Loading...
2001-01-09 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 01/09/01) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP SESSION JANUARY 9, 2001 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY LARRY RINGER ROBERT VOLLARO JOHN STROUGH ANTHONY METIVIER MEMBERS ABSENT CHRIS HUNSINGER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND SENIOR PLANNER-MARILYN RYBA PUD SITE PLAN NO. 8-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LP OWNER: BAY MEADOWS CORP. AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING/JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: SR-1A/PUD LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF CRONIN ROAD – BAY MEADOWS APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION AS PART OF THE PUD TO ACCOMMODATE ONE 27.1 ACRE LOT FOR ELDERLY HOUSING PROJECT, ONE 66.2 ACRE LOT TO BE LEFT AS OPEN SPACE, AND ONE LOT OF 4.0 ACRES TO BE DEDICATED TO THE TOWN. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 96 APARTMENTS FOR ELDERLY, FIXED INCOME HOUSING AND ONE MANAGER’S RESIDENCE ON LOT 1. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 18-93, SP 38-93, SB 21-1993, SB 12-1993, P6-91, P10-89 BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE: 10/9/00 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 10/11/00 TAX MAP NO. 60-2-5 LOT SIZE: 97.3 +/- ACRE LOT SECTION: 179-58 JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-The first item on the agenda is the resolution for PUD SP 8-2000, everybody get a copy of it? MRS. RYBA-I just wanted to note you have a revised copy in front of you. The revisions are as follows: the cover page says preliminary and final resolution. The one that was sent to you just said preliminary. On the third page under conditions the change was made under Item Number Two, there was a typo, instead of the number 4 for 4 four acres there was a dollar sign and then also at the very end of the previously stated, that line will be removed on the mylar for final approval, and it was restated to say the lot line will be removed on the mylar prior to signature by the Planning Board Chairman because there needs to be time for getting the other approvals like the Department of Health. MR. MAC EWAN-Refresh my memory this isn’t like your standard subdivision where you have x number of days to get this thing signed and filed with the County, right? MRS. RYBA-There is. MR. LAPPER-There is, it’s six months, it will be conditioned approval. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record you are? MR. LAPPER-Sorry, Jon Lapper. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Six months, sixty days. MR. LAPPER-The Sixty days becomes but if its conditioned it can go up to six months if it meets all the conditions. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Marilyn? MRS. RYBA-No that’s it. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 01/09/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Any discussion by anybody? Anyone want to move it? MR. STROUGH-In reference to this? Now, are we doing both preliminary and final? MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to do preliminary first and then we’ll do final. MR. STROUGH-All right. MR. VOLLARO-We’re going to do both tonight? MR. RINGER-The subdivision only? MR. MAC EWAN-No, for site plan. PUD has a site plan. It’s a little bit different than the straight forward subdivision. MR. STROUGH-Now, what’s the concept behind the preliminary, help me out? MR. MAC EWAN-That it meets all these conditions. MR. STROUGH-And what’s the concept behind the final? MR. MAC EWAN-That it meets all these conditions, in each case. It’s just one of the quirks of the Zoning Ordinance in how its done. MR. STROUGH-Well my concern with this project, along with still its proximity to the wetlands, Halfway Brook and the floodplain, and I didn’t hear any response even an acknowledgement from anybody that they did get my e-mail so I don’t know if anybody? MR. VOLLARO-Well you got one from me. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but I mean from. MR. VOLLARO-From anybody that counts. MR. STROUGH-No, I didn’t mean it that way either. I just meant from anybody on the Planning Staff. MRS. RYBA-Well, I think the response was including the reference in the resolution that they still need to get the local freshwater wetlands permit. So that’s, giving an opportunity to look, if you want to look at yet again at the wetlands area. MR. RINGER-What was your question, John? MR. STROUGH-My question was basically that, with all due respect to everyone here, I wanted another look to make sure that my number one concern is that this project isn’t going to cause an aggravation of the flooding in that general area and I’m more concerned about the residence that’s adjacent to Halfway Brook. I just wanted assurances that this has been looked at very closely and that, in fact, won’t happen. I’ve been assured by Tom and I respect Tom and everything else but I think Tom will also respect that sometimes you like more than one person take a look at this project and I understand CT Male has taken a close look but you know I had other concerns that I addressed in the e-mail and I don’t know if I’ve gotten a satisfactory answer on that. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess I may throw in a comment here. While I appreciate the internet and e- mail and all that sort of stuff I think that carries us outside the review of what we do as a Board and as we do it together at a public forum. When we left that meeting the other night and we tabled this application it was to prepare a resolution one way or the other to act on tonight. Not to, in my mind, I didn’t think it was to entertain tabling this while we asked for more information or anything like that. I was under the very clear impression when we tabled that thing we tabled for the fact that we were going to be able to take some time to compose a resolution that was going to address and concerns and conditions we wanted to put forth on this. