Loading...
2001-07-24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 24, 2001 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY CHRIS HUNSINGER JOHN STROUGH LARRY RINGER ANTHONY METIVIER ROBERT VOLLARO PLANNER-LAURA MOORE CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 47-2000 IWO, QUEENSBURY WATER TANK SIX MONTH EXTENSION MRS. MOORE-The only comment that I have is that the date should be to January 2002, not January 2001. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Yes, I see that. MOTION TO APPROVE A SIX MONTH EXTENSION REQUEST FOR IWO, INDEPENDENT WIRELESS ONE LEASED REALTY CORP., QUEENSBURY WATER TANK LOCATION TO JANUARY 25, 2002, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: Duly adopted this 24 day of July 2001 by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MODEL SITE PLAN NO. 20-2001 CITY OF GLENS FALLS VETERANS FIELD INDUSTRIAL PARK RE-ISSUE OF FINAL STAGE 8 LOT SUBDIVISION APPROVAL MR. MAC EWAN-Any comment? MRS. MOORE-Yes. You need to add a date in there from the previous approval, which was May 15, 2001. MR. VOLLARO-Where do you want that added? MR. MAC EWAN-Just in the motion? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Well, before we make a motion, let’s understand what she wants us to put in here. Where does that go? MS. RADNER-The resolution currently reads the application is approved for Final Stage as per the resolution prepared by Staff, which makes it confusing and impossible to know what resolution’s being referred to. Laura’s suggesting that you put in there the resolution’s date which is. MR. MAC EWAN-6/15/01, 5/15/01. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) MRS. MOORE-5/15, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Do I hear a motion? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make the motion. MOTION TO RE-DO THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL STAGE OF AN EIGHT LOT SUBDIVISION FOR THE CITY OF GLENS FALLS, VETERANS FIELD INDUSTRIAL PARK, MODEL SITE PLAN NO. 20-2001, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 20-2001 and Petition for Change of Zone PZ 1-2000 for the City of Glens Falls, Veterans Field Industrial Park for approval of a model site plan. The LI-1A, VF zone outlines specific criteria for all potential tenants of the park. The Planning Board is issuing approval of a model site plan and preliminary and final approval of an eight (8) lot subdivision. The Planning Board is adopting a positive SEQR findings statement. Tax Map No. 116-1-7, 8 and 118-1-7.1, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Board/Town Board received a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) January 10, 2000 and the DGEIS included the proposed eight (8) lot subdivision as well as a thorough description of the project and model site plan, and WHEREAS, a joint public hearing with the Town Board was held on February 15, 2000 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, public comment on the DGEIS subdivision and site plan was received and responded to in a Final GEIS. The Final GEIS was issued in its final form August 23, 2000 and was accepted by the Town Board August 29, 2000 as responsive to the comments of the public, Planning Board, Planning Staff and the Town of Queensbury technical consultants, Creighton Manning Engineering (CME) and Rist Frost Associates (RFA), and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has carefully considered the requirements of SEQRA and in conjunction with the Town Board have adopted positive SEQRA Findings, and WHEREAS, the subdivision plat, the newly adopted Light Industrial-Veterans Field zoning designation; and SEQRA Findings set forth conditions and criteria regarding stormwater control, grading and landscaping, traffic/transportation management, lighting, building design and layout, water and wastewater management, noise, odor and other factors that all new development will comply with in order to minimize the impacts on the environment and ensure quality development, 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, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application is approved for the Final Stage as per the resolution prepared by Staff dated 5/15/01. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier SITE PLAN NO. 24-2001 TYPE I OMNI HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY OWNER: R. SCHERMERHORN AGENT: L. SIPPERLY & ASSOCIATES ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: LOT 15, BAYBROOK PROFESSIONAL PARK APPLICANT PROPOSES DEVELOPMENT OF A 13.63 ACRE PARCEL FOR AN 80 SENIOR CITIZEN INDEPENDENT LIVING APARTMENTS: 48 APARTMENTS IN A TWO STORY BUILDING AND 32 APARTMENTS IN EIGHT (8) FOUR UNIT COTTAGES. ON-SITE PARKING FOR 112 VEHICLES. ALL USES IN MR-5 ZONES REQUIRE 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 9-2000, AV 38-2001 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/13/01 TAX MAP NO. 60-2-4 LOT SIZE: 13.63 ACRES SECTION: 179-18 LYNN SIPPERLY & DUNCAN BARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing back on June 26 was left open. th STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 24-2001, Omni Housing Development, Meeting Date: July 24, 2001 “Project Description The applicant proposes a 48 unit senior apartment complex with 32 cottage units for a total of 80 units. The apartment complex will be a two-story building with a building footprint of 26,975 square feet. The cottage units will be one story and contain four-units each. Cottage units will have a total building footprint of 3,840 square feet. The project is located on lot 15 of the Baybrook subdivision and has a two-way access on the first phase road. The applicant received an area variance approval at the July 18, 2001 Zoning Board meeting (resolution attached). Project Analysis (Section 179-38) Site Overview The main building is located in the middle of the parcel with the cottage units surrounding it. The apartment building is a “t” shaped structure with the main entrance on the southwest side. The cottage units are located opposite the complex entrance for convenience to the cottage residents. The project will be constructed in two phases. The first phase will be the 48 senior apartments and the second phase will be the eight 4-plex cottages. The plans show 31 twenty-foot poles with cut-off fixtures. The lighting detail shows the type of fixture and the wattage at 250. The two previous projects were required to coordinate lighting type fixtures, this should be continued with this application. There is no mention of any building lights or sign lights. The proposed sign is to be located to the north of the drive entrance. Traffic, Circulation, Parking The first phase involves two cul-de-sacs located at the end of the “T” structure. The applicant has indicated the facility will be restricted to seniors, which decreases the demand for parking spaces. The applicant has provided ITE numbers indicting numbers for senior housing are lower than standard apartment housing. The ITE numbers for an 80 unit facility (two story and detached) is 42 trips AM and 50 trips PM. The applicant has applied for a parking variance to allow for 112 spaces with 37 in reserve. The code requires two spaces per unit or 160 spaces for the project. An area for public transit to safely load and unload residents should be facilitated. The plans identify internal sidewalks, but should also include a connection to neighboring properties. The interconnections were required on the previous two applications within the subdivision. Utility, Stormwater, Landscaping, Emergency Services The application has been referred to CT Male and the Fire Marshal for review and comment. During the pre-application meeting proposed zoning code guidelines and landscaping issues were discussed. The applicant’s plans indicate the trees will be a 3 inch caliper. Suggestions Staff would suggest a designated public transit area for loading and unloading, an interconnection to adjacent parcels, clarification if the building or sign will have lighting, and clarification if the cottage units will have patios or fence separations.” MRS. MOORE-I also have a memo from Marilyn Ryba, and under her suggestions, “The applicant should be asked if lighting is to be placed to the rear of the cottages? If so, spillover onto adjoining properties is possible, depending on the type of lighting used.” Do you want me to explain that again? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, would you, please. MRS. MOORE-Okay. She’s asking if they’re going to put lighting on the cottages to the rear of the units, and if that lighting is going to spill over onto the adjoining properties. MR. VOLLARO-It doesn’t show that. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Would you identify yourselves for the record. MR. SIPPERLY-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is Lynn Sipperly, with Sipperly and Associates. We are the site engineers for Omni Development Company, who’s proposing the Omni Senior Living Center of Queensbury. With me this evening is Duncan Barrett, Vice President of Omni Development Company, and we’d like to present, for your consideration, our site plan, for the 80 unit senior citizen independent living facility, located on Lot 15 of the Baybrook Professional Park. As your memo read, we have two styles of development here. We have a 48 unit and a two story apartment building, which is the “T” Shaped building in the center, surrounded by eight, four unit cottage units consisting of 32 additional units. The site would gain access from Proposed Road #2 of the Baybrook Professional Park, together with utility, water and sanitary sewer also being developed, as part of the Baybrook Professional Park. They would be brought into our parcel. The water line will actually loop along the driveway, as shown on the site plan, and the sewer really kind of originates in front of the building, center of the two story apartment building, and feeds, again, kind of northerly and westerly to the sewer in Road Number Two. The project proposes 112 parking spaces, which is approximately 1.4 parking spaces per unit. We appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals and were granted a variance, and our reason for appearing before them is we truly believe, from our experiences, that 112 spaces is adequate parking for the type of use, land use, that will be developed at this facility. Senior citizens who occupy this facility are normally in the age of 70 when they actually come to this type of facility or this type of living, independent living senior environment, and at that time they’re thinking about downsizing automobiles. If they have an automobile, it’s probably one automobile, or many of them have no automobiles because they just don’t feel comfortable driving on a road or their families don’t like them to drive any longer because they’re concerned with their health and well being, but we’ve also provided on the site plan an additional 39 parking spaces, should we find, through actual experience, that we have not enough parking spaces, with 112 units. There are areas that could conveniently be developed for parking, for additional parking, as the need would arise. So we don’t envision any situation where there wouldn’t be adequate parking on this site for the residents. We’ve also shown a sidewalk system within the project, for people to have access between the cottage units and the main building. Again, this is independent living, which means that each unit has their own kitchen, and, you know, dining room, not dining room, living room, bedroom and bath facilities. There are no community meals provided. That’s probably the difference between, one of the main differences between independent living and assisted living. Within the main building, I’ll call it the apartment building, we have one bedroom and two bedroom units, three quarters of the apartments are one bedroom units, and approximately the other quarter would be two bedroom units. The cottages are all two bedroom units, and really the difference in their product makeup is the preference of people. Some people are very comfortable living in the apartment building with other residents right down the hall from them, and other tenants like to maintain their sense of privacy being in a cottage which has their own front door and back door, not sharing a common, any entrances with the neighbor next door. So it’s really a preference. This is what we see the market is demanding, and that’s kind of the product we’re building. Stormwater management on site is being dealt with by two detention basins, one is located at the southwest corner of the building, and the other one is probably more east of the building, and that’s really driven by the grade of the site. The site is relatively flat. It probably has a total of about six foot elevation difference. So rather than get into a large reshaping of the topography of the site, that we were able to grade the site so that some of the water went in one direction and some of the water went in the other direction. It’s being detained and will be released at the rate that it’s currently being released from the site. Off to the southwest corner of our site is a large area of wetlands. The site itself is 13.63 acres in size. We have a large block, it’s 4.41 acres of wetlands, New York State wetlands, that will not be affected by this development. In fact, the green line we show on the drawing represents a line 100 foot back from the edge of wetlands, which is, again, an area that is controlled by DEC, with regard to development. In other plans that we submitted to the Board, we have a utility plan that does show the routing of the utilities, and we have also submitted a grading plan that shows how we are proposing to grade the site. There is a, this is the landscape plan that we have colored up here, and have shown, and another plan that we have presented is a lighting plan that shows how we propose to light this site for security of the residents, and basically it’s street lights distributed around the site. We’ve maintained about a one and a half foot candle between fixtures. So that’s been our goal for level of lighting is one and a half foot candles, minimum lighting level. The site plan does not show lighting that will appear on the building. There will be lights at the entrances of the buildings that will kind of takeover from where the exterior lights cut off and the lights at the entrances of the building will take over and just focus on a narrow band of sidewalk coming in to the building at entrances. Similarly, the Staff comment with regard to lights on the cottages, we will not, the site plan does not reflect lights on the cottages. Again, each cottage would have a light at the front door, and there’d also be a light at the rear door. There would be really residential type lights, and nothing to be high pressure sodium or metal halide. They would be most likely 100 watt incandescent lighting, that’s controlled by the resident. There is enough lighting to 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) provide security to the entrance of the units, but adding these other lights, the architect will add these lights, again, as kind of another sense of, you know, inviting atmosphere of the residents there, and make it also appear more residential, single family in character. There’s probably, there’s some statistics on the site that we can just share with the Board, which are on the drawings. The buildings occupy about 9.7% of the site, pavement and walks another 11.8%, and green space, which the plan represents, plus that large block of wetlands off to the southwest, is approximately 78.5%. I guess what those really are trying to represent is that there is a major part of the site set aside as green area. The development has been pretty much oriented this way, so that the cottages and the apartment building interrelate very conveniently and comfortably, so that, you know, people can visit from one to the other without having to cross large areas of ground, so to speak. That’s pretty much my presentation. Duncan may want to add a few comments to that, or we’re happy to answer any of the comments the Board may have. MR. MAC EWAN-Did you want to add anything? MR. BARRETT-I just want to add one comment. As Lynn pointed out, the cottages will have lights at the rear doors. They’ll have a front and a rear door, and what we’ve done in the past and what we would propose to do here is a small paved patio right at the rear door and a strip of 10 foot fencing. The idea being to give the tenants of those units a little private outdoor space, and people typically garden in that area and sit in that area and do other things that people normally do in their back yards, but we found that very successful, frankly a maintenance nuisance, but very successful in terms of people’s usage of the unit. So that was something that wasn’t shown specifically on the plan. I just wanted to answer that question. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. SIPPERLY-That’s all we have. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, we’ll start with you. MR. METIVIER-I guess I’m most interested in the look of the buildings, and I apologize, but I did not see anything in our plans that would represent the look. MR. SIPPERLY-We do have an elevation with us. MR. BARRETT-Why don’t I pass it around to the Board. If I put it over there, you won’t be able to see much. MR. METIVIER-Will the cottages be the same in respect? MR. BARRETT-The cottages will be basically the same, pitched roofs with offset so the front elevation reads as a set of units and not as a blank face. The cottages probably will simply be vinyl, and we usually use two colors of vinyl and with a demarking strip, a water table, and I regret that, we have photographs of actually the units that we’ve built in other locations. I regret that I didn’t bring any. I apologize, but. MR. METIVIER-As far as the Beautification Committee is concerned, you missed the meeting. What is your position on that, and what would you like to do? I know that you have landscaping plans with us, but would you have any objections to going back to Beautification to present it to them? MR. BARRETT-Not at all. I think that’s, you know, at your direction. We misunderstood. We had appeared at a prior meeting which wasn’t actually held, and then we did, through our own misunderstanding of your correspondence to us, missed the Beautification meeting. We apologize for that, and if that’s what the wishes, we’d be glad to go talk to them. MR. METIVIER-But as far as the plan that you show on the board, that’s pretty much what your landscaping plan would be? MR. BARRETT-Yes. MR. METIVIER-And do you plan on having public transportation, I hate to use City public transportation, pick ups, or do you have your own transportation that you provide to the tenants? MR. BARRETT-We’re still studying that. We want to make the site accessible to the public transportation that exists, but we think we probably will need to augment that, and that’s something that we’ve actually talked to the senior service folks here at the Town about, and that they’ve recommended to us, and is our plan at this point. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) MR. METIVIER-Okay. As far as the road, will that be a Town dedicated road or will that be part of the site under your? MR. BARRETT-We’d be delighted to dedicate it to you, but we’re assuming that it’s ours. Our assumption is that because it’s all internal circulation at our facility, that you wouldn’t be very excited about a dedication. If the Town wants to talk about it, we’d be. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think the Highway Department would be thrilled about it. MR. METIVIER-Well, I was wondering, you know, there was a mention about the snowplows, but if you’re going to be plowing it yourself, than obviously it wouldn’t be a concern of ours. MR. BARRETT-Our assumption is that we are going to plow it ourselves, yes, and that we would own it and maintain it. MR. METIVIER-As far as the maintenance of the lawn care and all that, what would be on site as well, as far as will you have somebody always there? MR. BARRETT-Yes. We’ve developed almost 1,000 units of senior housing in the Capital District. We own, the parent corporation owns a lot of office space in Downtown Albany, and we have a big maintenance staff and program. Because this isn’t Albany, we would have to hire local people to do this, but that’s one of the things that we do very well. We’d be delighted to show you other facilities that we own and operate. MR. METIVIER-That’s all I have for now. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-Your letter to the Beautification Committee on July 12, you didn’t get a response to th that? She didn’t respond to you? MR. MAC EWAN-Laura, can I add some insight to that? MRS. MOORE-Yes, I do. I spoke with Mary Lee today, and she indicated that she wouldn’t be able to get a quorum together. MR. MAC EWAN-Laura and I talked about this today, and if we are inclined to approve this project, we’d condition it upon them re-visiting the Beautification Committee. MR. RINGER-(Lost words) if we did decide to do it. I was just curios if he had gotten the response from them or not. I didn’t have anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I had a couple of questions. Getting to your site and utility plan, down under site statistics, we have utilities as public water and sanitary sewer. Can you give me some insight on that drawing as to where your sanitary sewer lines are, and where they’ll be connected to? MR. SIPPERLY-Sure. Our sanitary sewer is available to us at this location here. It’s being brought on Road Number Two, by the developer of the Baybrook Professional Park at this point here. We’re proposing to bring it into our site, and to bring a line down in front of the cottages to this point right here, which will pick up all the cottages here, plus the main building and the line will also separate out and come down along the front of the cottages on the northern part of the site and end in here in the terminal manhole. So, this is our sewer system. It would be in front of the cottages here. It’s like a V-Shaped system, feeding back to the sanitary sewer in Road Number Two, which then comes over to a pump station about this location here. Similarly with water, water will be available to us in Road Number Two on our side of the road, there’s an eight inch water main proposed at this location here. Water is a little bit simpler, in the sense that it just comes down and loops the site and comes back to that location here. We would envision, at some later date, when other roadways within the Baybrook Professional Park are developed, that water, we left a stub at this location here, where it could be conferred to a water main in this street, thereby strengthening the system substantially. MR. VOLLARO-What is your, roughly, what’s your start schedule and end schedule? What kind of a start date and completion date do you have in mind? MR. BARRETT-We would like to start on the 48 unit building, that is the “T” Shaped building in the center, late this fall for completion next fall, and then, depending on the rent up of that, and we have 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) good experience in other markets, but we’re still careful, build the cottages out against a waiting list from there. MR. VOLLARO-So you’re talking about the Fall of 2002? MR. BARRETT-Yes, sir, that’s when we would hope to bring the first units on line. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just want to let you know that the developer, for some of his work, has got a temporary on site sewer system going, to service some of the new construction that he’s doing right on the Bay Road itself. MR. BARRETT-We’re aware of that from him and from his engineer and his Counsel, and we know that we are, our schedule is somewhat dependent upon his ability to complete the public infrastructure approvals that he needs. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s one thing, so long as you are aware of that. I just noticed by your density calculation that you’re over the 80 units by a little. So your out at max density here, as far as the 5,000 square feet per dwelling unit is concerned. MR. SIPPERLY-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-And, I don’t know, did Staff see that? Do you understand that? That’s okay, as far as you’re concerned? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I wanted to get some idea of what the term on the drawings is that the future road prepared by others. Just give me a little idea of what that means so that I understand what you’re talking about. On the landscaping plan, it talks in two places about access approved by others, and on the north side of the development there, well, really, I’m sorry on the eastern side of the development, it also talks about future road by others. Can you just tell me what that means? MR. SIPPERLY-Yes. Those two roads are part of the Baybrook Professional Park. The roadway on the west side, which is Roadway Number Two on their plan, will be constructed by the developer of Baybrook Professional Park. Similarly, the roadway on the easterly side of our site, that kind of shows as a cul de sac, well, actually it shows as a full roadway, again, that’s a roadway that appears on their plan. It may be a Phase Two of their plan, but those roads would be built by, as a Baybrook Professional Park grows and goes to build out, those roads would be built by the developer. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that would be Mr. Schermerhorn that would be doing those roads? MR. BARRETT-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. One of the things that I’m trying to understand and look at myself, personally, is the, you know, as this site builds out, Mr. Schermerhorn has some stuff going, as you know, on the Bay Road. There’s, I think, too, an office building and a day care center, and now this, and I’m kind of looking at the traffic pattern, trying to understand the traffic. I know that this is a senior citizen center, and most seniors either don’t drive or walk or whatever happens to those folks like myself. I’m just trying to take a look at what the overall traffic impact is. One of my Board members some time back had suggested that this whole operation go to a PUD so we could understand this a little better. Now, as each one of these developments come up, I’m taking a look at the additive effect, or the cumulative effect, of traffic, and trying to understand what that is, and maybe you can enlighten me just a little bit on that. I see your estimated trip generation and so on. I follow this that’s on the drawing, and I see what you’ve done here. MR. BARRETT-Yes. We are not well enough, we’re not knowledgeable enough to know what all of Mr. Schermerhorn’s plans are. So it’s hard for us to generate an estimate of. MR. VOLLARO-Hard for me, too. MR. BARRETT-Yes, I appreciate that, certainly. We are a very minor, the proposal here is a very minor traffic generator, compared to other potential uses, in fact, compared to the multi family use that I guess is the alternate potential use for this site. I think it’s a legitimate question. I just don’t think we’re the people that can answer it, sir. MR. VOLLARO-Well, so far all of the applications that have come before us have really been “minimum” traffic generators, and I’m just trying to look at the cumulative effect of that, and I’m trying to understand it, and I haven’t been able to put a handle on it yet myself, and maybe some of 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) my other Board members here have done a better job than I have in looking at that, and I’ll just wait and see what they have to say. That’s all I have to say now, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I have a couple of things here. First of all, did you say that behind the cottages you were going to put a little concrete slab with some fencing between the patio for privacy? MR. BARRETT-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, my suggestion would be, instead of using a concrete slab, that you would put maybe a pressure treated deck . I think it would be more pleasing. Some of the projects around here have the concrete slab, and it’s not very good looking I don’t think, but that’s just a suggestion, and I wish I did see an elevation of the cottages. Would they be in the similar style of architecture as the main unit? MR. BARRETT-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The same colors? MR. BARRETT-The same colors. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Same rooflines with the hip roof? MR. BARRETT-Yes, but probably a step down or up the scale to be differentiated from the main building, but, yes, in the same tonal family. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And you’re saying that each cottage would have their one story, each one is 1,000 square feet, and you’ve said each one would have two bedrooms? MR. BARRETT-Correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-One bath. MR. BARRETT-Correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And a kitchen area and living area. MR. BARRETT-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, and the cottages will not have any garages? MR. BARRETT-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Are those parking areas for, I think, maybe we’ve already covered this tonight, but are those parking areas for vehicles in the front? MR. BARRETT-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, okay. Now, I have a question, as far as an amenity for the people that are going to be living here, sidewalks or a place where they can walk around the area, visit their friends, maybe just walk around the periphery or the perimeter of the area as an exercise type of thing, as a nature walk. I think sometimes we forget about the fact that walking is really good for us, and especially the older we get. MR. BARRETT-At every complex that we’ve been involved in, we have a core group, it hasn’t ever been the majority of tenants, the majority of folks, but we have a core group who walk, typically women, because they’re more surviving women, and often together, as a group activity. So one of the Staff recommendations, at some point in this review process, is that we ensure that we connect to an existing hiking trail, and we’re glad to accommodate, if we can figure out how to physically do it, we’re glad to accommodate that suggestion. We agree with you. I mean, if we haven’t shown how to do it, I think Lynn’s got to figure that out, but you’re correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, maybe you could get together with, or bring it up to the Recreation Commission, too, because they certainly have some good ideas, and they might know of something, but I’m just saying even in this, you know, the buffer, the wetlands buffer line and the edge of the wetlands, I mean, it’s not boggy right there, where a person, you could go back there and, you know, be able to have a little trail cut in or around or whatever. I just think it’s something that would be nice. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) MR. BARRETT-We could do that, and probably should, and if we don’t the tenants might demand that. We’ve done a meditation garden with a little gazebo and some plantings at another facility, that was bluntly an afterthought, we didn’t bring it up, when the tenants brought it up. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, Craig just said this. Now, I’m not talking about the part on my plan that’s all dotted, which I assume is flagged wetlands. I’m talking about the area, the buffer area, that 100 feet. I’m talking about like right in here, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think you can develop in there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I’m not saying develop. I’m just saying, would it be accessible or something. I mean, it’s land that you can’t build on, but it ought to be land that you can walk through. MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. I mean, as far as cultivating the trail or something like that through there that’s easier for walking, I don’t think you can do that. You have to stay right out of that, but there’s nothing prohibiting people from wanting to walk in it. They can walk in it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, old people aren’t going to walk in something unless there is kind of a little, I mean, well, it’s not lots of trees there. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s still flagged wetlands. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I’m just saying that that’s just an issue that a couple of other projects similar to this have come before us, and, you know, at least you were very agreeable with me. Some of the other applicants in the past have said, well, if we put in another amenity, it’s just going to jack up the price. Well, to me, being able to have a place to walk isn’t enough to jack up the price. MR. BARRETT-No, it isn’t a significant part of the capital cost in doing something like this. Lynn and I haven’t had an opportunity to talk about it, but there is an opportunity on this site to utilize the existing sidewalk system, and then connect it along, from the one end of the cottages at the lower, through the grassed area, up to the right hand end of the cottages that run parallel to the Town, and t there’s an opportunity there to make a loop, and what people like to do is walk a loop because, then if they get tired, they can drop out, and if others want to walk farther, they can walk another lap, and if we measured it, then they can keep track of how far they’ve gone. These are all things that we’ve seen happen. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So there is, see, I guess I thought that was a road there. I didn’t realize that there was some sidewalk in there. Well, that’s good. MR. BARRETT-What I was suggesting is we could do a less formal. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. BARRETT-It still needs to be, you can’t do a gravel walkway for our folks because they need a sound surface. What I was suggesting is that we could do some walkway that did this, connected to the sidewalks, and then there would be a significant circuit, and part of it would be very green, and part of it would be within the facility proper. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I don’t know how my fellow Board members feel, but I think that would be really good. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Did you want that put into the motion, Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I would like to put that in. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll cross that bridge. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, when we get there. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I just wanted to know, Mr. Chairman, that’s all. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I’m fine right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the questions that I had have already been addressed, the Beautification issue. I had a question on the phasing, though. Are you proposing the phasing just because it will take a while to lease up the units? MR. BARRETT-Our experience, no. It’s because the financing source requires it. Our experience with these facilities is that they don’t take very long to rent up. The last 48 unit facility we completed in the Town of Guilderland was actually 100% occupied 30 days after we got the CO, but the funding source is more skeptical of the demand at this location. We don’t agree with them. So we would do it just to satisfy that requirement. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there going to be an on site manager? MR. BARRETT-Yes, there’ll be an on site manager and probably one and a half maintenance folks. We haven’t decided, at this location, whether we would, for instance, do our own lawns. We certainly won’t do our own snow removal. We’ll contract that out because it’s going to be more cost effective, but there’d be an on site manager who would be a property manager but not a repair person, and probably one and a half repair people. MR. HUNSINGER-So, would he be a live in manager, or do you just have somebody there? MR. BARRETT-We will have somebody there 24, 7, whether it’s the manager or an older adult that we give a discounted rent to to be available for lock outs, for emergencies, to reset the furnace, that kind of things. It really depends on who we can find to do it, and we’ve done different things in different locations. It’s just whether we can find somebody who actually is willing to live on the site and be the manager. It, in many cases, is easier to find somebody who’ll work for us part time, to be on call at night, and somebody else to run the office during the day, because if you live there and you’re the manager, it’s, you never get away. MR. HUNSINGER-There were some Staff comments about coordinating the lighting fixture types, which we required of the other applicant. I don’t know if they’ve been shared with you? MR. BARRETT-Yes, they have. MR. HUNSINGER-The cuts for those. You obviously don’t have a problem with it? MR. BARRETT-Lynn’s looked at those. MR. SIPPERLY-I don’t know if I’ve seen the cuts, but I’m sure that, what we’re proposing is a shoebox type fixture. MR. MAC EWAN-Is this the one? MR. SIPPERLY-Yes. If it’s a fixture similar to that, certainly we would have no objection to coordinating our lighting with other projects in the area. MR. HUNSINGER-I also had questions on the, I guess, privacy fence, privacy wall. What would that look like? Would it just come off the back of the building? MR. BARRETT-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Sort of just to separate out some yard space? MR. BARRETT-Just a six foot wall. It’s not a security fence. It is just a little screen, so that people can say, these tomato plants are in my yard, that’s not your yard. What we’ve found, if you don’t do that, it gets to be a little too vague, and it adds comfort. It doesn’t add any security. It isn’t even necessarily a complete visual screen. It just is a defining element. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I didn’t have any other questions. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-This whole thing that Rich has started, and as Bob brought up, I look back and I wish I had pushed the PUD idea a whole lot more. You’d have a better handle on the way this thing goes. MR. BARRETT-The cumulative impacts and all that. MR. STROUGH-Let me read to you, I pulled this out of an old folder. I read this to Richie Schermerhorn, back when he started this project. I said I’d like to see this whole thing, you know the 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) multitude of types of development that we’re seeing going in here from day care centers and offices and senior housing and whatever else may come forth, as a showpiece development, an example for others, an aesthetic asset to the total community. I would like to see Baybrook as a total comprehensive and cohesive concept, a design development that appears consistent and congruent and presents a sense and feel of being a building. Design concept, color schemes, building forms and other relationships should appear designed, a pleasing order that appears integrated, coordinated and in harmony, and the architectural style should not only appear consistent, but also distinctive, dynamic, appealing and not run of the mill, okay, just so that we’re on the same page. Now, with that said and done, we don’t want any cookie cutter, and we do want to allow for variations, the way I see it, but you have to have some threads of continuity, to keep this consistent, to keep it looking like a village. For example, this is the type of lighting that’s being used for the offices, and this is the parking lot, and street lighting that’s being used. I should differentiate because there is another style of lighting which I’ll talk about in a moment. This is the style of lighting, it’s a, Mr. Sipperly might be familiar with it. It’s a Kim Archie Type Model SAR4 250 watt high sodium pressure, high pressure sodium, excuse me, cut off luminar color black. Okay. Now this is the type that he’s using on this other two projects, and I would like, if you’re willing to go along with this, to continue this concept, this style of lighting, which I don’t think is all that dissimilar to what you proposed, but, if we use the same style of lighting, it’s one thread of continuity in this community that we’re trying to design. MR. SIPPERLY-That’s not a problem. That is a shoebox fixture. Kim is another brand or manufacturer of lighting, and it’s really very similar. It’s not a problem. MR. STROUGH-Good. Now, the other style of lighting that Richie uses, and for lack of a better way to describe it, I’ll call it a sidewalk pole lighting, but you have some in front of your cottages. It kind of lights up the sidewalks, and acts as an entry light to each of the cottage’ entries. Now Richie also has a style like that for his day care center, and that’s done in an antique style. Now I tried to go back through my folders, and this I just did before the meeting tonight, to find that antique style for you. So that we could remain consistent with the lighting. Now, as far as the wall mounted lighting, I just don’t think, as far as appearances, that doesn’t make a difference to me, but the exterior lighting, namely the lighting for the walkways and the lighting for the parking and the roadway, I think should be consistent. MR. BARRETT-We have no problem with that. In fact, at your suggestion, we will contact Rich Schermerhorn and make sure that our lighting is consistent with what’s proposed in other sites within the park. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now we didn’t have, and I talked about architectural details, you know the main building, and I don’t have the example of the cottages. The main building’s architecture certainly looks harmonious, except, even with the brick, except I don’t know if that brick style would be harmonious with the brick styles that Richie’s been doing, but it would be nice if we could work out something in that area. I don’t know if the brick color makes a difference to you. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll just interject a thought here. I know where you’re trying to go. I don’t know if that’s, in a sense the entire Board wants to go that route. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’ve gotten the feeling in the past that the Board has supported this concept. Now, you can poll the Board if you like. MR. MAC EWAN-No. I’m going to give you some latitude to go along with this, but I get concerned when we start, I think we’re starting to get our train off the track a little bit, and loosing track of the overall picture we’re after. MR. STROUGH-Well, the only way, Craig, that you can get a handle on trying to keep this concept, if you enjoy this concept, which, do you or don’t you, of the village? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, see, that’s the whole problem I’m having here is that I’ve not recalled the Board, as a whole, envisioning the concept of a village type theme in this entire facility. MR. STROUGH-Well, we did agree on the lighting and some threads of continuity, as far as the architecture and some architectural style goes as far as the day care center and the office buildings, and it seemed to be a general consensus here, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, and I think that they are achieving that with the design they’ve got. I mean, that’s my opinion. MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s your opinion, but I don’t have enough information, talking on my behalf, and I think I have the right to do that. MR. MAC EWAN-No one’s faulting you for the right to do that, John. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s the direction I’m going in, and in seeing that, you know, is the building brick? Because brick is something that would be another continuous thread. We’ve got the lighting. They’re very much willing to go along with that, which is good. I just wouldn’t want to see something so strongly different that it kind of sets this apart too much from what we’re trying to do here. So the direction I’m trying to go in is what kind, what color of brick are we talking about? Is it going to be consistent, compatible with the brick styles and colors that Richie’s used in the other two properties? MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have some cuts on what Schermerhorn’s doing at the day care, as far as color schemes? MRS. MOORE-I’d have to look in the file, and I did not bring that file with me. I know what you’re looking for. MR. STROUGH-As far as color scheme’s, though, Richie was going to use basically earth tones, okay, which it’s kind of earth tone in here. MR. BARRETT-Yes. There’s a broad range. MR. STROUGH-That’s a broad range, and I’m not trying to pinpoint or express of you what kind of colors you should do. I’m just trying to make sure that, in my mind, that this thing stays coordinated, and I didn’t have enough information, as far as, because this is the first time we’re, as a Planning Board, being presented with what the building looks like, and we don’t know what the cottages will look like, okay. All right. You know which direction I’m trying to head in. Staff made comment of, and I don’t think this is entirely your concern, and it would have to, it would mean a coordinated effort with Richard Schermerhorn, to provide a pedestrian path linking and interconnecting these buildings, so that we maintain this, again, this village consistency, and I’m not sure what you said, but you say that you felt there was or there wasn’t a need for a public transit load and unload site? MR. BARRETT-I don’t know if we specifically expressed that. We’re exploring, I guess, the need for public transportation, both with the public transportation, perhaps with the senior citizen services already offers, and there may be some van service that would be required of this facility, independently. The site does provide for pull off areas for loading and unloading of people. On this site, what we see as quite frequent is that there’s a lot of organized trips occurring here, and busses coming in. So the site has been designed so that the site will accommodate large vehicles, busses, to come in and drop off and pick up people, and, you know, park for a while. So I think that, in that context, it would also be suitable for a public transportation to come in. MR. STROUGH-Well, I guess what I had in mind was not much, but kind of a rain roofed area, a rain protected area, not even a wall, you know, typically of what you might see at a bus stop area, just to protect somebody who’s waiting for the bus from some of the worst elements, and I don’t know if you had anything like that in mind. MR. BARRETT-We don’t have that in the plan right now. Actually, the sidewalk, between the sidewalk with the roadway and the building is probably about 25 feet. The facility does have a large porch on the front of it, which is where we would envision the people to be waiting for public transportation, and also they would wait inside, if the weather is chilly at all, they wouldn’t want to wait outside. MR. STROUGH-Now would a bus be able to maneuver and to pick up people in that main entrance? MR. BARRETT-Not up next to the building, no. There would be an area of, again, 25 feet that would be uncovered, probably between where the bus would be and the actual building itself. MR. STROUGH-But it still could serve that function, then. MR. BARRETT-Yes. MR. STROUGH-I can see what you mean. Okay. Now, Chris Jones, the Fire Marshal’s, comments, were those concerns dealt with. Do you know what I’m referring to, the letter from Chris Jones? MR. SIPPERLY-I don’t think I’ve seen that letter. MR. STROUGH-Basically he talks about any fire hydrants installed on the property must be installed to Queensbury Water Department spec and the requirements of the National Fire Protection Association, this one. So, you personally, you haven’t seen this yet? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) MR. BARRETT-I haven’t seen that, but typically, each community has their own style of hydrant, and we would design to that. We design to the community standards. MR. STROUGH-And it goes on, if the fire hydrants are not assumed by the Queensbury Water Department, all private hydrants, would they be private or public? MR. BARRETT-We’d need to talk to the Queensbury Water Department to find out if they would like to. MR. STROUGH-So rather than go through these issues, these issues probably still should need to be addressed? MR. BARRETT-Yes. I’d like to get a copy of that, if I could. I can ask Laura for a copy. MR. STROUGH-Okay. The sewer Bob talked about. The stormwater management plan, I had trouble reading this. I had to go back and forth through the catch basins and the road, etc., etc., and to look on the bigger plans, and, I’m just getting older here. Reading this is getting tougher and tougher, and basically seemed to work, and most of it was on site, which I think is good. I like keeping it on site. The only concern I had was with the, what they call their northern part of the Number Two detention basin, where we have the emergency overflow, and then goes right into the cul de sac, up to the northwest, northeast, rather. Now that’s at 308 feet above sea level, and the road is 308 feet above sea level. Isn’t there a clash here between the development, the future development of that cul de sac and where you have your emergency overflow? MR. BARRETT-We had envisioned that, when that cul de sac is designed that they will make provisions to pick up the water from this emergency overflow. All they have to do is bring it across the road. MR. STROUGH-I know that, but it should be in the plans. MR. BARRETT-Well, see, the plans for the cul de sac is, that’s a future phase of the Baybrook Professional park, not to say the chicken and the egg, but we were first with our detention basin, and I would think any plans for that future street extension would take into consideration that there is an emergency overflow here, and they need to continue that across, under the roadway. MR. STROUGH-They do need to, and in towards possibly, the center of that cul de sac as a back up detention. MR. BARRETT-Right. Our detention will still be on site. Just the emergency overflow, which only really functions once in 25, 50 years. It’s not a an occurrence that’s frequent, hopefully not frequent. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but I just, you know, the way it is does seem to be a problem, unless Richie’s willing to say, okay, I see this and I’m willing to work with this, and here’s the plan. When I come in with the cul de sac, here’s what we’re going to do. MR. BARRETT-That’s exactly how we would envision it. Here’s an existing condition, though. Our facility would be there, an existing condition, and it would be just prudent on their behalf, you know, an engineer’s design. MR. STROUGH-Well, I know it should be and should be and should be. I’d like to see the plans that make it part of the site plan, you know, for me to be fully comfortable with that. MR. BARRETT-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now the landscaping plan also is something, it hasn’t gone before the Beautification Committee, and, Laura, I don’t know if you talked to Mary Lee Gosline, but again, the landscaping plan, we want to make sure that it’s harmonious, not cookie cutter. It doesn’t have to be, but harmonious with what we’ve seen so far, and what we’re going to see in the future. Okay, but that’s, I mean, that’s yet to be done. The sprinkler system, do you plan on using a sprinkler system for the lawn and the shrubs, etc., or at least the lawn? MR. SIPPERLY-The building is fully sprinklered, if that’s what your question. MR. STROUGH-I mean a lawn sprinkling system. MR. BARRETT-We’ve considered that in the past and not done it, and so, at this point, we’re not planning on an underground sprinkler system. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) MR. STROUGH-Well, I’d like to see one, but I’m only one member. Okay. So the lighting we fully agree on, stormwater we’ve talked about. I’d like to see some elevation drawings, and I’d like to see the Beautification Committee consider the landscaping plan. MR. MAC EWAN-We already said that, should we consider an approval of this project, conditioned upon them revisiting Beautification. MR. STROUGH-And I want to throw my support with Cathy on her ideas on development of amenities. In the past, too, we’ve seen projects with bocci ball, was it, or shuffle board, you know, things like that. We’d like to see the amenities for the senior housing especially. I like the gazebo idea. It’s a place to meet. It’s a place to rest, but I would like to see some amenities, and I support Cathy on that. Okay, and, thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-No problem. Anything from Staff? MRS. MOORE-A clarification on density. There is, when you take the total lot size at 13.63 acres, and you subtract out the 4.41 acres of wetlands, that leaves you with 80.32 units, and they’re developing only 80 units out of that. So it’s at the maximum density, and I just wanted to clarify that, for Bob’s concern. MR. VOLLARO-They’re up at max density now, though, aren’t they? MRS. MOORE-They don’t exceed it, no. MR. VOLLARO-No, they don’t exceed it, but they’re at it. MRS. MOORE-They’re at it. MR. VOLLARO-All right. They’re at max density. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Laura, you said it was 13.63 minus 4.41? MRS. MOORE-Which leaves you with 9.22 acres, divide that by the 5,000 square feet. MR. VOLLARO-That comes out to 80.32, I think, that number. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do have something else I just wanted to add, and that’s on the meeting date of July 9, on this letter from the Beautification Committee, I want to make sure that this Board th understands that the Committee, that Committee, recommend that the Town Planning Board does not approve the applicant’s request without applicants appearing before the Beautification Committee. Our position on this Board is that we’re going to. MR. STROUGH-Bob, wasn’t that, is that for this application? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m sorry, it is not. MR. STROUGH-It was stapled in with this, and I saw that, too, but that’s another application. MR. VOLLARO-Sorry about that. It’s got applicant Omni Housing. MR. STROUGH-I’m sorry, Bob, it is for both of them. MR. VOLLARO-And for J & J Management, so both of those, that comment applies to both of those, but it does apply to this application, and I want to make sure this Board understands that we’re kind of bypassing that with an alternate approach. MR. RINGER-Well, we would be bypassing it to the letter, but. MR. VOLLARO-An alternate approach. She’s asked for something, and we’re saying we’ll do it a different way. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s okay. I think we got that issue resolved. We’ll handle it. MR. VOLLARO-Now, just one more thing on traffic, and I guess there’s a reason why, this is not a drawing that you’d recognize. It comes from the site plan of, when we looked at the site plan for this 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) overall development, and this is Bay Road here. This is one of my pet peeves, and nobody goes along with it, but I’m going to get it on the record in any event. We’ve got Baywood Drive, you’ve got your western drive, here, your northern drive coming out onto Bay Road. We’ve got a road called Walker Lane. We’ve got the next one here, and we’ve got a Baybridge access road which will one day be turned into a Town dedicated road, and there’s a large community up in here, and then as you were talking, we talked, I had a comment on, you know, the amount of traffic this could generate, and I was wondering if it took into account visitors, and then you reminded me that there would be busses coming in and out of here as well. So I’m as a person who happens to live over here, okay. This is the NIMBY thing going on here, but I’m concerned about this stretch of 1,000 feet of road, and the traffic impacts that this entire community could have on this stretch of road, and I’ve had this discussion here before. I think my fellow Board members have heard me screech about this. So I just wanted to get it on the record that I’m still not happy with the way these curb cuts go out onto Bay Road. That’s all, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-So noted. Anything else? Laura? MRS. MOORE-No. I will bring up, in regards to our consistency issue with lighting and things like that, the day care center is the only application that’s in currently, and if you’re going to do a specific light, and I think that’s where John Strough is heading to, in regards to the office building, I think the specific light that we want to reference is the one that is currently approved for the day care center. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what you were referring to. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, the only difference between the office, which doesn’t have any sidewalk lighting, and the day care center, which has sidewalk lighting. MRS. MOORE-Both. MR. STROUGH-And they use an antique style pole. MRS. MOORE-Right. The cut off fixture for, that was proposed for the office building, versus the day care, I think was a little different. So that’s what I just wanted to clarify, about the cut off fixture. MR. STROUGH-I believe that parking lot and roadway lighting are the same, and they’re both. MRS. MOORE-Both that one you referenced? MR. STROUGH-Both that one I showed. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Because I compared it to both plans, and they were both this fixture. MRS. MOORE-All right. I don’t have the plan in front of me. I just wanted to make sure. MR. STROUGH-The only thing that I wasn’t able to uncover quickly was the example of the antique pole light that they were going to use for the sidewalk lighting and the day care center. MRS. MOORE-Right. I just don’t want to pin you down to one type of light, if that wasn’t the light, the one that we were referencing. MR. STROUGH-I’m pretty sure this is on both plans. I compared this to the other one. MR. MAC EWAN-And there’s a couple of ways we could get there from here. So we’ll cross that when we get down there. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? I’ll ask you gentlemen to give up the table for a couple of minutes. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) MRS. MOORE-Yes. The applicant has filled out a Long Form. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Here we go. “IMPACT ON LAND Will proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?” MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Small to moderate? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, small to moderate. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. STROUGH-I’ll agree. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Will proposed action affect surface or ground water quality or quantity?” MR. VOLLARO-I would say there is some effect there, but it’s being mitigated, I think, by the catch basins, detention basins, etc. MR. MAC EWAN-Small to moderate. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, there’s lots of things here, like will the action require a discharge permit? Does it require use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve the proposed action? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Does it require water supply from wells of greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity? MR. VOLLARO-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Does it cause any contamination of a water supply system? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Will it adversely effect groundwater? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Will liquid effluent be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Will it use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Will it cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Will it require the storage of petroleum or chemical products? 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Will it allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Propose action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Any other impacts, then? I mean, in other words, how do you feel that it’s going to affect the surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. MAC EWAN-Quantity, it’s creating more runoff. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s going to create more runoff, definitely. MR. MAC EWAN-And they’re going to mitigate that through their detention basins. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Then you’re okay. Then we’re all set. MR. HUNSINGER-Actually that’s the next question, as far as runoff. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. “Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff?” MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, small to moderate. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, small to moderate. MR. MAC EWAN-Mitigated through project actions. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. “IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, Bob thinks there will be. MR. MAC EWAN-I disagree with him. I don’t think so. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The things in here, Bob, say, alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. Proposed action will result in major traffic problems. MR. VOLLARO-No, not major. Not until we see the site fully built out. We’ll see how this goes. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s another SEQRA for another application. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But you know, if there’s a bus or a van or something that takes the people, then they’re not all going to have their own cars. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I think the Board said no impact. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 24-2001, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: OMNI HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, and 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) 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 24 day of July, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Has someone got a resolution crafted? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Can we take a minute or two to put one together? MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t we take a five minute recess, and we’ll put a resolution together. Okay. MRS. MOORE-Prior to your making your motion, can you read off the list of conditions, so that the entire Board can hear that prior to your motion being made? MRS. LA BOMBARD-You said you want me to list the conditions first before I say? Okay. Here’s the conditions that we have, Laura. There’s seven of them. Number One, that the cottages that are going to be put up, because we haven’t seen any elevations of the cottages, or any drawings, that they be architecturally compatible with the existing day care center and office building on the site, and that the parking lighting and the sidewalk lighting be of the Victorian style, not the parking. The parking should be the same lighting as is already at the day care center and the office building, and the sidewalk lighting be of that same Victorian style. Number Three, that the brick tones should be consistent, as determined by Staff. Number Four, that there be a pedestrian path, a loop around this site, and also a path that would be interconnecting with the adjacent development. Five, that this would be passed for future review of the Beautification Committee, and the plan that they select must be congruent with the other landscaping plans, and that Mr. Jones, the Fire Marshal, needs the plan so that he can determine the hydrant. MR. STROUGH-Well, no, the applicant will address the concerns put forward by Chris Jones the Fire Marshal in his letter dated June 20, 2001. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Can I just comment on that last one? The applicant is required, when he fills out his building permit, to meet with the Code, the Fire Marshal as well. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So we don’t need to use that. MR. RINGER-Put it in. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) MR. MAC EWAN-It draws the point that we’re concerned about it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That we were concerned, okay. So then six was that we address the Fire Marshal’s concerns, and Number Seven, that we get a written statement from Rich Schermerhorn to coordinate the road development with the stormwater plan of this site. MRS. MOORE-Can I just re-word that? You’re indicating that you want the subdivision plan, stormwater to be? MR. MAC EWAN-The concern we have here is that drainage swale that they have the rock in is an elevation of 308. The proposed road extension is also at an elevation of 308. One of them will have to change. MRS. MOORE-All right. MR. MAC EWAN-So the issue is how do we word that in the resolution to make the developer aware of it and the applicant aware of it, that that’s a potential problem down the road that’s going to need to be addressed. You can’t have it at the same elevation. MRS. MOORE-I think what you can utilize is Rich Schemerhorn’s engineer, versus Rich Schermerhorn. If you understand what I’m saying. MR. VOLLARO-We can make a definitive statement and state that that detention basin shall be below the 308 elevation. MR. STROUGH-Well, whatever they decide, what we wanted, and I think Craig had said, is all we wanted was a commitment that Mr. Schermerhorn is willing to adapt his plans to the current drainage plan, the stormwater management plan of this application, specifically addressing the emergency overflow for detention basin number two, that something’s got to be coordinated with that cul de sac. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. STROUGH-And since Richard’s going to be the developer for the road. MR. MAC EWAN-The problem here is, though. MS. RADNER-Schermerhorn is not here tonight. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s right, and we can’t ask the developer to abide by a condition of approval for an application that he’s not part of. MS. RADNER-Your application has to be enforceable against these applicants. So you might want to say that if the road is not changed, and it becomes necessary, that this applicant will change the elevation of his swale. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you understand where we’re going? MS. RADNER-It has to be enforceable against this applicant. You cannot put conditions against applicants that are not before this Board or against other applications. Now it’s possible that this applicant will be able to work with those other people and work out this problem, but you’re condition has to be such that if that cannot happen, because it is not a condition against those other parties, that this applicant is the one that will have to then change his stormwater plan. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. So how did you say that should be worded again, Cathi? MS. RADNER-My recommendation would be that it would be conditioned upon this applicant agreeing that if the road elevation is not changed in coordination with the Schermerhorn project, that he will then change the elevation of his swale. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. STROUGH-Actually, it’s the emergency overflow. MS. RADNER-Or his emergency overflow. MR. SIPPERLY-If I could clarify that. The elevation shown on that cul de sac at the east end of the site, the proposed future road, those are existing contours. That does not reflect the elevation of that road that would be constructed. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) MR. STROUGH-Well, it’s awful close. As you go a little bit north, or a little bit east, it goes to 309, but right about where this overflow is going in, it appears by the contour lines to be about 308 feet. All we’re concerned with is that there be some kind of coordinated effort here so that we don’t run into a problem, because they are close. MR. SIPPERLY-Right. I realize that. Again, those are just existing contours. They’re not, they don’t reflect the grade of that road, as it would be designed or constructed in the future. In fact, the elevation of our building is at 314. We could look at the drawing and see what the elevation of the cottage is. That road would most likely be at elevation 311. I don’t think it’s going to be at 308. I think it would be designed higher than 308. MR. MAC EWAN-I think for our purposes we’ll stick with what Cathi has suggested. That way it ties it all in so that it’s ensured that if there is a problem down the road, it’s going to be addressed. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-The double safety net we have here is that the approval of this application, these guys are bound by, to ensure that it’s going to be corrected. Plus we also have the other safety net that when that portion of the project is ever developed, we can address it at that time with Schermerhorn. Okay. Do we need to back through those again? Can we just move on the motion? MRS. MOORE-Someone needs to read through them when they make the motion. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, Cathy, go for it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 24-2001 OMNI HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No.24-2001, Omni Housing Dev., for development of a 13.63 acre parcel for 80 Senior Citizen Independent Living Apartments: 48 apartments in a two story building and 32 apartments in eight (8) four unit cottages. On-site parking for 112 vehicles. All uses in MR zones require Planning Board review and approval. WHEREAS, the application was received 5/30/01; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 7/20/01: 7/24 Staff Notes 7/18 ZBA resolution 7/12 L. Moore from L. Sipperly (agent) re: Beautification 7/11 Warren Co. Planning Board – Approved w/condition 7/9 Beautification Comm. Recommendation 7/3 Meeting Notice 6/26 Staff Notes 6/20 L. Moore from C. Jones, Fire Marshal 6/13 Warren Co. Planning – Deny w/o prejudice 6/6 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 6/26/01 and 7/24/01 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 WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application is approved as per the resolution prepared by Staff with the following conditions: 1. The cottages be architecturally compatible with the existing Day Care Center, Office Building and Main Building on site; and 2. The parking lighting be the same as that which is already there, the Day Care Center and Office Building and the sidewalk lighting be of that same Victorian style, and 3. The brick tones should be consistent and that would be determined by Staff, and 4. A pedestrian path or a loop be made around this development and then eventually interconnected with the adjacent one (Note added by staff: this refers to connecting the cottage unit sidewalks around the site and the path be interconnected to adjacent paths, interconnection with adjoining property owners), and 5. This should be passed (this resolution) upon the future review of the Beautification Committee and that the plan must be congruent with the other landscaping plans, and 6. Issues that Mr. Jones, the Fire Marshal addressed (Note added by staff: dated 6/20/01), let it be known that we wanted that to be on the record, that we’ve brought that out, and that they be attended to, and 7. The applicant would make a coordinated effort in the road development on the site for stormwater management (Note by staff: this refers to the northeast corner of the lot, emergency overflow spillway). Duly adopted this 24th day of July 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. Good luck. MR. BARRETT-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-I would ask that a copy of these minutes and the recommendations be given to Beautification so they understand what we’re trying to accomplish in this development. SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2001 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED MICHAEL S. HAYES PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 36.46 +/- ACRES INTO FOUR LOTS OF 2.6 AC., 2.42 AC., 2.77 AC., AND 28.67 ACRES FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE. REVISED MAP SUBMITTED REFLECTING CONDITIONS OF TABLING RESOLUTION FOR FINAL STAGE DATED 6/26/01. TAX MAP NO. 54-2-6 LOT SIZE: 36.46 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, 179-30 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 4-2001, Final Stage, Michael S. Hayes, Meeting Date: July 24, 2001 “Project Description The applicant proposes final stage review for a four-lot subdivision on Ridge Road. The applicant received preliminary approval at the June 26, 2001 meeting. The applicant’s final stage review was tabled so the applicant could revise the subdivision layout to accommodate the wetlands and density requirement. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) Plat Review (§ A183) ?? Lot arrangement and sizes: The applicant’s revised plan shows modifications to the rear lot lines. Lot 1 is 2.86 acres; Lot 2 is 2.16 acres; Lot 3 is 2.77 acres; and Lot 4 is 28.67. The previous lot sizes were Lot 1, 2.60 acres; Lot 2, 2.42 acres; Lot 3, 28.67. ?? Water supply: The plans identify well as the water supply source. ?? Sewage disposal: The plans identify septic locations and test pits. Test pit and septic information should be included as provided during preliminary stage. ?? Future development: Lot #4 has the potential to be further developed. Some further use of this property includes lot line adjustments with adjoining property owners to increase their respective parcel sizes. Areas of Concern or Importance The Planning Board requested Staff to look into an existing “rifle range” located near this proposal. Staff was unable to find any permits or assessment information on a rifle range. The only reference found concerning firearms and zoning pertained to Town Code Article II Prohibition of Firearms and Bows. This code considers discharge of a firearm or bow in or near town parks and recreation areas as a criminal action. The applicant has also applied for site plan review to locate duplex units on each lot. The SR-1A zone requires at least one acre per dwelling unit. The four lots proposed meet or exceed this minimum requirement per dwelling unit.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening, gentlemen MR. O’CONNOR-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. MR. O’CONNOR-I think we’ve answered the questions that were raised at the preliminary approval. We have no problem with the request for the test pit. Septic information I think was shown on Sheet 3 of 3, D-1, and we will include it with the final filing. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Larry? MR. RINGER-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-It’s just basically a lot line adjustment. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Didn’t we have the applicant on record saying that Lot 4 would not be further subdivided? MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t believe so. There was a Staff comment that had a question whether or not it would be potentially further developed. MR. HUNSINGER-I seem to recall a discussion that, about, I’m sorry, not no further development, but no further subdivision of Lot 4. MR. O'CONNOR-If we were going to subdivide, we’d have to come back. We’d like to reserve our options to do that. I think the lot is 28.67 feet. I’m not sure what would be a configuration that might be possible, but I would not want to stipulate that we not be allowed to make a further application, if that’s an option that we wish to explore. MR. RINGER-As I remember the discussion, Chris, it was probably if they did come back for further subdivision, they’d have to come in to gain property somewhere else to come in with another, that seemed to me what our discussion was. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. RINGER-Not that they couldn’t, but they’d probably have to get the property to come in, to access that from another road. That was just an informal discussion. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) MR. O'CONNOR-The application would have to stand on its own, whatever configuration we offer to you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. John? MR. STROUGH-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing from Staff? MR. METIVIER-Hey, what about me? MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tony? MR. METIVIER-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Would anyone like to introduce a motion please? MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2001 MICHAEL S. HAYES, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a modification to Subdivision No. 4-2001, Michael S. Hayes for subdivision of a 41.48 acre parcel into four lots of 2.6 ac., 2.42 ac., 2.77 ac., and 28.67 acres for single family residential use. Tax Map No. 54-2-6, and WHEREAS, the application was received 5/30/01; WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 7/20/01; 7/24 Staff Notes 6/26 Planning Board resolution 6/26 Staff Notes 6/22 Notice of Public Hearing 6/6 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 6/26/01 and 7/24/01 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 The application for final stage is approved in accordance with the resolution as its been prepared by Staff with no further additions. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) SITE PLAN NO. 30-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED MICHAEL S. HAYES PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF EIGHT DUPLEX UNITS ON A FOUR LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. PURSUANT TO SECTION 179-65 DUPLEXES IN SR ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 4-2001 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/11/01 TAX MAP NO. 54-2-6 LOT SIZE: 36.46 ACRES SECTION: 179- 65 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 30-2001, Michael S. Hayes, Meeting Date: July 24, 2001 “Project Description The applicant proposes four duplex buildings for a total of eight units to be located on Ridge Road. Project Analysis (Section 179-38) Site Overview The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. The units will be facing Ridge Road with garages to the center of the units. The architectural drawing indicates each dwelling unit has about 1,992 square feet of living space. The units are proposed to be one story. The plans do not indicate there will be any signs or outdoor lighting for the units. Traffic, Circulation, Parking The proposal includes two new driveways onto Ridge Road. The driveways include a turn around area. The development requires two spaces for each dwelling unit or four spaces per lot. The garage units appear to be for one vehicle. The plan should show additional detail for parking. Utility, Stormwater, Landscaping, Emergency Services The plans should indicate the units will be serviced by on site wells and septic systems. The test pit and septic design information should be included with the site plans. The plans do not identify any landscape specifics or lot clearing limits. Some of the buildings may be located in areas of the 100 year flood specific to lot 1,2,3 (FEMA Panel 3608790019B). The flood zone information should be provided on the plans. Suggestions Staff would suggest the final plans include information on flood zones, landscaping, and parking detail.” MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. MR. O'CONNOR-We have no objection to Staff comments. As I understand it, Matt Steves has talked to Laura, maybe since the preparation of those comments. The flood zones are shown on some of the maps that you have that were utilized for the subdivision approval, and none of the units are within the flood zone. The landscaping, as I understand it, is going to be typical landscaping. The Hayes’ own other duplexes. There’s nothing special about it. They’re set back from the road. They will do lawns about the area where they disturbed during construction. Parking detail, I guess the question is, is there room for two vehicles on each, for each unit, and there’s clearly enough room. When we do building permits, we can show that, or I’m not sure if you want us to, actually, if the cars park end to end there’s more than enough room, right now. MRS. MOORE-My comment is that I needed clarification that it at least accommodates two, and that can be indicated on the plot plan that says each of the dwelling units accommodates two cars. Right now it’s not clear. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We would make that notation as we submit for signature, then. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t see anything. I’ve looked at it and I think they made a very smart move on the elevation drawing, taking out those three dormers on the top. In this part of the Country, they just give you trouble. MICKIE HAYES 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) MR. HAYES-We learned the hard way. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-This is curiosity. You said they have other duplex units. Are some of the others on Ridge Road also? MR. O'CONNOR-I think they have three units on Ridge Road, before you get to the curve, and I think they have some over on Dixon Road. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. No, I don’t have anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-My only question. Is it our responsibility to notify the gentleman who has the shooting range that he actually doesn’t have it? MR. MAC EWAN-No, that would be the new guy’s job, I guess. MR. METIVIER-We’ll break him in. Besides that, I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Larry? MR. RINGER-No, I don’t have anything. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything to add? MR. O'CONNOR-I think Mrs. LaBombard said eight duplex buildings. We’re talking about four duplex buildings with eight units, and in the Staff notes they talk about 1992 square feet of living space for each dwelling unit. That’s the typical that we’ve shown, and that’s for both units. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, because it did say here the construction of eight duplex units, but you’re saying four units with four. MR. O'CONNOR-Four duplex units with eight units. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Four buildings with eight. MR. HAYES-With two units each. MRS. LA BOMBARD-With two units, right. So we have four units, four buildings with two 1992 square foot apartments in them, no, each total. So they’re going to be just under 1,000 square foot? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. O'CONNOR-We had typical plans. I don’t know how detailed you want to get or not, but I mean, these are two different units. MR. MAC EWAN-We have them. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. If you’ve got them, fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? Staff? I’ll ask you to give up the table for a minute. We’ll open the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application, you’re welcome to do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) HOWARD CRANNELL MR. CRANNELL-My name is Howard Crannell, and my residence is going to be at 388 Haviland Road, which is kitty corner from this development, and I really have just one concern, because I wasn’t here for the first meeting because it was supposed to be for a single family home. What is going to be the septic requirements? MR. MAC EWAN-Good question. We’ll get it answered for you. Any other questions? MR. CRANNELL-No, that’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll get that one answered for you. Anyone else? Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Would Staff like to respond to that? MRS. MOORE-They’re subject to the building permit and the same Code requirements for any other unit or dwelling unit, that they’ll have to meet that. MR. MAC EWAN-Because it’s a duplex, is it a shared system, or would each apartment have its own system, for a duplex? MR. HAYES-I believe they’re shared. MR. MAC EWAN-A shared system. MR. HAYES-Based upon bedrooms and projected water uses. MR. MAC EWAN-So the same philosophy that we use for residential, single family residential, applies to this, it’s based on the amount of bedrooms, as to the size of the system? MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Okay. We need to do a SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-This is a Short Form or a Long Form? MR. MAC EWAN-A Short. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 30-2001, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: MICHAEL S. HAYES, 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. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) 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 24 day of July, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a resolution, please? MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I knew I had a reason for offering the architect plans, and I’m going back to my notes. One of the comments was that the units proposed are to be one story. They may very well build a two story. I don’t know if that’s of any significance or not. The height will comply with the height for the zone. It’ll be within the footprint of what we’re talking about for the units. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think it’s an issue. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But if it’s two story, then one will be downstairs and one will be upstairs, or there’ll be, each one will have a downstairs and an upstairs? MR. HAYES-More up and down, like Colonial styles would have. MRS. LA BOMBARD-They probably would be more attractive. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think it’s an issue. MR. O'CONNOR-I just wanted to make sure I made a comment, because it was in Staff notes. That’s all. MR. MAC EWAN-So noted. Would someone introduce a motion, please. MR. STROUGH-I was going to make the motion. There was one condition that I believe the applicant agreed to, and that’s as far as providing some kind of a plan that two cars could park. MR. MAC EWAN-It had to be noted on the plat, is what you’re looking for, that the parking, the driveway or parking can accommodate two cars per unit. It’s a note that has to be put on the plat. MR. VOLLARO-And what about the suggestion that Staff has for plans to include information on flood zones, landscaping, parking details? That’s something that was suggested by Staff. MR. STROUGH-Well, isn’t that already? MR. O'CONNOR-The flood zone is on the. MR. STROUGH-It’s already on there. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and the landscaping I’ve orally said is going to be typical. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I mean, we typically don’t get into, go ahead, John. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 30-2001 MICHAEL S. HAYES, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 27-2001 Michael S. Hayes for construction of eight duplex units on a four lot residential subdivision. Pursuant to Section 179-65 Duplexes in SR zones require Planning Board review and approval. Tax Map No. 54-2-6. Cross Reference: SB 4-2001, and; 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) WHEREAS, the application was received 6/01; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 7/20/01: 7/24 Staff Notes 7/17 Notice of Public Hearing 7/11 Warren Co. Planning Board – No County Impact 7/3 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on 7/24/01 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 WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application is approved in accordance with the resolution as prepared by Staff with the following condition: 1. A note will be put on the final plat that shows’ parking is available for two vehicles per unit. Duly adopted this 24th day of July 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. MR. HAYES-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 27-2001 TYPE II J & J MANAGEMENT PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: HC-1A, RR-3A LOCATION: RT. 149 & WALKUP CUTOFF ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A GRAVEL SURFACE BOAT DISPLAY & SALES AREA AND OFFICE TRAILER. NEW USES IN HC ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: USE VAR. 120-1989, AV 119-1989, SP 59-89, PZ 4-2001 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JULY 11, 2001 TAX MAP NO. 48-1-26 LOT SIZE: 1.8 ACRES SECTION 179-23, 179-15 JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 27-2001, J & J Management, Meeting Date: July 24, 2001 “Project Description The applicant proposes to operate a boat display and sales area. The site will be improved with gravel and an office trailer. The applicant had received a change of zone recently to for the area with 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) frontage on Route 149. The parcel remains as a split zone with 1.8+ acres in the Highway Commercial One-Acre zone and about 9 acres in the Rural Residential Three-Acre zone Project Analysis (Section 179-38) Site Overview The Boat Display area is 45 feet from Route 149 with 19 display spaces. The Office Building will be located 108 feet from Route 149. The Office Building will be utilized for bathroom facilities. The shed or storage buildings may be used for storage of boat inventory. The applicant does not propose repairs or servicing boats at this site, all repair and service work will occur at the Mooring Post Marina. The sign is to be located on the west side of the driveway. The plans indicate two light poles will be installed at either end of the display area. The lights will be high- pressure sodium at 250 watts. Traffic, Circulation, Parking The parcel layout has road frontage on three roads. The existing site has two entrances on Walkup Cutoff Road and one entrance on Bay Road. Warren County Planning recommended that trailer traffic (boats on trailers, empty trailers, boat haulers) utilize Bay Road and Walkup Cutoff Road for access. The new proposed entrance is located on Route 149 and has a twenty-foot wide access aisle. The display spaces front towards Route 149 and the eight customer spaces are adjacent to the Office Trailer. The plan indicates the number of customer spaces was determined by the applicant’s experience. The Town code does not have a requirement for how many spaces are needed for a display area. The American Planning Association report number 432 “Off Street Parking” has a reference for Car Sale Display as one space per 3,000 sq. ft. of open sales lot area devoted to sale or display; the publication also has a reference for Outdoor Retail as one space per each 1,000 square feet of lot used for display purposes. This amounts to 3-4 spaces so parking offered is adequate. The display and sale of boats will generate internal pedestrian and vehicle traffic. The display area will be gravel, staff would suggest some type of signage to added to the site informing vehicles of internal pedestrian traffic. Utility, Stormwater, Landscaping, Emergency Services The applicant’s stormwater plan indicates all new stormwater will be accommodated on site due to site design and parcel size. Areas of Concern or Importance The installation of a storage trailer does not appear to be in conformance with the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. The area takes into account neighborhoods 2,4,5. The proposal is in neighborhood #4, but due to the location of the proposal the surrounding neighborhoods are included. The plan recommends that business in this area be developed to maintain the rural character. Suggestions The Board may consider requesting the applicant to utilize an existing building for office use and improving the existing parking area for display.