Loading...
2002-11-19 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2002 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LARRY RINGER, ACTING CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY ROBERT VOLLARO JOHN STROUGH CHRIS HUNSINGER THOMAS SEGULJIC, ALTERNATE RICHARD SANFORD, ALTERNATE PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES August 15, 2002: NONE August 20, 2002: NONE August 27, 2002: NONE September 17, 2002: NONE September 24, 2002: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, AUGUST, 20, AUGUST 27, SEPTEMBER 17, AND SEPTEMBER 24, 2002, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: Duly adopted this 19 day of November, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE MR. RINGER-One other thing. The Great Escape was originally scheduled for tonight. That’s not going to be heard tonight, but it is my understanding it will be next Tuesday. So if anyone’s here for The Great Escape, that will not be done tonight. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 19-2002 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED ISABELLE HARRIS PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: BRUCE CARR ZONE: RR-5A LOCATION: 1748 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES OF A 41.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 34.39 ACRES AND 7.41 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 96-773 APA TAX MAP NO. 266.01-2-5/27-2-2.1 LOT SIZE: 41.8 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS MICHAEL STAFFORD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing back on October 22 was tabled. nd MR. RINGER-We’ll hear from the applicant. MR. STAFFORD-Yes. Good evening. My name is Michael Stafford, and I am with Stafford, Carr, and McNally. We’re the agent for Mrs. Harris. My understanding is that at the last meeting the Board requested that the division line between the property be redrawn from the center of the stream as it was originally proposed to be a straight line, with a meets and bounds description, and I believe you also asked that the septic and well be located on the house portion, which is the seven acre portion, which is to remain. I believe that has been done on the, redone on the map for your review, and the third item I believe the Board was concerned with was some historical questions, and that was to be referred to the Town Historian. My understanding is that there has been, at least we have received nothing from her, with respect to (lost word). 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) MR. RINGER-You did not receive the? I’ll give you my copy. MR. STAFFORD-Okay. MR. RINGER-And basically what they’ve done, they’ve found, as I read it, you know, this was used by the Indians back then, but as far as they can determine, there’s nothing that’s been here. However, they would like us, if we approve this, to put a stipulation in that if you find anything in the artifacts, or burial grounds or anything, that you stop and report it to the proper agencies. MR. STAFFORD-We would consent to that. MR. RINGER-But then you can have that copy. MR. STAFFORD-Okay. MR. RINGER-Anything else, sir? MR. STAFFORD-No, sir. MR. RINGER-Okay. Then from the Board, we’ll start at this end. Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-My only thing was with the historical nature of the site. Other than that. MR. RINGER-Tom, you’ve had a chance to read the letter from Marilyn? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess, is it possible that Marilyn could clarify for us? MR. RINGER-Okay. Yes. That would be a good idea to have Marilyn come up and talk. Why don’t I do that, before we go on further with, if you wouldn’t mind. I’ll ask Marilyn to come up and talk about the letter that you wrote, please. MARILYN VAN DYKE, TOWN HISTORIAN MRS. VAN DYKE-Marilyn Van Dyke, the Town Historian. You asked me to look into this site and its general area in terms of Native American habitation, and I found several very interesting points that, and most of the textbooks refer to the fact that Native Americans frequented Queensbury in considerable numbers, especially in the very, very early period of pre-history, that runs about 8000 B.C. to 1000 B.C. A long time ago. They hunted and fished primarily, and they did that in season when they could get into this area and when it was warmer than, enough for them to be about, and while they were here, of course, their life activity centered around preparing the materials that they needed to hunt and to fish and also to be able to feed themselves. So they left certain amounts of evidence of that, at which the archaeological studies show knives and scrapers and whetstones and gouges and pounding and chopping tools and hammer stones, and they made these objects from flint and slate and quartz and quartzite and prophyritic basalt, which were in evidence in the area, especially the flint, which was over on Sugar Loaf Mountain. Also within this general area people, over many years, have found arrowheads and other artifacts in the farmland areas from Bay Road north up to Lake Sunnyside, and in the general area of Pickle Hill between Bay and Ridge. There were around, in the 1960’s, there were several archeological studies that took place in the area. There was a great interest in archeology at that time, and on sites that were within the area, and attached to your report is a map showing where those various studies took place. The one that we’re really interested in, in terms of the subdivision is the one on, the Pickle Hill archeological investigation that was done by Paul and Thomas Weinman in 1965 and 66. Paul Weinman has been with the Archeology Department at the New York State Museum for a number of years, and I believe he’s now retired. He indicated the presence of a low sandy knoll and a swampy valley that ran two and a half miles south of Dunham’s Bay. So from Dunham’s Bay south to Pickle Hill. Here on a very flat-topped rise 1 ½ acres in extent consisting of a late-glacial outwash. So as the Ice Age retreated, they left this wash on the west side, which formed a drumlin, which is known as Pickle Hill, and it was in this area, on the east side of the drumlin that evidence of the North American occupation was found. It was about a half acre on the northern end to the north/south trending knoll, and 15 inches