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well let me just tell you my thinking is that, you know, I’m not against the project. I’m willing to give it a preliminary approval. My other concern is that it doesn’t meet the comprehensive nature of what a PUD is supposed to do. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not for us to do. That burden falls on the Town Board. MR. STROUGH-Well they titled it a PUD, now. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 01/09/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Right, but we as a Planning Board can’t question whether it falls under the guidelines or under the ideals of what a PUD is all about. That’s up to the Town Board. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but I think you misunderstood me. I’m not saying it’s a PUD or not, I’m saying, it’s a PUD or not. I’m saying, from my judgement, its is of the comprehensive nature of this PUD. I mean has it tied in a comprehensive manner in a harmonious manner the total picture of what it’s supposed to include. Now I had asked for sidewalks, and my response was that the elderly people, 72 and above, can walk on the streets. I would like to see something more comprehensive in the way of tying together this project with pedestrian access. Not only to the units, but maybe to the other parts of what is considered to be the planned development. MR. LAPPER-We could do that. MR. STROUGH-You did sidewalks? MR. LAPPER-No, we added a path, in the last go around, to bring it to the clubhouse. MR. STROUGH-Well, see that’s a judgment call. You call that comprehensive, I don’t, okay. Comprehensive, you tie together this whole unit, it’s planned, it’s comprehensive, its harmonious. MR. MAC EWAN-But we discussed that last week, John, and it was pretty much I came to the conclusion that it was the consensus of the Board there was enough there to satisfy the Board in moving forward and preparing a resolution on this thing. That’s why I tabled it to give time to do it. MR. STROUGH-Well, fine, if you want to go ahead I’m telling you my concerns and as of right now I will give it preliminary approval but I won’t give it final. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, could we quickly address Mr. Strough’s points? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. MR. LAPPER-In this big picture in terms of the issue that this thing is in floodplain but not in a floodway and I’m going to use my layman’s explanation. Tom’s going to give you a much more detailed explanation. First of all CT Male did review the stormwater management report, and that’s significant that they signed off on it, but just to describe what is going on here there are many areas of the Town that are in the floodplain and what’s going on, in my opinion, is this is a very insignificant addition of fill in floodplain, because floodplain is many, many square miles. The Halfway Brook floodplain is square miles surrounding Halfway Brook and this project adding a couple feet of fill is, just doesn’t, because its over so many square miles, it has such a minor impact that it just doesn’t do anything. MR. STROUGH-Wait a minute. Jon, I trust Tom enough to give a preliminary approval, okay, and that aside, within it you’re not addressing, or maybe you’re going to address what I don’t see as a comprehensive, cohesive, harmonious plan here, and that’s what I think personally a PUD should be. MR. LAPPER-Well, I’d like to get to that. This is very unique PUD because it is a golf course use, the front nine, they’re willing to sell and this is a senior affordable housing project. It is very unique in terms of a PUD but nevertheless it fits within the definition of two diverse uses and it meets the goal for having affordable housing in the Town. We’ve spent many months, really we applied for this a year ago, we spent many months at Town Board and at the Planning Board and at that point after we satisfied the Planning Board, it was before you were on the board, but the Planning Board did recommend that the Town Board approve it as a PUD, and then we had public hearings at the Town Board and this issue came up and then the Town Board approved it and I grant you that it’s unique because the seniors that are going to be primarily 75 year old, retired people on a fixed social security income may not, they may be at the driving range they may be playing golf, some of them may play golf, but predominately they’re not because of their ages. They’re, most of them are probably going to be somewhat frail but nevertheless this is for people who don’t need a nursing home, but the way this project was designed after we went through the whole design analysis with Schermerhorn and I understood what it was that this Board was looking for we came up with this architectural design that had wings on the, that modified the roof line, that is something you told me that is the kind of stuff you wanted to see, you don’t want to see barracks like. So this is a project that respectfully is a lower income not like Henry Hudson townhouses, it’s for people on social security but its for people on a fixed income but nevertheless this is designed to be architecturally pretty interesting for what it is. I didn’t tonight, I’ve been bringing the big yellow drawings with me. I didn’t bring them tonight. The reason why we’re not volunteering sidewalks, and primarily my job is to try and do everything that you guys ask so that you can feel comfortable approving projects and my job is to beat up my