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper and Tom Nace. Jim Sherwood, who’s one of the owners of J & J Management, is behind us, and is available for questions. We’re here after appearing before the Town Board for a rezoning, which this Board recommended before the Town Board voted on it. Just to go through the past recent history, this was Weller Construction’s office for a number of years, and had been on the market and vacant for four years before J & J came along. Their idea to do boat sales here is just because the Pilot Knob Marina is across the street, and it’s one of the main thoroughfares to get to Lake George. So it seemed like an appropriate location away from the lake. I just want to clarify one of the things that Laura had on her Staff notes about a trailer, and that’s because Tom put it on the plan as a storage trailer, or office trailer. They’re not going to put a trailer there. That would be a modular building. They want to make this upscale, and something attractive, wooden, a pitched roof with asphalt shingles. It’s not something that’s going to look like a trailer. It’ll look like a small, attractive building, but it would be a modular structure. That, I think, was one of Laura’s concerns, and Jim has assured us that that’s certainly not what they plan to put there. In terms of the access issue, when we were at County Planning last week, they talked about boats, boat trailers and trucks pulling boat trailers exiting the site, and we agreed that it would make more sense to go to Walkup Cutoff and then to Bay Road, rather than to exit right on to 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) 149, and that’s something that we assume would make sense to this Board as well. Beyond that, there’s some comments from C.T. Male that we have no problem with, and Tom would just like to go through those. MR. NACE-Sure. Real quick, we don’t have a write off from C.T. Male yet because we just got these comments late this afternoon, but I’ve reviewed them. The first one is I guess sediment control measures at the toe of the slope, which we will show, additional grading information they want near the driveway entrance, we can easily accommodate. Work permit, obtain from NYSDOT to construct the driveway. That’s in the works. We’ve sent plans to DOT for their review. The drainage along 149 can be addressed. That’s existing drainage. We’re not adding anything to that. We’re just putting a culvert to allow the drainage to go through where we’re making the driveway. The setback can be corrected, as shown on the plan. Number Six, they want us to install filter fabric underneath the crushed stone surfacing for the display area. I don’t think that’s a good idea, but I’ll discuss that with Jim Houston at C.T. Male, and if I can’t convince him, then we’ll do it. Flared in sections and rip rap on the culvert, we will show. The geometry, obviously, will have to be shown for the permit for DOT, the geometry of the entrance, and the recommendation to pave the driveway apron is a very good one. We will do that. So, I can say verbatim we will accommodate all of the comments from C.T. Male. MR. MAC EWAN-Jump back to item six, please. Is that the one you have concerns with? What’s the problem with doing that? MR. NACE-Well, there’s really no need for it because the reason for filter fabric separation is to keep the fine materials from migrating into the gravel, but in this instance, the flow of water is going the other way. So there’s nothing to carry the fine materials up into the gravel, and I’m afraid the filter fabric would be something that would, over time, eventually, when it’s exposed under only a light layer of crushed stone, might eventually plug up, okay, and impede drainage rather than promote it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. NACE-That’s all. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy, we’ll start with you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Nothing right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I’m really confused about the trailer, because it says on the plan, it’s labeled as a trailer. MR. NACE-That’s the original, when we originally spoke with the client, we used the term office trailer as a generic term, okay, and from that I threw it on the plan. What they really want is a small office building which will probably be a modular building for ease of setting. It would be on a foundation, no basement or anything, but it’s just an office, a small office building where the salesmen can have a desk, and a place for customers to come in and sit down to discuss boat sales. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. NACE-But it will be wood sided. It’ll be asphalt, single pitched roof. It’ll look like a small office building. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. MR. LAPPER-It’s not a trailer. MR. HUNSINGER-But it’s not a trailer. MR. NACE-It’s not a trailer. My mistake. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the concerns that I have is with the boat display area being gravel, that there would be a tendency for the display area to grow over time, and I’m just wondering what kind of mitigation measures, if you will, you know, you would put into place to keep that display area contained. MR. NACE-To keep it from growing? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, to keep it contained to the area that you’re going to put the gravel down on. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) MR. NACE-Actually in these soils it’ll probably be the other way. The grass will want to grow on into what you’re trying to maintain as an area. MR. HUNSINGER-It goes both ways, I guess. MR. NACE-But other than just defining it very well when it’s constructed, so that it’s not just a, it’ll have to be boxed out, in essence take the topsoil out and put the gravel in, so a clear definition. I think that’s the best way of defining it. There’s no edging that really works that, you know, looks nice in the long run. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Now, Tom you just said the modular building is going to be wood sided? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. STROUGH-I don’t know what kind of styles these modulars come in, but. MR. NACE-You can get almost any style you want. Modular simply means they build it to your specs at a factory and delivery it on a truck instead of stick framing it. MR. STROUGH-Yes. Well, I just wish the applicant would try and keep this in mind, and this would be entirely voluntary on the applicant’s behalf, but, you know, the 149 corridor, in the new zoning code which is going up for public review here in the next month, the intent is to create a commercial intersection, we talked about this, with an Adirondack character, and they’re trying to make 149 a scenic destination, a place where people want to go because of its uniqueness, and, you know, if everyone participates, it’ll be helpful to all the businesspeople along there. MR. LAPPER-John, excuse me. Jim said to me before we came up, he’ll make it as nice as the Board wants. So tell us what you have in mind. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, here we go. Characteristics. The Adirondack theme embraces log, or stone buildings, one or two stories high. So I was just wondering. MR. LAPPER-They’d be happy to do log, if that’s what the Board wants. MR. STROUGH-Well, then I’m happy. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Tony? MR. METIVIER-No, actually, I don’t have any questions. Does J & J own the site, or will they? MR. LAPPER-The bank foreclosed on it, and they have it on contract. MR. METIVIER-Depending on this. MR. LAPPER-As soon as they’re done with their approvals. MR. METIVIER-And I know we’re not going to encroach on the other areas, but I would imagine, in the future, they may come back for other things. MR. LAPPER-There’s another 11 or 13 acre site. MR. NACE-The remaining portion of the site is zoned all RR-3A. MR. LAPPER-We could do a nice residential development. MR. METIVIER-It’s a great location. It obviously needs to be cleaned up, and I’m sure that, in due time, they will. MR. LAPPER-It’s been abandoned, just sitting there deteriorating. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) MR. METIVIER-Yes. You drive by it, because it is a beautiful building. If you really look at it, it is, but I have no problems with this whatsoever. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Larry? MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-That septic system that sits just below the shed there, is that the system that the office is going to use? MR. NACE-Yes, it is. MR. VOLLARO-There’s a septic pump right alongside the office. Does that pump into that (lost word)? MR. NACE-The salesmen will actually use the restrooms in the existing office building. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s the septic system that’s going to receive that? MR. NACE-That’s the septic for the existing office building. That’s correct. That was put in 10 years ago, by Jim Weller. MR. VOLLARO-Does that have to be inspected in any way, Tom, to make sure it’s still working? MR. NACE-It was put in in ’89. So it’s 12 years old. I wouldn’t think so. It had very light use. MR. VOLLARO-It probably had very light use, I would think. Okay. No, I don’t have anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-How is the modular going to be put, what kind of a foundation is going to be put on? How is it going to be set? MR. NACE-Well, it would be a regular poured concrete foundation. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So you’re going to go to that extent. Okay. MR. NACE-Especially if you’re going, if you’re going to do a log building, the modular is kind of a misnomer. It’s not going to be real modular. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions, comments from Board members? Staff? MRS. MOORE-I just want to bring up the comment that there’s other, in my Staff comments, that there are other buildings on the site, and if the Board had considered utilizing one of those, versus putting up a new structure on the site. MR. LAPPER-The issue there is that they do want the visibility to 149 for the boats, and they want to have a salesman right in the area where the boats are. They’re anticipating that they would be able to lease out the existing building for some sort of office use because it’s primarily an office building. So this would be separate. MR. VOLLARO-Well, if they leased that out, they would have to have the understanding that that still could be used by the salesmen for facility use. MR. NACE-Correct, and with the other building used as an office building, the circulation space and the existing parking area around there is required for support of that existing building. MR. HUNSINGER-I think the issue I had, and I’d just comment to Jon, is in the Warren County Planning Board, it says that Staff recommends that all boats use Walkup Cutoff Road, and you said that that would be agreeable to you. MR. NACE-For transport of boats. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. NACE-They were concerned about boat trailers and trucks. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) MR. LAPPER-What this doesn’t show, see where it says security lighting? We’re going to have to do a gravel drive that connects that to Walkup Cutoff, in response to what the County said. MR. HUNSINGER-My comment is, even though that something is agreeable to you, it is not something that’s readily enforceable, even if we were to put it into the resolution. So I didn’t know if you had any thoughts on that. MRS. MOORE-I’m sorry, what’s not enforceable? MR. LAPPER-Boats leaving the site, they would have to go by driveway to Walkup Cutoff. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I understand. That’s correct. MR. LAPPER-What we can do would be to sign it, at the other exit, but, I mean, a boat’s a big thing that doesn’t move that often. So I think the management can deal with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions, comments? I’d ask you to give up the table for a minute. We’ll open the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, it’s Type II. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s Type II. All right. Thank you. Would someone like to introduce a motion, maybe? MR. RINGER-We’re going to do a motion without a sign off from Male? MR. MAC EWAN-We can put it in the motion that it has to be signed off. MR. RINGER-Normally we’ve avoided doing that. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I think the issues that need to be resolved in there. MR. RINGER-I don’t disagree with you. I say we haven’t done it very often in the past. MR. MAC EWAN-I feel comfortable enough that if they get a sign off by C.T. Male, I’m comfortable with that. That’s what we have them there for. MR. RINGER-I can live with it. I just brought it up because in the past we have kind of rejected that idea. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 27-2001 J & J MANAGEMENT, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No.27-2001, J & J Management for construction of a gravel surface boat display & sales area and office trailer. New uses in HC zones require Planning Board review and approval. Tax Map No. 48-1-26. Cross Reference: UV 120- 1989, AV 119-1989, SP 59-89, PZ 4-2001and; WHEREAS, the application was received 6/01; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 7/20/01: 7/24 Staff Notes 7/20 CT Male engineering comments 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) 7/17 Notice of Public Hearing 7/11 Warren Co. Planning Bd. – approved with condition 7/9 Beautification Comm. 7/3 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 7/24/01 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 WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application is approved in accordance with the resolution as prepared by Staff with the following conditions: 1. The modular building will be a log cabin style or consistent with that theme, and 2. Boat ingress and egress will be limited to the Walkup Cutoff Road, and 3 The Beautification Committee will review and approve the landscape plan, and 4. The applicant will obtain a C.T. Male signoff, and 5. The final plan shall show the gravel drive providing a boat access from Walkup Cutoff Road. Duly adopted this 24th day of July 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck, gentlemen. MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 29-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED BAY RIDGE VOLUNTEER FIRE CO. PROPERTY OWNER: TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AGENT: BAY RIDGE VOLUNTEER FIRE CO. ZONE: LC-10A LOCATION: RIDGE ROAD LANDFILL APPLICANT PROPOSES RELOCATION OF A 60’ EMERGENCY SERVICES TOWER AND ANTENNA FROM THE SUNNYSIDE FIRE STATION TO THE RIDGE ROAD LANDFILL. PURSUANT TO SECTION 179-73.1 PLACEMENT AND OPERATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: USE VARIANCE 50-2001 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/11/01 TAX MAP NO. 52-2-16, 17 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION 179-73.1, 179-54 CHIP MELLON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 29-2001, Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Co., Meeting Date: July 24, 2001 “Project Description The applicant proposes the relocation of an 80-foot emergency service tower from the Sunnyside Road Fire Station to the Ridge Road Landfill. Project Analysis (Section 179-38) 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) Site Overview The tower will be located about 400 feet from the main entrance of the landfill near an existing structure on the site. The Tower height USGS elevation change is from 380 feet to 480 feet as shown on the plan. The applicant has indicated that the relocation of the Tower will minimize “dead-zone” service areas. The map provided identifies at least 4 “dead-zone” areas. The Tower is used for radio communications for emergency service departments within and around the Town of Queensbury.” MR. MAC EWAN-Quick question for procedure. They got a variance from the ZBA for this. Did the ZBA do the SEQRA? MRS. MOORE-You can do your own SEQRA. MR. MAC EWAN-A question I’ve got is why wouldn’t this be a Type II? MRS. MOORE-My understanding is it’s an Unlisted Action, when I read through the SEQRA Reg’s. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. For the record, you are? MR. MELLON-Chief Chip Mellon from the Bay Ridge Fire Company. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little about your project, Chip. MR. MELLON-Okay. Basically what we’d like to do, we’d like to relocate the existing radio antenna tower from the Sunnyside Road station to the rear of the motor garage/storage building at the Ridge Road landfill. The purpose is that we have four identified dead zones, if you will, where we have problems communicating to the Warren County Fire Control Center. The road system that we have currently, you can transmit from a radio, the officer can transmit from a radio back to this tower, and that, in turn, rebroadcasts over French Mountain to the Prospect Mountain tower to Warren County Fire Control. By raising the elevation approximately 100 feet higher from the existing Sunnyside Road location, by moving the tower to this location, that gives us better coverage. That should take care of basically all the dead zones that we have in the Town. This equipment is used by all eight emergency services in the Town, not only Bay Ridge Fire Company. We just happen to own the equipment, but we allow all the other departments and rescue squads to use the equipment. MR. MAC EWAN-So you’re basically going to dismantle the existing tower on Sunnyside, and just move it up to the new location? MR. MELLON-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else to add? Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t have anything. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Nothing. I think this is an ideal site and I’m glad it works for you, and I think it improves the capability of all the emergency services and the safety of all the citizens. I don’t have a problem with this one. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-No, not at all. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Just explain to me something, Chip. In the Staff notes they talk about this being an 80 foot emergency service tower, and then in Dave Hatin’s little, the “Dear Board Members”, he talks about raising the elevation of the current tower approximately 80 to 100 feet. What is the height of the tower? MR. MELLON-The tower is 60 feet. The antennas are 20 feet. So it gives you a total height of 80 feet. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So he’s not just talking about raising the elevation because he’s getting to a higher elevation number? MR. MELLON-No, we’re taking the same tower and moving it. The elevation in the ground is approximately 100 feet different. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything from Staff? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing regarding this application. Any takers? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We need to do a SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 29-2001, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: BAY RIDGE VOLUNTEER FIRE CO., and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 24 day of July, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 29-2001 BAY RIDGE VOLUNTEER FIRE CO., Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 29-2001, for relocation of a 60’ Emergency Services tower and antenna from the Sunnyside Fire Station to the Ridge Road Landfill. Pursuant to Section 179-73.1 Placement and operation of Telecommunications Equipment requires Planning Board review and approval, and; WHEREAS, the application was received 6//25/01; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 7/20/01: 7/24 Staff Notes 7/18 ZBA resolution 7/17 Notice of Public Hearing 7/11 Warren Co. Planning - Approved 7/3 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 7/24/01 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 WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application is approved as per resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 24th day of July 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Chip. Good luck. MR. MELLON-Thank you. PUD SITE PLAN NO. 28-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED TOP OF THE WORLD GOLF COURSE PROPERTY OWNER: TOW GOLF RESORT, INC., J. FEENEY AGENT: JIM MILLER ZONE: PUD LOCATION: BAY RD. TO LOCKHART MTN. RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF THE NINE HOLE GOLF COURSE TO 18 HOLES. ANY ADDITION OR MODIFICATION TO A PUD REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 21-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/11/01 TAX MAP NO. 24-1-5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 6.1, 6.3 LOT SIZE: SECTION: 179-58 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) Notes from Staff, PUD Site Plan No. 28-2001, Top of the World Golf Course, Meeting Date: July 24, 2001 “Project Description The applicant proposes to expand an existing 9-hole golf course to an 18-hole golf course. The applicant had previously identified this proposal in the original PUD plan and then again for the transfer of land, SP21-2000. Project Analysis (Section 179-38) Site Overview (1) The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. The applicant has provided a layout plan for the existing and proposed holes. The plan includes the landscaping and clearing proposed. The applicant has provided a detailed description of the viewshed from each proposed hole. The plans were forwarded to CT Male for review and comment. A summary of the view-shed of the proposed holes: ?? Eight of the nine holes are located at the south and east side of the existing golf course at lower elevations; new holes except #14 run north south along Ridge Road and French Mountain axis –will not be visible from the lake ?? Hole #10 will be constructed in an existing open meadow –view remains unchanged ?? Reconstruction of hole #9 may have limited visibility Traffic, Circulation, Parking The plans include details of the clubhouse area that outlines the parking and uses in this area associated with the Golf course. The facility will accommodate a total of 105 parking spaces for customers and employees. The plan identifies how each parking space relates to each particular land use for the total number of parking spaces. Utility, Stormwater, Landscaping, Emergency Services The applicant has submitted a stormwater and erosion control plan. The drainage plan indicates the new holes will maintain the existing pattern and will be directed towards drainage basins or other stormwater structures. Erosion control materials for each individual hole will be utilized during the construction of the holes. The plans indicate areas to be replanted with trees and other vegetation. Areas of Concern or Importance The CT Male comment letter of July 20, 2001 concerning SEQR review is addressed in the original PUD. The PUD had provided a proposed buildout of the PUD which included an 18 hole golf course. In addition the PUD had anticipated other extensive projects within the PUD that have not been implemented. Suggestions Staff suggests a similar type of tree be replanted in areas noted as “proposed tree plantings” that currently exist in the area and be of 3 inch caliper.