly won’t give any more along the back. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. STEVES-I’ll plot it on the map, on the board, the location of the brook that runs through the property, with the topography on either side of it. As you can see, it’s rather rolling. This is off the USGS, by the way. It’s rolling terrain. If you’ve been out there, the house that’s being proposed here is just in front of the brook. MR. MAC EWAN-It sits up on that little bit of a rise right there? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Is that a different one that I’m looking at? I don’t have a stream on mine. Did you just lay that in? MR. STEVES-No, you’re right. I put this on today, in red, so that it would be visible to you tonight. MR. VOLLARO-Are those also topo lines on there? MR. STEVES-Yes. Do you want a closer look at that? Do you want me to bring it over? MR. VOLLARO-Just go up and show me where the stream crosses the proposed piece. MR. STEVES-Okay. Do you see where the fence line is in the back of the property, the back of the house? MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got it. MR. STEVES-Okay. It comes right along the fence. MR. VOLLARO-It comes along the fence? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Mr. Steves? MR. STEVES-That should be it. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, I’ll start with you. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I took the liberty of extending that lot back and including the, I come up with 6.44 acres. MR. STEVES-Additionally. MR. VOLLARO-Additionally, taking the triangle into account. MR. STEVES-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Get the area of that triangle and then the area of the other, and what I see comes out of that is a nice, square lot that can be divided in half, for example, for two other, another two lot subdivision, if that’s what they wanted to do, but I think the Staff’s proposal there to extend that lot back has some merit, in that it doesn’t lead to an odd shaped lot when this piece is sold, and I couldn’t understand why that cut in the back, why wasn’t that squared off. We’re only talking about what that square is equal to, or that triangle is equal to .38 acres. Do you follow what I’m saying? MR. KELLOGG-The land owner is Richard Hubbell, and the property has been in his family for 155 years, and they’ve never sold any of the property, and I approached him about buying a piece of property, and he has no interest at all, other than he knew me from years past and he said I’d talk to you, and after talking to me he said based on his knowledge of me and the way I do things, that he’d consider it, but only at the basic minimum. So I called the APA, and the APA said to go to the local town, county, village and they’d help you through the process. I came to the Town of Queensbury and they told me I needed three acres. I went to VanDusen and Steves and they told me I needed five acres. I went to the APA ,and they told me I needed 7.35 acres. So I tried to get clarification on it. So the maps downstairs say three acres and their maps say five acres, and so Matt Steves said the 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) clarification on that is that 55 acres, if it was ever subdivided further, that the difference between what I didn’t purchase and the7.35 acres that the maximum amount of subdivision that that property would be allowed under the APA would be seven building lots. So one building lot would have to be 12 acres. So that’s how they came up with that, and why that little triangular piece there is, the farmer has no intentions of ever selling the property. He’s leaving it to his children, and he wants to have access all the way back to the mountain, because there’s a header back there, and when times are good, sometimes they log off that mountain. So that small piece from that corner that goes back at an angle goes back to a brook back there, and that’s approximately 1,000 feet off the road. From the road to the mountain is 1700 feet, and he wouldn’t consider selling that. His only consideration was he would sell the basic minimum, and then he conceded that .35, said I’d be protected all the way back to that brook that’s in the back part of the property. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-I’m just trying to look quickly, based on what Mr. Steves said about where the stream is. It’s one to one hundred, so we’re talking about, I’m just guessing, I don’t have my stick with me, about 70 feet between the house and the stream. MR. KELLOGG-The first one that you’re looking at is a drainage ditch. All that is is water that feeds down through the property, and it would have to be dug out and a culvert put in in there, and then in the back piece of property, there’s a brook that runs through the back. MR. VOLLARO-There are three suggestions, I guess you’ve seen that, that Staff has put in, that the final drawings should include a note that the 50 acre parcel, if further subdivided, should not exceed two lots in total. MR. STEVES-Why? MR. VOLLARO-I’m just looking at the suggestions that Staff made. MR. STEVES-I know. I saw the suggestion. I’m asking why? If the owner of that land wishes to put a road in there, why should he be precluded? MR. VOLLARO-Well, it might have to do with access. I don’t know. MR. STEVES-I assume that’s what they’re talking about with the double the lot width, but if you put a Town road in there, you wouldn’t have that to contend with. MR. RINGER-Why did Staff make the comment? MR. STEVES-I don’t know. MR. RINGER-That’s what we’re asking now. MRS. MOORE-I made the comment because Ridge Road is being developed where there are single lots all the way through. This one, if it were to be further subdivided, a RR-5 Acre zone, requesting a road in would be beneficial because there is more land to be developed in that area, but right now the pattern that’s going around Ridge Road is individual lots with individual driveways, and that was the concern, that we’re getting a lot of residential lots on that area and we’re requesting the shared driveway issue. So we’re minimizing the amount of curb cuts on the road. That was the only reason. MR. STEVES-I can understand that, and I think Mr. Kellogg can, but I don’t believe that either one of us has the authority to prohibit Mr. Hubbell from doing any future subdivision in there. MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. It was a suggestion, based on what I’ve seen on Ridge Road. MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No, not right now, nothing now. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) MR. METIVIER-I was confused about the proposed drive with the shared drive, but I think that it was just clarified. Is that put in there? In case there is future development, to show that you would share a drive? MR. KELLOGG-The way it was explained to me, because it’s a collector road, you’ve got to have 400 feet on the road. Mr. Hubbell didn’t want to sell 400 feet. He only wanted to sell a minimum, and he was very reluctant to sell a minimum, which is five acres. So they approached me about, with 300 feet, would I consider a joint driveway, if there was ever expansion, and my comment was if there’s any land to be for sale, I’ll buy it. If not, under the APA, you have to have larger lots in proportion to that piece of property, the maximum of seven lots. So that’s going to take care of itself. So I said, fine, make it a joint driveway where you pull off of Ridge Road and I’m going to build some pillars, and I’ll just put them 50, 75, 100 feet, whatever it is, because I’ve got 900 feet to work with. MR. METIVIER-You realize you’re a very lucky man. MR. KELLOGG-Why is that? MR. METIVIER-It’s a beautiful piece of property. MR. KELLOGG-I know it is. I went door to door, knocking on doors. MR. METIVIER-Well, I was reading the Posted signs once there, trying to figure out who owned it. MR. KELLOGG-I went to the door and they said they hadn’t sold land in 155 years, why would they sell it to me? And I just happened to know him from years ago, and he liked me, and he said I’ll sell it to you. MR. METIVIER-That’s all. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? John? MR. STROUGH-Nothing, although I share the concern expressed by Laura and some of the other Planning Board members, in reference to, if the rest of that ever gets developed, I, personally, don’t want it to come to us one lot at a time, with driveways extending out to Ridge Road. I agree with Laura. I’d like to see a Comprehensive Plan for that parcel, and it is a beautiful parcel. I suppose, Mr. Kellogg, you’re going to build your home there? MR. KELLOGG-Yes. This person has no intention of selling the property, and this is just a quirky way it worked out, and I was lucky enough to talk him into doing it, and I originally proposed to buy 15 acres and he wouldn’t even consider it. So, he said I’ll only do the bare minimum. So I went to the Town, it was three acres. So I started three, then five, then. MR. STROUGH-Now that shared driveway, now, did I understand you right in that he wanted that to be a shared driveway so he could gain access to the back part of his property? MR. KELLOGG-It’s not him. It’s the Town of Queensbury. It’s a collector road. You have to have 400 feet for a shared driveway. For him to access the back, he just goes through one of his fields, and that’s only if the price of lumber is good. MR. STEVES-If the next lot to the south is sold, if it’s sold, and it is, well, it doesn’t matter. He still has to have a shared driveway. He has to come in off Mr. Kellogg’s driveway, where he puts it in. Is that correct, Laura? MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-And you’re asking for a waiver of the topographical info.? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And you’re asking for a waiver of the drainage, grading and clearing plans? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-But I didn’t see included in your son’s letter, Matt’s letter to us dated March 20, a th landscape plan. So I’m going to assume that you’re also asking for a waiver for a landscape plan as well? MR. STEVES-I didn’t know there was any requirement for a landscaping plan. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) MR. MAC EWAN-There isn’t a requirement for a landscape plan for subdivision. MRS. MOORE-There isn’t. If it’s greater than 20 lots, there’s a requirement. So, this is less than 20 lots. So there is no. MR. STROUGH-All right. I stand corrected. Okay. I’ll read a little closer next time. Okay. Well, the house seems to fit there. I mean, it is a beautiful spot. My only concern is, and it won’t stop from my approving this project, it’s just that the next project that comes along I will be concerned about. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-No, nothing that hasn’t already been said. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you gentlemen wanted to add? We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I do have a letter from the Lake George Association. MR. MAC EWAN-Regarding this application? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. MRS. MOORE-Okay. It’s dated April 17, 2001, it’s from Heather Shoudy, the Land Use Management Coordinator for Lake George Association, in regards to Subdivision No. 2-2001. “Dear Board Members: I submit these comments on behalf of the Lake George Association, Inc. (LGA), on the above subject matter. I regret that I cannot make these comments in person, as I have a previous commitment this evening. The LGA is concerned about the applicant’s request for waivers from the Town’s subdivision regulations that require topographical information and a drainage, grading, and clearing plan. This property is in the Lake George watershed and has a stream and an extensive wetland on the property. Therefore, we ask that you require, at a minimum, topographical information, preferably a survey, and a drainage, grading, and clearing plan, and not honor the waiver request. In addition, we request that close examination of the project’s disturbed land area, including but not limited to the building area, cleared areas, and driveway area, be calculated to determine what type of stormwater permit is required for this project under the Town of Queensbury’s stormwater regulations. At a minimum, we believe your regulations define this two- lot subdivision as a minor stormwater project, which requires a permit. The LGA asks you to please examine this project carefully to determine the impacts of the stormwater runoff to the wetland and stream on the property and Lake George. Furthermore, we hope you require a stormwater plan for this project. Thank you for consideration of our comments. Sincerely, Heather K. Shoudy Land Use Management Coordinator” I’ll clarify this. I talked with Heather today, and I also talked with our Code Enforcement Officer. In regards to this survey, she understands that there was a survey submitted. It just didn’t happen to have topographical information on it. I talked to Craig Brown, in regards to the stormwater permit. That occurs when the applicant applies for a building permit. The applicant will be required to submit information about a stormwater permit as well, at that time. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anyone else want to comment on this application? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-John, we need to do a SEQRA. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’ve got a Short Form, but I don’t have a Long. So did they do a Short Form? MR. MAC EWAN-They submitted a Short, though, with their application. MRS. MOORE-They submitted a Short Form. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I can handle that. Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) RESOLUTION NO. 2-2001, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: WAYNE KELLOGG, 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 17 day of April, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion? MR. RINGER-How are we going to handle the request for the waivers? MR. MAC EWAN-If you’re going to grant the waivers, then you grant the waivers at Preliminary. MR. RINGER-In the Preliminary? MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2001 WAYNE KELLOGG, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Preliminary Stage Subdivision No. 2-2001, Wayne Kellogg proposing a cluster subdivision 55.35 acres into two lots of: 5.35 acres for a single family dwelling and 50 acres to remain undeveloped at this time. Tax Map No. 27-2-5.1, and; WHEREAS, the application was received 3/28/01; WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 4/13/01; 4/17/01 Staff Notes 4/10/01 Notice of Public Hearing 4/4/01 Meeting Notice Letter WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 4/17/01 concerning the above project; and 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) 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 for preliminary stage in accordance with the resolution as prepared by Staff, also granting the waivers requested in his letter of March 20. Those th waivers being topographical information, drainage, grading and clearing plans for the two lot subdivision. Duly adopted this 17th day of April, 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to make a motion for Final? MR. VOLLARO-We’ll let Larry continue. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2001 FINAL STAGE WAYNE KELLOGG, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Final Stage Subdivision No. 2-2001, Wayne Kellogg proposing to subdivide a 55.35 acre parcel into two lots: 5.35 acres for a single family dwelling and 50 acres to remain undeveloped at this time. Tax Map No. 27-2-5.1, and; WHEREAS, the application was received 3/28/01; WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 4/13/01; 4/17/01 Staff Notes 4/10/01 Notice of Public Hearing 4/4/01 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 4/17/01 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 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) The application is approved for Final Stage in accordance with the resolution as prepared by Staff 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 17th day of April, 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. KELLOGG-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re very welcome. Good luck. SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2001 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED JEFF INGLEE PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: RR-5A & LC-10A LOCATION: TUTHILL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A CLUSTER SUBDIVISION OF 31.27 ACRES INTO THREE LOTS OF 1.92 AC., 2.37 AC., AND 26.98 ACRES FOR A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING FOR EACH PARCEL. TAX MAP NO. 123-1-40.5 LOT SIZE: 31.27 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JEFF INGLEE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 3-2001 Preliminary Stage, Jeff Inglee, Meeting Date: April 17, 2001 “Project Description The applicant proposes a three-lot cluster subdivision of a 31.27 acre parcel for preliminary stage review. The property is located on Tuthill Road and is split zoned, Rural Residential and Land Conservation. A majority of the development will occur in the Rural Residential zone. The area zoned Land Conservation contains topographic constraints. Study of the plat (§ A183) ?? Lot arrangement: The applicant proposes three parcels to be arranged based on the topography of the site. The proposed cluster development occurs near Tuthill Road, which leaves the rear portion of the property as an undeveloped area (wooded). ?? Location and design of streets: The drawing does not provide information on the driveways. Two of the lots should contain shared driveways to assist with stormwater controls and limit the amount of impermeable surface. ?? Topography: The site does contain steep slopes towards the rear of the property. The drawing should contain information about the driveway slope and design. The driveway design should include material to be used and stormwater controls. ?? Water supply: The drawing indicates the proposed well locations. ?? Sewage disposal: The drawing shows the location of on site septic systems, but no perc test information. ?? Drainage: Information about grading should indicate the patterns of drainage around the dwellings and the driveway. The plans should also include a clearing plan around the proposed dwelling. ?? Lot sizes: The lot sizes are greater than the one acre requirement for a cluster subdivision. ?? Placement of utilities: The plans do not identify any utilities from Tuthill Road. ?? Future development: The configuration of the parcels does not promote future development. Staff would encourage the Board limit the development to a dwelling unit or hunting/fishing cabin. The Site Plan Review uses listed for this zone may have an impact on the environment that may not be suitable to the Tuthill Road area. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) ?? Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The property is located in Neighborhood 11 of the 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. This neighborhood does not have any specific recommendations for the Tuthill Road area. ?? State Environmental Quality Review Act. The applicant has submitted a short environmental assessment form. ?? Adirondack Park Agency: The property is located in the Adirondack Park Areas of Concern or Importance The applicant has requested the following waivers from Section A183-34: waiver to allow three lots instead of the minimum of five lots, and to allow for two of the three lots to be developed on slopes greater than 25%. Additional information regarding clearing, grading, drainage, and erosion control is needed for final review. The applicant met with staff at a Pre-Application meeting to review the proposal. The applicant had adequate information to submit for preliminary review. The Planning Board should note the application is for preliminary, not sketch as noted on the application. Suggestions 1. The final plans be revised renaming the barn to cabin, and to identify if it is seasonal or year round use. 2. The final plans are to include a grading plan, clearing plan, and a drainage plan.” MR. STEVES-Good evening. For the record, my name is Leon Steves. With me tonight is Jeff Inglee, the applicant. MR. INGLEE-I’m Jeff Inglee, and I own approximately just under 60 acres on Tuthill Road. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. MR. STEVES-Mr. Inglee owns some 60 acres, I believe, in both Queensbury and Luzerne. We’re only interested in that portion that’s in the Town of Queensbury, of course. It’s still some 43 acres in that one lot. What he wishes to do, he has an existing building in front on Tuthill Road now, and he wishes to build two more, for his son and for himself. To do so he has to have a subdivision. The subdivision is utilizing basically the only areas on site that is really suitable for the development, without doing an awful lot of roadwork, back and forth hairpin turns and everything else. This is the simplest plan. Do you have anything to add? MR. INGLEE-No. You’re doing a good job. MR. MAC EWAN-Before I turn this over to my fellow Board members, a quick question of Staff. Under “Areas of Concern” you said the applicant has requested the following waivers. Do you have something in the form of a letter from them? MRS. MOORE-Yes, I do. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Because there wasn’t anything in my packet. I didn’t know if that was just a verbal request or he had formally written? MRS. MOORE-He made a formal request. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tony, we’ll start with you. Any questions? MR. METIVIER-Well, I guess I have a concern, only with the 43 acres behind the third lot. Basically, there would never be any access to this, would there, road access? MR. INGLEE-No, that’s correct. MR. METIVIER-Is that by choice? MR. INGLEE-Absolutely. MR. METIVIER-And you don’t plan on anything further behind there in the future, subdivision wise? MR. INGLEE-Absolutely not. This is not for resale. This for personal use between myself and my two sons. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) MR. METIVIER-And what is the cabin there now? What does that act as? MR. INGLEE-Well, that was an old barn, believe it or not, and when I first purchased the property, I renovated it into a two bedroom cottage, which one of my sons is residing in at this point. MR. STEVES-I’m not sure if I misunderstood or not. The 43 acres is a part of that third lot, okay, but it cannot be subdivided in the future because we’re not allowing any room for that. MR. METIVIER-There wouldn’t be any, I don’t think. MR. RINGER-The 43 acres is part of the 31. MR. STEVES-It’s a part of that third lot. MR. VOLLARO-I thought that third lot, what made up the 5.29 acres? MR. STEVES-No, that’s the zone line that’s shown on your map. MR. VOLLARO-I know what the zone line is. I can see that, but the third lot, we’re talking, here, about, at least the information that I have, is the submission offers 5.29 plus or minus acres, and I made a call to Staff today because I saw that Lot One and Lot Two is 4.29, and I was wondering where the other acre came from. It comes from right up above, in that little triangle. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STEVES-But that’s going to be all incorporated. MR. VOLLARO-But that’s all part and parcel of 43.42? MR. STEVES-Yes, that’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Go ahead, Tony, I’m sorry. MR. METIVIER-As far as driveways, do you propose, how many driveways will you propose? MR. INGLEE-Just one. MR. METIVIER-Just one shared? MR. INGLEE-That’s a shared driveway. MR. METIVIER-Will you have any issues with fire apparatus getting up to the third lot? MR. INGLEE-I don’t believe so, not once we make the improvements to the road that I’ve got planned. MR. METIVIER-It seemed awfully steep, as you go up. MR. INGLEE-Have you been up Nick Barber’s driveway? It’s just as steep. MR. METIVIER-Well, that’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Well, I share the same concern with Tony, in that that third lot, and the location of the house, basically landlocks the remaining 26.98 acres, or that 26.98 acre is the big lot, right? MR. INGLEE-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-But with the access, is there any road over here that gives access to the lot from another direction? MR. INGLEE-No. We’re going to be utilizing one drive all the way through. There’ll be a shared driveway (lost words). 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) MR. STEVES-It’s going to have 50 feet on the Town road, on Tuthill Road, that whole lot. Maybe I’m misunderstanding something here. Yes, this lot here is right down to the road. Yes. So it’s not going to be landlocked, per se. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, can, when you come back for final, can you show us where the driveways are going to be located? MR. STEVES-Absolutely. Now, he did say one driveway, but you mean for the new, two new lots. MR. INGLEE-That’s correct. MR. STEVES-There’s an existing lot there now. MR. INGLEE-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s the only concern I had was just landlocking or giving the appearance of landlocking that by locating the house where it’s located, but it does have 50 foot right of way on Tuthill Road. So I guess it’s not landlocked. Okay. Thank you. MR. INGLEE-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t have any questions on Preliminary. I guess one of the thing that I’d like to see for Final, maybe, is, maybe from the zone change down, a better illustration of the topography, you know, a larger scale, so it would be easier to see, but that’s about the only thing, really, that I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-In looking at these topo lines, I see where the lowest one I’m looking at is 780 and the highest one I’m looking at is 1200, that’s 425 delta between, difference between the two, and yet you’re asking for some waivers on grading plans. Is that correct? I don’t have a waiver request in front of me, but one of your waivers is for a grading plan and also stormwater? MR. STEVES-Yes, because it’s basically just the three lots. MR. VOLLARO-Those three lots are going to be subjected, it seems to me, I mean, just looking at what I’ve got in front of me, there’s quite a watershed out back there, coming down that hill. What are you going to do about all the water on that lot, if you don’t want a water management plan, or not planning to submit one because you’ve got it under waiver? MRS. MOORE-I’m going to interrupt you. He’s not requesting a waiver from the clearing/grading and drainage plans. Those are information that he’s indicated that he would submit for final review. The waiver at Preliminary, it may be considered being a waiver at the Preliminary Stage, but it is something that he’s indicated. MR. VOLLARO-We’re just waivering this stage of it. When it comes to Final, it’ll be there? MRS. MOORE-You can indicate that. That’s something that you, as a Planning Board, can say, we would like to see this information at the Final Stage. What he is requesting at this stage is in regards to the cluster that the Board has to consider. MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking about the five versus the three? MRS. MOORE-Correct, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I understand that. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-One of the things that we have in the 183-34, it talks about, when you go for clustering, that we needed five lots here, as opposed to three. So we really only have one fifth of the requirement. This would turn out to be a requirement for 25 acres, and we really only have a fifth of that, at the 5.29, a little under a fifth, as a matter of fact, and I think that’s something that we’re looking at here. How do we get around the requirement for, well, not get around, but what’s your answer on the fact that we really needed five lots to comply with the 183-34 clustering? MR. STEVES-That’s why we’re asking for the waiver. Because we just don’t have that ability. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) MR. VOLLARO-It’s not buildable, is that what you’re saying? MR. STEVES-No. We don’t want to build a road up that hillside. No way. MR. VOLLARO-The gentleman on your right said that this lot, the whole 43.42 acres was going to be used for the future for his boys, his sons. MR. STEVES-Only for hunting and recreational purposes. MR. VOLLARO-Just a recreational thing. MR. STEVES-Not for building. MR. VOLLARO-So you can’t get five lots out of this, that’s what you’re really saying? It’s not practical? MR. STEVES-No, it’s not practical to get five lots out of it. That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll come back to that later, Mr. Chairman. I want to hear what the other Board members have to say about the three versus five lots. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-My question, on the clustering, if we approve the clustering, then we can also put in there that there can be no further subdivisions of the remaining lots, and that would be, so this would be the end of any future subdivisions on this land. So all this land would be limited to the three lots. MR. STEVES-And we could so stipulate on the map, on your final map. MR. RINGER-Well, we would put it in our resolution, too. MR. STEVES-That would be fine. I mean, we wouldn’t object to that. MR. RINGER-I didn’t have anything else. Do we have the right to waive that three to five, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, I think the Subdivision Regulations allow that. MR. RINGER-The Planning Board can waive that down. I don’t have anything. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else to add, Leon? MR. STEVES-No, that should be it. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments from Board members? Staff? MR. STROUGH-The only thing is I know that we usually don’t put the waivers with the Preliminary, but, you know, how we’re going to look at some of these things is depending on the grading plan, the clearing plan and drainage plan that will be submitted to us. So one of the waivers requested is that two of the lots which have slopes greater than 25% be waived. Can we wait until after we see the final plans? I’m asking can we grant the waivers on the final, instead of the preliminary? MR. MAC EWAN-We are at Preliminary. Well, there’s a couple of issues here. Number One, I’ve got to open the public hearing and get public input. My personal opinion, based on the topography of this parcel, and the concerns with drainage and the location of the lots, or the potential for building lots, and where actually things are going to set, I’d like to see a drainage report, how we’re going to handle that. MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s what I’m suggesting. MR. MAC EWAN-And I’d also like to see the topography shown, the steepness of the back portion of that lot. MR. STROUGH-And what I’m suggesting, if anyone were going to condition the Preliminary, granting the waivers currently asked, I was requesting that they don’t do that. I would like to see the waivers, we’ll grant the waivers at the Final, after we get to see the plans that you just referred to. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) MR. MAC EWAN-But then you aren’t granting waivers, because if the Board goes with my feelings on this, that we’re looking for the contours, and we’re looking for the drainage report, then we’re not going to grant a waiver, because he’s going to provide it. MR. STROUGH-Well, then what you’re saying is then we just wouldn’t approve it if we didn’t like what we saw afterwards, theoretically. MR. MAC EWAN-Theoretically. MR. RINGER-And we could ask him to come back with a preliminary again, and do a final, preliminary and final on the same day, too. If we say no, we’re not going to grant the waivers, then he can come back with the stuff that we’re requesting, for preliminary and final on the same day. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve got a couple of issues here to use. MR. STEVES-Perhaps there’s a misunderstanding here. The only waiver we’re asking for is for clustering. We’re not asking for any waiver for anything else. MR. VOLLARO-But you’re asking for three lots versus five, is what you’re asking for? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-Well, here it says, in the areas of concern from Staff, “the applicant has requested the following waivers from Section A183-34, waiver to allow three lots instead of the minimum five lots, and to allow for two of the three lots to be developed on slopes greater than 25%”. MR. STEVES-No. We didn’t ask for that. Let me read exactly what the request said. Okay. “We are requesting waivers from the subdivision regulations to allow 3 lots to be considered for clustering instead of the 5 required, and to allow the 2 lots in the LC-10 zone to be able to utilize property that has a greater than 25% slope for the density calculations.” We’re taking the area in the back, the 43 acres, the large piece, and saying, let’s bring that density down into this five acre zone, and utilize all that, because we only have five acres in a five acre zone. So we’re not asking for a request for waiver to topography or to the 25%, no. MR. MAC EWAN-Just out of curiosity, Leon, why didn’t you submit the clearing, grading, drainage and erosion control at Preliminary? MR. STEVES-We would have been glad to do that, if you want me to get into this. MRS. MOORE-I think the project was, instead of submitting that type of information at that point, it was more providing information to the Board about the clustering, prior to, I’d rather see the Board look at the clustering prior to reviewing the grading and drainage plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I understand that, and I think we’re at this point. The consensus I seem to be getting from fellow Board members is that the clustering is not that great of an issue, as long as we can tie it to no further development of that large lot. Now the issue is, we’re concerned whether the whole thing can be developed the way we think it can be. Now we want to see the supporting criteria that will help to get us to that point. MR. STEVES-We want to prove it to you. That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? I’ll ask you to give up the table for a minute. I’m guessing there’s going to be one or two people that want to speak to this. I’ll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KATHY GOMES MRS. GOMES-Kathy Gomes, 91 Tuthill Road. I’m a neighbor of Jeff’s, and we’re good friends. I just have a couple of questions, actually explanations for my own information. The clustering versus a normal subdivision, if someone could explain the difference to me, I’d appreciate it. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll defer that to you. MRS. MOORE-Okay. In the Rural Residential Five Acre zoning, there’s a minimum of five acres required. However, in this zoning, there is an opportunity for cluster, which says that you can go down to a minimum of one acre. This applicant has provided lots that are slightly over one acre. So he’s met the cluster, the intent of the cluster, providing at least a minimum of one acre in that zone, not exceeding the maximum amount of allowed lots within that five acre zone. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) MRS. GOMES-Okay. I’m just concerned about precedent setting, actually, because when we were here two years ago for the Gereau subdivision, a big issue was made over, it’s five acre zoning. The lots have to be five acres, and we talked about clustering and their plans for the future were asked about. So my concern is just precedent setting. This is five acre zoning. That’s why most of the people who live up there live up there, because they like the rural feel that the five acre zoning gives us, and I’m just concerned that, I don’t want to see every lot down the street become a cluster of five houses, because, to me, that’s a problem. MRS. MOORE-In regards to the Gereau subdivision, overall, they had an opportunity to develop the lots at five acre zoning. That’s why the Board went, requesting them to give the opportunity to develop the five acres. They had an opportunity where they could provide information that said that some of the lots could not be developed at five acres. I think the Board reviewed that opportunity and said they have, overall, addressed the issue of clustering, and maintaining the rural area within Tuthill. So, in this case, this applicant has provided information that says that he has steep slopes in the area. He’d only like to develop the portion of the property that’s developable at this time, so that it keeps it down to the road, leaving that remaining part of that acreage undevelopable and considered open space, as the intent. MRS. GOMES-Okay. So the steepness of the land is why the five acre zoning is not being required to be stuck with? MRS. MOORE-That’s part of it. That’s not all of it. MRS. GOMES-Okay. Now does this set a precedent for other lots on the street? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think so. I think any application that would come in front of this Board, we’d take each application on an individual basis, not necessarily what’s done in other applications within the area. I mean, the difference between the Gereau application and this application, just on face value, is the steepness of the property that this gentleman has. I mean, it’s pretty obvious that the back portion of this land is pretty difficult to develop. MRS. GOMES-I know. I have property right next door to his. MR. MAC EWAN-And the idea of preserving the open space there by using the clustering provision, with a good case for it, seems to apply in this application, where it might not have in other applications. MRS. GOMES-Okay. So then nobody else can come back to you, next year or two years from now, and say, well, he was allowed to do it so we want to do it? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. GOMES-Okay. Thank you. MR. RINGER-They could say it, but they might not get it. MRS. GOMES-That doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. MR. HUNSINGER-And really the goal of clustering is to have more open space. MRS. GOMES-Right, but it doesn’t create more open space right in that one small area, which is 200 feet from my house. MR. MAC EWAN-Right, but the object of clustering is to look at the whole parcel, and preserving as much open space as you can on that parcel of land. MRS. GOMES-But if this was not a clustering, then it would have had to have been five acre lots, which would have meant only one home could be built next to mine. MR. RINGER-Or they could have gone up the mountain, which wouldn’t have been buildable. MRS. GOMES-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-It could have been, probably very difficult, very expensive, to build higher up on the mountain, yes. MRS. GOMES-I know. We own the same type of land. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. GOMES-Okay. RUI GOMES MR. GOMES-How are you? Rui Gomes, 91 Tuthill. The explanation that Mrs. Moore, I just purchased, from my parents, 11 acres right next to my land. It gives me 700 feet of land. One of the explanations they gave me on that piece of paper, which when I bought the property, when we bought the property, was that I can only build one house there. At this moment, the way you explain it to me, we pretty are all in the same topography level as Jeff is, in certain places better yet. In this case, then by 11 acres, if I came in here and asked for a cluster, you wouldn’t give it to me? MR. MAC EWAN-Submit an application. We’ll see where it goes. I can’t sit here and represent the Planning Board and give you an answer over an application or a potential application or an idea you may have. MR. GOMES-No, no. I agree with what you just said, but you have to understand me. You just said, a minute ago, that, no, we’ll never give anybody else, it’s got to be on a case per case basis. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not what I said. She asked would we be setting a precedent by allowing this clustering here, and I said, no, we wouldn’t be setting a precedent because we take every application on an individual basis. MR. GOMES-So when I bought my piece of land, which is the next 11 acres, right next to my 50 acres, okay, are you telling me my 11 acres later on could be used as a cluster? MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not going to tell you anything because I don’t have an application in front of this Board. MR. GOMES-It’s pretty sad when I can’t get a straight answer here. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I’m not trying to be difficult with you. We don’t have an application in front of us. We don’t have a map in front of us. We don’t know what the lay of your land is. We don’t know if you have, how many wetlands you have on your property. We don’t know what the slope of your land is. MR. GOMES-I understand. Listen, I wouldn’t be coming here asking you a question of this caliber if I didn’t know what I was saying. What I’m asking you, and it’s a direct question is, before I make my area gorgeous, and better yet beautiful for my own taste, which I’m trying to beautify the whole place, before that happens, I’d like an answer, because if that’s so, all our neighbors have enough land to come over here and ask you for that, and suddenly Tuthill turns into a city, and the Gereau scene, I’m totally against what you just said, because when we were here, the Gereaus needed eight lots, and they could have done the cluster, which later on caused me problems with them, because I was accused, okay, that I was the stopping power from people agreeing upon this situation. I don’t know if I’m being explicit enough, in other words, they could build a couple of houses. As a matter of fact, one of our neighbors that bought property from them explains that, you know, they could have done better or not better, but because of what happened here, all of a sudden you set a precedent then, and you change your minds over this one. I think that becomes a hypocrisy, because one day you say one thing. If the Gereaus were here, I don’t think they would have liked to have heard what you guys said tonight. Do you understand? Because you are letting a very good friend of mine, I don’t care what he does. I know what he’s doing, and he’s doing it for his family, and he keeps the whole thing for himself up there, but in our case that’s not just me and him on that block. There’s other families, and later down the road, I don’t think you’ve seen the properties, to make a decision here what has to be done or not. You of all people agree to building a garage, which is mine, and you asked me for these most monstrous drainage plans that I’ve ever seen in my life. Later on, nobody has ever checked anything. So what goes on here is one thing. What really happens later on is another, and now, down the road two years later, you’re saying something totally different from what, I think your standards should be the same for everybody. If I moved into an area that’s LC-5 and all of a sudden, there’s millions of different ways to cut this into a cheese pattern, well, warn me, because I won’t stay here much longer than that. I will buy a piece of property that, for sure, I won’t have this problem, and I don’t have to come in front of the Town Board every other year. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the Board want to do here? 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) MR. VOLLARO-Well, the one thing I would like is in the Final I’d like to see a perc test on where those fields are going to go. Were you planning to supply that? MR. INGLEE-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You asked, Mr. Chairman, where does the Board want to go? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I’d like to hear from each one of you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m in favor of this, based on the topography of the land here and the fact that Mr. Steves has said, on the record, that this is the only way this property can be developed with these three acres, these, not three acres, but 5.29 acres. I would be in favor of granting a waiver against 183-34 and grant the use of three proposed lots. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I feel the same way, and that we should certainly make stipulation there be no further subdivisions of remaining land, put it in the resolution. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I mean, the consensus that I see here is that we’re willing to move on, without requiring this additional information. MR. RINGER-But it will be provided in Final. MR. VOLLARO-Well, yes, that’s right. The Final has got to be a lot more definitive than this. What we’re really saying here is we’re buying a waiver from five lots to three lots, and that’s all that’s on my mind now, and you’ve given me your word that this is the highest and best use for this piece of property right here, and it’s the only use at the present time, and you’ve got to come in, in your Final, with all of the supporting information that supports that statement. MR. STEVES-Yes. We should be able to prove to you that what we have designed, the three lot subdivision, is appropriate. That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-So, based on that, Mr. Chairman, I would go, myself personally, would agree with this, and then wait for a final submission, with all the supporting data associated with it. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you guys feel the same way, too? Okay. Let’s do a SEQRA, then. We had a Short Form, right? MR. STROUGH-Short Form? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we did. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO., Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JEFF INGLEE, 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. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) 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 17 day of April, 2001, 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? MR. RINGER-Before we do, I’ve got one question. In Adirondack Park, we can allow, like they have five acres, right, in Adirondack Park. They also have the clustering, so we can? The question is, this is in the Adirondack Park, and the Adirondack Park has five acre requirements as I understand it. Right? MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t know what zone it’s in. MR. RINGER-It goes back to our zone? MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t know. I’m saying I don’t know what APA Land Use Classification it’s in. MR. RINGER-I’m just wondering if we have the right to cluster like this in the Adirondack Park? MR. STEVES-Can I answer that, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. It’s up to the Board. I’m prepared to take a stab at it, but it’s up to the Board. MR. STEVES-The Town of Queensbury has an approved plan, approved by the Adirondack Park. A cluster provision would not be allowed in it, if the Park didn’t allow that in that zone. In addition to that, we are going to make a jurisdictional inquiry to the Park. We’ve already been in contact with them, and we will continue to be and get an answer back for you. So if there’s a concern that way. They will address it on that jurisdictional inquiry form. MR. RINGER-Does it sound good to you, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t disagree with anything that Mr. Steves said. It’s not the way I would have answered your question. The way I would have answered your question is to suggest that we can do, we meaning the Planning Board, can do whatever is within your authority under the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. That doesn’t necessarily mean, for example, if you authorize this cluster subdivision, if, in fact, the result of the jurisdictional inquiry to which Mr. Steves refers is that the Adirondack Park Agency has jurisdiction, what you do does not tie the APA’s hands. The APA may feel differently and may not approve the subdivision. MR. RINGER-Okay. That was really my question. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s what I thought. MR. RINGER-Okay. We can do something that they can still say, wait a minute, it’s our area. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s correct. You don’t get to bind the Adirondack Park Agency, that’s correct. MR. RINGER-All right. I just was curious about that, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Now, does someone want to introduce a motion? 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) MRS. MOORE-I just, can I interject with something else? In regards to, the Board, as part of their resolution, should discuss the clustering, and it’s up to the Board to determine whether that information, in regard to grading and drainage and a clearing plan, if that’s information they want to see as part of the preliminary stage, just an opportunity. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve polled the Board, and the consensus I seemed to get from the Board was that they’re comfortable with granting a preliminary on this, but they did want to see these requirements for the grading, clearing, drainage and erosion control indicated at final. MR. SCHACHNER-I think that, if that’s the case, if you’re inclined, if any of the Board members are inclined to try to enact a motion approving preliminary stage, I think it’s very important that that motion specify, not only that you wish to see that information for final stage, but that the approval is conditioned upon that information being acceptable, because, typically, I think you would see that information at preliminary stage, and if you want to move on, I think it’s very important to put that in your motion, so that, neither the applicant, the public, nor anyone else is mislead to think that, just submitting that information will necessarily get final approval. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. RINGER-I kind of think that the applicant was more looking for the clustering, and he would be just as happy to come back next month, or whenever, with a preliminary and a final on the same meeting. MR. SCHACHNER-And for what it’s worth, that’s what Staff, Counsel, and I believe the Chairman thought you were, that’s where we thought you were certainly headed, and I think the Chairman felt that way, too, until the polling began MR. RINGER-I would go with that, to do the Preliminary and the Final in the same. MR. STROUGH-Sure, I would go with that. MR. MAC EWAN-I would feel more comfortable in doing that. MR. VOLLARO-That would be fine with me, too. I have no problem with that. MR. STEVES-Nor do we. MR. MAC EWAN-What a guy. MR. STEVES-Now, saying that, we would like to get that waiver approved, the cluster. MR. VOLLARO-The cluster. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Here’s what, we can do this in two steps. We’ll entertain a motion for waivering of the cluster provision. We’ll do that first. Does someone want to introduce that? MOTION FOR THE WAIVER OF THE FIVE LOTS DOWN TO THREE LOTS, AND THAT WAIVER IS AGAINST SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS 183-34 FOR PRELIMINARY STAGE, SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2001, JEFF INGLEE, Introduced by Robert Vollaro, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: Duly adopted this 17th day of April, 2001 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-Now, would someone like to introduce a motion to table this application, and be specific what you’re tabling it for. MR. VOLLARO-Tabled until what date? MR. MAC EWAN-The first meeting of next month. What’s our calendar for next month? MR. SCHACHNER-May 22. nd MR. MAC EWAN-Is that good for you? 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) MR. SCHACHNER-No, I’m sorry, May 15. May 15 is the third Tuesday. thth MR. VOLLARO-Is that okay with the applicant? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Let’s do that. It doesn’t load up the agendas. That’s all, and it gives them time to get everything together. MR. STEVES-Why don’t we shoot for that date, or, you meet twice, right, the 15 and the 22? thnd MR. MAC EWAN-The 15 and the 22. thnd MR. STEVES-Okay. Why don’t we shoot for the 22. Maybe I’ll have an answer back from the nd APA. I live in hope, you know. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. That’s fine. It’s not really held to it that you have to be there on the 22nd If you don’t have all your information, we’ll end up doing it the first meeting of June or . something. That’s fine. MR. STEVES-Okay, nor do we have a problem with this being tabled, or if you wish to just grant conceptual approval. We have no problems with that, either. MR. MAC EWAN-Nice try, though. MR. STEVES-No, really, we have no problems. MR. MAC EWAN-I think I’d feel more comfortable with seeing this criteria at preliminary stage. MR. STEVES-We’re happy to supply it. MRS. MOORE-The information, the deadline for submission of information is scheduled for April 25. Is there an extended deadline date that you’re interested in or does the applicant feel that he can th submit the information requested by the Board by April 25? th MR. MAC EWAN-If you can submit everything that we’re looking for, you’re kind of hoping you’re going to get some sort of determination from the APA, and if you don’t get your determination from the APA by that deadline date, any approvals that may be considered certainly would be conditioned upon the APA approval. MR. STEVES-The 25 is only about two weeks away. th MR. SCHACHNER-No, actually, it’s a week from tomorrow. MR. STEVES-A week from tomorrow? We aren’t going to make that. We can’t make that application. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s table it to our first meeting in June. MR. VOLLARO-What’s the date. MR. RINGER-The 19. th MR. STEVES-Thank you for reminding me of that, Laura. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. STROUGH-And are we going to need a clarification on this other waiver, as addressed by Staff? MRS. MOORE-I would say that in interpreted the letter that they submitted incorrectly. MR. STROUGH-So, we don’t have to worry about that. MR. VOLLARO-John, what are you referring to, the items outstanding from March 15 pre- th application meeting? MR. STROUGH-No. I’m referring to Staff notes, areas of concern or importance. They said that they would need a waiver, but the way Mr. Steves had explained it, that that particular lot in question, 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) they did mention two lots, and I just don’t see where there’s any slope greater than 25%, at least averaging 25% in the lower two lots. MR. MAC EWAN-I think what we’re looking for them to provide is clearing, drainage, grading, erosion control. MR. STROUGH-That’s fine with me. I’m just saying to get a clarification on Staff notes that that’s erased, and Laura says that she thinks that as far as she’s concerned, that’s gone. That’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-And the other thing, is everyone comfortable with where we are on requiring the topo lines? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think we need them, a little more definition than what you’ve got here. MR. STEVES-In the five acres area. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. STEVES-No problem. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to introduce a motion? MR. STEVES-I can easily say that, you know, I’m not doing the work. MR. VOLLARO-I noticed that. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2001, JEFF INGLEE Introduced by Chris Hunsinger, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: To the June 19 meeting, pending additional information on clearing, grading, drainage and erosion th control, as well as additional topographical information on the lower five acres and also perc test information, and denote lot numbers for each parcel. Duly adopted this 17th day of April, 2001by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. STEVES-May I ask for clarification? You have tabled this application, but you have granted the waiver. Can we consider ourselves then having conceptual approval? MR. SCHACHNER-That’s not what the Board’s, the Board’s resolution granted you the waiver you sought, but has not approved any aspect of the subdivision. MR. STEVES-All right. MR. MAC EWAN-We granted you a waiver from the subdivision provision. MR. STEVES-All right. Then I guess that answers the question. Okay. Thanks. MR. STROUGH-Well, while we have a moment here, I’d like to introduce an alternate Board member, Richard Sanford, sitting here in the audience. MR. MAC EWAN-Richard, hello, welcome. Don’t run too hard for the doors, now. OTHER: LEON STEVES, PRESIDENT OF THE QUEENSBURY LAND CONSERVANCY, WILL GIVE A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE ORGANIZATION. LEON STEVES, PRESENT MR. STEVES-I’m wearing a different hat. If you go through the booklet that I handed out, the little pamphlet here, it kind of lists out everything that we are, and what we intend to do and hope to do in the future. I would like to just answer questions if you have any. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t you kind of quickly bring us up to speed, Leon, where you are, where you’re going. MR. STEVES-Okay. Basically, we were formed at the beginning of the year. Three people, Mark, Chris Round and Harry Hansen incorporated the Queensbury Land Conservancy, for purposes of getting it off the ground. A group of people were invited to attend the meetings and perhaps participate in this. In January the Board was elected, eight directors, I’m one of them, and since then we have, I would say, most of the Board has been working diligently on this, while I was vacationing or whatever. They have done a terrific job. We’ve gone to the Town Board, solicited funds from them, and have gotten a substantial grant from them, to help us do these things. One of the things we were going to do, hopefully, in the future, is assist you, in any way we can, in this Land Conservancy. We have tried to put out a little brochure, and what we wish to do, kind of outlining what we intend to do. We’ve got an application, now, before the IRS. They don’t have anything to do this time of year, than to look at our application for a 501. So, I expect it will be granted immediately. Right, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-It’ll be granted. MR. MAC EWAN-The operative word is “immediately”. MR. STEVES-But the 501 grants us tax exempt status. Therefore, any solicitations we do we can say that to the people. Any funds we get will be tax deductible, hopefully. Any lands that we may accept would also be on a tax exempt basis. Some lands that we will accept we will accept with funds to help manage that land, and the lands aren’t going to be managed by themselves. Somebody’s going to have to have funds to do that. Like I told you, we went into an agreement with the Town, and one of the things we agreed to do is to advise the Town Board, the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals, when requested, regarding open space issues as they may relate to applications being considered by these Boards. So we’re there as an arm to help you. MR. MAC EWAN-How do you see yourselves set up, Leon? Are you going to be like a referral, like the concept of Beautification? Is that if someone is considering wanting, as part of a subdivision or PUD or whatever, to donate X number of acres to the Town for open space or what have you, do we kind of refer it to you guys and say? MR. STEVES-Yes, you could. I’m speaking out of turn, now, because we haven’t had a policy drawn up yet. So I can’t tell you what our policy is going to be. MR. STROUGH-Yes. Well, I understand that part of what your being is, is to develop a comprehensive nature of green space? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And possibly a comprehensive approach to tying in recreational areas, such as the bike path that might go along the Hudson River, and use part of the Beaverkill? MR. STEVES-Not necessarily, no. We don’t want to take land just to take land. MR. STROUGH-No, but if it fits into your puzzle. MR. STEVES-If it fits into the puzzle, that’s correct. MR. STROUGH-That’s what I’m saying. MR. VOLLARO-Leon, how does that puzzle, and I think John has opened up a concern of mine. How does that relate to the way the Rec Commission works today under Mr. Hansen? MR. STEVES-We will work hand in hand with one another, but not in opposition. We don’t intend to step on their toes at all, nor them on us. We’re not into the recreational aspect of it. If we get into Land Conservancy, we want passive recreation, we may want hiking trails, things like that on there. It has to have a management plan. Personally, okay, and as I say, I’m not speaking for the Board, because we don’t have a policy. Personally, I would like to see a central park of Queensbury, rather than little individual neighborhood plots to protect the neighborhood. I would like to see us actively attempt to get the Glens Falls Watershed in our control. That’s a big step. That’s a mighty big bite, but you’ve got to start somewhere. I don’t know if anyone else agrees with me, but that’s one of my goals. What a jewel that would be, right in the heart of Queensbury, rather than a little plot here and a little plot there, a little spot here, and I don’t mean that they can’t be done. They should be done. We should have fishing rights along Halfway Brook. We don’t have any. Anyone that goes along Halfway Brook is trespassing normally somewhere. Why shouldn’t there be fishing rights along the 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) Brook? So open space isn’t just preservation of trees. Open space means, a tree is not a favorable thing to a farmer. Open space to him is open fields. Open space, to most of us that’s green space, and that’s really what we’re looking for, good green space, space that should be protected for its environmental considerations, or perhaps the habitat, animal or vegetation. MR. VOLLARO-What comes to mind is, recently we went through approval of a PUD, on Cronin Road, for low income housing. Now that PUD has tied to it the requirements for some recreational areas, that the Rec Commission was going to take, but turned down because the land was mostly fit for canoeing and fishing. Now, how would you tie into that, for example, they, the Rec Commission tries to tie things together, so that they get contiguous pieces of land as they accept them, or call for reasons of rejection. How do you plan to interface with that function? MR. STEVES-Well, for instance, Halfway Brook. Fishing rights along the Brook should extend the majority of the way along it, but it could be done by easements only, not ownership of land. No reason for that. You may not be able to get them contiguous, but if you’ve got one parcel, at the beginning of the Brook, and one at the end of the Brook, eventually we’ll tie them together. MR. VOLLARO-I see by your position here that you’re President, you and Mr. Hansen have got to be pretty much holding hands here, it seems to me. MR. STEVES-In a moment of weakness, or absence, I’m not sure. MR. VOLLARO-I have that, I know that feeling, being president in a moment of weakness. I understand that completely. MR. STEVES-We are in our infancy. We are just starting out, and hopefully will be of use to you in the future. MR. MAC EWAN-What can we do to help you? MR. STEVES-Right at the moment, nothing. Thank you very much. We may be back to you, though. MR. STROUGH-Now, are your meetings going to be announced in public? MR. STEVES-Yes. We have meetings monthly. The next meeting is May 10, Thursday. We try to th keep a Thursday as our meeting date. I think that’s the second Thursday of every month. MR. STROUGH-Now is that published as well? MR. STEVES-Yes. We don’t mind. MR. STROUGH-And you’re open at the meetings, for example, Trout Unlimited can lobby their interests at one of your meetings? MR. STEVES-We don’t mind, but at this time, we’re trying to get our own agenda working, to get our own vision statement out. We’ve got a vision statement, but we want to get our priorities done. We haven’t done that yet. MR. STROUGH-It looks like you’re coming along nicely. I mean, in just a few months, you’re making good headway here. I like the pamphlet that you’ve got there and I like the concept. So you guys are to be congratulated for your efforts. MR. STEVES-Thank you. The group has done a great job. They really have. I didn’t know if you knew of our existence. I wanted you to be aware of us. So that we can help you in the future, we’d be glad to. We’ll be stumbling along now, because this is all new territory, but it is something that we all are interested in, and I think I surprised you, wearing a different hat tonight. MR. SCHACHNER-Craig, I don’t want John or anyone else to leave with the wrong impression. I think you asked Leon if the meetings were published, notice of meetings was published, and I think he said yes, and I think you’re asking a different question than he’s answering. MR. STEVES-Yes, I did. MR. SCHACHNER-I think he’s hearing you ask are they public, and you’re asking are they published. Understand that the Queensbury Land Conservancy is a private entity. It’s a not for profit entity, but it’s a private entity. Notice of its meetings are not published in the newspaper, nor are they required to be published in the newspaper. I think Leon’s indicating that anyone who wishes to attend is more than welcome, and that’s typical in their practice, but it’s not a public entity. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) It’s not a public organization. Notice of its meetings are not published, and there’s no requirement that they be published. MR. STROUGH-And there may not be a requirement to do so, Mark, but I think I was suggesting that it would be nice, some members of the public might want to meet with them. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m not dissuading that, but this is not an organization that you send a thing to the Post Star and you say. MR. STROUGH-I know they don’t have to. MR. SCHACHNER-No, no. It’s not just you don’t have to. This is not an organization that the Post Star would list in the list of public meetings because it’s not a public body. MR. STEVES-We’re a private body. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I mean, it’s not like it’s another extension of. MR. STROUGH-But they could call the Town if they were interested in lobbying some interest to them, after we get going with this. I realize this is early on, and find out the meeting dates. MR. SCHACHNER-Not the Town, no. It’s not a Town body. MR. MAC EWAN-Where do you meet, Leon? MR. STEVES-We meet here in the Town hall, but we also have the ability to meet at our offices, Matthew’s offices, at 169, and that’s used as our mailing address and our phone number right now, and our fax number. We hope to have e-mail before too long. We’re working on a website. MR. MAC EWAN-Very good. MR. STEVES-But until we have really something to work on, there’s very little need for us to have office space. We don’t want to rent an office. We started in a hole. I’m very conservative. I do not want to spend money I don’t have. MR. MAC EWAN-Understandable, and anything that we can do to help you folks get off the ground. MR. STEVES-Thank you very much. That may be something we could use. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s certainly one of the perks of being a Chairman. You can always delegate a Board member. RICHARD SANFORD MR. SANFORD-Excuse, but did you receive 501 status at this point? MR. STEVES-We’re seeking that now. We’ve got that in to the IRS at this moment. So that we hope that anyone giving money to us would have a tax deduction. MR. SANFORD-But all land purchases, then, would be free from property taxes? MR. STEVES-We have made that application as well. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. RINGER-I had a question for John. When Kathleen Salvador came and she was talking about, she asked a question about, if a business changes from one to another, where does it say in the book? Was she right in her question? She was always right in her question, but was our answer correct? MR. SCHACHNER-The answer that Craig gave is extremely consistent with the answer that Chris Round would have given, were he here. The phrase in the Zoning Ordinance, and I haven’t looked at it today, but as I recall, it says something like new use or change in use. I can’t remember. MRS. MOORE-New use. MR. SCHACHNER-I think new use, and the Town of Queensbury has consistently, understand, there’s some room for argument here, but the Town of Queensbury has consistently taken the position that that means that if the use differs, if there is a change in use, there is a new use, not 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) merely a change in the type of use, in other words from retail to wholesale or from industrial to commercial or something like that. MR. RINGER-I realize, getting that retail to retail is the point that she was making. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, that is the point that she was making, and the Town of Queensbury’s position has consistently been, for many, many years, that a new use means any change in use. Now that, she actually gave an excellent example of where you start pushing that thing so close that it’s a tough call, the bagel to donut example, and not only the current zoning administrator, but preceding zoning administrators have had to make rulings on very tough cases, and people have used the examples, actually, if you’ll recall, we were involved, “we”, meaning the Planning Board, was involved in one of the Barber fellows that had the rental place, and remember that, at one time, he was renting only this type of equipment, but then he was also selling a certain type of equipment, and then he was renting the bouncy bounce. That was hardly industrial equipment, and if you remember, one of the issues there was, he was saying, look, I haven’t changed my use. I’ve always been a sales and rental outfit, and I’m still a sales and rental outfit, and if you’ll recall, there was a Zoning Administrator determination at that time that, yes, although he hadn’t changed from sales and rental, what he was selling a renting was sufficiently different that the Town’s Zoning Administrator considered it a new use or change in use, and therefore subject to site plan approval. That’s the argument, that’s the position that the Town has consistently taken. MR. RINGER-Where would we find that in the book? MR. SCHACHNER-All you’re going to find in the book is the phrase “new use”. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you, Leon. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. MOORE-I passed out a memo, from Marilyn, in regards to your Planning Board procedures and policies document. If you have an opportunity to review that during this week, prior to your next week’s meeting, and forward questions to Marilyn, so that we can address them at the meeting, this would be helpful, so that all your questions are answered prior to you reviewing the resolution. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-So we’re talking about the Planning Board adopting this stuff at next week’s meeting? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-So everybody make sure you review it and all the changes are acceptable to you, the revisions that we made. MR. VOLLARO-All the revisions are, presumably, in this document, is that correct? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. Just for me, everyone by now should have received their volumes, one, two, three, four, nine, twenty and forty of The Great Escape’s DGEIS. I know there’s a lot of reading there, but we’re looking to do a workshop some time the first week of May. MR. VOLLARO-May 8, I think it is. th MR. MAC EWAN-May 8. So, Mark, I think you’re out of the loop on that? You’re not there that th night? MR. SCHACHNER-That doesn’t sound like a night I’m free. MR. MAC EWAN-No, I think before Chris and I tossed around a date, I said to get in touch with you. MR. SCHACHNER-Nobody has asked me about that, and I’m not free May 8. This is the first I’ve th heard of it. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe someone spoke with Pam or something? 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) MR. SCHACHNER-Not being informed that I was free on May 8. th MR. MAC EWAN-Is Cathi available to be there that night? MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t know. My guess is she is, but I don’t know. MR. MAC EWAN-I would like representation there. So, if May 8 is totally undoable for anyone th from your Staff. MR. SCHACHNER-No. We can certainly supply you with an attorney on May 8. th MR. MAC EWAN-Someone who’s familiar with The Great Escape situation? MR. SCHACHNER-I can’t make you that promise as we sit here today. Again, recognize, I’ll just reiterate again. This is the first I hear of this. I’d be happy to participate in a workshop about The Great Escape, but I’m not available on May 8. th MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s put it this way. If Cathi Radner’s not available to be there the 8, in your th absence, then the eighth is out. We’ll reschedule. MR. SCHACHNER-Understood. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So we’ll reschedule so that we either have you. MR. SCHACHNER-I can tell you right now, very simple, as far as my availability. If you want me, pick May 2. nd MR. MAC EWAN-May 2 is a what? nd MR. RINGER-Wednesday. MR. MAC EWAN-A Wednesday. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s the first Wednesday. MR. MAC EWAN-Is everyone okay for Wednesday, May the 2? nd MR. METIVIER-I may have an issue. MR. MAC EWAN-Undo it. MR. SCHACHNER-You could also pick Wednesday, May 30. th MR. MAC EWAN-Wednesday, May 30? th MR. SCHACHNER-Or Thursday, May 31. st MR. VOLLARO-I’ll tell you. I’ve read some of that document. I think the 31 sounds pretty good, st to me. Because, let me tell you, there isn’t much give in that document, in terms of The Great Escape. They’ve gone through every, just about every request that was made or every stand up exercise. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask this. Is everyone comfortable with the fact, are they going to be able to get through this information before May the 2 or May the 8? ndth MR. METIVIER-Of which year? MR. MAC EWAN-This year. MR. VOLLARO-There’s a lot of reading there, and a lot of it’s as convoluted as hell, I’ve got to tell you. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’m going to make a command decision here. Let’s go with that, you said 27? th MRS. MOORE-May 30, he said. th MR. MAC EWAN-You gave me two days toward the end of the month you were available, Mark. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) MR. RINGER-The 30 and the 31. thst MR. MAC EWAN-Will you advise Chris that we’re going to change this workshop to May the 30? th MRS. MOORE-It also depends on the availability of the room. MR. MAC EWAN-If it’s not that room, I mean, we’re not having it here. We’re going to have it either in the Conference Room down in Planning or we’ll have it in the Supervisor’s Conference Room. MR. RINGER-It’s an open meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-But it’s a workshop. MR. RINGER-But the applicants are going to be here too, right? MR. MAC EWAN-Not necessarily. They’re not required to. MR. RINGER-They’re not required to. MR. SCHACHNER-You can bet that the applicants will be here. MR. RINGER-But we’re going to have our engineers here, too, right? MR. MAC EWAN-No. This is going to be Staff, Planning Board, our engineers being you’ll have Chazen there. MR. RINGER-Chazen. That’s what I meant, Chazen. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. RINGER-Because our questions are going to be more to Chazen. MR. MAC EWAN-Be specific, have your questions ready, on how we’re going to pursue. MR. STROUGH-What’s the timetable on this? MR. MAC EWAN-There is no timetable. MR. STROUGH-There is no 60 days, 90 days, something like that? MR. MAC EWAN-The only timetable we’ve hit upon is the comment period. MR. SCHACHNER-There will be other timetables, but it sounds like they’ve made sort of an unofficial submission. So right now we probably don’t have a timetable, and we’re saying Wednesday, May 30, is that correct? th MR. MAC EWAN-Wednesday, May 30. th MR. SCHACHNER-At? MR. MAC EWAN-Seven. MR. STROUGH-So scratch the May 8 one? th MR. MAC EWAN-Right. I mean, there’s a lot of reading there to do, and to put this on the fast track, especially with the fact that we have, you know, when this came out, we have two meetings to deal with here this month. MR. STROUGH-Yes. So go light on our schedules next month, so we can get this Great Escape stuff out. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I mean, there’s a lot there to read, and most of us are probably going to be referring back to the earlier drafts and comments and requests, too. MR. STROUGH-You’ve got to refer back to the old , the drafts. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Now, for our two new alternates, how many copies of this did the Town receive? 43 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/17/01) MRS. MOORE-We currently do not have enough to turn out to the other. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, my concern is with the alternates, that because this has been a very long, ongoing review, in order to bring them up to speed as to where we are, they would need everything, I would think, and is that too much of a burden and too much of a task to put on a couple of alternates who may not be in a position where they would be sitting up here, doing those reviews? MR. RINGER-I don’t if they could carry it all. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean I guess they’re just coming on board. I don’t want to see them run yet. I would ask you maybe talk to Chris about that and get some input. MRS. MOORE-Let me do that. MR. MAC EWAN-My feelings are, at this point, I don’t think it’s probably the right thing to do, to involve them to such a review extent, when they probably won’t be in a position where they’ll be acting as a Planning Board member in reviewing this information. MR. VOLLARO-I think to act responsibly on what’s coming up, you’ve got to have the corporate history here to know what is going on. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a burdensome amount of information to have to go through. MR. RINGER-I agree with Bob. I wouldn’t want to try and take it on at one time. MR. VOLLARO-I’m not even sure I can take it on, never mind somebody else. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? Okay. Meeting adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 44