above and 100 yards from Pickle Hill Road that connects Bay and Ridge. So that gives you a pretty good pinpoint as to where it was, which I believe is on the opposite side from the proposal of the Harris subdivision. They also found a circular roasting platform there with charcoal fires and all kinds of objects, points, flint chips and carbonized acorn cotyledons, which meant that they used those acorns for food and flour and what not. Many of the tools they said were made of flint, and that flint could be found within 15 miles of this site. So, they carbon dated this material, and they gave it a date of 1760 B.C., plus or minus 100 years. The Pickle Hill site is interesting in that because it was one of the first reported archaic river complexes that was not located on a major waterway. Most of them were south of this area. So this gave some indication of a more northerly point at which the Native Americans would have traversed. It’s very small, and therefore the conclusion has been that it’s a seasonal campsite, probably occupied in the Fall and Winter when acorn collecting and hunting were the main means of subsistence. Visited by small bands of 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) people, not large complexes or large groups that would have lived there over extended periods of time, and it was suggested that when the thaws came in the spring that the natives probably went on to Lake George or perhaps down on the Hudson where fish and shellfish abounded and they pursued their fishing adventures in the other part of the year. Interestingly, Weinman found, from the air, a very dark area on the ground that might have been indicative of some type of a family lodge. They did not build houses in the way we think of them today, and they were not teepees either. They were more pole like structures with skin stretched over them. So that means that, in the reference from Phil Harris, in the “Moses of the Barkeaters” that you mentioned last week, that the idea of a burial mound would not be possible in that we did not have burial mounds in this archaic period of archeology, but that does not preclude the fact that there might be some type of burial site in general in the area, although the archeologists haven’t identified such a site. H. Russell Harris, in his book, describes an area across from the brick house where he lived on Ridge Road, where the charcoal pits could be observed, when the area was plowed up in the spring, and his uncle, who was Obadiah Cyrus Auringer who was one of the founders of the Auringer Seelye Archaeological Society, which was a group of amateur archeologists back in the 60’s, he told them that this was a campground that was used by Native Americans, and that there were pits that suggested the use of perhaps some type of pole houses. There were also, they have found in that area some types of cannonballs and guns that might have indicated that during the French and Indian War period, there may have been some activity across through this valley, and there’s also definitely and old Indian trail that goes up through this area, from the head of Dunham’s Bay to Wood Creek near Fort Ann village. So this is all very interesting background material. The people who live on the site south of the lands of H. Russell Harris, Carolyn Kellogg, and this is the Hubbell property, did recently a Phase IB site identification and did not find any traces of Native American presence in their findings. So the proposed development probably on the uphill east side of Ridge Road is probably not likely to be an encampment site per se. That does not mean that no Native American ever stepped foot on there or that they never left any possible evidence of their existence there. So my suggestion is that some due diligence be given during the time when any excavations of houses are done in this area, and if something is found, that people take time to study, think about what it is, and call in and archeologist or people that could help to look at it, to see if there’s anything further that could be studied. The major sites at Pickle Hill, now, and up on Assembly Point have given us a lot of background information in this area. So it has been studied, and that doesn’t mean that we couldn’t possibly find new information at some point in time, but that’s what we know right now. MR. RINGER-Marilyn, we really do thank you for the time you’ve put in to this. Whenever you come before us, it’s always informative and interesting, your comments. MRS. VAN DYKE-Thank you. MR. RINGER-So we do appreciate it. Any members of the Board have comments for Marilyn? MR. VOLLARO-I just have one. I think in all of, having read this entire thing, found it very, very interesting. Pertaining particularly to this application, however, I used that section where you talk about suggestions from Phil Harris in his novel, “Moses of the Barkeaters”, that an Indian burial ground existed. There seems to be some controversy there. MRS. VAN DYKE-Yes. There does. MR. VOLLARO-Leaning more in the direction that there was not than there is. MRS. VAN DYKE-I would think that’s probably it. MR. VOLLARO-And so that paragraph lead me to, you know, other than the due diligence which you recommended, and I think that’s another good recommendation, but that’s how I couched my opinion. That one paragraph did it for me. MRS. VAN DYKE-All right. MR. RINGER-Any other comments for Marilyn? Marilyn, we thank you very, very much. We do appreciate that, as always. MRS. VAN DYKE-Okay. Thank you, and if any of you would like to read that Weinman site archaeological report, I do now have that in my office. You’re welcome to come in and look it over. MR. RINGER-Thank you. Tom, I’ll come back to you. I appreciate you reminding me that Marilyn was here. MR. SEGULJIC-As I understand, there’s just going to be the one house on the site? MR. STAFFORD-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So, do you have any problem with, during excavation, due diligence, if anything? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) MR. STAFFORD-No. I think if anybody Mr. Harris, if he were here, would want to have that, even without it as a condition. So I’m sure that that’s fine. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Then I’m all set. MR. HUNSINGER-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t have anything to add. I think the applicant did a thorough job of addressing the three points that we had asked them to elaborate on. So I’m all set. MR. RINGER-Richard? MR. SANFORD-I’m all set. Just one point of clarification. I think you mentioned it in your earlier opening comments. There was the river or the stream. We wanted a hard line. That has been accomplished now? MR. STAFFORD-Yes. You should have that. MR. RINGER-I think we’ve got it. MR. SANFORD-Nothing, Larry. MR. RINGER-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m okay. MR. RINGER-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No. I’m okay. MR. RINGER-John? MR. STROUGH-I’m fine. I’m just trying to word a condition. MR. RINGER-Okay. Now, I wasn’t here last month, but Craig left the public hearing open, I believe. So anyone from the public? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. RINGER-Did Craig do a SEQRA on this? MR. VOLLARO-No. I don’t think we ever did. MR. RINGER-Okay. Let’s do a SEQRA, then. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources or community or neighborhood character? MR. RINGER-This could be yes, but we’re handling it with the resolution. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Is that a yes or a no? MR. RINGER-It’s yes, I would think yes, but there is a slight potential, but we will be handling it with the resolution that if they find anything of any archeological importance, they will stop and report it to the proper agencies for an evaluation. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. So as a Board you have to just characterize the impact. That’s all. MR. RINGER-That’s right. MR. SCHACHNER-Does that make you characterize it as insignificant or minor or? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Very small. MR. VOLLARO-Very small. MR. RINGER-Very small, and with mitigation of if they do find something. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 19-2002, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ISABELLE HARRIS, 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 November, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE MR. RINGER-Okay. I’ll call for a motion, then. John, you’re working on one? MR. STROUGH-Yes. Now, when do you want to put this motion on? Do you want to put it on the Preliminary or on the Final? MR. RINGER-You weren’t here, Mark. The motion is that, prepared by Staff, however with a condition that while they’re doing the excavating, if they find any archeological items or anything, that they report it to the proper agencies or a study made, a further study made. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Then that sounds like a condition that would be more appropriate at Final approval than at Preliminary approval, because it can’t be fulfilled until the subdivision occurs. MR. RINGER-Okay, then Final, John. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 19-2002 ISABELLE HARRIS, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 19-2002 Applicant: Isabelle Harris PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: Same 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) FINAL STAGE Agent: Bruce Carr Type: Unlisted Zone: RR-5A Location: 1748 Ridge Road Applicant proposes subdivision of a 41.8 acre parcel into two lots of 34.39 acres and 7.41 acres. Cross Reference: BP 96-773 APA Tax Map No. 266.01-2-5 / 27-2-2.1 Lot size: 41.8 acres Section: Subdivision Regulations Public Hearing: October 22, 2002, Tabled WHEREAS, the application was received 9/16/02, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 11/15/02; and 11/19 Staff Notes 11/13 Town Historian comments 11/2 Requested information received 11/1 Meeting Notice 10/22 Planning Board resolution – Tabled to 11/19/02 10/22 Staff Notes 10/15 Notice of Public Hearing 10/2 Meeting Notice 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 October 22 , 2002 and November 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 approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 19th day of November, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 19-2002 ISABELLE HARRIS, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 19-2002 Applicant: Isabelle Harris PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: Same FINAL STAGE Agent: Bruce Carr Type: Unlisted Zone: RR-5A Location: 1748 Ridge Road Applicant proposes subdivision of a 41.8 acre parcel into two lots of 34.39 acres and 7.41 acres. Cross Reference: BP 96-773 APA Tax Map No. 266.01-2-5 / 27-2-2.1 Lot size: 41.8 acres 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) Section: Subdivision Regulations Public Hearing: October 22, 2002, Tabled WHEREAS, the application was received 9/16/02, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 11/15/02; and 11/19 Staff Notes 11/13 Town Historian comments 11/1 Meeting Notice 10/22 Planning Board resolution – Tabled to 11/19/02 10/22 Staff Notes 10/15 Notice of Public Hearing 10/2 Meeting Notice 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 October 22 and November 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 Final Stage is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1. Because this general area is shown to have had historical significance, some due diligence should be given during the excavation for the proposed residence or other disturbances, construction related or other. In the event that artifacts, charcoal pits or human remains are found or unearthed, the home builder or owner will notify the Town Historian, who is currently Marilyn Van Dyke, and the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historical Preservation. 2. Recreation Fees in the amount of $ 500.00 for 1 lot(s) are applicable to this subdivision. 3. 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. 4. 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 November, 2002, by the following vote: MR. STROUGH-Does that work? MR. RINGER-It sounds good to me. MR. VOLLARO-It sounds good to me. MR. RINGER-Does Counsel have a problem with it? MR. SCHACHNER-If that’s what your goal is, notification, then that condition would seem to accomplish that goal. MR. STROUGH-Is that right, Marilyn? MRS. VAN DYKE-Except that I’m not the person to notify. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I thought that would be a good place to start. No? Who would you recommend? MRS. VAN DYKE-Well, if you think you’ve found something of significance, you should contact the Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation of the State of New York for their advice. If you want me to be the intermediary that would do that, I’d be happy to do t hat, but I’m not the person to be officially notified. That’s all I wanted you to know. MR. RINGER-Six of one, half dozen of another. MR. SCHACHNER-No, I would change it. MR. RINGER-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Okay, Marilyn, now who is the contact person? MR. SCHACHNER-It’s the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, OPRHP. MR. RINGER-Thanks. MR. STROUGH-How about if I put down, will contact the Town Historian and the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation? MR. RINGER-Start from the beginning, if you would, John. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Because this general area is shown to have had historical significance, some due diligence should be given during the excavation for the proposed residence or other disturbances, construction related or other. In the event that artifacts, charcoal pits or human remains are found or unearthed, the home builder or owner will notify the Town Historian, who is currently Marilyn Van Dyke, and the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historical Preservation. AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE MR. RINGER-You’re all set. MR. STAFFORD-Thank you very much. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. The next item on the agenda, we’re going to have a little change here. It’s the last item that’s on your handout for the evening. 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. CHARLES SCUDDER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DANIEL VALENTE, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is there public hearing this evening. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 10-2002, Preliminary Stage, Daniel & Pamela Valente, Meeting Date: November 19, 2002 “Project Description: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 14.05 acre property into 15 lots for future use as professional office sites. This parcel, which is at the southwest corner of Bay Rd. and Walker Lane, is in the Bay Road Design Area. Study of plat: Lot arrangement: The lots as proposed would front on either Walker Lane or the extension of Baybridge Drive (as proposed with this subdivision). Topography: The property is generally level with no areas of excessive slope. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) Water supply Sewage Disposal: This property is served by municipal water service. The property is currently not within a municipal sewer district, however the plans submitted show infrastructure to be constructed for connection to the municipal wastewater system. Drainage: Grading, drainage and erosion control plans have been submitted and are being reviewed by CT Male. Lot sizes: Lots range in sizes from 27,800 square feet to 59,400 square feet. The lot sizes as proposed meet the requirements of the Professional Office zone. Future development: No development plan has been submitted with the subdivision plat. The application states that future development will be in the form of professional offices. State Environmental Quality Review Act: Type is Unlisted, the applicant has submitted a long form. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): A search of Town records found no prior Planning Board / Zoning Board applications. Staff comments: Any future development at this location should be reflective of the Bay Road Design Guidelines. The guidelines call for future development in the Bay Road corridor to be residential in nature with large attractively landscaped yards. A landscaped strip with street trees along both sides of Bay Road, shared access drives, parking in the rear of the building and sidewalks to be placed along Bay Road are also elements of the design guidelines for this area. The proposed subdivision plat indicates wetlands on or near the southern area of the property. A recent delineation of wetlands on or near this property is needed and a final sign off from any agency(s) with jurisdiction over such wetlands is also required prior to development of this property. The subdivision plat also provides for infrastructure to be built for the future connection to the municipal wastewater system. However, this property is not currently in a municipal sewer district and no plans for extension or inclusion of this property in a sewer district have been made at this time. Any future development of this property will require connection to a sanitary sewer system. This issue should be discussed further with the applicant, and any comments from the Town’s Wastewater Department should be addressed during the review of this application. The plans indicate that Baybridge Drive will be extended to the east to the intersection of Bay Road and Willowbrook Drive. To the west of this proposed extension in the Baybridge subdivision, a portion of Baybridge Drive is shown as gravel road. This portion of Baybridge Drive shall be brought up to Town standards prior to any future dedication and acceptance of Baybridge Drive. Any additional comments from Town Highway, Town Wastewater and CT Male should be addressed during the review of this application.” MR. RINGER-Okay. Staff notes. MR. HILTON-A couple of items for the Planning Board to consider during review of this application. Any future development should be reflective of the Bay Road Design Guidelines, and some of the items in those guidelines call for residential offices to be constructed that are residential in nature. Largely attractive landscaped yards with street trees along Bay Road, shared access and parking in the rear of the building. The subdivision plat also indicates wetlands on or near the southern property line, and a recent delineation will be needed for this property, with the final sign off from any of the agencies with jurisdiction over those wetlands. The subdivision also contains a sheet indicating infrastructure to be built for connection to the municipal sewer system and at this time there is not a district in place for this property. So that item will have to be reviewed by this Board, as part of this application. The plans also call for an extension of Baybridge Drive, and there is a portion on the subdivision just to the west which at this time is a gravel road, and any connection would also have to take into consideration bringing that up to Town standards, and on that note, any other comments from Town Highway, Wastewater and C.T. Male should be addressed as part of this review. MR. RINGER-Did they address any of the comments to C.T. Male? That’s all you had, the letter from the Town? How about the letter from Mike Shaw? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) MR. HILTON-Well, we have a letter from Mike Shaw. We have the C.T. Male comments, and I do believe there is, there’s the Highway, Mike Shaw, and C.T. Male. MR. RINGER-Okay, and the applicant’s got copies of all these? MR. HILTON-I believe so. MR. SCUDDER-I don’t have anything on the Highway. MR. VALENTE-Or Shaw? MR. RINGER-Nothing on the Highway? MR. SCUDDER-Nothing on the Highway, Mr. Chairman. MR. RINGER-Okay. Would you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. SCUDDER-Charles Scudder. I’m the agent for Daniel Valente. MR. VALENTE-Dan Valente, Jr. I’m the President of Valente Homes, also a developer of the parcel. MR. RINGER-I’m going to give him a copy of the Highway Department. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. RINGER-Do you want to tell us a little bit about your project, please? MR. SCUDDER-Mr. Chairman, we’re proposing a 15 lot professional office complex on a 14 acre parcel, at the southwest corner of Bay Road and Walker Lane. That parcel is vacant and has been vacant for a long time. We realize that we’re in the Bay Road corridor, and that the new zoning regulations apply, and we want to do our project in keeping both with the letter and the spirit of the new Zoning Ordinance. In connection with the development, there will be an extension of Baybridge Drive, which has already been mentioned, and that would afford a second entrance into that property, Walker Lane being one and Baybridge Drive being the other. The other important thing is that it would give us the opportunity to strengthen the water distribution system because we propose to extend the main from the terminus in Baybridge out to the large main in Bay Road, so that that would give us a loop, and strengthen the system both from our project and also for Baybridge. It will be necessary for us to sewer the project. The soils on the site are not suitable for on-site absorption, and we have known that right along and it is our proposal to tie in to the proposed Sewer District Extension Number Seven, which is currently in the final stages of design as we understand it. Our project is dependent upon the creation of that extension, and until that’s finalized and constructed, we can’t go forward. Our lots are larger than the minimum required by the Ordinance, and that’s the way we want to keep it. We propose to have gracious lots, nicely landscaped, parking in the rear, so that the cars are minimally visible from the streets, with shared driveways, and if you’ll cast your eye to the easel over there, we have an exhibit which typifies what we envision for the buildings. They’re not all going to look like that, but that gives you an idea of what we have in mind. If you have any questions, or the members have any questions, we’d be glad to address them. MR. RINGER-You’ve got a copy of Staff notes? MR. SCUDDER-Yes. MR. RINGER-Okay. The wetland issue. MR. SCUDDER-Yes. That is an issue. We understand that, and we have arrangements made to have a representative of the Environmental Conservation Department locate their wetland boundary this coming Thursday. We had scheduled it for yesterday. Obviously, it didn’t work out due to the weather, and it will be done on Thursday of this week, weather permitting. MR. RINGER-Okay. C.T. Male, you’ve got a copy of their? MR. SCUDDER-Got it yesterday, and obviously we haven’t had a chance to do much with it. MR. RINGER-Okay. MR. SCUDDER-But obviously we’ll have to address each of those items, and we’re prepared to do that. MR. RINGER-And we can’t move forward without you addressing all those items also. So tonight, you know, you’re not going to get approvals tonight by any means, because we’ve got to address so many items 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) that C.T. Male had, but you’ve got the letter, and you’re prepared to address them with C.T. Male, or you will be. MR. SCUDDER-Yes, sure. MR. RINGER-Okay. The other thing, did you have something, Dan? MR. VALENTE-Yes. I mean, I don’t know how we can address those items if we weren’t given ample time to address them, obviously. So, I mean, we obviously do want to proceed. We will address those items, obviously, before Final, when we have to, but obviously we have to be given an opportunity to be able to address those. MR. RINGER-And we will, and what you’re looking tonight is you’re probably going to be tabled, is all I wanted to tell you. What about the letter from Mike Shaw, in regards to the? MR. SCUDDER-What I have here is a memorandum dated November 12. Are we looking at the same th paper? MR. RINGER-Yes, correct. MR. SCUDDER-Well, that’s consistent with what I just said, isn’t it, Mr. Chairman? MR. RINGER-It is. I just wanted to make sure that you acknowledged it. MR. SCUDDER-We do. MR. RINGER-Mike is here tonight, I believe. We’ll ask Mike to talk about this. MR. SCUDDER-Okay. MR. RINGER-Connecting to the sewer, and what is involved in doing that, okay. MR. SCUDDER-Okay. MR. RINGER-And I think I’d rather do that now, before I go to the Board, the members of the Board, and, Mike, if you wouldn’t mind coming up. MIKE SHAW MR. SHAW-Okay. What exactly is the information the Board is looking for? MR. RINGER-Well, as I understand the way the letter is written, their land is not included in the proposed sewer district extension right now. MR. SHAW-That’s correct. MR. RINGER-And it couldn’t even be considered until the sewer district is, well, explain to me where it goes from there, rather than me try to guess. MR. SHAW-Okay. Well, as the Board is probably aware, there was a map plan and report given to the Town, I think, and the public hearing was September 9, I believe, and that’s what started the process of a district th extension, District Extension Number Seven, which does not include Valente’s