Loading...
2002-12-19 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 19, 2002 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER LARRY RINGER ANTHONY METIVIER JOHN STROUGH ROBERT VOLLARO RICHARD SANFORD, ALTERNATE PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. MAC EWAN-A couple of announcements. First, Site Plan No. 57-2002 & Site Plan No. 58-2002, both of those items are off the agenda tonight because they weren’t properly advertised in the paper for tonight’s meeting. They’ll be postponed to a later date. With that being said, under Old Business. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 53-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, JR. PROPERTY OWNER: GUIDO PASSARELLI AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER, JAMES MILLER ZONE: PO LOCATION: EAST SIDE BAY RD., NORTH OF BLDG. UNDER CONSTRUCTION APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STORY 10,000 SQ. FT. OFFICE WITH PARKING AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE IN A PO ZONE REQUIRES REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 130-92, SB 5- 88, SP 13-01, BP 01-400 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/13/02 TAX MAP NO. 296.12-1-24/60-2-4 LOT SIZE: 82.22 ACRES/SECTION: ART. 4 JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RICH S., PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-The only additional comment is the last time this application was heard before the Board, a change was necessary to be made on the plan. That change has been made. C.T. Male has also reviewed the plan and I believe provided a final signoff. We have no further comments. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Rich Schermerhorn and Tom Nace. As you’ll recall, as George was just saying, we were seconds away from approval, we believe, at the last meeting, when (lost words) pointed out that we have to shift the building 10 feet. That’s been done and we have that signed off on, and so we hope that we’re ready for an approval. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions from Board members? MR. STROUGH-Just one last thing, even on this site plan, just so we can stay consistent with everybody else (lost words). (Lost words) in accord with the town zoning code Bay Road Streetscape elements (179-7-040, B-2, promotion of a more pedestrian friendly corridor), the applicant will accommodate a future sidewalk easement, proposed sidewalk will run parallel alongside Bay Road. This will be noted on the applicant’s final submitted site layout and landscape plans. MR. LAPPER-Perfect language. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, thanks for doing that and you managed to scoot it over and put everything in it looks like. It looks good. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions or comments from Board members? Anything you wanted to add? MR. LAPPER-No. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll ask you to give up the table for a minute. We left the public hearing open. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-Is this the Short Form? MR. LAPPER-We did not get to a SEQRA last time. MR. MAC EWAN-No, we didn’t get that far. Short Form, yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 53-2002, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, JR., 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 19 day of December, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone introduce a motion, please. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2002 RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, JR., Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan Review No. 53-2002 Applicant: Richard Schermerhorn, Jr. Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Guido Passarelli (RPS) Agent: Jonathan Lapper, James Miller Zone: PO 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) Location: East side Bay Rd., north of Medical building under construction Applicant proposes construction of a two story 10,000 sq. ft. office with parking and associated site work. Professional Office in a PO zones requires review by the Planning Board. Cross Reference: UV 130-92, SB 5-88, SP 13-01, SP 90-90, SP 33- 02, AV 38-01, SP 24-01, SP 19-01, BP 01-400 Warren Co. Planning: 11/13/02 Tax Map No. 296.12-1-24 Lot size: 85.58 acres / Section: Art. 4 Public Hearing: November 26, 2002 WHEREAS, the application was received on 10/15/02; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 12/13/02, and 12/13/02 Staff Notes 12/13/02 CT Male engineering comments 12/2/02 Nace Engineering, info in response to PB and CT Male Cover letter w/maps SP-1 thru SP-4 revised 11/28/02 11/26/02 Planning Board resolution 11/26/02 Planning Board minutes 11/26/02 CT Male engineering comments in response to 11/26/02 response by Nace 11/26/02 Nace Engineering response to 11/22 CT Male comments 11/26/02 Staff Notes 11/22/02 BPSR to GH: Authorization form 11/19/02 Notice of Public Hearing 11/13/02 Warren Co. PB recommendation: NCI 11/7/02 Wastewater comments (e-mailed) 10/15/02 Application materials w/drawings, Stormwater Management report, Maps SP-1 thru SP-4 dated 10/15/02 WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on November 26, 2002 and December 19, 2002; 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 We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1. C.T. Male sign-off letter of 12/13/02 will be added to the documentation list, and 2. In accordance with the Town Zoning Code Bay Road streetscape elements, Section 179-7- 040, B-2 promotion of a more pedestrian friendly corridor, the applicant will accommodate a future sidewalk easement; proposed sidewalk will run parallel and alongside Bay Road. This will be noted on the applicant’s final submittal site layout and landscape plans, and 3. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows: 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 12/19/02 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: 1. Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. LAPPER-Thanks very much. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. SUBDIVISION NO. 16-2002 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED MICHAEL CANTIELLO PROPERTY OWNER: JANICE BISHOP AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: RIDGE AND CRONIN ROADS APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 8.47 ACRE PARCEL INTO SIX (6) LOTS OF 1 ACRE, 1.01 ACRE, 1.10 ACRE, 1.02 ACRE, 1.48 ACRE, 1.33 ACRE AND 1.53 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: NONE FOUND TAX MAP NO. 297.14-1-3/59-4-1 LOT SIZE: 8.47 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MICHAEL C., PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes? MR. HILTON-The last time this application was heard, it was tabled for more information, specifically a stormwater management plan. That’s been provided. C.T. Male has signed off on the contents of the plan. We have no further comment at this time. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, Mike Cantiello, and Tom Nace. Neither Tom or I were able to make the meeting last time. Matt Steves was here instead, and we understand that the Board got pretty far along and then there was a stormwater management issue that was raised. So Tom, as George said, Tom has now submitted a stormwater management plan, and it’s been reviewed by C.T. Male, and they’ve signed off on it. So we’re hopeful that the Board is ready to approve this subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Bob, we’ll start with you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I took a look at C.T. Male’s comments of December 12, and it agrees with the th above explanation. That’s the explanation that Tom Nace made on November 29, 2002, with respect to additional stormwater. I guess we now have a signoff on this, a signoff by C.T. Male dated December 17, 2002, and as a result of that, I don’t have any further questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Sanford? MR. SANFORD-Nor do I, but I live around that area, and I thought it was pretty wet. I think it’s pretty wet around there, but we did get the signoff, and so I guess I’m content with it. No other questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-Well, we’ve got the signoff, and I have no problem with it, with the signoff from Male. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-No, nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-Nothing to add. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Yes. As far as the stormwater and hydrological consequences, I did put out an e-mail, just so the public knows, to take a hard look at that, and both engineers did, Tom Nace and C.T. Male, and I’m pretty satisfied that they took a real hard look, that what they’ve come up with, as far as stormwater plans and possible alternatives for infiltration beds for septic systems and everything else they put together, I think they put together a pretty good plan, and I have faith in Tom Nace anyways. I’ve seen him take off on tougher 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) projects than this one and come out way ahead on it. So, I do respect his expertise. So, with that said, I don’t have any stormwater, any concerns or hydrologic concerns at this point, but we do have a no cut zone on Lots One, Two and Seven right? MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-Now, why is the house shown as partly encumbering on the no cut zone on Lot Seven? MR. NACE-It’s not. The no cut zone is a 30 foot setback off the property line on those. MR. STROUGH-Okay. It’s not the wooded area? MR. NACE-No, that’s the existing tree cover, the existing tree line. MR. STROUGH-It’s the dotted area. Well, thank you for bringing that to my attention. That was the one question I had, and there are stone walls, and did you agree that you would take some measures to try and protect those, except for something you absolutely have to do, like a driveway cut? MR. CANTIELLO-Most definitely. MR. STROUGH-Then I don’t have anymore questions. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CATHY SPRING MS. SPRING-Cathy Spring. I just bought some property across from where they’re going to develop, 257 Cronin. This is all new to me. So I’m just concerned as to where the driveways are going to be going into that area. I’m like the, well, there’s the cemetery. Then there’s Smith’s house and then myself, and I’m just concerned where the driveways would go. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re on Meadowbrook? MS. SPRING-I’m on Cronin. MR. MAC EWAN-Cronin. MS. SPRING-Cronin, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-He has a plan there he can show you the plan, if you want to look at it. MS. SPRING-Okay. I’m just concerned. I would, I’d hate to see it directly across from my house. That’s my main concern. MR. NACE-Here’s the corner. This first one, I believe, is across from the cemetery. MS. SPRING-Okay. MR. NACE-And the second one down here, which house is yours? MS. SPRING-Okay. There’s the cemetery, and then there’s a small house right next to it, and then I’m the next one. MR. NACE-You’re here. The second driveway is going to be somewhere here. It’s in between those two lots. Between the two houses there. MS. SPRING-Okay. All right. That was my main concern, just hoping it would be between those and not across from me. Okay. That’s my only question. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, please. MR. HUNSINGER-Short? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) MR. MAC EWAN-You completed the Short Form or the Long Form? MR. VOLLARO-There’s a Short Form. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 16-2002, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: MICHAEL CANTIELLO, 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 19 day of December, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 16-2002 MICHAEL CANTIELLO, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 16-2002 Applicant: Michael Cantiello PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: Janice Bishop Type: Unlisted Agent: Van Dusen & Steves Zone: SFR-1A Location: Ridge and Cronin Roads Applicant proposes subdivision of an 8.47 acre parcel into six (6) lots of 1 acre, 1.01 acre, 1.10 acre 1.02 acre, 1.48 acre, 1.33 acre and 1.53 acres. Cross Reference: None Found Tax Map No. 297.14-1-3 / 59-4-1 Lot size: 8.47 acres / Section: Subdivision Regs Public Hearing: November 19, 2002 WHEREAS, the application was received 10/15/02, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 12/13/02; and 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) 12/19 Staff notes 12/17 CT Male engineering comments 12/4 Revised info forwarded to CT Male 12/4 Meeting Notice 12/2 Revised info received from Nace Eng. in response to PB comments: Cover letter, Stormwater Management report dated 11/29/02 and Map S-1 revised 11/29/02 11/19 Staff Notes 11/19 Planning Board minutes 11/19 Highway Dept. comments 11/12 Notice of Public Hearing 11/5 Meeting Notice 10/28 M. Steves request for waiver from grading/drainage plan & revised application materials 9/17 Staff Notes 9/17 Planning Board minutes WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on November 19, 2002 and December 19, 2002; 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 We find the following: The application for Preliminary Stage is hereby granted in accordance with the resolution as it’s prepared by Staff and with the additional comment that the second statement on the resolution prepared by Staff for CT Male engineering comments be noted as 12/17. Duly adopted this 19th day of December 2002 by the following vote: MR. STROUGH-Well. MR. VOLLARO-You wanted the protection words in there? MR. STROUGH-Yes. Could I add this condition? Pretty much along the lines of what was just said, I think. The developer will make all reasonable efforts to protect and preserve any stonewalls included within the subdivision, with the exception of absolutely necessary alterations like a driveway. MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Isn’t that something we put in Final, rather than Preliminary? MR. SCHACHNER-That was my second comment. MR. MAC EWAN-Your first comment? MR. SCHACHNER-That’s not something that the applicant is likely to fulfill to get from Preliminary to Final. Presumably that’s something you want done in the final design. So I agree with Chris. MR. STROUGH-All right. MR. SCHACHNER-But my first comment was just an administerial one, which is the Staff prepared resolution has a blank for the date of the C.T. Male engineering comments, which I assume you want to include as the 17. You’ll see that in your prepared resolution on the second item listed, 12/ blank. th Presumably you want 12/17. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Ringer, did you second that? MR. RINGER-I’ll second the Preliminary motion that Bob made. AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone introduce a motion, please, for Final. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 16-2002 MICHAEL CANTIELLO, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 16-2002 Applicant: Michael Cantiello PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: Janice Bishop FINAL STAGE Agent: Van Dusen & Steves Type: Unlisted Zone: SFR-1A Location: Ridge and Cronin Roads Applicant proposes subdivision of an 8.47 acre parcel into six (6) lots of 1 acre, 1.01 acre, 1.10 acre 1.02 acre, 1.48 acre, 1.33 acre and 1.53 acres. Cross Reference: None Found Tax Map No. 297.14-1-3 / 59-4-1 Lot size: 8.47 acres / Section: Subdivision Regs Public Hearing: November 19, 2002 WHEREAS, the application was received 10/15/02, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 12/13/02; and 12/19 Staff notes 12/17 CT Male engineering comments 12/4 Revised info forwarded to CT Male 12/4 Meeting Notice 12/2 Revised info received from Nace Eng. in response to PB comments: Cover letter, Stormwater Management report dated 11/29/02 and Map S-1 revised 11/29/02 11/19 Staff Notes 11/19 Planning Board minutes 11/19 Highway Dept. comments 11/12 Notice of Public Hearing 11/5 Meeting Notice 10/28 M. Steves request for waiver from grading/drainage plan & revised application materials 9/17 Staff Notes 9/17 Planning Board minutes WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on November 19, 2002 and December 19, 2002; 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 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) We find the following: The application for Final Stage is hereby granted and is subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer will make all reasonable efforts to protect and preserve any stone walls included within this subdivision with the exception of absolutely necessary alteration such as driveways, etc. , and 2. With the additional comment that the second statement on the resolution prepared by staff for C.T. Male engineering comments be noted as 12/17, and 3. Recreation Fees in the amount of $ 3000.00 for 6 lots are applicable to this subdivision at the time a building permit is applied for. 4. Waiver request(s) is granted for Grading and Drainage plan as requested 10/28/02 by Van Dusen & Steves. 5. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 6. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. CANTIELLO-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2002 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED DANIEL & PAMELA VALENTE PROPERTY OWNER: DANIEL & ELIZABETH VALENTE AGENT: CHARLES SCUDDER, P.E. ZONE: PO LOCATION: BAY ROAD @ WALKER LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 14.05 ACRE PARCEL INTO 15 LOTS FOR A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE COMPLEX. CROSS REFERENCE: NONE FOUND TAX MAP NO. 296.11-1-21 LOT SIZE: 14.05 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS. CHARLIE SCUDDER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DANIEL VALENTE, PRESENT MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, before I begin with this item, I didn’t know if you wanted to repeat your announcement at the beginning of the meeting concerning the two applications. MR. MAC EWAN-Some new people arrived. Yes, you’re right. Thank you. Just for people who just arrived late, Site Plan 57-2002, that was for Sally Kelly, and Site Plan 58-2002, for the Redeemer Reformed Presbyterian Church, both have been removed from the agenda tonight because of legal advertising glitch with the newspaper that it wasn’t properly posted in the paper. So they’ll be rescheduled probably for next month. AUDIENCE MEMBER-It’s not possible to discuss the project tonight? MR. MAC EWAN-There’s no point, not with a public hearing not scheduled, and they will be re-advertised. It was a glitch with the newspaper. Okay. Staff notes. MR. HILTON-Since the last hearing with this application, some new information has been provided by the applicant. The plat’s been revised to indicate one curb cut on Walker Lane, as well as internalization of vehicle access, and Staff would suggest an additional consolidation of drives on the south side of the extension of Baybridge Drive, potentially leaving two access points as opposed to the three that are shown. It’s also come to Staff’s attention that there is an easement, on site easement that does exist at this location, and that should be noted on the plat as it may affect density and lot layout. The Army Corps of Engineers and New York State DEC have submitted information stating that they need further information on wetland delineation, and I also think that, with the C.T. Male letter that you have in your packets, stating that they’re not ready to sign off on this, that we need some further information before considering this application. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) MR. SCUDDER-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are? MR. SCUDDER-Scudder is my name, engineer for Valente. MR. VALENTE-Daniel Valente. I’m the developer of Fairfield Professional Park, and we are well aware of the information we need to still get to you folks. We apologize we haven’t been able to do that. A lot of the information that we get comes back at a pretty late date. So we’re doing our best to talk with the C.T. Male and address all their concerns. So, obviously, we’re going to need more time to get you folks the information, and also C.T. Male. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you think you’d have the information that you need by next month? MR. SCUDDER-The answer’s yes with respect to the information needed by C.T. Male. We have to address concerns of the State Environmental Conservation Department and we hope to do that forthwith, but what the outcome will be, we can’t say, we don’t know. We do, however, hope things will go well, and that we’ll be ready next month. MR. MAC EWAN-What is deadline submission for January? It’s already passed? MR. HILTON-It’s already passed. It was Monday. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have an idea how long you think it will be before you get your info? I mean, are you looking at a week, two weeks, three weeks? I’m willing to be somewhat accommodating here, you know, if you’ve got a reasonable amount of time that you can get information into the Town office building so that we can have you on the January agenda, but if you’re looking two weeks, three weeks out before you think you’re going to get a response, we may just as well hold off on it until February. MR. SCUDDER-Right. I think that’s right. MR. VALENTE-Well, I mean, you have to know how you’re going to feel about dealing with C.T. Male for stormwater, and DEC. MR. MAC EWAN-DEC is probably going to be your longest lead time. MR. VALENTE-Right. So we’re trying to set that up as we speak. The easements, we have a handle on that, a real good grasp on that, and I’m sure counsel will be seeing something real shortly, if they haven’t already, on that. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Then why don’t we discuss this for a little bit and we’ll figure out, and we’ll table this until our first meeting in February. MR. VALENTE-Which is approximately when? MR. MAC EWAN-It would be the third Tuesday of the month. Whatever date that is. Nobody’s given me a 2003 calendar yet. MR. RINGER-That would be the 18. th MR. VALENTE-Rather than pushing the issue, I guess that would probably be the best for all of us. MR. MAC EWAN-Especially with the holidays, two weeks of holidays and short work weeks and such. That, if I said, you know, the following week after that we’ll get your responses, I’m willing to bet that DEC is going to be a long lead time. You won’t have it much before the end of January. MR. RINGER-The meeting would be the 18. th MR. MAC EWAN-So you’re looking at getting, at this point, at getting your submittals into the Town by the 15 of January. If for some reason you think that it’s still going to be a few days out for DEC or something, th call here and talk to George about it and George will get a hold of me and we can see where we’ll go from there, if we’d just grant you an extra day or two or something. MR. HILTON-Pardon me. I just wanted to say that based on the letter from DEC, I believe it’s dated December 16, the most recent letter, they have discussed the possibility of a joint meeting between DEC, th Army Corps of Engineers, Staff and the applicant, and I think that that might, I can’t say for sure, but that might delay the plans you just spoke about. So I guess it should be the understanding of everyone that it’s tentative and it could change. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct, and it’s all based on submissions by the 15 of next month, to get on the th February agenda. Okay. With that, we’ll start with you guys. Do you want to go over your project a little bit with us and refresh our memories? MR. RINGER-Craig, we went over it last month and they had a lot of issues that they had to do. Why don’t we just table it until February. MR. VALENTE-If you have any comments on the revised plat, we’d like to get your feedback now. That way if we do have to address anything else, we can try to get that done. MR. RINGER-You had a whole laundry list. Did you complete the whole laundry list? MR. VALENTE-Well, no. I mean, we know, obviously the DEC issues and C.T. Male issues and the easement issues, and we have a good handle on that. It’s the, I wanted to see your feedback on the revised with the internal drive and I believe there was a letter from Rick Missita commenting on the road, and I don’t know if you have received that yet. If not, you will. MR. RINGER-We got it today. MR. VALENTE-Yes, everything was last minute. MR. VOLLARO-Is that the one from Rick Missita? MR. RINGER-Yes, it came tonight. MR. VOLLARO-It came tonight. MR. VALENTE-So I didn’t know if you had anymore comments on the plat, and that way we could try to address them, and come more prepared. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich, we’ll start with you. MR. SANFORD-Well, I’m going to actually defer. I know some other people have comments, although I don’t really see much of a change in terms of the actual layout. It seems to be the same design that we’ve seen all along, which I guess has been unfavorably characterized by some as a cookie cutter approach which we don’t believe is really in keeping with the spirit of what we’re trying to accomplish, and so I would have liked to have seen some changes there, and didn’t, but, you know, I’ll hold off and listen to what other people have to say at this point. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-There’s so many things that you’ve got to do, I don’t see anything new that I wanted to add. MR. VALENTE-I didn’t know what you thought about the internal drive. We’re trying to pull that, you know, (lost words) wanted the fewer, less curb cuts on Walker and Baybridge Drive. MR. RINGER-And I thought that was a good, you know. MR. VALENTE-We’re trying to find a good solution. Unfortunately, like I said, we’re trying to work with pre-existing conditions with this piece of land that we have. We have a Point A and a Point B that that road’s got to go to at some point. So we’re trying to work with it as much as we can. MR. RINGER-But I, myself, don’t have trouble with your design of the lot, but I did like the idea of reducing the curb cuts. I didn’t have anything other than (lost words) they’ve got to come back with. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I just want to make a couple of comments, I guess, on the design. I mean, one of the things that I had said at the last meeting, that I really appreciate, and I know the rest of the members do as well, is the way that you’ve lined Baybridge up with the curb cut across Bay Road. Once you establish that road, there’s really not much else you can do with the property. I mean, I think we wanted to see something that was a little more creative, but I agree with you. I think you are limited. The other variable that we really don’t know about is the way you’ve laid the lots out. The comment was made at the last meeting, it’s conceivable, and in fact may even be very probable that someone would buy more than one lot at a time, and that would really change the way that the layout actually looks. Because if someone, you know, if you have a larger building that takes up two or three separate lots, you have, you know, fewer curb cuts, you know, you have a different visual approach to the whole project. I guess that’s really all I had to add. I guess I just appreciate the difficulty that you’ve had in trying to find some sort of creative design, when we’ve kind of set 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) the parameters of Baybridge being a cross through across Bay Road. I just agree with Larry. There were a number of issues that still had to be addressed, and the Army Corps being fairly significant. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I don’t know if I can add anything. I wasn’t here for the other meeting. So I am at a disadvantage at this point, until I get the minutes. I don’t know, there was some comments made about the approach that you took, but again, I would have to look at the other comments made from the other meeting to see if there’s any comparatives that I could do, but besides that, I really have no comments. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-I love challenges. I’d love to sit down with you and try and work out something a little bit nicer. I see Rick Missita likes your newer proposal a lot better, and I might end up, at the end of the day, agreeing with you that’s the best layout, but I’m not convinced of that, and would like to see something more creative, but that being aside, that would not prevent me from approving the project, that alone, but what I do want to do is make sure that I stay consistent with you, as I did with Mr. Schermerhorn. So when all is said and done, and I think this is what you wanted to know, what our thoughts were up front, so next time you come a little bit better prepared, we get a little closer, etc., right? So, this is basically what I’ve said to Rich, opposite you, and across the street from you. In accord with the Town zoning code Bay Road Streetscape elements from Town Code, 179-7-040, B-2, promotion of a more pedestrian friendly corridor, the applicant will accommodate a future sidewalk easement; proposed sidewalk will run parallel and alongside Bay Road. This will be noted on the applicant’s final submitted site layout and landscape plan. It’s the same thing I said to Rich, and also, you weren’t here previous, I don’t think, when Rich did a subdivision modification, that, and he willingly went along with this, to his credit, that in accord with Town zoning code Bay Road Streetscape elements from Town Code 179-7-040 C-6, trees along both sides of the street, the applicant will provide the following trees to be planted parallel and adjacent to Bay Road. The row of trees will be planted approximately five feet from property line that abuts the Bay Road right of way, and will have a minimum of 100 feet separation between the trees. The trees will be of the following variety and size, botanical name, Acer Saccharum “Green Mountain”, common name is “Green Mt.” Sugar maple; 3-3 ½ inch caliper, and of course you know the other stipulation that we will be making will be the connection to the municipal sewer will be required before we can put any final conclusions on this. How is the sewer coming along? Anything new there? MR. VALENTE-Not that I know of. I have not heard anything as far as progress with that. MR. STROUGH-I think Rich wants to be in by May. So, I’d just share those. MR. VALENTE-We are planning around worst case scenario. So, as far as our sewer design, you know, that everything will drain to a low point and then pump up. So that’s how we’re tackling this, and obviously, when we get further along, that we’ll be able to file a revised map plan and report to the Town, when we’re ready to do that. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. VALENTE-When we see what the elevations are and what not. MR. STROUGH-Little by little. MR. VALENTE-We’re getting there. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you. MR. VALENTE-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-In keeping with that, this is the last thing on my list that I’m going to talk about, then I’m going to talk about some other stuff, but when we did the Schermerhorn application, we said that there would be no building permits issued until the map plan and report was accepted by the Town of Queensbury. I think that probably ought to be the case in this area as well. So that everybody’s on the same playing field. So you want to get your map plan and report set up before the Town, get them to approve that. You’ll have to do that before you get your building permit. I would suggest that Mr. Strough, if he has another copy of what he just read off, he could give it to you. MR. STROUGH-I was going to ask the Chairman if that’s okay with him. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I was going to take it a step farther and ask you, do you a copy of the Ordinance for the Bay Road corridor design standards? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) MR. VALENTE-I believe we do. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’re going to be looking hard and fast for you to, you know, stick with that theme that’s being well established through Bay Road. MR. VALENTE-Yes, well, actually, I had a, and I’ll bring it back, as far as an elevation or design of a building that we would particularly like to see there. I’ll bring it back for the next meeting for you. I know you weren’t here at the first one. MR. MAC EWAN-That would be great. What else do you have, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Okay. (Lost words) issues that I have in my notes. Now the area shown as the gravel road, a distance of approximately 100 feet on the last drawing that I saw, now that eventually must be deeded from the Baybridge Homeowners Association to the Town in order for that road to be a fully dedicated road. That’s HOA property as it stands today. MR. VALENTE-I’m sure it is. Yes. MR. VOLLARO-So that has to be prepared, I think, before, at least in preparation that that be deeded over, from the Baybridge Homeowners Association. MR. VALENTE-Yes. The Town won’t accept it until it’s built to Code, though. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but I think there has to be a deed transfer of property to the Town of Queensbury from the Baybridge Homeowners Association to allow that road to go through and be dedicated. I would defer to our Counsel on that, but I know that right now that property is under the ownership of the Baybridge Homeowners Association. MR. SCHACHNER-But I’m not sure I’m following your proposal in terms of what’s first, cart or horse. The Town of Queensbury, you’re talking about a proposed road, if I understand. MR. VOLLARO-The road that they’re proposing. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and the Town of Queensbury is not authorized to accept the road until it’s built, built according to Town spec, and the deed transfer wouldn’t occur until that time. MR. MAC EWAN-No, what Mr. Vollaro, I think, is referring to, that he needs to get permission or a deed transfer from the homeowners association before he can start developing the roadway to Town standards. MR. SCHACHNER-Not to the Town, but from the HOA to the applicant. MR. VOLLARO-And then from the applicant to the Town. MR. VALENTE-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-I think he’s referring to both, but the applicant to Town can’t happen until the road’s built, inspected by Mr. Missita and all the rest of that, but what I think Mr. MacEwan’s talking about, correct me if I’m wrong, Craig, is transfer from HOA to applicant. MR. VOLLARO-Correct. Ultimately, that’s what I was looking to have done. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I mean, the applicant can’t, I think what you’re saying is, and I don’t know if it’s true, but I’m assuming it is, that I think what you’re questioning is whether the applicant currently has the legal authority to make the road improvements that are proposed because the applicant doesn’t have title. MR. VOLLARO-Correct. That’s what I was saying. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So, the applicant either has to have title or some agreement with the HOA to authorize that work to be done, and you, as a Planning Board, certainly have the right to require that. MR. VOLLARO-You’re aware of the road easements along the road? You’ve talked about that. Now there’s an additional piece of deeded property on that. It’s property that was deeded from Daniel and Elizabeth Valente to the Queensbury Homeowners Association and to the Town, and that was eventually returned to Daniel and Elizabeth Valente or to you, Dan, and to your wife Pam. I guess that brings up a question that I had on the drawings. I noticed that the drawings indicate that these are the lands of Daniel A. and Pamela J. Valente. Has that property been transferred to you now? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) MR. VALENTE-Not as of yet. The land, are you talking about the parcel that you’re asking about with the easement? MR. VOLLARO-The 14.05 acres I’m talking about, the whole 14.05. MR. VALENTE-We are in the process of making that transfer. We had talked about that last. MR. VOLLARO-Because on the drawings it says lands of yourself and your wife, as opposed to your dad and your mom. MR. VALENTE-We’re within, you know, we’re waiting for the lawyer to finish up. MR. VOLLARO-If you’re interested in where that deed transfer is, you can go to, it’s a Book Number 1244, Page 290, at the County, and you pick up that deed. I’ll give that to you again. It’s Book Number 1244, Page 290, and in there will be the deeded property. Other than that, looking down my notes, other than those comments, I don’t have any other. I was wondering if I could read something that I pulled out of the file for the Chairman and for the other members of the Board, and this is not to drop cold water on this application. It’s just that trying to get so that this Board doesn’t lose its focus on this, and I’ll read, this is a letter from Craig Brown. I’ve read it before, before this Board. It’s dated August 7, 2002, and it’s short, so I’ll just read it into the record again. It says, “On occasion applicants that appear before you may present an application that requires additional information or an application that might change and require modification. In most instances, these applications are tabled to allow the applicant to make the necessary amendments to the application. While this process is the most practical for minor changes or additions, the extended tabling of applications makes it not only difficult for us to track, it may prove to distance the application from the attention of the Board which in turn, might make a difficult project more difficult to review. Dormant applications are soon forgotten. While the requests for tabling are at the discretion of the Chairman and the Board, I would request that you consider limiting the extended tabling of applications to a one-time maximum of 62 days. Major changes from the original application may best be handled with a denial or withdrawal and resubmission.” Now that’s just Craig Brown’s position on extended tabling, and I thought I would read that into the record. MR. MAC EWAN-I think what he’s suggesting is that to table an application beyond 62 days, you’re better off having the applicant re-submit. In this case, that I’m aware of, it hasn’t been 62 days since we last saw this application. So if we table it again, it’s another 30 days before we see it again. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-But if he wasn’t planning to come back to see us much before March or something like that, I think that it would be proper to do that. MR. VOLLARO-Right. I was just going along with what George’s statement, that maybe this is all tentative, and that’s a concern that we should all, I don’t want to get this project out of focus. MR. MAC EWAN-I understand. Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-No. I have no other comments. MR. SANFORD-Well, I’d like to comment. Bob, maybe you can clarify or someone could clarify it. The 62 days suggested period of time, I was listening to the laundry list of outstanding items, everything from deed transfers to all kinds of reports that have to be done. Are we talking about the time it might take for those events to be resolved, or are we talking about just the time it takes for them to come in front of the Board and give us updates? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think they’ve got to be resolved with an application that we can really sincerely go and take a look at. MR. SANFORD-Is that everybody’s understanding? Because it doesn’t seem. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t necessarily agree with that. MR. VOLLARO-You don’t? MR. MAC EWAN-No. I think what his message is in that letter, and maybe you can clarify it, George, is that he doesn’t want to see an application sit stagnant for more than 62 days before we either revisit it or make a determination on it. I think that’s what he’s suggesting. Isn’t he? MR. HILTON-Well, again, I guess I can’t speak for Craig, but it seems to me the letter is saying if you have an idea that it’s going to go beyond the 62 day period, you don’t want to have applications just sitting there. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) It gets kind of like, for record keeping purposes and for notification of the public and things like that, organizing meetings, it gets kind of hard to do that. MR. MAC EWAN-And we have had a couple of applications in the last couple of years that did fit into that, and we asked that they resubmit an application because it was such a long period of time, that they resubmit a new application. MR. RINGER-I would think as long as we’re continually working on the project, if it went stagnant for more than 60 days without any work on it, then it should be a new application, but if we’re continually working on it, I don’t see where we should insist that the. MR. VALENTE-We’re doing everything we can, obviously, to get all the information we can to you as fast as we can. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s understandable. I think from my point of view, I mean, it’s not like a lot of time has elapsed here we’ve forgotten where we’ve been, what we’ve been talking about. It’s still relatively fresh in everybody’s minds. So when we sit down again in February, we’ll all pretty much have a handle on what we need to do, and what we’re hoping to accomplish. MR. VALENTE-I think if anything, it makes people more familiar with it. I mean, we’re working through this, more or less. MR. STROUGH-Yes. I think every application’s unique and you’ve got to consider each application on its own merits, and there’s some issues in this that, you know, are beyond the applicant’s ability to do anything about at this time. So I think you’ve got to give them the benefit of the doubt. MR. VOLLARO-I just raised the issue because I want to make sure the Planning Board understands where we stand on that. I wasn’t for or against, but I wanted to read that. MR. MAC EWAN-No. I recall that memo, when he put it out, and the way I interpreted the memo was that if you weren’t going to deal with an application for a period of 62 days or longer, it’s his suggestion to make the applicant re-file with a fresh application, not necessarily during the review process. If you visit it once every 30 days, you know, over two months you hit over 62 days, then you make them re-file again, it didn’t make sense to me at that point. MR. SANFORD-No. I just can see, maybe not in this case, but having applicants come in front of the Board maybe every 45 days for a period of two years, in which case the public is no longer as focused on the application, and maybe the Board isn’t either, and so I think you reach a point where it becomes problematic to keep a project active when there’s so much to do, and this one here, realistically, I think we have a good long time before the issues are resolved. That’s why I asked the question. So I’m piggybacking on Bob’s comments. That’s all. If everybody’s comfortable with it, everybody’s comfortable with it. MR. MAC EWAN-I think we are. Anything you wanted to add? I’d ask you to give up the table for a couple of minutes, we’ll open the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? Please bear in mind we are going to table it. Yes, ma’am, come on up. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KATHLEEN SULLIVAN MRS. SULLIVAN-I am Kathleen Sullivan, 31 Walker Lane in Queensbury. I submitted a letter of my opposition, and this is a copy. MR. HILTON-Pardon me. If I may, just for one second. I have your letter here, and I did plan on reading that after the people who were here spoke. So I’ll read your letter afterwards as well. MRS. SULLIVAN-If you want to read it now, that would be fine, too. MR. MAC EWAN-No. We’ll go through the public comment, then we’ll read correspondence. MRS. SULLIVAN-Okay. I live at 31 Walker Lane, which is the first townhouse on the left, going west. I am a new community person there, since August, and I am appalled with what I live in. I absolutely live in swamp land. I have pictures here that have to be seen. If Mr. Valente is going to build another Baybridge, we are under water, and believe me, I don’t come here with any problem, but to first just check what goes on back there before you build anything. It’s a nightmare where I live on three sides of water. That’s the south. That’s the east, and the north. I have begged my Association for help, and they just don’t want to be bothered. Everybody is intimidated by Mr. Valente and his father. I am not. That’s why I am here. I will not be intimidated. I have a townhouse that I have spent over $27,000 since August, that goes from Balfour Realty down to everybody. I have went to my Association, and I’m a widow. I’m a fireman’s widow from 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) New York, and I will not be pushed aside, and if he’s going to build right next to my house, which is 100 feet maybe, 75, what’s going to happen, I mean, with my house? I am soaking wet. I mean, you know, I was told, I had addressed the Association on the water problem, and they told me to plant trees. I spent $3600 in trees, okay. I’m going to lose those trees, and they were 15 footers, and then one 30 footer, but they’ve been cabled down. I have cleaned that brook twice. It cost me $350. The water, I mean, back there is pathetic, and not only that, I also get the water from the top of Walker Lane, everybody on Walker Lane is in water. There are pictures here of the whole Walker Lane, and Baybridge Drive. If you see it, if anybody says these pictures lie, here’s snow, this popped up this spring, and I was told it was from my gutters. I mean, what do you think, I’m stupid? This is an ongoing problem. I mean, this is ice cold weather, and I’m told, well, Mrs. Sullivan, that water came from your gutters that you put up. I mean, it’s ridiculous. It’s got to stop, and the buck has to stop with me. I mean, I’ll spend any amount of money to stop this. I have had it for four months. I refuse to be intimidated, threatened, ignored by my Association that I pay $175 a month, and be told to go back to New York City. I refuse the abuse. I refuse anybody threatening me over a situation that has been going on for 15 years, and nobody did anything in Queensbury, and it is a rape of Queensbury, only because this first Association and all these other 85 units or whatever they are, that was built by his father. Now he comes and he’s going to build right in my face. I mean, I will look out every window and see, and there’s a brook there or a creek. It can’t be. I will be under water. I mean, I had an erosion test by an engineer, and we did mark the parts. I am down three quarters of an inch on the side which is common ground, and I put $3600 worth of trees there because I was told that’s going to stop all of this, I mean, like the water that just lays there for days. I cannot use my common ground. I cannot go into the front of my common ground and just walk to the street, unless I use my driveway, if it’s not flooded. I cannot go to the side of the common ground, and Dennis Brower was there. He walked into there and it was up to his shoelaces and it wasn’t even raining that day. I have now, in the back, a stream that came from the top of Walker Lane. You’ve got to stop it. Nothing is going to be changed. He’s going to change his plans in midstream and you’re never going to know it. I do not fear these people. I will never, but I live there. I paid a lot of money to fix that house, and it’s useless. My house is useless. I go into the Association. I go into Resource Management. They think I’m a stupid woman. Because for them to tell me all of this water is coming from your gutters, Kay, what the hell’s going on, and then I put up gutters, nobody else, and then I am yelled at. I mean, my back steps and my patio sunk. That’s because they had no stone under the patio when they built it, and no padding sand. I am being fined for putting in a new patio in Code, which I did reveal a septic pipe that was hidden. There’s two back there. So they did a patio of 12 by 30. I did 12 by 15, and I exposed a septic pipe which God forbid if it broke, and that’s on the upper ground. That is ground level. I called Greg Sherry. I called Craig. Our Association really is a bunch of pathetic people. Because here’s people there in their 80’s and 70’s, and widows, and you can’t do this. It’s got to stop. The buck has to stop with me. I will never, never give up my fight for what I have gone through for four months, and the money that I put, and the idiotic answers that I get from “people who are in the Association, who are very, very knowledgeable” they don’t even know where their pipes are. So then I called Warren County Soil and Water, a couple of weeks ago. I had a spring in the back, and they did come. I have called this Town, and I want to thank you very much. Everybody in this Town has helped me, from Dennis Brower right down that telephone list. I got on every day and they came, but then when Warren County came, that they found seven pipes. I mean, my Association doesn’t even know what the hell the pipes are, nor does anybody, or Greg Sherry. I am living three-quarters around my house with water. I am exhausted, as you can tell in my voice. I am wiped out, but I will not give up. If they do build on this proposed site, what’s going to happen to Baybridge? I mean, to us? It’s another rape of a community which they will get away with, which they will change everything. They’re going to shuffle the papers again, and you’re never going to know. I’ll know because I’ll be eyeballing them, every minute. I mean, I cannot even sell my house. Okay, and I have that in writing from three people. Not because, I fixed that place where it was structural damage from the day it was built, and I have all curb joists underneath, you know, I mean, my kitchen floor. I called Greg Sherry. I called this guy and this. The Town doesn’t even want to go near you people, I mean, us people. I mean, even a lawyer said, Baybridge, nope. That’s been problems for years, and it’s been ignored. We can’t take you. That goes right to Saratoga, too I went to, because it’s been ignored, and it can’t be ignored. I mean, there are senior citizens that are living in there in fear, and I brought one with me tonight who is intimidated if, I mean, if you don’t sign something there or don’t go along with the Association, then you can’t live here. I was told to get out. I had threatening phone calls, and I am trying to say to myself, what in the world do they want from me? Is it because, like I call my town and ask, you know, what are these pipes? Nobody knows where these pipes are from, where they’re going, and the way they’re, they’re just popping up. I would like to live, I can’t. I can’t live the way I’m living. I am not paying anymore common charges. Nobody should pay for it. We can’t walk, and these pictures will show, you cannot walk on any common grounds. We are saturated. That’s without any rain, and pictures show a million things, and they call me the lady who sweeps, you know, the Walker Lane. I want to tell you, these are the people across the street who are the renters, and they come up and they go, you know, Mrs. Sullivan, we’re really sorry about, I have to sweep that street. I mean, that water comes up to my driveway. If you let this go on, you’re going to have the same problem, because they don’t care, and our Association really is pathetic. Because they don’t care about us people there, and there’s 85 units, I think, and they ignore everybody, and they’re mostly senior citizens, and they are deathly afraid of Mr. Valente and the Association. That’s terrible. It is a crying shame, and I will go to no end to let everybody in this Town know, and I have, and that’s no threat. I mean, you know, they told me, and this was, the excavator said you need some dirt, lady. You’re house is going like this and like this and like this, and it’s the truth, because I did a mark in the ground in four places, and that mark is down three quarters of an inch in every place. I have to put on boots. I don’t wear shoes when I walk into my back yard or common grounds. I’ve got to put on the rubber boots. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) I have asked everybody in that development. I have asked my Association. I have asked Mr. Valente. They laugh me off because I’m a woman. No. It’s not going to happen. All I want this Planning Board to realize, that whole area that he will build on, I have walked through there, and I have taken pictures. I know when I am up to my ankles in water. I know it, and it’s all there, and if you want to ignore it, and still let him say he’s going to put in a sewer with Schermerhorn’s, and when they get a chance. In the meantime, the plans will be changed, and nobody’ll know. Nobody’s going to eagle eye this guy, but this does not lie from the County, and they advised me to take pictures. So, all I’m saying is that I totally oppose this, unless he can prove to you people and our community that we’re not going to have more water. You cannot walk in that development, ask anybody, only on the street, if you don’t get run down by somebody skimming down that street. That street is pathetic, and that’s Walker Lane, and I know you’re addressing Bay Road. Also address Walker Lane, because they meet, and you cannot believe the water. I sweep it every other day. There’s still water from the last rain, and I don’t know what more I can do in front of this Planning Board, but I did you a letter. I am outraged out of all these years that everybody has ignored, and to permit this gentleman or builder to do the same thing, it’s wrong, and it’s just ridiculous, and I hope you fix the problem. I hope somebody comes to Baybridge and sees it and accepts the fact, fix the problem. Our Association, I mean, their allegiance is to this gentleman here and his father. I’m not lying. These are many older people have told me. They hide in their houses. They are afraid. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much. Anyone else? MRS. SULLIVAN-Are you interested in these pictures? MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to have your letter read into the record. John? JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador, and this sort of problem that Mrs. Sullivan speaks of is symptomatic of a failed public policy, and the failed public policy is pumping the Hudson River into the front door, and discharging the waste out the back door. You have on-site wastewater facilities all over this place, and the ground just cannot absorb anymore water, and that’s why the rainwater and the snow doesn’t go away. It floods. It’s a failed public policy. You people do environmental impact statements on every single one of these projects. You never evaluate the cumulative impacts of what you’re doing, and that’s one of the things you’re supposed to do in SEQRA is cumulative impacts, and that’s the failure. We do disjointed reviews. The Planning Board looks at this, the Zoning Board looks at that. The Town Board looks at this. You all do your own SEQRA’s. Nobody’s looking at the total picture, but the problem is you’re pumping the Hudson River into the Town. Worst of all in that Bay Road area, Cronin Road. That’s the problem. That’s lowland anyway, and I maintain that the rain water and the snow water is not running off because the soils are saturated. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. Anyone else? Okay. I will leave the public hearing open. Do you want to read that letter in, please. MR. HILTON-The letter that I have, Mrs. Sulllivan’s basically touched on all the points. However, if you’d like me to read it in completely. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I told her we’d read it in. MR. HILTON-Okay. “Dear Queensbury Planning Board: As a 31 Walker Lane Townhouse Owner/Resident, I am deeply concerned with the upcoming Professional Office site that Valente Builders are attempting to plan and create. I am absolutely opposed to it, being that my home is 50 feet from the Valente property, and it will be directly in my face, each and every waking moment. Traffic from these offices will incur a hardship for all us retirees who walk on Walker Lane, a Residential Street. Already on record at the Sheriff’s Dept. is the incident I reported of a fast-moving car/truck taking down a mature tree and bushes, in front of my home, which were found the following day on a morning walk. As a disabled person, along with others, we often use Walker Lane for exercise, the fact is, we can’t use the common grounds in our Community, being it is wetlands during all seasons and is truly dangerous, as I have slipped many times, ankle deep in water, directly in front, side and rear of my home. The water problems that exist along Walker Lane today have existed for many, many years as a matter of fact, they were caused by Valente Builders not putting in proper drainage when built over 15 years ago and the fact is nothing has been done about it! Although I only moved into my home August 1, 2002, it is obvious the Home Owners Association Board of Directors allegiance is to Valente Builders and refuses to act on the behalf of the Homeowners, as they are required by law. How can in good conscious permit another Bay Bridge if the past is any indication and who is going to oversee and eagle eye what Valente Builders does with the development he proposes? I will not be intimidated, harassed, back down or fearful of stepping up and speaking the truth. I will present pictures for your review, on December 19, 2002, pictures do not lie, show a multitude of truths and worth a million words. Very Sincerely, Mrs. Kathleen Sullivan” MR. MAC EWAN-Any other correspondence? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) MR. HILTON-That’s all we have. MR. VALENTE-Anybody willing to change careers? MR. MAC EWAN-No, we like what we do. Where are you on your stormwater management plan, Mr. Scudder? MR. SCUDDER-Where am I on it? MR. MAC EWAN-I’m looking at a letter on the 13 the C.T. Male meeting that you had with them, and they th gave indication that they gave you some direction and you’re revising your entire plan? MR. SCUDDER-Yes, and pursuant to which I’ve purchased the software that C.T. Male uses in their work, and I’m learning that software and will submit my stormwater management plan according to their methodologies. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the issue, Dan, with the adjoining properties in Baybridge with water? MR. VALENTE-This is news to me. I can tell you that much. I think she has more issues with the Association than she does with anybody else. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know. There’s been a water problem over there for a lot of years, and if you’re just becoming aware of it, man, you’ve been out of town for a long time. I don’t mean to be snide about that, but when you guys were developing the other end of Baybridge, there was water issues back then. MR. VALENTE-Obviously, DEC has been in, designated the wetlands that we can’t go into. We have stayed away from that. I don’t have any complaints with wet basements or what have you. I’ve never had a problem with structural problems over there, as we’ve heard tonight. I think she’s just unhappy with a lot of things over there, but I don’t think it’s with us. I know the home is fine. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the status with your septic systems at this point? I mean, where are you in the scheme of things for that? MR. SCUDDER-I’d like to speak to that. There was a thorough ongoing investigation made of the on-site septic system last year, based on a complaint that was lodged in September, and it was shown that there was no merit to that complaint. The on-site septic system works as well now as it did 15 years ago, which is to say it works very well. It needs to be managed, but it works very well. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s my understanding, wasn’t the Town notified that the septic field had failed, and that that there was a letter issued by the Town that said no further development until those deficiencies were brought into compliance? MR. SCUDDER-That’s correct. What you say is correct. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the last comment I’ve heard. Has there been something that’s happened since then that says these fields are okay? MR. HILTON-I’m sorry, I can’t reply to that. I’m unaware of anything that you’re speaking of, like a letter, some kind of response of that sort. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask you, then, to put together a memo for the Board, in the meantime, to give us an update as to where we are with these fields and what the status of them are. My last understanding was that these fields had failed, it was notified by DEC. Right? And the Town issued a letter that no further development would happen in Baybridge until these were brought into compliance. That’s the last I understood it to be, and that was back in late Spring or early Summer, maybe longer, earlier than that? MR. SCUDDER-No, it was last Fall. Fall of 2001. MR. SCHACHNER-Substantially earlier. MR. MAC EWAN-And I’ve not heard any update since then that another investigation has occurred and they are now in compliance, working just as good as they were 15 years ago, that sort of thing. So could you issue some sort of report to the Planning Board on that? MR. HILTON-Will do. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) MR. SCUDDER-Mr. Chairman, I could offer a bunch of exhibits to Mr. Hilton, so that he could properly respond to your request. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. MR. VALENTE-Those fields were tested and then okayed by DEC, for us to continue. MR. MAC EWAN-Was the Town notified by DEC that they are in compliance? MR. VALENTE-Absolutely. They wouldn’t issue me anymore building permits without that, and since we’ve continued, I’ve put five more townhouses in. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VALENTE-The last five that were remaining, the whole system is fine. It’s always been fine. We had some other issues with people up there digging holes and stuff, but that’s all another. We’re not going to go down that road anymore. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. At this point I guess we’ll table this application pending you getting this additional information that we’re looking for. MR. VALENTE-Thank you. We appreciate your time. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. Next item on the agenda. SITE PLAN NO. 46-2002 TYPE II KEITH CAVAYERO AGENT: CURTIS DYBAS ZONE: MU LOCATION: 7 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN ABANDONED RESIDENCE AND GARAGE AND CONSTRUCT A ONE STORY 1,944 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL BUILDING. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE IN A MU ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/9/02 TAX MAP NO. 309.11-2-31/117-11-7 LOT SIZE: 0.27 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 CURTIS DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes? MR. HILTON-This item has been heard by the Planning Board before. The applicant has submitted revised plans for the proposed commercial building on the northeast corner of Holden and Luzerne. Just a couple of notes here, on the new revised plans. Handicapped parking spot, which is shown, was to have been revised to show the 16 foot width, which I believe the applicant has taken care of. We have plans that reflect that. The issue remains on lighting levels. In some areas, the lighting levels appear to exceed Town requirements and particularly along the western and southern property lines. The applicant has revised the drive up window, as shown before, indicating some stacking of vehicles, and any additional C.T. Male comments should be addressed during this review. That’s all we have for now. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. DYBAS-Good evening. Curtis Dybas. I was here two months ago, before this Board, and we tabled this, and as George has mentioned, we submitted plans and items that were noted in October, submitted them in November, and they went to C.T. Male and got a response from C.T. Male a week ago, and there were a number of items on that regarding spot elevations on the site, primarily a radius noted on the driveway on Holden Avenue. That’s pretty much it, and I responded to those items, and Mr. Jim Edwards responded back to me with two items, one was a change of one spot elevation at the bottom of the access ramp, which would give a five inch differential in curve rather than three, and we had some discussions on connection to the existing municipal water line and sewer line, and the water line, there’s a 12 inch water line in Holden Avenue on the east side of the street, and I contacted the Water Department. It’s a matter of making application, prepping the excavation, and they come up and do the tap. The sewer line exists on the north side of Luzerne Road. It’s an eight inch PVC line down approximately five inches that goes up the road and serves the West Glens Falls Fire Department, and this particular line was an extension of the sewer district, approximately eight years ago, and at that time, all parcels along Luzerne Road were given the option to join the district. The owners of this residence, this present site, elected not to join the district at that time, and they’re not a part of it. Subsequently, to get this building on the sewer, we have to do proper applications, and do a public hearing, and it should be no problem, I’ve been assured by Mr. Mike Shaw, should be no problem maintaining, you know, getting permission to tie in. Being that it would only be a four inch line, there is only two toilet rooms in this facility. So I believe all the items noted by C.T. Male have been addressed. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you address the Staff’s concern with the lighting? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) MR. DYBAS-The lighting, as part of the last submission, we had an ATM, and one of the problems with installation of an ATM is New York State has specific laws as far as lighting levels, namely five foot candles within a 10 foot radius, two foot candles within a 50 foot radius, and obviously I’m closer than that to Holden. So there’s been some tradeoffs and even with the fixtures that we used. You’ll note that at the Holden property line the light levels drop dramatically, as you come out, in fact, by the time you’re out onto the pavement, you’ve probably gone to around .5 foot candles, to try to use a selective fixture with a baffle in it that puts the light back onto the site rather than onto the road, and along Luzerne, we tried to keep the lighting on the building. Unfortunately, we could not get the proper light levels. So we put a pole out on the edge of the parking lot, and there’s really no other place that I can do it with the parking lot there, and it does push the light levels up along the Luzerne Road corridor, as you can see. It’s sort of, it’s a (lost words) at this point. We’ve tried to keep the adjoining properties down to a bare minimum. I know the Board likes to see zero at the property line, and I’m down to .3, or .4, .4 to the north, .8, excuse me, by the pole, and .3 along the east property line, and the spillage is out into a public fair, and there is a street light also across Holden from this particular parcel. I don’t have the solution, you know, to meet the State law and comply with the Town of Queensbury lighting levels. I’ve looked at two other fixtures, and it was worse. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that entire parcel, Luzerne Road from, that whole block, zoned MU? MR. HILTON-I believe it’s along Luzerne. I don’t believe it goes back on Holden. MR. MAC EWAN-No, I’m talking about the three parcels, we know the coffee place must be MU. Right? I’m talking about the two residential parcels that are sandwiched in between. Are they MU as well? MR. HILTON-I can look into it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add, Mr. Dybas? MR. DYBAS-Not at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Larry, we’ll start with you. MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything right now on this. I wasn’t here for the first meeting in October on this. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I wasn’t aware that there was a, I had made a comment during a presentation that the State had recommendations on lighting of ATM’s. I was going to ask you to show us on the map, before George took it down, where the street light is, across the street. So maybe when we get that back up later you could show me. I mean, knowing that, I might be a little less concerned about the light spilling over, but I’m not sure how much leeway we have in that. MR. DYBAS-Just to interject. There is a, is there a small bank right over here, in this next parcel? I notice coming over there’s a large wall pack on the building. MR. MAC EWAN-Across the street’s a credit union. MR. DYBAS-Credit Union. They must have a drive through or something there. MR. MAC EWAN-An ATM I think they have there. MR. DYBAS-An ATM, and that is a wall pack. I mean, not that I’m trying to sway the Board, but when you look at that, that wall pack is looking right at you. I mean, you can’t miss it when you go by. If you look in your packet, the light fixtures that we’re proposing here are all hooded. So you’re shielding, you’re throwing the light back. Even all the light fixtures on the building are hooded over. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. DYBAS-A lot of this would be reflective light, not direct light. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. DYBAS-That’s my point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I really didn’t have any other questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) MR. METIVIER-I’m just trying to figure out the significance of lighting the spillover on Holden. Can you give me, or maybe the Board, not the Board, Staff give me an idea of what a typical street light, the numbers of a typical street light, in an area? Do you know what I’m trying to ask? MR. HILTON-Yes, I guess the foot candles in a typical street light? MR. METIVIER-Yes. MR. HILTON-And to be honest with you I don’t have that information. MR. METIVIER-Because I just can’t, I mean, typically, well, it used to be very dark over there. I think that the CVS Plaza has lightened it up a little bit, but, you know, I can’t see where this type of spillage could really be that significant, and my only thought on that is to light up an area, especially on that corner a little bit, is not necessarily the worst thing in the world, but I don’t have anything to compare that to, as far as, you know, if you had a typical street light, which you say you do on the other side, what your numbers would be there, just to compare. I mean, you don’t want to, you know, blare people out of their homes, but, you know, people grow up or live with street lighting in front of their houses all the time. So, do you have any way of comparing the two? MR. DYBAS-All I can tell you is a variable of the square of the distance, number one. The wattage of the fixture, I mean, there’s so many variables that unless you know the height of the pole, the wattage, and even the type of the fixture, before you can actually get a photometric trajection on it, because it could be anything. I mean, I listened to this Board, back in October, talk about lighting of a gas facility canopy, and, you know, that’s 20 to 30 foot candles. That’s quite bright. We’re sitting in probably about 50. I mean, your eyes adjust. I can’t give you an answer. I don’t know what that would be. MR. METIVIER-So is the alternative not to have any spillage over off the road, or is this something acceptable to us? MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a unique site. The difficulty is that because, it’s not a State guideline. As far as I know it’s State law, that you have to have that security lighting. I mean, we had this issue with Stewarts. We had the issue with the ATM over at Cool Insurance. Those are two right off the top of my head that I can think of. There’s nothing you really can do to avoid it because that’s part of State law that you have to have that security lighting there. The question is, how much of an impact is light spillage going to be off the property to the surrounding business. MR. METIVIER-And that’s my only point. I mean, certainly I have no problem with lighting the facility itself. I can’t even foresee, with the numbers that I’m looking at here, that it really would be that obtrusive off the property, and it’s just, if I’m reading this correctly, it would just be on to the street and nowhere else. So I just don’t foresee it being a major problem. I don’t think it’s something that we can’t get over. MR. HILTON-For your information, Mr. Chairman, I don’t know if you can see the cursor. This is the property, subject property. So everything, it’s all MU. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s all MU. Okay. Thanks. MR. DYBAS-So it does go back on Holden. MR. HILTON-Yes, I guess it does. I’m not sure of this cross street, but this is where it becomes UR-10. MR. METIVIER-I certainly have no other issues. I think the building looks great. The landscape plan looks great, and, you know, as far as I’m concerned, the lighting is not, unless I hear otherwise, I don’t have much problem with lighting either. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Well, let’s tackle the big one first. Now, Town Code 179-4-040, Paragraph B says that each parking space shall be reached by an access driveway at least 24 feet clear in width. So, if I take your most recent plan, and from the parking spots labeled one, two, three and four, and then I drew a line 24 feet in back of that as shown by the blue line here, parking space number four, because of the curbing, is never going to be able to meet Town Code. However, if you were to eliminate parking space five, then parking spaces one, two and three would meet Town Code and have the necessary 24 feet space in back of them. So in order for you to do that, and meet Town Code, you’d have to eliminate parking space five and parking space four. Now, then you would be in align with Town Code, but that leaves you with six spaces, which I think is the bare minimum of what Town Code says. Now Town Code says that you need one parking space for every three hundred square feet. So I do the math. That comes out to 6.24 parking spaces, we’ll say six, and I don’t know if just six would be enough to meet your needs, but it would meet Town Code, if you eliminated four and five. You don’t have a problem with that? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) MR. DYBAS-If it’s acceptable to the Town. MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, it would be very difficult for a car parked in four to back out, and if there was a car parked in space five, it would be very difficult for a car in three, and maybe even two, to back out, or you could try and go for a variance. I don’t know if they give variances on that, George, but I think your best option would be to eliminate those two spaces and meet Town Code, and you’d still meet Town Code as far as number of spaces. MR. HILTON-This issue was raised in prior Staff comments by C.T. Male, and I think as a result of that comment, the applicant moved space number five farther to the east, but you’re right. I mean, there isn’t the 24 foot drive aisle. Elimination of four and five would take care of that, and they would still be within Code. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, the applicant seems to be agreeable to that. Are you planning on putting any arrows or signage on the pavement indicating that’s a one way flow going to the ATM. MR. DYBAS-Just have the signage on the. MR. STROUGH-I see the signage on. MR. DYBAS-No, nothing on the pavement right now, but if, you know. MR. STROUGH-That might not be a bad idea. MR. MAC EWAN-Why? He’s got a sign that says one way, do not enter. MR. STROUGH-Well, I know. Sometimes it doesn’t hurt to be redundant, but that’s only a suggestion. I mean, the rest of the Board may not like that idea. MR. VOLLARO-Where were you planning to put that, John, at the entrance? MR. STROUGH-Yes. I thought that would be most effective at the entrance. You only need to put one arrow, because it’s kind of a moot point putting it elsewhere, but along with the signage, and I notice that’s typical of what we’ve done, or what applicants have offered us in the past, with commercial enterprises such as this. Now, if you eliminated parking space five, you could move your handicapped access ramp to the south, where the parking space five was. I’m thinking that sometimes handicapped people have the access on a van on the right hand side of the vehicle, and with the vehicle parked there, they might have difficulty getting to the access ramp where it’s located. So if we have eliminated parking space five, then we solve that problem by moving the access ramp over to the area where parking space five was. Do you read? MR. DYBAS-Are you talking about making this handicapped parking wider? MR. STROUGH-No. The handicapped parking lot is fine where it’s located. It’s just the ramp going on to the sidewalk area. I would think it would be easier for the handicapped person if that ramp were located just to the south. In other words, to the west, I misspoke, okay, yes, just to the west, where parking space number five is labeled. MR. DYBAS-So you’re saying pull the parking spaces over. MR. STROUGH-No. Leave the parking spaces where they are. We’ve agreed to eliminate parking space five. Correct? MR. DYBAS-Yes. MR. STROUGH-So now, you see where you have your access ramp now. I’m just saying we could move that access ramp over to where parking space five was, so that the vehicle won’t be in the way of somebody putting a wheelchair up there. You see, if I parked where the handicapped ramp is. MR. MAC EWAN-John, I think it’s fine right where it is. You’ve got to take into consideration you’ve got some doors there, too, and it’s lining up with the sidewalks. MR. STROUGH-Well, no, if you take the handicapped ramp and move it west, it won’t be in the way of the vehicle and it won’t be in the way of other people accessing the building, and I don’t think it’s a major problem for the applicant to do that because nothing’s been done at this point, and I just think it makes it more accessible for a handicapped person if that’s done that way. MR. SANFORD-You’ve made the handicapped parking spot wider. MR. STROUGH-No. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) MR. HILTON-Excuse me. I think if you do that, what you’ve done by moving space number five, if you encroach back in on that 24 foot clear area that you need, I mean, it’s not technically a parking space, but you could have unloading, which would reduce the 24 feet that you need. So I’m not so sure if that would meet Code. MR. STROUGH-Well, you see where the access ramp is now? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And if a vehicle parks here, it blocks the access ramp. What I’m saying is you don’t have to change the parking spaces at all. You merely put the access ramp here, and now no vehicle will be encumbering the access to that ramp. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m pretty comfortable with it the way it is. MR. HILTON-I understand that, but you could potentially have unloading of the handicapped vehicle within the 24 foot drive aisle that you need for the parking spaces one through three. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Strough, a quick consensus is the Board, as a whole, is comfortable with the way the design is now. MR. STROUGH-I get the message. Move on. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MR. STROUGH-Now, one other suggestion I had was an upgrade on the landscaping. Between those two trees, and this is probably going to go nowhere with this Board, but a flower mound between the two trees would look nice, but I’m probably more sensitive in that direction. Is that going to go anywhere, Mr. Chairman? MR. MAC EWAN-It might. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Because there’s no flowers. There’s trees and there’s bushes and there’s no flowers. I like to see at least some flowers. So between those two trees, if there could be a flower mound. MR. MAC EWAN-All you have to do, John, is just suggest, if we get to that point where we’re going to do a motion is suggest that a perennial flower bed be located between the two trees as identified on the site plan by, is that letter O or letter D? A D. That’s simple. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I’m smiling. MR. MAC EWAN-What else have you got? MR. STROUGH-The only other thing that I’m concerned about is the same thing C.T. Male was, was the elevations and making sure that the drainage does go toward the drain, a catch basin. What will be those elevations, do you know, offhand? I mean, let’s start with the one that’s in the handicapped spot, that’s labeled as 350.33. MR. DYBAS-This Board doesn’t have the? MR. VOLLARO-12/16/02 is your updated. MR. STROUGH-Yes, I’ve got the updated version, but I’ve got the sidewalk, is the sidewalk elevation 355.8? MR. DYBAS-350.5833. MR. STROUGH-Yes. Now, so 350 33 is the pavement level. MR. DYBAS-Yes, and that’s the one that they wanted me to lower to 350. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and the curb height is five inches. MR. DYBAS-And the curb height would be five inches. MR. STROUGH-So the sidewalk will be five inches higher than the pavement. MR. DYBAS-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Yes. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) MR. DYBAS-That’s correct, if I drop that to 350. MR. STROUGH-Right. The sidewalk will be flush with the top of the curb. MR. DYBAS-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-So wouldn’t the elevation of the sidewalk be 355.5833? MR. DYBAS-355, would be five feet five inches higher. MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s the feet. MR. DYBAS-350 is the feet. MR. STROUGH-So five inches would be 350.88. MR. DYBAS-Five inches is .5833 is five inches. MR. STROUGH-8833. MR. DYBAS-No, 5833 is five inches. MR. STROUGH-That’s five inches above the pavement level? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. What C.T. Male is asking them to do is drop the 350.33 down to 350. (lost word) to get that. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, is your pavement going to be pitched so that it all drains to that? MR. DYBAS-Two points. You’ve got a catch basin up in the drive through. MR. STROUGH-Yes, it’s up here. That one I wasn’t so concerned about. MR. DYBAS-Okay. The back and the roadway drain to that catch basin. The parking lot drains to the center drywell. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, similar to the arrows that I have drawn on there, if you can see it from there. I’m not sure if you can. MR. DYBAS-Yes. The parking area in front drains the way you have the arrows. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. DYBAS-The drive through itself drains back to its mid-point, approximately. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I think the only thing we want to do there is drop that elevation at 350, like C.T. Male said, and that’ll give them the height. MR. MAC EWAN-What we want to do is go by C.T. Male’s comments. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and that seems to do it for me. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I guess my first impression of this whole thing is that this is a very busy site for .27 acres, I’ve got to tell you. MR. DYBAS-Yes, it is. MR. VOLLARO-It’s almost five pounds in a two pound bag here. Having said that, I noticed C.T. Male didn’t comment too much on your stormwater analysis. I had one question. You had an assumed perc rate in there of one inch per minute. Now, when you did your 24 hour storm duration, why did you move to one in five minutes? What was the rationale for changing your perc rate? MR. DYBAS-At this point, I don’t recall. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) MR. VOLLARO-It’s not consistent. That’s what’s concerning me. I mean, once you make an assumed perc rate, your analysis should be based on that rate to be consistent throughout the calculation. You used one minute in the first part of your calculation, you used one inch per minute. Then you moved over, when you did your 24 hour storm duration, you went to one inch in five minutes. MR. DYBAS-I can’t give you a concrete answer at this point, but if what you’re telling me, I made it worse for myself. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. If you’d have stayed where you were, you would have been fine, but all of a sudden you moved, and I didn’t know why. MR. DYBAS-I could have put it in a pail, basically. MR. VOLLARO-Really what I’m saying is I’d like to see that stormwater management report be consistent and use the one inch per minute, as opposed to one inch in five, and do your calculations so that you’re consistent in your, this is an assumed perc rate, by the way. You didn’t actually make a test. So you’re making an assumption on the perc rate, and that’s, I’ll buy that, but then if you make that assumption, use that throughout your calculations to be consistent. MR. DYBAS-If I go back and do them at one inch per minute, I’m going to be 500 times better. MR. VOLLARO-Well, your assumption is, all I want to make sure is that the calculation, as it rests in the record, is accurate. That’s all. MR. DYBAS-And I must have had a reason for changing it, and I don’t, truly I don’t recall. MR. MAC EWAN-C.T. Male didn’t make any comments about it in their most recent letter? MR. VOLLARO-No, they didn’t. MR. MAC EWAN-So, are we to assume that they’re comfortable with these calculations? They didn’t comment on them? MR. HILTON-If they haven’t commented, I’m sure they’re looked it over. If they’re provided no comment, I believe they’re comfortable. MR. MAC EWAN-And you’re recommending he go back and re-do all his calculations? MR. VOLLARO-Craig, he’s not being consistent in the calculations, and from where I’m coming from, that’s not correct. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m trying to understand where you’re coming from. That’s all. I mean, I’m looking at this letter. C.T. Male’s taken a pretty good hard look at this, and that’s not one of the issues they’ve commented on. So in my mind they’re satisfied with it. MR. VOLLARO-They could have missed it. MR. SANFORD-But, Bob, it’s acceptable at the rate he used. He could delay it. He could go back and do it and it’ll be five times more acceptable, but to what purpose is it? MR. VOLLARO-The purpose is that the math is consistent. MR. SANFORD-I know, that’s fine, but what purpose does it really serve? MR. MAC EWAN-Are we still getting the same end result? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. DYBAS-It would be 500% better. MR. SANFORD-Than an already acceptable rate. MR. DYBAS-Which, at the rate at which I’ve calculated it and put the system together, I have extra capacity as it is, and I would end up with. MR. SANFORD-I hear you, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, I’m just looking at your. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) MR. DYBAS-I don’t know why I did that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Let’s let it go at that. On the drawing, up at the top, C.T. Male has commented on it, Mr. Chairman. C.T. Male has commented in their letter on the radius up at the top, it should be 30. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. VOLLARO-I see a radius of 20, and I’m wondering what the rational for that going from a recommended 30 foot radii to a 20 foot radii. MR. DYBAS-I can’t make 30 fit. MR. VOLLARO-Is this the two pounds in a one pound bag problem? MR. DYBAS-That’s part of it. MR. STROUGH-But then again, Bob, we’ve only required 30 to 35, if trucks were accessing that, large trucks. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m just going by C.T. Male’s recommendation, where they recommended (lost words). MR. STROUGH-Yes, but I know in the past. MR. VOLLARO-No, but they’ve got it in their recommendation. They didn’t miss that one, but if it’s a question that this site just can’t accommodate that radius, then this Board has to decide whether 20 foot radii is okay. I guess it is. I’m just wondering. MR. DYBAS-I responded to Mr. Edwards’ comments, and knocked it to 20 feet when I sent it back to them, and that wasn’t one of his items on Monday that he came back to me with, and, I mean, we had the faxes blazing for two days. MR. VOLLARO-I guess the last thing on my list is on the municipal sewers. I noticed that, do you feel you have to do a district extension to get this property on? MR. DYBAS-I talked to Mr. Shaw on Monday. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. DYBAS-And if the owners of this residence at the time the sewer line went in had included themselves in this district extension, they didn’t. MR. VOLLARO-That I understand, but they didn’t include themselves in it. So they’re not in the district. Bottom line, they’re not in the district. MR. DYBAS-They’re not in the district. So we have to go through the pathfinder, and a public hearing, all the formality of it. MR. VOLLARO-You have to do a map plan and report is what you’ve got to do to get yourself in the extension. Is that correct? MR. DYBAS-That is correct. MR. VOLLARO-That’s a fairly arduous task. I mean, it doesn’t happen overnight. You’ve got to get that map plan and report approved by the Town. MR. DYBAS-I realize that, and that’s one of the reasons that it’s not included, since we got into this thing on Monday, but he assured me it should not be a problem with the size of this (lost word). MR. VOLLARO-Well, what we’ve been doing on all of these, to be consistent, I guess, with the Town. MR. STROUGH-That’s what we’ve been saying. MR. VOLLARO-Right. I think my fellow Board member here is already on to what I’m trying to get at. We’ve been very consistent, when people have to go for sewer district extensions. We’ve been saying that when the map plan and report is approved by the Town, that’s when the building permit for that property would be issued. So it depends on the amount of time it’s going to take you to go through a map plan and report, get it massaged Mr. Shaw. It comes back to you, get the changes made, go to the Town Board, get a 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) resolution from the Town Board that accepts the map plan and report. Once that happens, you would get a building permit to go forward with the project. Are you in agreement with that? MR. DYBAS-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-That’s it, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-Yes. Actually I think you’ve done a fairly adequate job, given what you had to work with, with this plot of land, it’s difficult, problematic, a lot of these areas. I’m not particularly concerned about the lighting, and I think if you’re agreeable to eliminating that spaces that Mr. Strough brought out, Number Four and Five, I support the project. I wish you luck. That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it. Anything else you wanted to add? I’d ask you 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? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HILTON-One comment I have, as long as we’re eliminating Space Five and Space Four, I guess some consideration should be given to, with the elimination of Number Four in particular, making that green space, that would prevent any temptation for people to try to park there. MR. SANFORD-Maybe a flower bed. MR. STROUGH-We’ve already got that. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? We need to do a SEQRA, please. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 46-2002, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: KEITH CAVAYERO, 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. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) Duly adopted this 19 day of December, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s talk about a motion for a second. MR. STROUGH-All right. Here’s what I have. Do you want me to start? MR. MAC EWAN-Throw your ideas out. MR. STROUGH-All right. I’ve got, along with, I think, Bob, does the updated drawing have to be added to the documentation list? MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the first thing you said? MR. STROUGH-The updated drawing have to be added to the documentation list? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Revised, what was it, 12 what? MR. VOLLARO-12/16. MR. STROUGH-12/16 drawing. All right. Here’s what I have. Flower mound will be located between the two trees on the western side of the property. Condition Two. MR. MAC EWAN-I think you need to be specific about size. A flower mound could mean two tulips or it could mean something 30 feet long. MR. STROUGH-At least a minimum of 25 square feet. Five by five. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine, as long as you have something in there to define it. That’s all. MR. STROUGH-All right. Good suggestion. Okay. I added the minimum of 25 square feet. Is that okay with the applicant? Two, now we didn’t come to a consensus on this. The one way pavement arrow indicator will be located at the entrance of the ATM access way? MR. MAC EWAN-I think that’s acceptable to everyone. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Three, parking spaces labeled Four and Five will be eliminated. Green space will be extended to parking space labeled as three. MR. HILTON-Number Four. MR. STROUGH-We’re eliminating four. MR. HILTON-No, I understand that. The green space will be extended to. MR. STROUGH-Will be extended to. MR. HILTON-Okay. I thought you said. MR. STROUGH-No, will be extended to Parking Space Three. Yes, that’s what I said. The sewer note will say, connection to a municipal sewer system will be required for this subdivision, and no building permit shall be issued until the Town Board has accepted the applicant’s map plan and report for the proposed sewer district extension. MR. MAC EWAN-Change subdivision to site plan. MR. STROUGH-Got it. Good suggestion, and I don’t know if, I just put a note here, Tony and Chris, I didn’t know if they had a lighting condition. MR. HUNSINGER-No. The Chairman pointed out where the street light pole is, and, based on that, I certainly don’t have any issue with the lighting plan. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think any members had really any issues with the lighting. MR. STROUGH-All right. So were there any other issues by any of the other Planning Board members? 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Vollaro and his drainage, but I don’t know if he’s got the support of everybody on that one. MR. HILTON-I would just mention the C.T. Male comment. MR. VOLLARO-He’s right. If goes to that, one and five, it becomes a hell of a lot better than what one inch in a minute. So, just let it go. If somebody looks at those calculations later on, they’ll kind of figure it out themselves. MR. STROUGH-Which one, George? MR. HILTON-The lowering the pavement to 350 plus or minus. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I’ll just read that as a condition. Okay, Mr. Chairman, do you want me to go? MR. MAC EWAN-Any additions, alterations or deletions? Go with it. MR. STROUGH-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 46-2002 KEITH CAVAYERO, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan Review No. 46-2002 Applicant: Keith Cavayero Type II Property Owner: Same Agent: Curtis Dybas Zone: MU Location: 7 Luzerne Road Applicant proposes to demolish an abandoned residence and garage and construct a one story 1,944 sq. ft. commercial building. Professional office in a MU zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Warren Co. Planning: 10/9/02 Tax Map No. 309.11-2-31 / 117-11-7 Lot size: 0.27 acres Section: Art. 4, 179-4-020 Public Hearing: October 22, 2002, Tabled WHEREAS, the application was received on 9/16/02; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 12/13/02, and 12/19 Staff Notes 12/16 Revised info receive 12/12 CT Male engineering comments received (faxed to applicant / mailed to agent) 12/3 Notification sent concerning change in meeting date 12/4 Meeting Notice 11/20 Revised Info forwarded to CT Male 11/13 Revised Info received 10/25 Site Plan denoting proposed structure and demolition plan 10/22 Planning Board resolution: Tabled 10/22 Staff Notes 10/18 CT Male engineering comments 10/15 Notice of Public Hearing 10/9 Warren Co. Planning: Approved 10/2 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on October 22, 2002 and December 19, 2002; 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 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) 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 We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff with the following note, that in the documentation list, the 12/16 drawing will be included in that, and with the following conditions: 1. A flower mound, a minimum of 25 square feet, will be located between the two trees on the western side of the property, and 2. One Way pavement arrow indicator will be located at the entrance of the ATM access way, and 3. Parking spaces labeled as 4 and 5 will be eliminated. Green space will be extended to parking space labeled as 3, and 4. Connection to a municipal sewer system will be required for this site plan and no building permit shall be issued until the Town Board has accepted the applicant’s map plan and report for the proposed sewer district extension, and 5. The applicant will comply with C.T. Male’s recommendation which is addressed in the C.T. Male December 17, 2002 letter which says the first item is the spot elevation at the base of the handicap ramp reads 350.33, while the top of the curb ramp is 350.5A, this results in a curb elevation of only three inches. We would recommend that the pavement grade be lowered to 350, plus or minus, to allow positive drainage and proper curb reveal, and 6. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows: Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 12/19/02 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: 1. Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 2002 by the following vote: MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t understand Condition Number Five. Mr. Strough, you said, what you said was that the applicant address that comment. So, if the applicant addresses that comment by saying we’re not going to do it, and here’s why, does that fulfill your condition, or are you intending to include as a condition that pavement grade be lowered to 350 plus or minus? MR. STROUGH-Good suggestion, Counsel. I will change that Condition Number Five to read the applicant will abide by the suggestion made by C.T. Male. MR. MAC EWAN-Will comply with C.T. Male’s recommendation. MR. STROUGH-Will comply with C.T. Male’s recommendation. So as amended. Thank you, Counsel. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Vollaro, did you second that? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I did. AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) MR. DYBAS-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. DISCUSSION ITEM: SITE PLAN NO. 55-2002 NORTHEAST AMERICAN REALTY, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: FRANK PARILLO AGENT: ABD ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 92 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES EXISTING OFFICE/WAREHOUSE TO BE CONVERTED TO A SATURN AUTO DEALERSHIP INCLUDING DEMOLITION OF 44,000 SQ. FT. OF EXISTING OFFICE SPACE AND CONSTRUCTION OF AUTO DISPLAY AREAS. AUTOMOBILE SALES AND SERVICE IN THE HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: MANY WARREN CO. PLANNING: 12/11/02 TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-14/104-1-4.32 LOT SIZE: 5.76 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 JON LAPPER & TOM DAVIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask you, if you could, put it up there, even though we don’t have an easel, so that generally the audience can see it, or maybe right in that vicinity. Staff notes. MR. HILTON-Just a few general comments for this discussion item. The plan as proposed would create parking and vehicle display along Quaker Road. The Town Superintendent of Wastewater has indicated that a sanitary sewer easement exists on this portion of the property, in which no vehicle display can be built or constructed over this. Along the same lines, there’s currently an area, wide area of green space and more mature trees in this area, and moving the parking away from Quaker would help protect this area, as well as not infringe on the easement as stated by the Wastewater Superintendent. Vehicle conflicts may exist with the Queensbury Plaza access drive with the proposed drive that’s part of this plan, and Staff would suggest lining those two up, that is the Queensbury Plaza access drive with the southerly access point as part of this plan, so that they connect and there’s no conflicts, or reduce the vehicle conflicts. Detailed lighting and landscaping plans will be required and a stormwater management plan for this site will be required with the final submission, and that will be referred to C.T. Male for comment and review. That’s all we have at this time. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, of course, Jon Lapper. I’m here on behalf of Rich Parella, one of the principals of Northeast American Realty, and a representative of ABD Engineering is here to answer questions also. As you know, they had an alternative site, east on Quaker Road, and then this site came on the market and they thought that this was a preferable location, and so now we’re back with a new site for your consideration. We wanted to come in, on an informal basis, first, to just get your comments. ABD has made the formal submission for next month, but the Zoning Administrator has allowed us until Monday to make any changes that the Board requests tonight, so that we can have a full discussion next month. I’d like to just give you a quick overview and then address the issues that we got from our meeting with the Staff. In general, you’re all familiar with the site. This was the old Mallinckrodt building and then Batters Up. It’s been primarily vacant for a long time, although it’s been on the market for a while for rent or for lease. So it’s sitting in the main commercial corridor and it’s been sort of underutilized for a while. It hasn’t fallen into disrepair, but it hasn’t been particularly attractive, just because it hasn’t had any activity. What is proposed, you have the concept plan, but we’ve now got a lot more details in terms of lighting and landscaping and stormwater that we’ve submitted on the 15 that you haven’t seen yet, but in general what we’re proposing is th to take down the front building which is about 2/3’s of the building that’s there, and then do different rd architectural treatment to make what’s left to look like a front façade, which right there eliminates a lot of the bulk and moves the building substantially far back from Quaker Road. We’re proposing to relocate the first curb cut significantly farther back from where it is now to help stacking on Quaker Road. For the Saturn use, the visual aspects are really important. So this would include sodded lawns, sprinkler system, and landscaping that exceeds the Town’s requirements for caliper. They really want to do this up. Right now the stormwater goes untreated into Hovey Pond, and the new plan, which, again, is submitted but you haven’t seen it yet, has two basins to settle out pollutants, treat it before it goes into Hovey Pond, and that’s something, this is an existing grandfathered site. So if somebody just wanted to go in, as has been done over the years, and not require a site plan, just to release it, none of this would be required, but now there’s going to be a much more preferable stormwater treatment plan. In general, this is just a way to really clean up this site. It’s a main commercial corridor, and they really like it for an automotive use for a brand new facility, and we hope you’ll like it as an appropriate attractive use, and we just really want to get your comments, but I’d like to just address some of the issues briefly. Water and Sewer Department was talking about the sewer line easement, and that easement does run along Quaker Road. I’d pulled the actual easement agreement from the Clerk’s Office, and it doesn’t preclude pavement or parking areas or shrubs or signs on that. It’s just that the Town has to have the right in case, I mean, this is like a 15 inch concrete line, but if there’s a break in the line or there needs to be maintenance, the Town has the right to go in and just rip up what’s there. We’ve put on the plan that if that happens that the owner of the site would be responsible for repaving, even though an easement, that’s something that the owner can hold the Town responsible for. In terms of those areas up front, this is pretty similar to what they had on the other site farther east on Quaker Road. What they’re 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) proposing is right in the front there would be, along Quaker, three raised display areas that would be only six inches above the pavement. It would be stamped asphalt on about three times the size of a parking space. So rather than having three cars parked closely together, this would just be a way of being able to spotlight three cars by having them only raised six inches above the ground, and there’s substantial planting beds of flowers and shrubs in front of them, so visually they’re going to be very nicely buffered, and it’s not like the car’s sitting up in the air. It’s just six inches, but that’s the feature that they think is important here because it’s also their outdoor showroom. We’ve submitted a lighting plan showing that it’s .1 right along the property line, everywhere, and obviously you’ll want to look at that in detail. Right now there’s a much larger building, but there’s also somewhat more green space on Quaker Road. So to compensate, I guess the Town requires 10 feet. We’re proposing 22 feet of green space, which again would be sodded and sprinklered. So it’s going to be quality green space, and to compensate for the loss of some of those trees, they’re proposing to relocate two of the maple trees into that area, and again, to plant trees with larger caliper than is even required in the Town standards. I want to just address that issue of Lafayette Street. That’s not a four way intersection, and in order to do that, to make it, first of all, Paul Lorenz, the owner of the Meineke site, is here, which is across the street. He’s here to support the project. We were just as the Zoning Board for Meineke last month and as part of that approval they required that his entrance, which is right now next to Bank Street be closed as part of his site improvements. So right now you have Bank Street coming out, and just to the north of that there’s a driveway for Meineke, and that’s going to be closed off, which will help that intersection, but we weren’t able to propose to have a four way intersection, because on the east side of that intersection where you’d have to have a drive if it was going to be four way, you’d be going right into the building, and the way their site operates, that’s where the car carriers come in, and where the tractor trailers come in with supplies. So that entrance is the tractor trailer entrance. It’s not for cars. All customer and service would be entering at the front, which again is also relocated farther away from Quaker Road. So in general, as a design option, it’s nice to have a four way intersection where you can, but it really, it doesn’t work here, because of where the building is, but we would argue that because we’re talking about truck deliveries and cars being delivered on trucks, that it’s very sporadic. So that’s not going to be used very much in the back, but certainly we’re here to talk about that, and lighting and landscaping and stormwater we’ve submitted. So that’s pretty much the overview, and we’d like to get your comments and see what we need to think about. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tony, we’ll start with you, and I’d ask all the Board members just to keep your comments maybe just very general without diving into details on specific site plan issues. MR. METIVIER-I guess I’m very surprised that there’s no curb cuts on Quaker Road, and from the last time that Saturn was here, they were insistent that they have at least two curb cuts on Quaker Road. Why the difference? MR. LAPPER-Well, this site, because of the way it sets up, you sort of look at the whole building as diagonal when you’re going east. So it just affords the visibility so you don’t really need the access, and it has sort of two frontages on Lafayette and on Quaker. So it works nicely with the site plan and it’s just not as important on this site because you have the visibility, compared to the other one. I didn’t mention also that the whole site’s going to have granite curbs. So just in terms of the level of finish for this exterior area, that sod and sprinkler system and granite curbs. MR. METIVIER-And from what there is now, as far as grass out front on Quaker Road, will there be more, less, will it change? MR. LAPPER-Less. MR. METIVIER-More? MR. LAPPER-There’ll be less grass, but a lot less building as well, but there’s a lot more landscaping on Lafayette, there’s a lot more grass than there was. It’s a lot wider. Now it’s just a little strip. MR. METIVIER-Well, certainly from the pictures, from Saturn of Albany, I mean it’s a beautiful facility down there. So if this can be anything like that. MR. LAPPER-Their plan is to make it equal or better. I do have a rendering which is just, you know, just to get a concept of what the building’s going to look like from the corner of Quaker, just to hand out a few of these. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Tony? MR. METIVIER-No, I’m fine. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Now the building, the part of the building that you’re going to save is the back part. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) MR. LAPPER-Is the white. MR. STROUGH-Which is the two story with an A-Frame roof. MR. LAPPER-Right, but it’s much improved on the front and the Lafayette side with a new façade. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well all the renderings I see are of a flat roof building, single story. I mean, this one is a flat roof single story building. There’s a flat roof. MR. LAPPER-I think it’s a story and a half. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, whatever. You’re going to maintain that roof. It’s not going to be these buildings. MR. LAPPER-It’s not flat, but it’s also not a hip roof. I mean, it’s sort of, you know, it’s sort of in the middle. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but it’s not this either. This is a flat roof, single story building. MR. LAPPER-I think that’s from the perspective if you’re in a car, you know, so it’s up above. I think it’s just a perspective issue, but it is what it is. MR. STROUGH-Well, there’s no roof on that building. MR. LAPPER-I think you just don’t see it so much from that perspective, because you’re looking up at it. MR. VOLLARO-It’s the same drawing. MR. LAPPER-It’s the same drawing. We can have the designer look at that. I see what your point is, but it’s the roof that’s there now. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. LAPPER-But it’s not a two story. It’s really, I believe, a story and a half. MR. STROUGH-A story and a half. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Will the new addition, not to jump in here, John, but the portion of the building you’re saving, will the new building that you’re going to be erecting be the same height as that roofline on that old portion? MR. LAPPER-It’s not going to be a new building. What you see as the white roof versus the gray roof. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. LAPPER-Everything that’s gray is coming down, and everything that’s white is staying. MR. MAC EWAN-Correct. MR. LAPPER-So that building will stay but the façade will be changed. MR. MAC EWAN-Right, but what I’m asking is the new portion, your new construction, will that equal the height of the existing piece that’s staying? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s why you’re seeing a flat roof in that. Do you understand what I’m saying? MR. LAPPER-Yes. I’m not sure I’m giving you the correct answer. MR. DAVIS-The only thing that’s really new construction is just what (lost words). MR. LAPPER-But what they’re asking is the façade that’s going to be changed, is that going to be higher, is that going to hide any of the roof, or is that going to be the same height? MR. DAVIS-It’s going to be the same height. MR. LAPPER-Okay. So the answer is it’s going to be the same as what’s there. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) MR. STROUGH-So the elevations we get in the future will show that building? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. LAPPER-That’s what that elevation intends to show. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. LAPPER-It may not have been depicted as well as it could be, in terms of the roof. MR. STROUGH-These are nice pictures, nice landscaping. This is the Central Avenue Saturn? MR. LAPPER-Yes. That’s to show, in terms of the quality of what they’ve done before, and what they want to do in Queensbury. MR. STROUGH-Yes. Well, what I liked was the wrapping around the trees, the dusty millers and the blue ashertoms. MR. LAPPER-Yes. Rich told me they spend considerable on perennials every year, and annuals. So they really do it up. MR. STROUGH-I didn’t see too many of the perennials surrounding the base of the trees, on this one, but, you know, I just wanted to mention that I liked it with the red sylvias in the center and stuff. MR. LAPPER-If you like it, they’ll do it. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you make it very general here, John. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m just saying. MR. MAC EWAN-If they come back and they say that, you know, it’s not going to be Sylvia, it’s going to be something else. MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, they also had some yellow and white mums, and some other. MR. MAC EWAN-All I’m asking is to keep the conversation very generalized. MR. LAPPER-We have the detailed planting plan, which you don’t have. I can just show you this. MR. DAVIS-I’m Tom Davis with ABD, and I’ve been working on the plan here. As far as the planting beds and whatever, each one of these raised display areas will have the planting beds in front of them. We do have a schedule on the plan as to what we’re proposing in there, where they’re planting flower beds and especially landscaped areas. Every one of those display areas has that. This one here has a few more trees, a little bit larger trees on that display area. MR. STROUGH-Well, you see what I’m saying, around some of these. MR. MAC EWAN-Gentlemen, we’re getting bogged down in details that we don’t need to get bogged down in. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m just pointing out things that I like so that when they come back. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask you to keep this very generalized. MR. STROUGH-Dusty Millers. MR. MAC EWAN-Generalized, please. MR. LAPPER-Tom, write down the list of names. MR. STROUGH-Dusty Millers, ager atoms, Sylvias, mums. I like flowers. Okay. Now the lighting fixtures. I like the lighting fixtures down on Central Avenue, because they’re color coded with the building. MR. LAPPER-The same thing. MR. STROUGH-And they’re not too high. They’re nice looking fixtures. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) MR. LAPPER-The same lights. MR. STROUGH-I just want to say I like those. MR. LAPPER-If you like them. If you don’t like them, we’ll change them. MR. STROUGH-Well, I like them. MR. RINGER-That means the rest of us don’t. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and I did do a site plan review with my class today. MR. LAPPER-On this site? MR. STROUGH-Yes, and they suggested, I don’t think this is going to go anywhere, but I told them I’d bring them up. They would like to see a pond, a water fountain, or a garden pond, waterfalls, or something like that out in front. MR. LAPPER-We have a pond but it’s in the back. It’s Hovey Pond. MR. DAVIS-And there’s a water fountain right down the road at the purple building. MR. HUNSINGER-And it’s lit. MR. STROUGH-Well, they said that this is close to the commercial district and it’s important how it looks, and they said, no pun intended, but a pond with a fountain or a waterfall would be a big splash. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you sure that’s it? MR. STROUGH-No, I’ve got lots of stuff. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Do you really want me to follow that? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think you really can, quite honestly, but go ahead. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got some minor question on the sewer easement. I think you’ve got to get with Mike Shaw on that to make sure he agrees. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Because I believe that either side of the centerline of that easement he needs, I think he’s got about a 50 foot wide easement there for construction. MR. LAPPER-Let me just read the exact sentence. The grantor, which is the property owner, may improve his or her property in the area of the easement including driveways, pavements, parking areas, shrub signs and/or other construction to the extent permissible by law, ordinance, regulation or restrictions, then in existence, as long as the improvement does not conflict with the pipeline or restrict the sewer district or town’s ability to maintain and/or repair the pipeline, and then it goes on to talk about removing pavement if you need to. MR. VOLLARO-What you’re saying is if anything happens that we fix it. Essentially, that’s what you said. Now Mike’s got to go along with that concept. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-And we will sit down with Mike before we’re back with you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now on the drawing I’m looking at, you’ve got a 50 foot front setback off Quaker. It should be 75. MR. LAPPER-That’s the building setback. You are correct. It should be 75, but we’re way beyond that, in terms of the building. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it just should be shown on the drawing, instead of 50, I think it should be, just so the drawing reflects the Code. That’s all I’m saying. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) MR. LAPPER-Yes. It’s the overlay district. MR. VOLLARO-Other than that, I don’t have anything. John is our arborvitae specialist here. So I don’t have anything very much to say about the landscaping. I think, I’ve been down on Central Avenue. I actually pulled in there a week ago, looked at that site. To me, the site looks, if they do that, the job they did on Central here, it’s a plus for this area I believe. MR. LAPPER-That’s their intention. That’s what they’re all about. I’m glad you went and saw it. MR. MAC EWAN-Let it not be said that we don’t make site visits. MR. LAPPER-Yes, I would never say that. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-Just that when we did the site visit, some comments were made about the way the properties connect now. In other words, you can drive from that current site to adjoining properties. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SANFORD-What you’re showing, obviously, you’d have to driving over the green space to get to the adjoining properties. So is there a reason why you don’t want or you wouldn’t modify it so that you could have actually connect to other properties along the road? MR. LAPPER-Yes. That issue, the access management that the Code requires, is when you have compatible uses, but the Code requires that we show it, and we have shown, it’s hard to see penciled in there, so right now we would not build it, but the use in the back, it’s behind the carpet and furniture place. MR. MAC EWAN-You said a word that I don’t think’s in the Code. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Compatible uses. I think the Code says it’s interconnect between any commercial activity or something to that effect. It doesn’t necessarily state whether one business is compatible with another. MR. LAPPER-I think you’re right, but. MR. MAC EWAN-Perfect case in point where it’s an opportunity to do it is the Hanneford to the CVS. They’re compatible businesses, but. MR. LAPPER-Which I argued for years. MR. MAC EWAN-And Hanneford still today refuses to do it. MR. LAPPER-Because the auto lot, you’ve got $20 and $30,000 vehicles, security’s an issue for them, and they’ve got that fence. So we’ve shown it as an easement, so that it could be done now or in the future, and obviously if the Planning Board wants it to be there, but just in terms of the nature of the uses, I would make the argument that it’s not necessary now because you’re not going to have people shopping for a car and shopping for carpeting because nobody can afford to do both at the same time. MR. STROUGH-Well, I think I’ll second and third Craig that when you come back before us, for site plan, I’m going to ask for a better easement connection as well. Something a little bit located in. MR. LAPPER-If you want it, you’ve got it, because that’s what the Code says. MR. MAC EWAN-We’d prefer it. I mean, it’s something this Board has strived for for years, whenever the opportunity is there to do it, to make the interconnect between adjoining businesses, we try to do it. This is an opportunity, we’d like to see it done here. MR. LAPPER-Okay. If you actually want it to be done, to be paved, I mean, it would just be the width of what is required for a drive aisle. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. MR. LAPPER-And the rest would stay green. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) MR. LAPPER-But obviously you have the right to ask for that. I didn’t see, right now, that the car use and the carpet store would be that good. MR. SANFORD-Well, Jon, that might not be a carpet store forever MR. LAPPER-But that’s why, no matter what, we’d put it on there as a condition. MR. STROUGH-Well, there currently is a drive through between this property and Northway Floors. There’s a gate there. MR. LAPPER-Right, but in any case, you’re right, and you have the right to ask for it, and if you want it, I’ve told them about it. If you want it, we’ll do it. MR. SANFORD-Okay, and that’s really all I have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No. Everything that I had has been covered for discussion. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Really about the only thing I was going to comment on specifically was lining up the access with Bank Street, but I certainly found your explanation to be appropriate. MR. LAPPER-Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It seems like a very good reason not to, and, you know, I think in general the site plan looks great. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s going to be a major improvement to this site. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. LAPPER-That’s what we were hoping you’d say. MR. VOLLARO-Just one question. On Bank Street, you part of this application is to close off that, the Meineke Muffler. MR. LAPPER-No. That’s the Meineke, I was just telling you about something that’s happening completely independently. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It’s not tied to this at all? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. VOLLARO-But it just so happens that the two are. MR. LAPPER-We’ll be in here next month, Paul and I, for Meineke. We got the variance to do a small expansion on his site to clean up his site, and part and parcel of that a condition that the Zoning Board required when granting the variance was to close that driveway. So I’m just telling you that that’ll be done before this is even open for business. MR. HUNSINGER-I was confused in your explanation. Which driveway is being closed? MR. LAPPER-Let me show you. MR. RINGER-The closest one and they’re making a second one. They’re bringing it down. MR. LAPPER-Here is Bank Street and here is the Meineke, your driveway. So this is going to be closed. MR. HUNSINGER-So how would you enter, from Bank? MR. LAPPER-There’s an entrance from Bank Street. MR. DAVIS-You have an entrance on Bank Street and you have the entrance on Lafayette Street. MR. LAPPER-It’s going to be relocated. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anytime I ever went in there, I went in the one that’s going to be closed off. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) MR. LAPPER-Right. So didn’t everybody else. That one’s getting busier. The Planning Department wanted it closed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-They had no problem with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments? Anything you wanted to add, Jon? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. We’ll see you next month. MR. LAPPER-Great. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-The next item on the agenda is to re-do the resolution appointing Mr. Ringer Vice Chairman, procedurally. Would someone like to re-introduce the motion, please? MR. STROUGH-Well, what was wrong with the other one? MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Ringer seconded the motion. MR. RINGER-I thought I made the motion. MR. STROUGH-All right. I’ll make the motion. MOTION TO APPOINT MR. LARRY RINGER AS THE VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD FOR THE YEAR OF 2003, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: Duly adopted this 19 day of December, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. STROUGH-Okay. Are we going to get hard copies of those minutes, October ones? It says here that approval of minutes, but I haven’t seen any. MR. MAC EWAN-She handed out some minutes tonight. What did you hand out tonight, Maria? MS. GAGLIARDI-November 26, I think. th MR. VOLLARO-November 26. th MR. STROUGH-Well, it says that part of what we’re supposed to do is approve the October 15 and th October 22 minutes tonight. nd MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to do them? MR. STROUGH-No, I haven’t seen them. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. MR. STROUGH-I went through all my minutes. I’ve got three years worth of minutes. I went through them all thinking I may have messed them up and misplaced them. I put them all in order. MS. GAGLIARDI-Were you one of the ones that said they wanted to look at them on the website? MR. STROUGH-Both, I said. MS. GAGLIARDI-Okay, then I’ll give them to you. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Well, did you review the minutes or not? MR. STROUGH-Who has reviewed those minutes? MR. SANFORD-I have not. MR. HUNSINGER-October 15? th MR. STROUGH-October 15 and October 22. thnd MR. HUNSINGER-I have the 22 but I don’t think I have the 15. ndth MR. MAC EWAN-Are they still on the site, Maria? Do they go back that far on the site, in the archives? MS. GAGLIARDI-Yes. MR. STROUGH-But are we going to get hard copies of them? MS. GAGLIARDI-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I have a hard copy of the 22 right here, John. nd MR. STROUGH-Well, I didn’t get one. MR. VOLLARO-She just gave it to us tonight, the 22. nd MR. HUNSINGER-No, that was November. MR. RINGER-Yes, it’s the 22, November 26 tonight. ndth MR. STROUGH-I didn’t get any minutes. MR. MAC EWAN-If you read them on the website, why do we need a hard copy? MR. STROUGH-Well, because I always refer to the minutes of these meetings as we go along. MR. MAC EWAN-Has everyone reviewed the minutes for October 15 and 22, and feel they want a thnd motion to approve them? MR. METIVIER-I have not, but I wasn’t here. So I can abstain. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let’s postpone those two items until next month, okay. In between now and then, please review the minutes. If you do not have a copy of the minutes or would like a copy of the minutes, other than the website, please contact Maria, and she’ll send you a set of minutes with next month’s packet. Okay. Next item on the agenda, Mr. Salvador? Keeping in the Christmas spirit, you did say five minutes, right? And you also did say it would take you not even five minutes. JOHN SALVADOR, JR. MR. SALVADOR-We’ll make it. First of all, I wanted to thank the Town Staff and yourselves for inviting me to your December 3 meeting. I was unable to make it, but I have been following the issue, and I’ve rd gotten some literature on the subject. I also note that the LGA has taken the liberty to correspond with you on a subject, and I’d just like to make you aware of a couple of my concerns and to give you some information that might be helpful to you, and I’ll read from a pre-prepared statement I hear so it will float a little faster. My concern is the Special Use Permit is dependent upon the approval of a site plan, and our Code has some very, very detailed and specific requirements for the preparation of a site plan, and the information that has to be shown on it. From there I say the key element of the Special Use Permit process is the requirement for the preparation of a site plan to be reviewed by and approved by the Town Planning Board. This Board is reminded that a site plan approved by the Planning Board imparts a property right to the owner and successors in interest to that site. Chapter 179, Article 9, Sections, etc. specifies the requirement for mapping any site plan to be reviewed and approved. In addition, Section 179-10-50 adds to these requirements general standards for Special Use Permits. So you’ve got a doubling up of requirements. Both Special Use Permits and site plan approvals become a property right as they run with the land when completed, certified, approved and signed by the Chairman of the Planning Board. The site plan approvals add enormous value to what might otherwise be considered junk land. Site plans are frequently filed in the Warren County Clerk’s Office and after approval by the County Treasurer they then become a basis for tax mapping, and are often referred to in deed conveyances of real property, rather than the old fashioned metes and bounds. We always attach this Schedule A in accordance with this, this, and that, and you have to go 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) searching all over to find out what you’re really talking about. Assessment inventories are taken from tax maps as information recorded on building permit applications. The Town zoning district map is a simple overlay of the tax maps produced by the County tax mapping service. The Lake George Park Commission uses tax map information for inventory of boat docks and boathouses. Title insurance underwriting can refer to site plans recorded. What I’m saying here is this is serious business. This is serious business, and I don’t think you can, you know, kind of turn a blind eye to the requirements. These are required to be prepared by a licensed surveyor. In this regard, you, the Town, does reserve the right to have information supplied by an applicant reviewed by a third party. Your engineer, for instance, frequently reviews septic and stormwater. I think you should bring yourself to review these site plans also, from a surveying point of view. The Town Engineer, C.T. Male, advertises themselves as surveyors as well. They’ve got people on staff. There’s no special contract required. They can do it. We have a quasi loose arrangement with Leon Steves, who’s serves as the Town Surveyor, but that’s a gross conflict of interest there, since his firm prepares most of these maps anyways. So it wouldn’t be too hard to rely on C.T. Male to make a check of these. MR. VOLLARO-John, are you talking about a survey of the upland property, as opposed to that which goes seaward, if I can use that term? MR. SALVADOR-A site plan can only include your property. You can’t map other people’s property on a site plan. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I’m asking. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I’m asking you that question. MR. SALVADOR-Only your property. That’s the point I’m getting to. Okay. In any case, it’s essential that the preparation locate the boundary lines. That’s the whole point. A site plan has to have definition, and you must locate the boundaries within which you’re going to approve this site. MR. VOLLARO-But those boundaries, John, are from, I believe, the high water mark up. MR. SALVADOR-I’ll get to that. MR. VOLLARO-Well, this is the whole crux of this thing. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, let him go through his presentation. MR. VOLLARO-I’m trying to follow what he’s saying. MR. MAC EWAN-He said five minutes. He’s already at seven. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. On specific request from the Zoning Administrator, or from Mr. Hilton I should say, it appears in the notes, on specific request to the Lake George Park Commission for information that the Town Staff would use to determine the prior status, and, you know, where are we coming from on these boat docks, the Lake George Park Commission took the liberty to send this survey map, shoreline survey map, from 1958, the date on this, you didn’t see the title block on the map. This is the map you got, okay, of that section of the lake, if you recall. That was submitted by, it’s a very poor copy because it’s been copied over and over again, but this is the section of Warner Bay where these two applicants have their marinas, right here. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The Hoppers and the Smiths, now, is that what you’re referring to? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. Here, I have these for each of you, but in any case, this is the map that the Lake George Park Commission sent you on request. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think I’ve seen that. MR. STROUGH-I’ve never seen that. MR. SALVADOR-Well, it’s available. The Staff has it. MR. HILTON-I believe this was a letter that actually the Zoning Administrator addressed to the Lake George Park Commission, and was seeking information for prior approvals on Hopper and Smith, and they did respond to Craig’s letter with information. This does appear to be that information that we received from the Park Commission. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but that wasn’t forwarded to Planning Board members, or was it? 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) MR. SALVADOR-I guess you’re right, it wasn’t. I don’t think it was, but in any case, it’s available, and I have copies here for you. The point I’m getting at is the Commission took the liberty to send this map as evidence of what existed at one time and was mapped. This mapping was authorized by the New York State legislature, and done by the Conservation Department at that time. MR. VOLLARO-And what’s the date on that, that you’re showing? MR. SALVADOR-1958. Okay. Now the purpose of this mapping, the sole purpose of this mapping, was to identify and locate, on a map, the mean low water mark of Lake George. That was the purpose of this undertaking, and also to locate on this drawing the abutting properties and any encroachments that might exist on the land below 317.74, the mean low, because these constituted encroachments on State land. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. I understand what you’re saying. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. So the maps exist. We have, on record, and the Lake George Park Commission has file cabinets filled with these things, the whole shoreline of Lake George. Okay. Every property. My point is that the mean low water mark has been located, and the exercise was, of course, to locate the undisturbed, the undisturbed, the original location of the mean low, and one of the things they were trying to identify also was illegal fill. So, I have here a copy of this map. I also have a small brochure that’s put out by the Office of General Services, wherein they talk about where does the OGS managed State land begin, and they talk about the mean low water line for navigable lakes, and there is a list of navigable lakes here in the State of New York, Lake George being one of them. So that’s here. Now, in addition, there is a State law, and when I say State law, I mean, that Section of the Statutes that defines State law. It’s a very thin book. In there they talk about the jurisdiction and ownership of offshore waters and lands there under, and this says the ownership of waters and subsurface lands is in the State, and no one is allowed to do anything there without some kind of express permission or grant from the State. Now, to support this, there’s case law. This is a 1970 case that was tried in whichever county Rye, New York is in, and it dealt with the prohibition of enforcing zoning ordinances on public land, on State land, and the Second Department Appellate Division Supreme Court Second Department ruled the navigable waters are within the sole jurisdiction and control of the State. Zoning power of city, or a town, local government, does not extend into the navigable waters. Now, this is the language of the court. Now what we have never recognized in this Town, and I think it’s fair to say other towns around the lake also, they have never recognized that as we regulate and as we permit, beyond the mean low water mark of Lake George, we’re outside of our boundaries. In particular the Town of Queensbury, we’re in the Town of Bolton. The shoreline, the Town boundary of Lake George, is along the east shore of Lake George. Some out in the middle of the lake. MR. VOLLARO-So, John. Mr. Chairman, I’d like to just ask a question so I can get myself organized. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. We’re closing in on 15 minutes, by the way. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you’ve got the option to shut him down at any time, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get wrapped up. Go ahead and ask your question, and then you wrap up, please. MR. VOLLARO-John, what you’re implying, I think, and what I’m trying to try to understand is that you’re implying that our job may be, or could be, or might be, coming up with a site plan review of the upland portion of that site, period, and I’ve been striving to get that across to my fellow Board members as well. Of course my position hasn’t changed. I’d like to have these Special Use Permits done by the Lake George Park Commission, and I haven’t changed by position on that, and the more we get into this minutia here, the more I feel that I’m not so sure I’m even qualified, as a Board member, to sit here and come up and rule or vote. MR. STROUGH-But according to Mr. Salvador, the upland portion starts at the mean low water mark. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. STROUGH-And some docks are completely in the (lost word) in Lake George. MR. SALVADOR-Well, they may very well be, yes. Some may be. You’re absolutely right, and this map shows, and this map shows some are in, some are out, some are halfway, but I think your obligation is to come forth with an accurate, an accurate site plan, that defines the boundaries. That’s all. That’s what you’re approving. MR. VOLLARO-You go from the mean low water mark upland, and that’s it. That’s the boundary, as I see it. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. Okay. Well, I’ll pass this on. If you have any other questions, I’d be glad to, I have a copy for. MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to see that map, if you have a copy of it. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-I’ll make a comment if you want, Mr. Chairman. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d love to hear a comment. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s not a Planning Board issue. MR. STROUGH-No, but I mean. MR. SALVADOR-Well, to the extent that they’re approving a site plan. MR. SCHACHNER-My comment is it’s not a Planning Board issue. Why is it not a Planning Board issue? Because the Zoning Ordinance says what the Zoning Ordinance says. Mr. Salvador disagrees with many, many things that the Zoning Ordinance says and he is certainly free to do so, but this Board has no authority to change the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The way the Zoning Ordinance currently reads, applicants are supposed to provide you with the applications for a site plan review that include docks and other things that extend into the water beyond the line that Mr. Salvador is talking about. The issue is, I’m not saying this is not an issue that people can debate. I’m saying it’s not a Planning Board issue. Whether you agree with Mr. Salvador completely in every respect in every iota of his argument, or completely disagree with every iota of his argument, or anything in between, you are legally powerless to change the scope of your review. That’s my comment. MR. SALVADOR-And I would say you’re powerless to review anything beyond the mean low, okay. MR. SCHACHNER-And that’s his position, but it’s not up to you to adopt that position, even if you agree with it. MR. RINGER-Thank you, John. MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks, John. This application and packet we got for Saturn, are we keeping this or do we have a whole new submission coming in for January? MR. VOLLARO-There’s a whole new submission. MR. HILTON-You’d keep the elevations and the pictures. The site plan’s been revised. If you want to keep that, because they’re not going to be providing new, it appears, with what we’ve received, elevations and the photos, but the site plan will change, and they’re going to provide lighting, landscaping, and stormwater report. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. HILTON-I actually had just one thing. At the December 3 workshop, Mr. MacEwan, you had rd expressed some interest in this application, this digital orthophoto viewer. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, the back door to the website. MR. HILTON-Exactly. I just, I guess, am taking a poll of the Board members. I can set that up. We can set that up. I just need to know, first of all, who among you would like this? MR. MAC EWAN-All seven. All nine. MR. HILTON-Does everybody have a computer? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, eight out of nine. MR. RINGER-I’ve got the computer. I just don’t want to go on line. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SANFORD-You just don’t know how to plug it in or turn it on. MR. MAC EWAN-He still uses the phone that’s up on the telephone pole to call home. MR. RINGER-When I retired, I went off line. The company took my computer back, and I went off line and haven’t been on line since. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) MR. HILTON-That’s all I had. MR. MAC EWAN-All I’d ask you to do is just, if you’re going to set it up on the back door system that we come in, is just e-mail us at our e-mail addresses and let us know what the address is to get in. MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. HILTON-Okay. It may be a little different, I guess. MR. MAC EWAN-Or give us some direction or whatever. MR. HILTON-I’ll definitely do that. MR. MAC EWAN-On how we do it. Yes, I, for one, would like to be able to utilize that when I’m looking at these sites. MR. HILTON-All right. MR. MAC EWAN-Just perfect case in point tonight with Dybas’s application. They wanted to know if everything around it was MU, or if they were just sandwiched in there. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that it? Anything else? MR. HILTON-That’s all I have. DOUG AUER MR. AUER-Would you entertain any comment at all at this point? MR. MAC EWAN-If you want to make it real brief. MR. AUER-Real quick, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Real quick. You’re lucky because you’re coming in just under the wire. MR. AUER-Real quick. Doug Auer. I had followed the presentation that Valente had done. The first two preliminary and the last one on November 19. How does the Planning Board keep track of questions that th were brought to your attention? And I’m going to give you case in point. There was a specific question that was asked by a person in the audience about whether or not these, and you said it was a very good question because you were chairing the meeting, Larry, that how, or will these businesses have multiple businesses within them. In other words, each one of these buildings, will they be rented out as additional space, and you said, that’s a great idea. We’ll get an answer for you. Those kind of questions, there were several of them that were asked at that last meeting, that haven’t shown up on the radar screen at all. How do you deal with those things? Do they just go off into the ethos? MR. MAC EWAN-No. If we ask questions or ask a requirement, or specifically ask an application or any applicant, for that matter, that we may be tabling their applications, we give them the laundry list, so to speak, of things that we want addressed and answered, too. MR. AUER-Okay. I haven’t seen that come up. MR. MAC EWAN-Because with this particular application, we haven’t gotten to that point yet of a site plan. We’re still dealing with the subdivision, only a subdivision of property. MR. AUER-So those issues are out there? They’re in the database. MR. MAC EWAN-They’re down the road. MR. AUER-Okay, and they will surface? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Those are site plan related issues, not subdivision issues. All we’re doing right now is cutting some property lines. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) MR. AUER-Well, see my point is that at the time that that question was asked, there was an implication by the Chairman that that was a great question and we’ll get an answer for you. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s right, and at the time when that application was in here, that meeting I wasn’t here at, it was either at Sketch Plan or first phase of Preliminary. MR. AUER-It was last month. MR. RINGER-I’m trying to remember, actually we shouldn’t be discussing the application without the applicant here. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s just a general discussion item. MR. AUER-It was just a general discussion. MR. RINGER-It’s still an open application. I’m trying to remember the question, Doug, as it was, and I don’t remember it. I’m sorry, because so much went on that evening. The only way, if we’ve got a question from the floor, as you said, it would be up to the applicant to answer that question. If I didn’t ask the applicant when they came back to the table that specific question, then I may have goofed. MR. AUER-It was one of the folks in the audience asked the question, and from your perspective, the response was we’ll get an answer, that’s a good question. MR. MAC EWAN-A good example, earlier tonight we had the Cantiello subdivision on the corner of Cronin and Ridge. A woman came up and asked where was the driveway going to be. I was thinking, we got her answer right there. MR. AUER-You got an answer for her. MR. MAC EWAN-This particular question that was asked was relative to a site plan issue, not a subdivision issue. So we’ll address that when we get to site plan, should we get to that point. You have to get through subdivision first to get to site plan. MR. AUER-Right, but for questions like that, then, why aren’t they taken off the table? The response should have been, I would think, that’s not a subdivision issue, that’s a site plan issue, and bring that question up at the time. MR. MAC EWAN-Sometimes during conversations, Doug, that things, you know. MR. AUER-Well, the point is that a promise, essentially, is made, and there are several others, and I’ll bring you the laundry list, because I went through the minutes, the verbatim minutes, and there are a whole bunch of things in there that were asked, as I say, aren’t even on the radar screen here. MR. RINGER-Not all the questions that are asked from the floor are necessarily pertinent. So not every question is going to get an answer because it may not be pertinent. MR. AUER-Well, they were responded to, gee. MR. RINGER-But the one you asked specifically I don’t remember it exactly, but if I told the person we’d get an answer and we didn’t get an answer, I didn’t ask that question, and I perhaps. MR. MAC EWAN-I would encourage you or anybody else who has interest in this particular application or any other application, that if you think that maybe things have slipped under the rug or fallen through the cracks, write a letter, make it part of the application, put it on the public record, so that when you write a letter and it’s read into the minutes of the meeting, you want answers to this, this and this, we’ll get the answers. Therefore it’s documented and no one will forget them. MR. AUER-Yes. I’ll go back through those minutes. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the best way to do it. MR. AUER-Well, I did. I expected to hear some addressing of some of those things tonight, and I didn’t. I wasn’t, you know, I just assumed that they’d be there, but okay. I’ll do that. No problem. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. MR. AUER-Have a good evening, gentlemen. MR. MAC EWAN-You, too. Happy Holidays to you. Anything else? 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/02) MR. RINGER-Next month we’ve got site visits on the 18 and the meetings are the 21 and the 28. thstth MR. MAC EWAN-Right. I’ll e-mail you. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 45