clients to get them to go the distance but in this case because it so tied into the rent and the money went into the architecture and the site design, it is a huge amount of money 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 01/09/01) to talk about sidewalks. Otherwise I would say of course that is something that they could do but here, as Tom pointed out at the last meeting, there’s very little traffic in here so that it’s just not a big deal for people to walk on the street and just in Queensbury in general although granted this is a senior project, the Town is generally more rural in character and there are not that many areas that are sidewalked so I don’t think that’s unusual in the Town. MR. STROUGH-Well, I don’t want to see elderly people with walkers or not out on the streets, especially in the winter and gaining access to your meeting center or trying to go down to Stewart’s, okay, and I suppose Stewart’s was included in your PUD configuration. MR. LAPPER-Not in the PUD but we think that justifies the location of this type of project because you have (lost words). MR. STROUGH-Well, you see, that’s what missing the comprehensive nature of tying this in, it’s not tied in to what you’re saying, parts of your PUD . MR. LAPPER-When you asked for that we then put in a pathway to go from the edge of the pavement in the farthermost unit area of the roadway, and it’s attach to the house all the way to the southwest one, to get to the parking lot in front of the golf course building, the clubhouse and then use that to get over to the road to get over to the bank and the social security building and the pizza place. I mean, so there is, we did add something there but in terms of, I mean, actually laying down thousands of feet of concrete sidewalk would just be something that was prohibitively expensive for us for a fixed income project. MR. STROUGH-You wouldn’t even have to do on both sides, you could do it on one side of the road and I looked at the units and I laid out a potential sidewalk you can layout a sidewalk on one side of the road that would take care of most of the pedestrian traffic. MR. MAC EWAN-John, I think a majority of the Board was satisfied with where we’re going with it. MR. STROUGH-Okay I’m just saying, you know, and I’m speaking for the future here, too, Craig. When I see a PUD come in front of me what I kind of expect. So I’m just voicing out loud. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t mind putting on record it’s my sincere hope that the PUD ordinance and the town ordinances get a major overhaul, a major overhaul. MR. STROUGH-Okay I suspect this will pass, but I also want Jon to know where if I don’t give it the final approval, which I’m not, it’s because if I had gotten sidewalks I might have bought this as a PUD, trying to tie everything together, but when you hear my say no at least you’ll know what I was thinking, okay. MR. LAPPER-Okay MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I want to follow up, you were concerned about the flooding and such and although its been addressed by Tom in his stormwater management plan and in depth and going over it with the Board on several occasions in fact CT male signed off on it what else would you want to see to reassure you? MR. STROUGH-I’m not sure that sometimes our engineers take a hard look at some of these cases. I mean maybe I’m being insulting, I don’t mean to be, but sometimes I think that when they’re going through them they’ve got a lot of work and they give it to maybe not a senior planner, a sub-senior planner or planner may take a look at it. I just, I would like to have full confidence that when I approve a project that, you know, it’s a good project. MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. MRS. RYBA-I just wanted to say to address John’s concern there, and this is on the agenda for later we can talk a little bit about too, and this is something that doesn’t necessarily get relayed from Staff to the Planning Board because we are trying to give you as concise information as possible and if you see a sign off okay they’ve done their job but CT Male relayed to me that when I asked where’s the final well it’s a little late because we’re taking a second hard close look at this. So I mean they did take a second hard look at it and they did take a close look at it. MR. STROUGH-See, I didn’t know that. MRS. RYBA-Yes. So this is what I’m saying is sometimes, and as I said it’s on the agenda. We’ll be discussing a little bit what you want to see from Staff in terms of notes that will make it a little bit easier but we have to walk a fine line between giving you too much information and you giving too little information. So I just wanted to clarify that. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 01/09/01) MR. ROUND-We’ll get into that. If there’s a particular issues that you do want a particular , you’re particularly sensitive too when we know, when you receive the application I know we struggle with trying to be timely with the review and being thorough during the review and I think we’ve been generally happy with CT male. I know that the particular project engineer, Jim Houston, worked on the Lowe’s project they actually did the project plan development for Lowe’s and they’re familiar with the area, with Halfway Brook. They actually provided some, I think Jon was involved, significant amount of fill in the floodplain so they’re aware of the issues. Jim’s an expert. I think you can say that. Jim Houston is an expert in stormwater management, floodplain development projects. So he’s the person to be looking at it and as Marilyn said they did have concerns about the project and I don’t know the details of the project. Because they signed off, I assume that they’re