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. MILLER-Good evening. My name is Jim Miller, landscape architect, and I’m here with Jim Feeney from Top of the World Golf Resorts. This project, and you’ve probably seen in the past, it’s part of the original 1300 acre Top of the World PUD. Jim purchased the Golf Course, the Clubhouse and some of the various older buildings on the site, a couple of years ago, and then recently he purchased an additional 200 acres from the Top of the World developers, for a total of 270 acres, and those 200 acres were purchased with the intent to expand the Course from nine holes to 18. At that time, the PUD was reviewed by the Town Board and that was approved, and at the time they also reviewed the expansion of the Golf Course on that land, and that project was also approved by the APA, the modification to that PUD. This project expansion has also been submitted to the APA. There will be a permit modification required as part of this expansion. So this same package that was submitted to the Planning Board has gone to the AP A, and we’ve had no review with them yet. During the planning of this project, over the past year, the applicant has met with the APA a couple of times. They’ve met on the site. So they’re somewhat familiar with it. This overall plan shows the exiting as well as the proposed nine holes. The top of the, the main road that comes up, that goes up to the townhouses, comes along here and accesses to the Clubhouse area now. The holes, the nine holes that you see here that are unshaded are the existing holes, which are going to be pretty much unchanged by this, and the proposal is to expand in the shaded holes that you see, mostly to the back southern side of the property are the new holes, with one exception on the north end of the property. The existing 70 acres that was purchased was essentially this area tight around the Golf Course, and the additional 200 acres that was purchased was about 10 acres on two 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) parcels, one in the northeast corner and one in the north corner, and the bulk of the land was to the south end, to make up the 200 acres. The existing course, the way it was designed, is pretty much built along a ridge. We have French Mountain that rises up above here, and there’s a, at the base of the slope there’s a series of ponds and an intermittent stream that flows southerly. Then there’s a ridge this side of it where most of the golf holes exist, and there’s a steep section of property, then, again, it flattens out. This is Lockhart Mountain Road down in this area. The proposed expansion is very similar in layout to what was done originally, is we pretty much are extending the holes along the ridge line, with the exception of the one hole that traverses some of the topography. What’s going to happen with the development is that the existing first hole, it will continue, and will extend out and then four additional holes. So the course will run off hole one and two. There’ll be four additional holes built to the south, at the upper portion of the ridge, which would be holes three, four, five and six, near the existing pond, and all of these are in fairly level areas along the top of the ridge. Then the front side will finish with the seventh, eighth and ninth hole, as they finish now. Part of this is additional property that was purchased to the north. This is an open meadow as you come up the road now, where the overlook area is, there’d be a new hole constructed in this area, utilizing some of the existing tees to be a Par 3 that would start out there. The existing hole that’s in this area will be modified. This is the only existing hole that will be modified. The tee would basically be relocated from this area, you know, further to the north, and then the rest of that hole will remain as the 11 th hole, continuing along an existing hole, and then in this area again, there will be four additional holes that’ll run along the slope. So you’ll have one hole that comes down along a level area, and then another hole, the 16 hole would traverse across the slope, and then 17 and 18 would be existing th holes. One of the concerns, in meeting with the Staff, was visual impact. We put a report together to talk about that, and the tenth hole, which is furthest north, is in an open meadow area, and could possibly be seen from the lake or from an area of the lake. We’re about a mile from the shoreline, and we’re quite a bit above the elevation of the lake. From Assembly Point it’s like two miles to this point, and this is not a new clearing. So what we’re doing is essentially constructing that hole in an existing open area. So we feel that there’s no structures or anything, that the visual impact would be minimal. You probably couldn’t see it from that distance. The existing, the new holes in this area are set further back, and will have no visibility to the lake. There was some concern, in looking at the view shed maps with Staff, that this area was considered somewhat sensitive than the higher areas east of Ridge Road, but the way these holes are laid out along the ridge, and these are primarily in areas that are treed, since you’re looking at them from the side, you won’t see these clearings. They’ll be traversing in the ridge, and you won’t be able to see them from the side, and they’re high enough up that you’re not looking down at them. There may be some visibility of the clearing which traverses the slope that may be visible, but we feel that that would be the limit of it, and you would see some additional clearing. One of the proposals we’ve shown is some of the areas in the back where we’re locating some of the new holes are areas that were old fields. So there’s a lot of smaller pines and oaks and maples growing in there. So the intent was, rather than cut some of those down, to move some of those with some tree spades, and we have shown areas, even on the existing course, where we would move some of those. So I sort of, you know, Staff made a recommendation that we use three inch trees. Our intent was what we’d like to do, some of them will probably be three inch. Some may be as big as six, but what we’d like to do is use the existing on site trees and transplant them. So you’re going to get a variety of sizes, which, you know, we feel would be more appropriate that there’ll be more natural groupings, rather than, you know, planting individual trees. So we’d like to have some flexibility as to the size of the trees that we’re transplanting on the course. The prepared grading plans for all of the areas of disturbance, of the 200 acres, the actual area being impacted by the construction of nine holes I believe is like 33 acres. It’s in the, it’s broken down by hole in the stormwater management, erosion control plan. The way each of the holes has been graded is the primary area of disturbance, where tees and green will be constructed, and these areas will basically be built up and elevated. There’ll be some cutting and filling in those areas, a lot of the material will be imported, you know, for the construction of the greens and the tees, will be imported soils, topsoil seed beds. The areas of the fairways, the intention is, you know, we’ve walked the course a number of times, with the owner and with the contractor that’s going to do the work and the Golf Course Superintendent. Most of the fairways are located in areas where there’s not going to be a lot of extensive earthwork, simply they’ll be cleared, graded, you know, machine, a rock hound will go through and basically remove rocks, sticks, and then it’ll be slightly graded. So we’re not looking at, you know, heavy construction in the fairway areas where everything’s being stripped and heavy earthwork. So the main earthwork will happen in the areas for the tees and green construction. What we’ve done is we’ve proposed for each hole stormwater measurements at each holes that they’re being built individually to contain any possible erosion as much as possible, showing silt fences, some other things. Any slopes over three on one will be sodded. They won’t be seeded. We’re going to use, any drainage swales will be sodded, and some of the steeper ones would be a stone rip rap, so then there’d be no problem with any type of erosion, and still there’ll be silt fence installed. We’ve provided for drainage in the areas adjacent to the greens and the areas where there may be some increase runoff. Some detention basins have been, or detention swales, have been designed into the grading of the holes to collect any runoff from the tees and the greens. The other thing is location of the cart paths has been pretty minimal. This course, it doesn’t have a lot of erosion problems from carts. It doesn’t get that heavy use. So cart paths are being proposed in high use areas such as areas adjacent to the tees, and they’re not being extended all the way through, so, to 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) minimize the amount of hard surface on the Golf Course. The area that’s around the Clubhouse, this plan in here, this is the old resort. So, we have the old Clubhouse building, which was an inn, a bed and breakfast in the past. There’s an existing maintenance building. In the past, there’s actually, the rooms are still there. This was used for storage, equipment, maintenance. There was 31 hotel units in this at one time. There was an existing motel back here of eight units that has been removed, and there’s an existing residence. So, from what was there in the past, and the past history of it, it’s quite reduced. We went through, the proposal is we don’t want to do any changes to this area now. Right now the pavement that’s there is sort of what happened over the years when it was a resort, and it’s, you know, the parking is kind of scattered. Right now there’s existing parking adequate for the facilities that’s there. We have a residence, one residence in this area. There’s some bed and breakfast rooms and an apartment upstairs and a clubhouse. There’s a restaurant, you know, 1200 square foot restaurant in the back area of the Clubhouse, and there’s also some porch area and lounge area where there’s some other tables. So there’s some parking requirement for that area, and then there’s no requirement in the Code for a Golf Course. We took what we feel is pretty conservative is that figuring two foursomes per hole, and, you know, two people per car, for existing nine holes, that’d be 36 cars. I’m sure Jim would like to see that many people out on the Course, but, so that’s pretty conservative. So we looked at a peak use, if everything was occupied, including the employees, of 69 cars, and that’s pretty much what he has on the paved area now, and with the expansion, we’re saying we’d double the amount on the Golf Course. We’re looking at an upper end expansion of an additional 36 cars, and in talking about that, we don’t feel that that’s really necessary, and what we’ve proposed, and maybe the wording wasn’t right on the plan, was that there is opportunity, there’s a grass area back here, off of the paved area, where we could overflow onto the grass area, and what we’d like to do is use this as a potential set aside area. If we needed to expand parking, that would be the area we would do it, but at this point we’re not looking to incur that, because we don’t think we need that much parking, because we’re having, we have counts in here for the restaurant and the Golf Course. So typically somebody will play golf and then go have lunch, so they’re the same people using the same cars. So, from the practical use, we don’t really feel the need for that expansion is possible, but maybe at some point in the future it will be. So we’re not showing any improvements in the Clubhouse area. Right now, the existing sewer and water systems will remain. There’s an existing on site well that has been on the site for years, and it’s a well that actually served all the motel units and everything and now serves the maintenance building, the residence, as well as the Clubhouse. There’s a few septic systems. There is a septic system that used to serve the motel units. It now serves the maintenance building. So it went from about 40 units down to the employees restroom. There’s a separate septic system for the existing residence, and the existing Clubhouse actually has two systems. It’s got the old original system which is out on the Golf Course, which we don’t have any drawings for, and that serves the kitchen and the upstairs rooms, and then when the developer, they ran a sewer that comes through the Golf Course over an easement and goes down to Lockhart Mountain Road, to their leachfield, some of the bathrooms that were renovated in the Clubhouse back with that development, they were tied in to that sewer. So we actually have an on site system as well as some of the community sewer that services the Clubhouse, and Tom Nace looked at that and reviewed it, and based on the projections, the additional use you would see, there’s no new bathrooms or anything going in, he felt that that was adequate. We got a letter, today, from C.T. Male, and we drafted a response, but by the time I got together with Tom Nace and we got the response back, it was late in the afternoon, and we weren’t able to talk to Jim Houston to get any sign off of confirmation. Would you like me to go through those comments? MR. VOLLARO-Is that your July 24 letter? th MR. MILLER-That’s my July 24 letter, yes. th MR. RINGER-We just got your reply before the meeting. So we haven’t had a chance to read it. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. At this point, I mean, if you haven’t gotten a sign off from C.T. Male, it seems like there’s an awful lot here. There’s a lot more than we had on the previous application. I probably would be inclined to table this thing until you get those worked out with him, on it, but I don’t see any reason why we just can’t forge ahead with the rest of this right now. John, we’ll start with you. Any questions? MR. STROUGH-Jim, is that stream that runs through there, is that intermittent, or is it continuous? MR. MILLER-Yes, it is intermittent, and it’s a non-classified stream by DEC. MR. STROUGH-Do you know it’s destination? MR. MILLER-Yes. What it does, it flows, actually, I’ve got a USGS sheet here. It flows southerly and connects to some existing streams. Okay. Here’s the Golf Course, and these ponds are the ponds along that stream. So it flows southerly, and you can see where it ties in with some other streams coming down off of French Mountain. It comes down, crosses Bay Road, and comes in at 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) the southerly end of Dunham’s Bay marsh. It flows about a mile from the Golf Course at Dunham’s Bay marsh, and then the marsh is about two miles long to the lake. MR. STROUGH-Okay. The reason why I ask is, I’m just a little bit concerned because I know golf courses use a lot of fertilizer and what have you, and I was a little bit worried about runoff into the stream, running into, eventually into the lake. MR. MILLER-When this project was put together, we have a current permit from the APA, and it very specifically prohibits use of pesticides and herbicides without special use. So, by practice, they don’t apply pesticide and herbicides. They do apply fertilizers, and it’s typically monthly applications to tees and greens, and the fairways are fertilized twice a year, May and August. The fertilizers that are used are slow release nitrogens to minimize nitrate runoff and leaching, and that’s what was approved by the APA, and they would continue to operate the Course under those permits that were approved. MR. STROUGH-Okay. The APA didn’t suggest berming between the Course and the stream or anything to prevent the runoff? MR. MILLER-Well, we haven’t gotten any comments back, not on the existing Course. What we’ve tried to do is typically, in areas where we are, say near that stream, we typically have drained into detention areas and away from the stream. So we have done that, for example, we have a green in this area that comes down along the stream. The green is graded to slope back away from that stream and into a detention area, on the other side of the green, with no outlet into the stream. So what we’ve tried to do is directly runoff from the greens to the detention areas to minimize the amount of, but most of the fertilizers that are used are courser, slow release fertilizers that release, you know, the intent is they’re designed to release the nitrates very gradually, so the greens will use them, as opposed to some of the older fertilizers where the nitrates leach very quickly. So we’ve tried to minimize that concern. MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I just wanted to ask John a question, some dialogue among the Board here. The stormwater management and erosion control report, I think, did a very good job of self containing the water runoff from each hole. If you read it, it’s pretty nicely done. It’s the first time I’ve seen a stormwater report that I could really understand. So I think in the sense of nitrates getting released off a green or off a tee, they’ve done a pretty nice job of containing it on each one of the holes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, thanks for that reassurance, Bob. That’s about it, for now. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-Is this part of the original PUD? MR. MAC EWAN-It fits within the PUD, yes, as part of the. MR. METIVIER-Now, the original PUD, was that for a nine or an eighteen hole golf course? MRS. MOORE-Eighteen. MR. MAC EWAN-Eighteen. MR. METIVIER-It was. All right. I really have no questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I wasn’t here for the original PUD, but I was here when the original golf course subdivided the land, or obtained additional land, and there was some discuss, at that time, when they were talking about the PUD, in regard to the motel building, that during the construction, that the motel building was going to be used for the workers, the construction workers, and then it was going to be torn down. MR. MILLER-That one has been removed. That was the smaller eight unit motel unit, and that’s been removed. MR. RINGER-Okay. That isn’t the motel that now you call the maintenance building, is it? MR. MILLER-No. It was a smaller building, and now we’re showing it as part of the parking lot. MR. RINGER-Okay. I didn’t have anything other than that. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think so. I don’t have anything. It sounds good to me. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I guess I just have one thing, and I guess it was an issue a couple of weeks ago. You’re going to have to use more fertilizer, and it’s more nitrates and more phosphates, and I’m just concerned about the runoff the Lake George basin. MR. MILLER-I think what we’ve done, what Bob touched on in the stormwater report, is we’ve tried to take any of the areas we’ve run lateral, shallow swales along from the fairways, and we put the detention basins, which would actually be designed into the Course by grass buffers, to collect the runoff from the greens, and so I think the grading plan is sensitive to that runoff. I think as far as golf courses go, this is a pretty low, I know people who put a lot more fertilizer on their yards then what they use here on this golf course. To fertilize the fairways only twice a year, most people fertilize their lawns at least four times a year. So the only areas that are really getting fertilized are the high use areas, the tees and the greens, that are getting a regular fertilization. The other, and if you look at, as you’re reviewing with John, you look at, the drainage from here actually flows southerly, and then it travels by stream a mile to the east, into the Dunham’s Bay marsh, and it’s a two mile flow northward back before it reaches, you know, Dunham’s Bay on the lake. So I think the purification and stuff that wetlands do naturally, and anything that, if there was any runoff which I think will be pretty minimal from this, you know, it’ll have a minimal impact on the lake. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I guess now I know why my lawn isn’t doing very well. Because, four times a year, the only question I had, really, was for Staff. In Staff comments it talks about a detailed view shed that was provided to C.T. Male. Did we get any comments back? Because I looked through the packet several times. I didn’t see any. MRS. MOORE-C.T. Male did provide comment. They did not comment on the view shed. MR. HUNSINGER-They did not comment on the view shed. That was my question. Yes, okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Was that part of the review, that you asked them to comment on it, they just didn’t feel it was enough to warrant a comment, or was that included for their review? MRS. MOORE-They were provided with all the application materials and they didn’t comment on it. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t see it as an impact, but I was just curious. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Chairman, I guess that would be another reason to hear back from C.T. Male. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I mean, there’s a lot here to be addressed. This isn’t like the previous application. Anything else? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask you gentlemen to give up the table for a couple of minutes. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so. P PUBLIC HEARING OPENED HEATHER SHOUDY BRECHKO MRS. SHOUDY BRECHKO-Good evening. My name is Heather Shoudy Brechko, and I’m speaking on behalf of the Lake George Association this evening. Thank you very much for this opportunity to comment. The proposal by the applicant to disturb approximately 30 acres for the expansion of the Golf Course is a project that could have enormous impacts to the water quality and aesthetic resources of Lake George. It appears that the applicant has taken a systematic approach to evaluating the stormwater and aesthetic impacts of the project. However, in the review of the application there seems to be some aspects of the project that could be more thoroughly investigated and reviewed. The proposed project will increase the nutrient load – from potential increases in fertilizers, pesticides, and silt, an also stormwater runoff – from the clearing of existing trees and vegetation that buffer storm events, to Lake George. These impacts can be minimized, or possibly negated, with a well-designed stormwater management plan that complies with the Stormwater Management Local Law for the Town of Queensbury. The applicant has calculated the area of disturbance very clearly for each new hole and has a plan for how the tees, greens, fairways, proposed 42 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) drainage, and proposed erosion and sediment control will be constructed. What are missing are the calculations of how the detention basin sizes were calculated and if they are adequately sized in addition other calculations required for Major Stormwater Projects in the Local Law. Another concern is the adequacy of the existing forested areas to handle the proposed and existing drainage courses. The LGA understands that the Town has had C.T. Male review the plans, and we ask that these items be reviewed as well. In addition, the LGA asks that the Town strictly apply the requirements for Major Stormwater Projects of Section 10B of the Local Law to this application and be sure that it meets these requirements before any approval is given by the Planning Board for this project. The LGA strongly urges you to require a visual impact assessment of the project from scenic vistas and residential areas on and around the Lake. The LGA notes and commends the applicant for the thorough written assessment of the visual impacts, but in order to understand the view shed impacts it is important to have an actual visual representation of what the project will look like from various views. The project area is in a visually sensitive area that so far has not been impacted significantly by visual scars of hillside development, as seen on other hillsides in the Basin. In addition, it is one of the few hillsides located in the Town of Queensbury on Lake George. This is an opportunity for you to ensure that the expansion of this golf course is done right to protect the aesthetic resources of this area. The LGA asks you to please consider and address the issues we have raised, before any approval is given. We ask this in the interest of protecting the natural and aesthetic resources of Lake George. We also ask you to leave the public hearing open if there are issues that still need to be addressed, that we have raised in this letter. Thank you for consideration of our comments, concerns, and suggestions. MR. MAC EWAN-Could I ask you to leave a copy of your letter with Staff, and just for your edification, any time we table an application, the public hearing will be left open. Thank you. Anyone else? DR. CAROL COLLINS DR. COLLINS-Good evening. My name is Dr. Carol Collins. I’m a resident of Assembly Point, and I’m also here representing a number of land owners and Lake Association groups that are represented by Tom Ulasewicz. These groups have submitted letters to this Board that you should receive copies yesterday, that were copied from letters submitted to the APA, the DEC, and the Lake George Park Commission. These are the agencies that we contacted because we feel they have jurisdiction over a property that you’re familiar with, the Mitchell property, that was given Final approval last week. We feel that those agencies had jurisdiction on that property, and because of that, there’s likely to be further review of that project. Given that likelihood, which we feel is very strong, given a lot of omissions by this Board in reviewing that property, we would like that property to be reviewed in conjunction with this property, this division, and so that the cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff, tree removal, view shed, and most importantly, and something that I think this Board needs to consider much more significantly in the future, and that is the actual water quality of the lake. I’m a limnologist, and I’ve been studying this lake for 25 years. We have put together probably the most significant database of any lake in the world, and we’re quite proud of this community for making that possible. We are very concerned, at this point, given the serious nature of the change in the water quality of the lake, and we need to preserve it and do everything possible to do so. So, with regards to that, I am requesting that this Board revisit the other issue, consider the cumulative impact of this, what could be a very, which I see as a very significant change in Lockhart Mountain, and do so with these considerations in mind. In just listening to the comments that were brought up today, I also have some further things, notes that I have sort of jotted down, which I’ve written all around my paper here, but these are things that I don’t think you people really understand. It’s something that, there’s certain things we assume as we go through life. One thing we assume is that wetlands can handle more and more and more. Well, wetlands are there to protect, to filter out that part of the watershed that it receives. So importing more and more to those wetlands, like the Dunham’s Bay wetlands, which I’m speaking of here is not necessarily, and very likely not going to be able to handle more and more impacts. So that assumption that wetlands can do everything just simply isn’t true, and there’s certainly an abundance of evidence to demonstrate that. So that is not an assumption this Board should make, and certainly, as the wetlands then export those nutrients into the lake, that presents a very serious further problem into the lake itself. So that’s one issue. Don’t assume the wetland can handle more. It can’t. You also mentioned the fertilizer. Heather’s comments were really quite important. You keep about the slow release nature of these fertilizers. Well, we need to consider not just slow release, but we need to consider the load, that is the amount, the total amount that’s contributed to the lake on an annual basis. This is very important information and it was left out of the calculations. You also mentioned about slow release nitrogen. Well, a very important component of any fertilizer, as you know, is the phosphorus component. This is the component that limits productivity in the lake. In other words, you can have the amount of algae, the stuff that’ll eventually make the lake kind of smelly and cloudy, that growth is limited by how much phosphorus. So the nitrogen component, although important, is not nearly as important as the phosphorus that’s also in these fertilizers that we’re putting on. The stormwater runoff plan needs to be considered a major project, of course. That level of the resolution, it needs to be considered for a 10 year, really, truly, what it should consider is a 50 year stormwater event. Just so 43 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) you know, in the 90’s, we had at least three 50 year storms. So these are, even though it sounds like a 50 year storm only comes once in a blue moon, that is hardly the case. They come very often, and we need to raise the bar so that we consider that, at least a number of 10 year storms. The other thing that really concerns me, and although I’m sure they’re doing their best, is just a lot of the “I think it’ll handle it”. “I think that these verbs will take care of it”. We need to know these numbers, and although I may sound passionate about this, there’s an awful lot of data in my head that makes me more than passionate. It makes me feel that this Town needs to raise its level of review for anything that impacts the lake to a whole new level, and I cannot say that more strongly. It’s important, more important than you’ll ever know. The changes that have happened to this lake, just in the last 10 years, are very significant. So, we need to do it now. We need to do it for every project, and we can’t just consider them one by one. A cumulative impact of the Mitchell property, the Top of the World, further changes of potentially up to 170 units on Top of the World will have a major impact. You cannot take these piecemeal. There’s probably more. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Dr. Collins, could I just interrupt for a second, if you don’t mind. It’s not just the Town of Queensbury, and I don’t want you to just give us the bum rap, because, when I go up Route 9N, up through Diamond Point, and I look at Green Harbor, and all those other massive buildings now that are so close to each other, and say, wait a minute, Queensbury didn’t pass those, those were the Town of Lake George, and then you go up the Pilot Knob Road, in the Town of Fort Ann, and those now have become, so many of them are now all year round residences, where people have built, 4,000, 5,000 square foot homes up there, and they’re living there all year round. So, you know, you’re right. We deserve this little, you know, this, what you’re telling us, and it’s all good information, but I think the other, you know, I think that you just can’t point the finger at Queensbury either. DR. COLLINS-I’ll show up in Bolton next week, I promise. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know, but then you go out to Assembly Point and you go out to Cleverdale, and because those lots were cut in 70, 80 90 years ago, at the beginning of the 1900’s, and those places are all next to each other. Now you’re saying, well, they were there first. So they could put their impact on the lake. So now you’re saying that, no, a golf course can’t. DR. COLLINS-Well, I’m really not saying that this Golf Course can’t, okay. I’m really saying to you that we need to be a little bit more careful in the way we review these things. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I understand. DR. COLLINS-I was very happy to see that C.T. Male actually reviewed this one. They did not review the Mitchell property. Right? Did C.T. Male review the Mitchell? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, they did not because of the Code. DR. COLLINS-Okay. I find that, I can only use one word, disgraceful. I’ve lived in the Town of Queensbury all my life. I’m very proud of this Town. I think we can and will do better, but now that I see what’s happened to Lake George, as a scientist, I know we have to do better. So, you know, I’m here today on terms of the Top of the World, and they probably have done a better job, but I am so disgraced by what happened with the Mitchell property and so many issues that were omitted in its review that I have to be here today, and I will be in Bolton, and I will be in Hague, and if anyone knows me, you all know that I’m on pretty much every Board, in terms of looking at the plan. I speak with the Governor, I work with everybody on these things. We need to do it. We just have to. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m a member of the LGA, and this is a real great opportunity to have Dr. Collins in front of me right now. Do you believe that there is a plan that could actually be devised for this Golf Course that would have a very minimal impact, that it could continue to be viable? DR. COLLINS-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. DR. COLLINS-And I think that by getting, I know that the APA will get involved in its review, and I think that we need to enlist our engineers whenever possible, in any of these, I mean, this Board just essentially got, is just now using the new Stormwater Ordinance, and the first opportunity this Board had to utilize it, they never had an engineer, in terms of the Mitchell property, they never had an engineer even look at it. So this frightens me, okay. MR. MAC EWAN-You have to understand that we are required to do our reviews according to the way the Town Code is written, and if you want to change that review process, you need to lobby the Town Board, who’s the only Board, legislatively, able to change the Code in this Town. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) DR. COLLINS-You have the right to have an engineer review that, I know that. MR. MAC EWAN-By Town Code, the way our review process is set up, and the way it’s referred to, whether it goes to the consulting engineer, is established by the Code in the Town. DR. COLLINS-And you had the right to enlist them if you wanted to. MR. MAC EWAN-To a degree, yes, but it would take. DR. COLLINS-That’s a 15 acre clear cut, on a significant slope. I mean, the slope is severe. It’s on substandard lots, and you can’t talk me out of that one. I’m sorry, but I won’t go there on that. MR. MAC EWAN-Ma’am, no one’s trying to talk you out of anything. DR. COLLINS-I think that we can make the Golf Course do the best it can, but where we can, you have to make every effort to make it count, and when there’s a cumulative impact, I mean, we’re talking on the same hillside. We need to consider that, and you guys knew that it was right there on the plan. MR. MAC EWAN-I understand your concerns, and as a nine year member of this Board, it frustrates me that I know that members of this Board do the very best that they possibly can do, when we do reviews, and when you see a couple of high profile projects come in front of this Board, the amount of public interest that’s generated by it, I think is great. I wish we had more public interest that was generated by the Tom and Nancy’s and whoever who live on Assembly Point who want to put a 3,000 square foot addition on their house, we never see anybody. We never see anybody come in front of us when we put docks, that routinely come in front of this Board, we don’t get any public interest. I mean, Assembly Point, Cleverdale, and Rockhurst are probably the three most high developed parcels up there on that lake, and we never hear anyone come out. Why? If everyone so concerned, why aren’t more people coming in front of us and voicing it, and that’s what gets things changed. DR. COLLINS-You know what happens? Let me tell you what happens, because I get this question a lot. People always say to me, I thought this group was protecting the lake, I thought this one was protecting the lake, and what happens is because of APA scaled projects, they’re more into the very large 100 unit type projects, or when upland wetlands are involved, or certain types of environments. So they’re often excluded from most of these projects. So, the Park Commission is really more engaged in terms of water recreation. They have their stormwater plan, but when the Town, the individual towns, adopt them, now it gets thrown in your hands. So now, what happens is, ultimately, control goes back to you guys, but most of the people around here feel that everybody’s watching everybody, and what’s really happening is it’s not. You may feel that your hands are tied, but the townspeople think that everybody’s doing the best they can, well, I don’t think they are, and I appreciate you gyps. You have to understand, and I think you do, that I appreciate what you’re doing, but ultimately, what I see is you’re not doing enough, and I don’t mean it like personally or whatever, but it’s not enough for the lake, and that’s the bottom line. So, what am I suppose to do as an individual, well, gee, I do more than most. People are interested and they come to me, but they’re not policy minded people. They think other people are watching the pot, and so you’re right. I agree with you 100%. I wish more people would participate, and who knows, maybe we’ll get them to. MR. VOLLARO-Doctor, could I ask you a question? DR. COLLIINS-Sure. MR. VOLLARO-Just quickly. Taking the Golf Course as an entity, and taking the Mitchell property as an entity, and then comparing that, if you want to use a comparison data, we’ll talk about how many acres is involved in both of those projects, and then take a look at the amount of development that’s all around the lake, and I think, on a scale of one to ten, they’re probably not even on the scale. The properties around the lake that my Chairman talked about, I have particularly always interested in the septic systems that go there, and I’m always told, by a lot of people in the Town, hey, that’s taken care of by the Building Inspector. He goes out and he looks at that, and I know, personally, that I’ve looked at some stuff that’s substandard out there, I feel, and I think that there’s a lot of substandard septics all around the lake that are doing 1,000 times more damage than the acreage of the Mitchell property and this Golf Course. That’s where the first attack ought to come to the lake. DR. COLLINS-Well, you can’t just think that. I don’t mean to interrupt, but. MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking about empirical data, and I understand empirical data. Empirical data is not inexpensive. It’s very expensive. You know that because you deal in that realm, and so do I. So I know what that is. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) DR. COLLINS-Well, how much of the watershed do you think is developed right now? MR. MAC EWAN-Honestly, in the interest of moving things along here, and staying on our application. DR. COLLINS-I won’t ask a question, but I will say this. I mean, this is important. Ninety-seven percent of the Lake George Watershed is undeveloped. Three percent or less is actually developed. All the pollution is coming from there. It is the intensity that counts, and that is why septic counts, stormwater runoff. When I say stormwater runoff, what I’m talking about is land development. Everyone hates to say those words, but when you develop land, it creates stormwater runoff. So it’s land development. It is the septic, and it’s everything else, but you can pick controlling septic. You can’t just pick controlling stormwater. You have to take care of the whole picture, and you know that. You can’t say which one’s important. MR. VOLLARO-When I’m making this attack, and I’ve got limited amount of dollars to spend in the attack, where do I put my resources? That’s what I’m really asking. DR. COLLINS-Well, that’s what a lot of these plans are there to look at is all of them, septic, as you all do in your things. So I don’t want to keep you or go on with this, but I think that’s it. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? LIONEL BARTHOLD MR. BARTHOLD-My name is Lionel Barthold. I’m a resident of Queensbury with a house on the lake, just at the foot of Lockhart Road. I’m also a registered professional engineer in the State of New York. I speak for myself and a number of our neighbors, one of whom was here but had to leave. Let me first speak about visual impact, stormwater impact, and the question of cumulative impact of these two projects, and as an engineer, you know, I’m used to dealing with numbers and I’m used to quantifying things that are quantifiable. We saw this visual impact map, and there’s very little more important to lake residents than that issue indicates a view from the lake, in an era where that kind of assessment of visibility is just full of very thorough graphic techniques that can make that specific and quantify it, where you see it from, how far away do you see it, and so I would urge that before this is done, a far better graphic representation of that visibility be developed and made available to the people that are affected by it, which is Assembly Point and that area. Carol Collins eloquently pointed out the problem of lake deterioration. Here again, in this plan which attempts to do a good job on stormwater management, I hear the word “minimize the effect” of fertilizer runoff, or that the effect will be minimal, and, I mean, I don’t know what that means. In an age when you can quantify, an engineer can quantify the amount, the contribution of toxic substances to the lake, I don’t know why, for such an important question, that analysis doesn’t go to a link between that golf course and the fertilizer and the quantified effect on the lake. As to, you know, the cumulative impact, I think Mr. Vollaro himself earlier in one of the hearings, pointed out one example of why these two projects, the one which was approved on July 17, and the Golf Course projects have a th cumulative impact, and that is traffic flow. The Mitchell project will more than double the number of residences on that Mountain. I’m sure that the Golf Course, if successful, which I hope it is, will, again, double, and I don’t, I haven’t read in either of these applications, any comment about traffic on Lockhart Mountain, and the ability of that road to handle that traffic. That’s all I have to say, other than to urge that these two projects be considered together. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? Could I get you guys to come on back up? I think one of the overwhelming concerns from people who spoke is chemical discharge and protecting the Fen to the lake. I think what we would like you to do is to supply us with a report on how you’re going to maintain that and how it’s going to be discharged and so that it doesn’t get to the lake. You’re going to need to submit that to C.T. Male for their review. MR. MILLER-Okay. I’ll look into that. MR. MAC EWAN-As well as C.T. Male has not responded, you haven’t had a chance to respond to C.T. Male’s. MR. MILLER-We did. We responded this afternoon, and we didn’t receive their comment until this morning. We tried to get to them, but by the time we put the responses together, it was late in the afternoon and we never got back to them. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Put together some numbers on trip generations for Lockhart Mountain Road. MR. MILLER-Now, what we had, if you looked at the parking calculations, and you take the high number, that we’re saying that the number of cars on a peak day, would go from 36 to 72, and we’re looking at that. That’s the Golf Course with two foursomes on a hole, which is highly impractical, and that’s over the course of a day. So we’re talking about, you know, at a peak time, and one of the things about a golf course that’s different than a lot of other developments is most of the developments, whether it’s housing or commercials or something, they peak at the peak hours in the morning, and at five o’clock. A golf course is driven by tee times, which are scheduled at 10 twelve minute intervals. So the traffic on a golf course is steady throughout the day, but it doesn’t coincide with some of the peaks that you would get from say a residential development. I mean, we’d be happy to submit something to you, but, I mean, essentially. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I think that would be a good idea. While we’re on that topic, I’m thinking back to the last time Top of the World was in front of us and there were some concerns regarding the, I think it was the Homeowners Association with the townhouses up there over the maintenance of the road, and I know there were some concerns about who is responsible for what portion of the maintenance, and how things were going to work out. What was the result of that, or was anything ever resolved? JIM FEENEY MR. FEENEY-Yes. We had a meeting with the Homeowners Association. They had their annual meeting June 30, and we had a representative there, explaining to the Homeowners, and I’ve met th personally with the Board, going over the plans, and they seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of the expansion, and in terms of the maintenance, we have an agreement that we have a signed letter that I maintain, once the road is turned over to the homeowners, currently it’s owned by the developer, and once it does get turned over to the homeowners, then I will share in that maintenance. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, is it a real long agreement, or a short, sweet and to the point kind of thing? MR. FEENEY-Well, it’s a little longer than I’d like, but, I mean, I could provide that if that’s what you want. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I think I would like to see it, only because I know that that was a pretty big issue the last time this was in front of us. MR. FEENEY-That’s right. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else that Board members might be looking for? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the other issue that I brought up earlier, C.T. Male’s comments on the visual analysis. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. MILLER-Yes. One of the comments about the visual analysis was it wasn’t in-depth enough. I mean, obviously some of these things can be studied in great detail, and I’ve been involved in some visual assessments on some power facilities, power generating facilities, which went on for hundreds and hundreds of pages, and I think what we did was try to make a practical attempt at what, you know, the visual impact is, and in my opinion it’s minimal, and one house constructed on a hillside will have more impact than the nine hole expansion will. The most anyone would see here is maybe some clearing, and from the distances it would be viewed, it would have no impact. So what we did was a practical visual impact rather than, you know, study something for a month and charge our client, we tried to address the issue. We have met with the Staff and discussed it, and they basically agreed with us in our discussions, and said, well, document something. So we tried to be to the point and address it fairly, which I thought we did. MR. MAC EWAN-Can I ask you to expand on it a little bit, and give us a little bit more? MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the reason why I bring it up is my feeling is that more information was provided to C.T. Male than was provided to us, and I just want to see that they concur with the findings that you have presented, that’s all. MR. MILLER-Yes. My, you know, it’s been my experience, in dealing with C.T. Male, is that wherever there’s been some soft spots, our applications, they’ve commented on them, you know, and I will talk to Jim about it, and my feeling is that he reviewed what we did and concurred, because, I 47 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) mean, it’s fairly, you know, obvious to review the topographical maps of the area and you could see where it could be seen from, and what the impact is. MR. HUNSINGER-Speaking for myself, I have no problem with the approach that was taken. I just want to see some concurrence from them. MR. STROUGH-Jim, when you say “see from”, I’m assuming that we’re talking about a view point of, you know, Speaker Heck or Long Island or Assembly Point, looking in that direction, looking south. MR. MILLER-Actually, the only place that this site is only potentially visible from, French Mountain, you know, because French Mountain is behind it, and nothing on the south can see it, is directly to the east, on the ridge, which is the southern portion of Pilot Knob, on the east side of Ridge Road, if there was a house or someone up there, they could have some view to this site because the ridges parallel each other, and then the northern portion of the site, where that portion of the site is exposed to the lake. The majority of our proposed expansion is away from that more sensitive area. MR. VOLLARO-Jim, let me just ask a question. About a year ago or so, the Town of Queensbury took on this stormwater law, in major projects or large projects and small projects, and I haven’t seen a large project come up yet where that law was to be used, but I guess this might be one. Have you looked at that at all? I notice that we haven’t attacked that very much on this Board either, haven’t used it much, and perhaps the Town itself hasn’t been using it much. I don’t know. I really don’t know. MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to provide comment on that? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, would you? MRS. MOORE-It’s in Chapter 147, and, yes, you were referred to it in our last reference, and it is, major projects, minor projects are reviewed by our Code Compliance Officer under that Chapter, and that’s how they are referred to. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ve read both of those, because I was on that Committee with Chris on the stormwater committee, and I remember that looking at, the large projects portion of that is pretty involved, pretty involved. It’s not something that the Code Compliance Officer should be, you know, saying, okay, everything’s okay with this. That’s a fairly intense piece of legislation here. MRS. MOORE-It’s at the discretion of the Code Compliance Officer. There’s discretion within that Chapter. MR. VOLLARO-You mean discretion being that he can review it and it’s okay? MRS. MOORE-Discretion as to what his options are available to that person to review that, whether that person chooses to review it with the applicant and go through that, and get a better understanding, whether that person chooses to utilize a Town engineer for additional information. So that type of discretion, and whether there’s an involved stormwater management report, or whether the applicant has provided enough information that indicates all stormwater is contained on site. Some projects are apparently that. MR. VOLLARO-I thought they did a pretty good job of that in their stormwater report, containing that on each green and each tee. It looked like they did a pretty fair job of that, but I don’t know how that relates to the stormwater law, whether that should have come into this project and been used as a guidance. MRS. MOORE-It is part of that project. MR. VOLLARO-It is part? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And you’re saying the Code Compliance Officer looked at that, and in his opinion. MRS. MOORE-Will be reviewing it. That’s the way it’s worded in the Chapter. MR. VOLLARO-In other words, that’s going to be as a continuos review? Is that what we’re saying? MRS. MOORE-The application will be reviewed by the Code Compliance Officer. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and this application has been? 48 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) MRS. MOORE-Is being reviewed. MR. VOLLARO-Is being reviewed. So, should we, as a Board, be waiting for his determination before we? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. MRS. MOORE-And the reason why that’s not the case is because of the building permit process, the process that we have within Building and Codes. When an applicant proceeds with a building permit application, the stormwater, it’ll be address at that point, where the stormwater report or a stormwater management plan will be reviewed under Chapter 147. MR. VOLLARO-So then after we approve or disapprove of a project, there’s a continual study going on on stormwater, and that study would impact an applicant at some later date. MRS. MOORE-Possibly, yes. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think I’ve ever heard of that before. I’m not aware of that. MS. RADNER-What the Section states is that for minor projects, the Code Compliance Officer, which is either zoning or Building and Codes of the Town of Queensbury, shall have primary responsibility for the review, approval and issuance of stormwater management permits for minor projects. The Code Compliance Officer may request technical assistance from the Commission. Prior to permit decisions, a test pit may need to be witnessed. The Code Compliance Officer shall determine whether notice to adjacent owners is warranted by public interest or other considerations, and prior to issuance of a permit for any project, the Code Compliance Officer shall determine that the project as proposed is in accordance with the design standards of this Chapter. MR. VOLLARO-That talks to minor projects only. MS. RADNER-Right, and the next section is major projects requires site plan review in accordance with the municipality’s land use local laws, and preparation of a stormwater control report, in accordance, and I don’t want to have to read this whole thing, but for a major project, preparation of a stormwater control report is required which must be prepared by an engineer, architect or exempt land surveyor licensed to practice in the State of New York… the stormwater concept plan and stormwater control report may require, and again, this is may require, a public hearing if the municipal zoning and subdivision local laws require such a hearing, and that’s under the Subdivision of Land sections that’s cross referenced. The final subdivision plat shall contain stormwater control measures for all commonly roads, buildings, parking areas, and impervious areas. An approved stormwater design plan shall be filed together with the final subdivision plat with the County Clerk, and prior to approval of the final subdivision plat for commonly owned facilities, it shall be first determined that there is sufficient information to support a finding that the stormwater management, subject to the future approval, can be designed and constructed in accordance with this Chapter. Okay. Now I’ve just read you a very small section of what that law is, and you have to go to the earlier sections of the law to see which falls into minor and major projects, but this is what Laura’s talking about in terms of the discretion of the Code Compliance Officer. He’s got the discretion to determine whether notice is needed, or whether the technical assistance is needed from the Commission, and that’s 147-12 B and C that I just read from, part of the Permit Application Review Procedures. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else that we want to add to this list? Any takers? What I’ve come up with is a view shed analysis, expand upon what you currently supplied, trip generations for Lockhart Mountain Road. I’m not really sure how to word this. What we’re looking for, I guess, is more analysis and assurances as to how you’re going to retain pesticides, chemicals. MR. FEENEY-No pesticides. MR. MAC EWAN-Fertilizers and chemicals from. MR. HUNSINGER-Nutrient runoff. MR. MAC EWAN-There you go, nutrient. That’s the word I’m looking for. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You mean you’re not going to put any chemical on? Like, if you’ve got a? 49 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) MR. MILLER-They’re not allowed. They would have to get a special permit from the APA to apply any pesticides. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you expand upon that for us and maybe in your report indicate that that’s the route you would have to go, if you wanted to go above and beyond, how that would be remedied, a copy of the road maintenance agreement that you have with the Homeowners Association, and obviously respond to C.T. Male’s letter of 7/20. Anything else? MRS. LA BOMBARD-What about, is it right to address a cumulative impact with the Mitchell project? I mean, because we’re not really reviewing the Mitchell project. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like to hear a legal opinion on it. MS. RADNER-You have some discretion in that regard. The Mitchell project has already been approved, but if you feel that the cumulative impacts are worthy of consideration, or you have concerns about cumulative impacts, for example, if you believe that the traffic generated by that project should be considered in this traffic impact of this project, you have the discretion to reflect that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Then we should put that in, what Cathi just said. MR. MAC EWAN-What is it that you want put in? MRS. LA BOMBARD-That we should consider the Mitchell project as a cumulative issue, and especially concerning the traffic flow, in other words, and the amount of people, and there could be double effects there. MS. RADNER-I’m not saying that you should do that. I’m saying that’s something that you can do. MR. MAC EWAN-What is it that you’re looking for, though? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, a traffic impact type of situation where, the Golf Course isn’t built yet, and the Mitchell project hasn’t been started yet, but as far as. MR. MAC EWAN-In your Lockhart Mountain trip generations, include the potential full build out of the Mitchell subdivision. MR. MILLER-Well, it’s not my project. What is the Mitchell subdivision? Apparently my timing’s bad, relative to this Mitchell project. MR. RINGER-It’s a 12 lot subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. It’s a housing subdivision on Lockhart Mountain Road. MR. MILLER-How many lots? MRS. LA BOMBARD-It was 14 lots out of 140, or 12 lots, I think, out of 140 acres, Jim. MR. MILLER-Because I think, and from what I’ve heard, and my understanding of that subdivision, other than the traffic, I think our drainage flows southerly. Theirs flows northerly. So we are not linked in drainage, granted, everything goes to the lake, and I think from the viewpoint of a view shed, their impact, visually, is probably a lot greater than ours. MRS. LA BOMBARD-They’re not going to be allowed to clear, I don’t think, more than, what was it, two acres out of their entire. MR. STROUGH-1.25. MRS. LA BOMBARD-1.25, and that included the house and the driveway, out of a 10 acre lot, but you know what you just said, your drainage is going to flow south, and theirs flowing north, then just, let’s get that down, you know, get that data and that information down, and delineate it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We have those six things. Okay. That’s my motion to table, seeing as I was doing all the writing here. Do we have a second? MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll second. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) MOTION TO TABLE PUD SITE PLAN NO. 28-2001 TOP OF THE WORLD GOLF COURSE, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: Tabled for detailed chemical application program, to expand on view shed analysis, to respond to C.T. Male comments, to provide a copy of road maintenance agreement, and to provide trip generation for Golf Course and Mitchell 12 lot proposal. Duly adopted this 24 day of July 2001 by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-For the public, I left the public hearing open, too, when we continue this. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Wait a second, did that include the specific engineering calculations for the capacity of the detention basins? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what we asked for. MR. MILLER-We have our grading plan, and that was supposed to be part of the stormwater report. Those calculations were done. They were never put in their final form, and they weren’t attached, but the stormwater detention basins and the pipe sizes and things were based on those calculations and we’ll have those submitted with the stormwater report. MR. VOLLARO-The stormwater management report, what you’re saying is that the math and the data that backs this up is available? MR. MILLER-Yes. It wasn’t finalized, and Tom Nace was working on it with me and he didn’t finalize it in time and it wasn’t attached, and that was one of the comments that C.T. Male had. So we will submit that to you, and we will submit a copy to them. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right, and one other thing. Like Dr. Collins had referred to, we’ve had like three major, major storms in the 1990’s. I mean, I can remember maybe one, but are those considered like the 50 year flood type of things? MR. MILLER-Well, they’re rated differently, depending on, and they’re rated different duration’s. I mean you have a one hour 50 year storm, and you have a 24 hour 50 year storm, but the Town’s standard requires us to do a 50 year analysis, which is typical of what we do and what we size the detention basins. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. MILLER-And we weren’t going to say the wetlands are going to handle all our runoff. Our intent is to contain as much as we can on site, and what ends up in the watershed and into the wetland is overflow. We want to make the first containment right at the site. So our intent is to develop the detention basins to handle a 50 year storm, and what it is designed to do is to handle the increase from what runs off now compared to what the development does, and, since we’re not dealing with buildings and pavement, we’re taking a meadow and adding a golf hole to it. There’s a certain increase in runoff because we don’t have any impervious runoff. So it’s minimal. We have more mowed, closely mowed grass. So the coefficients of runoffs are slightly higher, but we’re not talking about huge increases in runoff. In the wooded area it’s more. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I guess one of the questions I was going to ask earlier, but I didn’t think it was that relevant, but are the fairways going to be watered, or just? MR. MILLER-There’s a plan, right now, the larger existing pond, there’s a pump house there, and the tees and greens are watered now. The intentions with the new golf course is to water, you know, extend the water to the tees and greens, and eventually extend it to some of the fairway areas. The ponds that are located along the golf course serve as irrigation now, and would continue to serve, and in addition there’s an existing well in a stable area, and the well will be used as a back up, but they’re looking to phase the irrigation. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But, you know, if the golf course is mowed, like if you make the fairways really short, then you make the sides really thick, I mean, that’s a natural way of containing the water also. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) MR. MILLER-Well, that’s right, and then what we tried to do on the side is create depressions. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Instead of mowing the whole golf course the same way. MR. MILLER-That’s right. You’re absolutely right. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. MR. MILLER-You’re welcome. MR. MAC EWAN-A couple of other items. Next month’s agenda goes something like this. Okay. The 18 is site visits, nine a.m. Tony’s on donut detail. The fifteenth is a proposed special joint th meeting with the ZBA, with the new Zoning Ordinance. That’s a tentative date. We’ll have some confirmation on that this week. I will e-mail everyone and let them know. Then we have our regular meetings the 21 and the 28. How does your application load look? stth MRS. MOORE-I understand I have a lot on the agenda this coming month. MR. RINGER-Three meetings plus the ZBA meeting? MRS. LA BOMBARD-What about that special meeting with Aviation Mall? Weren’t we going to have a? MR. MAC EWAN-We’re only going to have so many special meetings in a month. MRS. MOORE-We don’t have enough time period between, because of the adoption with the Town Board. So they will be on one of the meetings normally scheduled in August. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. When is the Zoning Ordinance going to go to public comment? Is that in September? MS. RADNER-According to Chris Round’s last memo, the Town Board is going to be getting this by August 3. The draft will be published on the web site, and they will issue a press release rd announcing its availability and the Steering Committee will be meeting August 7 to review the final th draft, then they are scheduling public meetings to take place in August and September. MR. MAC EWAN-August and September. My only concern is burnout. Honestly. If we go to a three meeting agenda this month, I don’t think the idea of having this joint ZBA meeting is a good idea. MRS. MOORE-Okay. We’ll review that tomorrow, then, and I will let you know. MR. MAC EWAN-You know where to find me. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-What day are we having this meeting with Getty and the Mall? Has that been scheduled as a separate meeting? MRS. MOORE-No, it has not. MR. MAC EWAN-No meeting is scheduled. Okay. So are we all square on those meeting dates? So the only thing that’s in limbo is. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So the 21 and the 28are regular meetings? stth MR. MAC EWAN-The 21 and the 28 are definite. I’m guessing if we go to a third meeting, we’re stth probably looking at the 23. rd MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, that would work. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Just for either you or Mark to be aware, and that’s obviously hinging on the amount of applications you get, but also, let’s you and I, Laura, discuss this with Marilyn, this joint ZBA thing. Because we may end up putting that off until September. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have a brief announcement to make, Mrs. Moore? 52 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) MRS. MOORE-I’d like all of our Planning Board members to meet our new Code Compliance Officer, Bruce Frank. MR. MAC EWAN-Bruce, pleased to meet you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Hi, Bruce. MRS. MOORE-I have a, July 30, I understand Cathy is going to be our attending member. th MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have it right here on Monday, at 10 a.m. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Where? MRS. MOORE-The conference room in the Planning Department. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is that the one downstairs? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. You are required to bring bagels? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is that right? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it is. It’s a requirement of the Code. MRS. MOORE-I have no comment. MR. MAC EWAN-Subsection 49-2, I believe, is bagel carrier. MRS. MOORE-And the next thing is that you will need to schedule for September and some upcoming months. So I don’t know who’s available in September. MR. MAC EWAN-I will sit down with you because I think I’m next in line. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-I will do the end of August one. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to put this on e-mail? MR. MAC EWAN-I will blast off an e-mail to everyone. MRS. LA BOMBARD-What do I do when I go to this meeting? MR. MAC EWAN-Observe and throw your two cents in. MR. RINGER-You bring bagels. They just told you what you do. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. MOORE-I have nothing else. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. STROUGH-Just that tomorrow night, at the West Glens Falls Firehouse, at 7 p.m., they’re going to be talking about the Main Street. MR. MAC EWAN-The Main Street Corridor. MR. STROUGH-The State’s going to be there, and everything else. The Main Street Corridor. Tomorrow night, 7 p.m., the West Glens Falls Firehouse. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So noted. Meeting adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/24/01) RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 54