happy with it, otherwise they would have had some interaction with the engineer, but any time that you do have an area that you’re concerned with please relay it to us. John I apologize that we weren’t, CT Male does have a hydrogeologist on staff but generally stormwater management, flooding, don’t relate to hydrogeology. They’re more hydrology. It’s a difference science, but it’s tough being responsive to each individual member’s concerns. So we need to receive direction from the Board on what you need and we can’t be responsive to you, to Larry, to Cathy each individual on the member on the Board and try to be productive in a timely review. That’s how I look at it. MR. METIVIER-I would like to make a mention of, I had terrific concerns about the flood problem, and I was looking at this the other day trying to figure out what’s going on and I realized something that I never realized before. The flooding that occurs by the gentleman’s house right there actually doesn’t, isn’t caused from anything except for the bridge that little culvert if you will that goes under the road. What’s happening the only way I can think of it is a bottleneck. On the other side of the road its all flooded I mean, the water it’s just saturated ground and it’s trying to go through this one area and its rushing through the other side and it gets collected right by his house and if you look down the stream further you’ll notice it flows with no problem never reaching the top of the bank. So I think sometimes we have to, I don’t if we can but somebody has to address that issue that it’s not the land around it it’s that situation right there under that bridge, all the water is collecting there. MR. NACE- (Lost words) where that guy did build in the flood plain. Okay. If he were to get a building permit today that house is probably 40-50 years old. If he were to get a building permit today he couldn’t do it without getting an elevation certificate which would make sure that his basement or any opening of his house is above the flood elevation, okay, but his house is very definitely right in the middle of the floodplain MR. LAPPER-Tony’s point is correct that that dam. MR. METIVIER-And I was so concerned (lost words), but it’s a perfect example, Teddy Turner was telling me that after they built their houses over across the street his, and they brought in all that fill in the four years now that we’ve been there he has never had a problem with the water nor has any of his neighbors. We’ve had some terrific rain storms in the wintertime and he and the gentlemen next to him, and then Piper have all commented to the fact that they no longer have water problems and they feel its because we’re soaking up so much of that water that used to run across. So it’s my feeling that maybe with bringing in the fill it might alleviate some of that and I don’t think that will even be the case know because the water isn’t even effected from where this project is to the Brook. MR. NACE-I brought them along with me, I’d be glad to sit down with you afterwards, John, if you’d like, or whenever it’s convenient. I brought along with me the FEMA regulations on floodplain management, okay, and there are some very clear illustrations in here that show their regulatory requirements and why the regulatory requirements were developed, but it goes to what Tony was saying is that filling within the floodplain isn’t necessarily bad, okay. It doesn’t, filling within the floodplain, as long as you’re back behind what they call the fringe, or back behind the floodway it doesn’t impede the downstream flow of the water, impeding that flow of water like the culvert under the road is what causes the back-up and change in flooding elevations, and FEMA defined this floodway as that area behind which you could put vertical walls, okay, and totally close off the rest of the floodplain without raising the water level more than a foot. That’s just there way of saying we want to define this area around the stream or we don’t want anybody to put fill in there or change the conditions without knowing exactly what’s going on. So we’re well back behind that floodway. I took the FEMA flood maps and just to show you what that flood zone looks like this is not this is the floodplain not the floodway okay. Here’s Meadowbrook Road, here’s Cronin Road. Here is our site outlined in black. This dark area is the floodplain. That (lost words) there is what we’re filling, okay. So we’re impacting just a very, very small piece of it. The actual floodway I don’t have on here. It’s a separate map, but the actual floodway is a corridor much narrower, about a quarter of the width of the flood zone. MR. STROUGH-Is that the equivalent of what’s referred to as the 100 year floodplain? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 01/09/01) MR. NACE-This is what they call this Zone A, which is off the (lost words) that’s the 100 year floodplain. This Zone B back here to the gray limits is the 500 year floodplain. MR. STROUGH-Well, thank you, Tom. MR. RINGER-John made a statement, he didn’t have a problem with an engineering report (lost words) specific to what you’re (lost words). Obviously you did that on the e-mail, but did you address the e-mail to Staff to ask C.T. Male to answer you? MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I asked Staff that, if C.T. Male had taken a hard look. MR. RINGER-And Staff didn’t answer you? MR. STROUGH-No, I didn’t hear any response from Staff, not even an acknowledgement that they had gotten the e-mail, but I also understand Staff’s position, that trying to take everyone’s concern on a seven member Board, rather than taking it collectively, would be a lot of work for them. I could understand that, but I’m still always going to have my concerns, and that’s just the way I am. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you resting a little easier now that you’ve (lost words)? MR. STROUGH-Well, I’ve been fairly well assured on these points, and like I said in the beginning that I certainly trust Tom’s expertise. I’d just like to take a second look, and that’s something we normally do, but I think I’ve been fairly assured on those points, that this seems to be a fairly safe project, in the sense of it having any kind of a negative or strongly substantially negative impact on the wetlands, the Halfway Brook and the floodplain. However, my concern over the design that it could be better, of the PUD, remains. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? Any other comments, questions? MR. METIVIER-Everybody’s questioned the fact that (lost words), but it wasn’t our decision to make it a PUD, and I think we probably just have to go with it, don’t we? I mean, there’s no way we can, whether or not it’s a PUD, the Board has determined that it’s acceptable as one. MR. MAC EWAN-The short answer is, no, you never have to go with the project, any project, because another Board or another review board has given an approval of some kind or another. The same with the ZBA. If the ZBA gives x number of variances to a project, that’s not a rubber stamp that when it comes to our Board we have to approve it because somebody else gave it a positive thumbs up. The two things that, you know, I would encourage us to remember on this particular project is, one, we did review this for the Town Board as a positive recommendation for a PUD, and secondly, the Town Board acted on this and said that yes it was within the definition of a PUD. MR. METIVIER-But we can’t go back, I mean, not that we want to, but I guess my point is, at this point you don’t want to go back to the (lost words). MR. MAC EWAN-Well, at this stage of the game, my opinion is, no, we shouldn’t go back. We’ve worked with this application. We’ve given very clear direction where we wanted this thing to go, and they’ve pretty much answered everything that we’ve been looking for. Yes, and I think a lot of what we do on the Planning Board is a give and a take, in a lot of ways, and that’s not a good thing or that’s not a bad thing. We try to make the best out of any project for the Town and the community, to make sure that it’s going to fit into the character of the neighborhood and it’s going to be a benefit to the community, and a benefit to the people who may reside there. When you put all those in the soup and you pull it out, is it what we’re looking for or does it feel comfortable enough for you to vote yes on it or if you don’t feel comfortable, you vote no on it. MR. STROUGH-Well, I think if we’re not comfortable with it, and the project could be better, I think we have to explain why. MR. MAC EWAN-And that’s fine. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s where, not being a design person or an engineer, if I feel like a project could be better, I don’t have the background or the expertise to exactly redesign the layout of it, and I know that. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re not designers. We’re laypeople. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know that. Exactly, and the way that we gave the approval to the Town Board, way back, and then this is the plan that we got back, that was given to us after we gave the go ahead for the recommendation for the PUD, we’re basically stuck with this, and like I say, I don’t know if I could be any better. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 01/09/01) MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a strong word. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know. I shouldn’t say that, but, no, I want to say it, all right, maybe stuck is not the word, and believe me, with all due respect, I didn’t mean to have that (lost word) type of remark, but it’s a plan that I will approve. I think we’ve been more excited about other plans that have come before the Board, that we’ve given our approval on. I don’t see any reason not approve that plan, at this point, because I don’t have a better plan in my head. MR. MAC EWAN-When we made our recommendation to the Town Board, and they came in and they showed us what they wanted to do, I remember looking at architectural drawings that weren’t what we were looking for, for starters. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And that’s what I was going to say. There were a lot of give backs on this. I mean, you have a budget to work with, and I think that, within reason, with the architectural plans, that things had to be sacrificed for other things in the design of this. I think that John’s concern about the walkways and being able to walk to the bank and Stewarts is, they’re all very good concerns, but maybe, down the line, maybe sidewalks could be put in if you realized the tenant’s need that commodity, you know, who knows. MR. VOLLARO-Well, one of the things that I think is that we, as a Board someday ought to decide what we would like our PUD’s to look like. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s what Craig said, and I think there’s a lot of. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s a big concern of mine. MR. METIVIER-I think it’s a good project, and, you know, nobody’s more affected by this than me. I keep saying that. I know it’s a selfish thing to say, I am excited about it. Someday I’ll probably live there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think those things you said about, I can remember when Rich came to us many years ago about where you live and those homes that were built there, and we have a lot of concern about them, and for you to say, you know, maybe that has mitigated some of the problems there with the fill that’s been brought in, I think that’s wonderful. MR. STROUGH-(lost words) going to float away someday. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I think, if they didn’t float away about a month ago, they’re not going anywhere. MR. METIVIER-I have flood insurance. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But I think that considering the budget and the whole philosophy behind this project, I think it’s good. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other discussions? Does someone want to move it, please, one way or the other? MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE PUD SITE PLAN NO. 8-2000 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LP, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Preliminary PUD Site Plan No. 8-2000 Queensbury Partners for a three lot subdivision as part of the PUD to accommodate one 27.1 acre lot for elderly hosing project, one 66.2 acre lot to be left as open space, and one lot of 4.0 acres to be dedicated to the Town. Applicant proposes construction of 96 apartments for elderly, fixed income housing and one manager’s residence on Lot 1. Tax Map No. 60-2-5, and; WHEREAS, the application received 1/20/00 and 9/27/00 consists of the following: WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included as of 1/5/01: 1/5/01 SP-5 Road & Profiles and Details 1/5/01 SP-1 Site Layout and Utility Plan 12/26/00 Rec’d., Lithonia Lighting info 12/26/00 C. Round from T. Nace in response to 12/19 PB comments w/ revised maps 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 01/09/01) 12/19/00 Planning Board resolution - Tabled 12/19/00 Planning Board minutes 12/19/00 Staff Notes 12/19/00 C. Round from T. Nace in response to CT Male eng. Review dated 12/15 and Planning Staff comments of 12/18 12/19/00 Qu. & GF area Senior Housing units 12/18/00 Fax to J. Lapper, Nace Eng. Of Staff notes 12/15/00 Staff Notes 12/12/00 Transmittal to M. Shaw of application for comment 12/8/00 Meeting Notice 12/8/00 M. Ryba from L. Penistan, WC DPW 11/29/00 C. Round from Nace Engineering re: traffic generation rates / maps: cover page revised 11/13/00, SP-1 revised 11/13/00, SP-2 revised 11/13/00, SP-3 revised 11/13/00, SP-4 revised 11/13/00, SP-5 revised 11/13/00, SP-6 revised 11/13/00, SP-7 revised 11/13/00, SP-8 dated 11/13/00 11/30/00 Rec’d – Stormwater Management Report revised 11/00 11/17/00 G. Casey, DEC to C. MacEwan 11/16/00 Joint DEC Freshwater Wetlands & Sect. 404 Permit application 11/6/00 Maps received – Building Plan, Front & Left Elevations, Right & Rear Elevations, Clubhouse Plan & Elevation, `Unit Plans A,B,C,& D 10/31/00 D. Brower from S. Simmonds (Rec. Commission) 10/24/00 Staff Notes w/ 10/20 CT Male eng. Review, 10/12/00 interoffice memo from M. Shaw, 9/28/00 memo to C. Round from J. Lapper, T. Nace, 9/29/00 memo to Town Bd. from C. Round, 10/9/.00 Beautification Comm. Recommendation attached 10/24/00 Planning Board resolution – Tabled for additional information 10/24/00 C. Round from T. Nace in response to CT Male review letter of Sept. 10/24/00 Rec’d., petition against project 10/20/00 Fax to J. Lapper, T. Nace of Staff notes 10/17/00 Notice of Public Hearing 10/13/00 E-Mail, J. Lapper from M. Ryba 10/12/00 C. Round from M. Shaw 10/10/00 Note that M. Shaw was provided copy of plans 10/9/00 Beautification Comm. Recommendation – approved 10/5/00 Meeting Notice 10/5/00 e-mail, J. Lapper from M. Ryba – signature pages 10/3/00 Applicant from C. Round re: Beautification Comm. Mtg. 10/2/00 Town Bd. Resolution 395,2000 9/29/00 Town Board from C. Round 9/28/00 C. Round from J. Lapper & Tom Nace 9/27/00 Subdivision, Site Plan application w/ stormwater man. Report & maps 9/11/00 Proposed TB resolution adopting Neg Dec 9/1/00 D. Dougher, Town Bd., H. Hansen from C. Round 8/28/00 Fax to M. Ryba from J. Lapper’s office regarding owner signature 8/23/00 GIS map 8/21/00 Town Bd. Resolution 348,2000 8/1/00 C. Round from J. Lapper – revised conceptual plan 4/11/00 Warren Co. Planning - returning Market Research Report 4/3/00 Proposed Town Bd. resolution adopting Neg. Dec. 4/3/00 Town Board minutes 3/30/00 Town Board from C. Round transmitting staff notes, code info 3/24/00 Res. 145,2000 setting PH 3/20/00 Town Board 145,2000 setting PH 2/15/00 Planning Bd. Recommendation – Positive 2/15/00 Staff Notes 2/10/00 L. Moore from M. Ryba 2/9/00 Warren Co. Planning Bd. Recommendation – No Action Taken due to default 2/4/00 GIS map delineating bus routes 1/24/00 Town Bd. Resolution 61,2000 – seeking lead agency status 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 01/09/01) 1/20/00 D. Brower from J. Lapper – submission of application 12/99 Market Research Project Maps SP-1 revised 7/28/00 – Overall Site Plan 9/28/00 GIS map 10/3/00 Received – C-1 dated 9/25/00, SP-1 dated 9/25/00 (Site Layout and Utility), SP-2 dated 9/25/00 Site Grading & Drainage), SP-3 dated 9/25/00 (Landscape Plan), SP-4 dated 9/25/00 (Site Wetland and Mitigation Plan), SP-5 dated 9/25/00 (Road Profiles and Details), SP-6 dated 9/25/00 (Sewer Profiles and Details), SP-7 dated 9/25/00 (Details) 11/6/00 Rec’d., Maps 1-4 dated 1/14/00 12/22/00 SP-8, Site Lighting Plan 12/26/00 W/Letter from T. Nace – maps C-1, SP-1, SP-8 revised in response to 12/19 PB comments WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 10/24/00, 12/19/00, 12/26/00 and 1/9/01 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the PUD 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 Town 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 as per the resolution prepared by Staff, with conditions as written: 1. That a boulevard, with the road and landscaping specifications similar to the one installed at Hudson Pointe, extending from the intersection of Cronin Road to the first parking area as shown on SP-1 dated 1/5/01(Site Layout & Utility Plan SP-5) and SP-5 dated 1/5/01 (Road Profiles and Details, and that a minimum of 5 trees (also as per Hudson Pointe landscaping specifications) be planted in the boulevard island; 2. That a maximum of 3 lots be approved, and if the Town Board does not accept the 4 +/- acres of land proposed to be dedicated to the Town, the lot line will be removed on the mylar prior to signature by Planning Board Chairman; 3. That the project is to be completed within 24 months; and 4. That the applicant apply for and receive a Freshwater Wetlands Permit as per Town Code Chapter 94. Duly adopted this 9th day of January 2001 by the following vote: MR. VOLLARO-No, and I’m going to take the time to get on to my situation. You said if you don’t like something, say what it is. I wrote it down, and I sent a letter to Chris Round dated 12/31, and I do have some questions that lay in John Strough’s area. “My primary concern,” and I’m reading from the document now, “is whether this application truly reflects”, I understand that we approved the Sketch Plan. I understand that we sent, all the things that go, we sent our recommendation to the Town Board, all of that. “My primary concern is whether this application truly reflects the definition and intent of a PUD as defined in Article VII of Chapter 179 and Article XI of the draft Zoning Ordinance. I had planned to emphasize certain wording within the Articles, however, I reference certain sections. Ref. 179-51 A. Purpose and objectives. B. Objectives. I would encourage the reader to go all the way through to 179-59 just to see how much emphasis is put on the topic of PUDS. Next, take a look at Article XI section 179-57 Purpose and Intent. A & B (pg.77) appearing in the draft Zoning Ordinance. Refer to the CLUP on neighborhoods 8 & 9. Residential only is not a primary development element for this neighborhood. I fully understand that ultimately it’s the Town Board’s decision on whether or not this application fulfills the definition and intent of a PUD as described in the referenced documents. However, I simply ask that they, and all of us, take another look before this application is put to a final resolution by the Planning Board on January 9. th 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 01/09/01) Thanks for your consideration.” I would like the 12/31 letter to Christopher Round, subject is the Meadows PUD Site Plan No. 8-2000 be entered into the record as my reason for the no vote, and you have the letter. MRS. RYBA-Thank you. AYES: Mr. Strough, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Vollaro ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MRS. RYBA-Okay. So the motion’s carried. MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a motion for Final? MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE PUD SITE PLAN NO. 8-2000 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LP, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Preliminary PUD Site Plan No. 8-2000 Queensbury Partners for a three lot subdivision as part of the PUD to accommodate one 27.1 acre lot for elderly hosing project, one 66.2 acre lot to be left as open space, and one lot of 4.0 acres to be dedicated to the Town. Applicant proposes construction of 96 apartments for elderly, fixed income housing and one manager’s residence on Lot 1. Tax Map No. 60-2-5, and; WHEREAS, the application received 1/20/00 and 9/27/00 consists of the following: WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included as of 1/5/01: 1/5/01 SP-5 Road & Profiles and Details 1/5/01 SP-1 Site Layout and Utility Plan 12/26/00 Rec’d., Lithonia Lighting info 12/26/00 C. Round from T. Nace in response to 12/19 PB comments w/ revised maps 12/19/00 Planning Board resolution - Tabled 12/19/00 Planning Board minutes 12/19/00 Staff Notes 12/19/00 C. Round from T. Nace in response to CT Male eng. Review dated 12/15 and Planning Staff comments of 12/18 12/19/00 Qu. & GF area Senior Housing units 12/18/00 Fax to J. Lapper, Nace Eng. Of Staff notes 12/15/00 Staff Notes 12/12/00 Transmittal to M. Shaw of application for comment 12/8/00 Meeting Notice 12/8/00 M. Ryba from L. Penistan, WC DPW 11/29/00 C. Round from Nace Engineering re: traffic generation rates / maps: cover page revised 11/13/00, SP-1 revised 11/13/00, SP-2 revised 11/13/00, SP-3 revised 11/13/00, SP-4 revised 11/13/00, SP-5 revised 11/13/00, SP-6 revised 11/13/00, SP-7 revised 11/13/00, SP-8 dated 11/13/00 11/30/00 Rec’d – Stormwater Management Report revised 11/00 11/17/00 G. Casey, DEC to C. MacEwan 11/16/00 Joint DEC Freshwater Wetlands & Sect. 404 Permit application 11/6/00 Maps received – Building Plan, Front & Left Elevations, Right & Rear Elevations, Clubhouse Plan & Elevation, `Unit Plans A,B,C,& D 10/31/00 D. Brower from S. Simmonds (Rec. Commission) 10/24/00 Staff Notes w/ 10/20 CT Male eng. Review, 10/12/00 interoffice memo from M. Shaw, 9/28/00 memo to C. Round from J. Lapper, T. Nace, 9/29/00 memo to Town Bd. from C. Round, 10/9/.00 Beautification Comm. Recommendation attached 10/24/00 Planning Board resolution – Tabled for additional information 10/24/00 C. Round from T. Nace in response to CT Male review letter of Sept. 10/24/00 Rec’d., petition against project 10/20/00 Fax to J. Lapper, T. Nace of Staff notes 10/17/00 Notice of Public Hearing 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 01/09/01) 10/13/00 E-Mail, J. Lapper from M. Ryba 10/12/00 C. Round from M. Shaw 10/10/00 Note that M. Shaw was provided copy of plans 10/9/00 Beautification Comm. Recommendation – approved 10/5/00 Meeting Notice 10/5/00 E-mail, J. Lapper from M. Ryba – signature pages 10/3/00 Applicant from C. Round re: Beautification Comm. Mtg. 10/2/00 Town Bd. Resolution 395,2000 9/29/00 Town Board from C. Round 9/28/00 C. Round from J. Lapper & Tom Nace 9/27/00 Subdivision, Site Plan application w/ stormwater man. Report & maps 9/11/00 Proposed TB resolution adopting Neg Dec 9/1/00 D. Dougher, Town Bd., H. Hansen from C. Round 8/28/00 Fax to M. Ryba from J. Lapper’s office regarding owner signature 8/23/00 GIS map 8/21/00 Town Bd. Resolution 348,2000 8/1/00 C. Round from J. Lapper – revised conceptual plan 4/11/00 Warren Co. Planning - returning Market Research Report 4/3/00 Proposed Town Bd. resolution adopting Neg. Dec. 4/3/00 Town Board minutes 3/30/00 Town Board from C. Round transmitting staff notes, code info 3/24/00 Res. 145,2000 setting PH 3/20/00 Town Board 145,2000 setting PH 2/15/00 Planning Bd. Recommendation – Positive 2/15/00 Staff Notes 2/10/00 L. Moore from M. Ryba 2/9/00 Warren Co. Planning Bd. Recommendation – No Action Taken due to default 2/4/00 GIS map delineating bus routes 1/24/00 Town Bd. Resolution 61,2000 – seeking lead agency status 1/20/00 D. Brower from J. Lapper – submission of application 12/99 Market Research Project Maps SP-1 revised 7/28/00 – Overall Site Plan 9/28/00 GIS map 10/3/00 Received – C-1 dated 9/25/00, SP-1 dated 9/25/00 (Site Layout and Utility), SP-2 dated 9/25/00 Site Grading & Drainage), SP-3 dated 9/25/00 (Landscape Plan), SP-4 dated 9/25/00 (Site Wetland and Mitigation Plan), SP-5 dated 9/25/00 (Road Profiles and Details), SP-6 dated 9/25/00 (Sewer Profiles and Details), SP-7 dated 9/25/00 (Details) 11/6/00 Rec’d., Maps 1-4 dated 1/14/00 12/22/00 SP-8, Site Lighting Plan 12/26/00 W/Letter from T. Nace – maps C-1, SP-1, SP-8 revised in response to12/19 PB comments WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 10/24/00, 12/19/00, 12/26/00 and 1/9/01 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the PUD 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 Town 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 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 01/09/01) RESOLVED, that The application is approved for Final Stage as per the resolution prepared by Staff with conditions as written, and as reiterated verbally by staff to the Planning Board: 1. That a boulevard, with the road and landscaping specifications similar to the one installed at Hudson Pointe, extending from the intersection of Cronin Road to the first parking area as shown on SP-1 dated 1/5/01(Site Layout & Utility Plan SP-5) and SP-5 dated 1/5/01 (Road Profiles and Details, and that a minimum of 5 trees (also as per Hudson Pointe landscaping specifications) be planted in the boulevard island; 2. That a maximum of 3 lots be approved, and if the Town Board does not accept the 4 +/- acres of land proposed to be dedicated to the Town, the lot line will be removed on the mylar prior to signature by Planning Board Chairman; 3. That the project is to be completed within 24 months; and 4. That the applicant apply for and receive a Freshwater Wetlands Permit as per Town Code Chapter 94. Duly adopted this 9th day of January 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Vollaro ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MRS. RYBA-Okay, so that’s four. So I believe it’s still carried. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, you’re all set. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Resolution, for the Town Board. MRS. RYBA-Well, there’s another resolution on this page, separate, in terms of recommendations. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but we were going to act on that separately, though. MRS. RYBA-Correct, regarding, “The Planning Board Recommends to the Town Board for their consideration the following items for incorporation into a PUD agreement with the Town”, and that was something that I know I had sent out, and I don’t know what anyone wants to do with it. It’s just that it’s a more appropriate resolution to be separate from the previous one because the Planning Board really cannot condition something into the PUD agreement that the Town Board’s putting together with the applicant. MR. MAC EWAN-In the spirit of sharing, I’ll move it. THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE TOWN BOARD FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION THE FOLLOWING ITEM FOR INCORPORATION INTO A PUD AGREEMENT WITH THE TOWN [FOR QUEENSBURY PARTNERS PUD SITE PLAN NO. 8-2000]: If the Town accepts the 4 +/- acres of land, the applicants will provide public parking off of Cronin Road along with pedestrian access to Halfway Brook. Duly adopted this 9 day of January 2001 by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Strough, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MRS. RYBA-Okay. So that one’s carried. MR. LAPPER-And I’d just like to thank the Chairman for letting us go to a workshop meeting so we can get on with the project. We appreciate that. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 01/09/01) MRS. LA BOMBARD-I want to make this statement. I really felt so much better to leave at the last meeting and have this whole resolution redone, I mean, and this is something we’ve been talking about in our workshops, that we don’t need to just jump so quickly. I mean, to take the extra time, this, I thought, was such a much better document. It made me feel a lot better than when I left that evening. MR. LAPPER-Well, at end of the day, the developer realized that the boulevard was a really good idea and the parking area is not a problem. Those are all positive things. Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MR. STROUGH-I still want the sidewalks. MR. LAPPER-See, with a normal PUD, with a high end PUD it would be no problem. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 13