parcel. The process with that is, once that public hearing was held, and the Board had action on that district, and starts creation of the district, it starts a 30 day referendum. The 30 day referendum period has come and gone, okay. It was November 9, I believe. After that process, there has to go to design, okay, and there has to be an agreement th drawn up between the private developer and the Town of Queensbury. That has not yet been done either. Final design is being worked on with the engineer the other day, some additional questions, but I think that’s forthcoming pretty soon for our look see. Once the final design goes through our approval, it will go to DEC for their approval. Meanwhile, waiting for the agreement between the Town of Queensbury between the Town of Queensbury and the developer to be signed. Once all that happens, construction starts, and once construction starts and is completed, there’s a session of certificates and tests and approvals they have to go through before our office, my office will give the Board an okay to have the final order to create the district. Once the final order to create the district is issued, at that time, then we can accept other district extensions upon that infrastructure. The Town general fund is subsidizing that project. There will be a buy- in at that time, based on the gallons left and the dollars the Town has put into the project. Anybody from that point on can come in and apply for use of that infrastructure and will have to pay according to that fee. MR. RINGER-They just come in and apply and if there’s available? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) MR. SHAW-What will happen is they’ll have to, they go through the same process, and once that district extension is done, they’ll have to have their map plan and report completed, in Draft form. We review it. Our attorney’s office reviews it, and at that point it’s filed with the Clerk. That starts the clock. Once it’s filed with the Clerk, there’s a two week notice given, and the Town Board will act on the resolution to set the public hearing. The public hearing is held, 30 day referendum clock starts, and the whole thing starts over again. We just, it’s hard to move ahead with a district extension to a district extension that’s not completed yet, and the protection on the Town then is we’ve had other district extensions before, and most of the time been very successful with them, but every once in a while for whatever reason, you’ll get in the middle of one, and it does not forth come. That’s why the district is not a complete district extension until the final order. MR. HUNSINGER-If you had the best case scenario, what would be the quickest timeframe for the applicant to have access to the sewer line? MR. SHAW-Well, that’s hard for me to say. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why I asked for the best case scenario. MR. SHAW-And I guess in this case, you know, if the Town was doing it, we’d have a certain calendar of events we would be working towards. In this case, it’s developer sponsored, okay, and I believe, you know, the Planning Board is probably aware of what Rich Schermerhorn is trying to accomplish and maybe whatever deadlines he has over there. I heard it was April something or other. I assume that spring-ish we’ll be on board with that, early or late spring. MR. VOLLARO-So, Mike, then what you’re saying is, I see Mr. Schermerhorn sitting in the back of the room, but are you saying that roughly in April the final order would be written, somewhere in that timeframe, early spring, maybe late spring, early summer? MR. SHAW-That’s just a guess on my end. Probably asking Rich that question would be better because he knows what dates he has to meet, certainly, but once the infrastructure is in the ground, and it meets all our criteria, then we’ll give the Board a resolution for their approval and the final order will be made. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So, in a sense, the Valente application will be paced, in a sense, by how Mr. Schermerhorn proceeds with this program. That’s really what we’re saying. MR. SHAW-It seems to be that way, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Okay. Thank you. MR. RINGER-Any other questions for Mike from any of the Board members? MR. STROUGH-What is CQQRSD? MR. SHAW-Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District. That’s the parent district in this extension. Quaker Road District Number Seven is what it says. Next time I’ll write it out for you. MR. STROUGH-Thank you. MR. RINGER-Any other questions for Mike? Okay. Mike, thank you very much for coming in tonight, and we appreciate that, and getting us up to date. MR. SHAW-Any time. MR. RINGER-Now, just a question before I turn it over. Obviously, you can’t move forward until you get the sewer extension in and then approval to hook on to the sewer. It seems premature that you would be coming before us. I guess, you don’t have to answer that. I’m just curious. MR. VALENTE-Well, I’m not asking for anything that, everybody brings up Rich, Rich Schermerhorn’s development. We’re not asking for anything other than what he has already asked for. MR. RINGER-I’m sorry. I don’t want you to be comparing (lost word). MR. VALENTE-Right, but I’m just saying, I’m not looking for, apparently, a building permit or anything of that nature. Obviously, we have to go through site plan for each parcel if the development is, the subdivision is approved, and we obviously have to go through all the map plan and report for the sewer district extension, but we’re just trying to get our ducks in a row. So we’re prepared to do something when we can, as soon as we can. MR. RINGER-Right, and it’s a good explanation. It just seemed to me that if you get approval, before you can even do anything, we’re looking a year away before you can. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) MR. VALENTE-In my opinion, nothing should have been given out, as far as building permits, without the sewer already in place, but obviously, you know, everybody’s pretty confident in what’s going on, and I know he continues to go on. So I’m sure that sewer will be put in place. MR. RINGER-You answered my question, and I appreciate it. MR. VALENTE-Thank you. MR. RINGER-It was more curiosity than anything else. So, I’ll start with the Board. Richard, I’ll start with you. MR. SANFORD-Actually, at this time I’m more interested in, this is scheduled for public hearing, right? MR. RINGER-We’re going to have a public hearing. MR. SANFORD-So I’ll wait until I hear what some of the public has to say. MR. RINGER-Okay. Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think I really had any specific questions. Obviously, there’s a series of comments from C.T. Male that would have to be addressed, as the Chairman mentioned. I don’t have any particular problems with the design or the layout as it’s shown. One of the things I really like about it is that, the way that you were able to line up the extension of Baybridge Drive so that it intersects on the other road across Bay. That would be something that we have been looking for anyway, but other than, you know, the engineering issues and such, I think it looks pretty good. MR. RINGER-Thank you. Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-I’d like to wait for public comments. MR. RINGER-Good. John? MR. STROUGH-Dan, I think the concept office park here is a great concept. I think it’ll work well. I like your example there. It’s very nice, and your willingness to go along with the design standards of the Bay Street corridor, and I think we’ll have a nice looking place, and I think everyone will benefit from that, and it will be a win/win situation. The only one thought, and I’m thinking out loud here for a minute, looking at the plans. You’ve got it kind of cookie cutter cut out, you know, and everything is just about the same size, and one lot is right next to the other, and that’s all fine. I mean, if that’s what you want. I wondered out loud if you could have gone a little bit more creative with that and varied the lots a little bit, because what I do see around Town, in especially professional offices, is each office seems to want to present itself differently from somebody else, and they want like a unique appearance, sometimes even a clustering, you’ll notice with a doctor’s office. So I’m not going to be a bit surprised if even after we give this approval, and I’m sure it will, you know, (lost words) approved and worked out, down the road that you come for modifications as, you know, potential buyers come to you and want something unique to them. I think you’d probably do that. I expect some modifications, but I’m just kind of thinking out loud here, that’s all. You can take it or leave it or whatever. MR. VALENTE-We’re not opposed to people buying more than one lot, either, you know, if the building is suitable for it, and they need it. MR. STROUGH-And they might be able to do more than one modification, given the size of each of your lots. MR. VALENTE-Right. MR. STROUGH-They’re really constrained. The houses are going to have to be kind of very orderly. MR. VALENTE-I also want to reiterate that that extension of Baybridge Drive was part of an original conceptual approval on the Baybridge townhouse subdivision that that was one of the mandates was that we had a second exit to Bay Road. So it was crucial that we continued Baybridge Drive out. It wasn’t a matter of, you know, does it make sense to just end that road and then do more of a cluster, like you were talking about in there, but logic, bringing that extension out will obviously relieve a lot of pressure off of Walker Lane, a substantial amount of pressure from all those people looping around down Walker Lane. So they’ll have a whole separate exit from that townhouse development, and that’s part of our philosophy with bringing that down, and that is kind of why we’ve been dictated somewhat the lot separation factors. MR. STROUGH-Well, I agree with you. I agree with you on all the issues you just brought up, and it does kind of constrain you. I just thought, you know, and I’m no expert on land development either. I just was 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) thinking out loud. Now, on the roadways, the roadways do have catch basins, but I didn’t see that addressed in the stormwater and drainage study, the amount of road surface, the catch basin capability, capacity. MR. SCUDDER-These things are brought up by C.T. Male, and we have some tweaking to do in that department. MR. STROUGH-Okay. No. That’s basically all I had, and, you know, I think we’ll get there eventually, but I think we’ll get there, and thank you. MR. RINGER-That’s it, John? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. RINGER-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m just going to read down through my notes, Mr. Chairman, that I took during the review of this project. So I won’t break out any drawings because I have them pretty well in mind, but I’ll start to ask my questions one at a time. The first question is, on the plat, are there any easements or previously deeded properties that are not identified in this application. MR. SCUDDER-No. MR. VOLLARO-Are you sure? MR. SCUDDER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Drawing C-113-C2, C-113-C6 and C113-C7 refer to the lands of Daniel and Pamela Valente, and that’s what’s drawn in on the plats. Now, the Statement of Intent which you supplied, Mr. Scudder, states that the lands are currently owned by Daniel J. and Elizabeth M. Valente. Now which of those two are correct? MR. SCUDDER-Why don’t you talk about that? MR. VOLLARO-Because on the plat themselves it talks about, you know, if I get into it. MR. VALENTE-We are in the process of transferring the land over to me. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but see the drawing as it’s written now says the lands, for housekeeping purposes, Daniel, I just want to make sure that we understand what that says. MR. VALENTE-It will be transferred over before Final, I assure you. MR. VOLLARO-I’d even have to ask the attorney if that, if the plats as submitted with different, other than the landowners themselves, when it says the lands of Daniel and Pamela Valente, is that acceptable, if they’re not currently the owner? MR. SCHACHNER-It doesn’t sound accurate if they’re not currently the owner. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SCUDDER-Well, I just would remind you, Mr. Vollaro, this is a preliminary plan. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. MR. SCUDDER-And by the time we come in here for final approval. MR. VOLLARO-That will be changed. MR. SCUDDER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine. No questions. My third question here is all 13 questions, this has been covered, but I’m just going to go through my notes real quick. All 13 questions from C.T. Male’s letter of November 5 must be answered, followed by a C.T. Male signoff. Now, reviewing C.T. Male’s Question th Number Three, which I think was adequately discussed by the Wastewater Superintendent, Mr. Shaw, and I said in my notes that I think this would be best answered by Mike Shaw, combining his letter of November 11, and Paragraph Two of Mr. Hilton’s letter of November 4. The two letters indicate that until District thth Seven receives its final order, the sewer layout proposed for this subdivision cannot be considered. Should this application be modified to satisfy the Bay Road corridor requirement, sewer line layout may be significantly different. That’s a little bit of what I’m concerned about, taking off a little bit of what Mr. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) Strough just said. If you get pretty creative in the way you lay this out, your sewer line won’t look anything like what the layout of the sewer looks like now, particularly if you want to keep it in the right of way of an existing road. This road may change a little, is what I’m saying, if you do try to get some creative layout. This road right here. MR. VALENTE-Are you talking about Baybridge Drive? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. VALENTE-Baybridge Drive is pretty much going to stay where we have it proposed. MR. VOLLARO-Well, if it is, I don’t see how you’re going to get to where Mr. Strough is talking about, a little more creative. I’m looking at, for example, next door to us, right to the north of us there, we have the doctor’s complex in there. Now that kind of, in a way, fits what I think our vision of the Bay Road, at least in conversation with these Board members, what the vision of the Bay Road may really look like. Having a little more of that what we call internalization. It’s a word that’s been used by the Planning Department to define a lot of the way layouts are done. I don’t see where this layout really provides the internalization, meaning that people can get from one lot to another pretty easily, either by sidewalk or by walking or interconnections. I don’t really see that in this design. MR. VALENTE-Well, that’s, like I said, we have pre-existing conditions that we have to maintain, that kind of dictated a little bit to us what the lots would look like. Are there alternatives? Probably. Do they make more sense? No. This is the most sensible way to do this subdivision. MR. VOLLARO-When you had your first conference with the Town, I think they talked in there about the alternatives. I think I have the first one that you attended was for Sketch Plan, I believe, with the Town, and with the Planning Department, really, and in there I think they talked a little bit about one of the things to look at was alternative designs. MR. RINGER-Bob, were you reading something from what we’ve got? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. We got that during Sketch Plan. MR. RINGER-Okay. I don’t have Sketch Plan with me. MR. VOLLARO-And during the Sketch Plan, I think that the Staff can, Mr. Hilton can talk to that comment. The first meeting that we had, the pre-application meeting, I think was conducted by Mr. Brown at that time, Craig Brown, and I think there he had asked for alternative designs, and that was when the Sketch Plan was introduced. MR. HILTON-Yes. I seem to remember meeting with the applicant, and we did indicate the ideas of the corridor, the design criteria of the corridor, and, you know, that was presented to the applicant. What you see before you is their plan, how they chose to present it. MR. VOLLARO-I have it here. It’s a meeting of 5/1/02, signed by Mr. Brown, and during the pre- application meeting notes, it called for alternate designs and lot development proposal. I just was wondering if, you know, trying to see whether there were alternate designs presented. MR. VALENTE-We met with Craig a number of times and we’ve discussed this a number of times, and, you know, what he said, he had even mentioned to us, and I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but, you know, obviously it may not be feasible for other designs or as sensible. So that’s why we are here with what we have. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. VALENTE-We absolutely have considered other plans. It’s just, it doesn’t make sense, dead ending Baybridge Drive and not extending it down, or having a loop in there where people don’t have a second access out to Bay, remove that road, as one of your members had stated, to align with the road across the way. That road that’s there existing had that curb cut many, many years ago, and the other development could have lined up with us, and they opted not to do that. So we’re moving to make a better. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. What I would like to see as a Board, however, I’d like to see the Board presented with at least, if you had some ideas for an alternative design, I ,for one Board member sitting here, would like to have seen some of the alternatives. Perhaps there isn’t a better design than what you’ve proposed, but I haven’t seen an alternative that I can take a look at. That’s just my position on that. All right. The fourth item on my list, again, I don’t want to dwell on this too long, but the Highway Superintendent asked that the 24 inch pipe under the proposed road be certified to handle the stream in runoff season and in heavy rain. Now that calculation, I looked at your calculations, Mr. Scudder, and I didn’t see that calculation addressed in 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) your stormwater and drainage study, and I guess you’re going to have to look at that as you would C.T. Male has asked you, in his thing, whether or not your retention areas were adequate. MR. RINGER-Bob, they haven’t gotten the letter from Rick. MR. VOLLARO-They haven’t gotten the letter from Rick at all? MR. RINGER-They haven’t gotten, they said they haven’t gotten the letter from Rick. MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to ask the Staff whether that letter was distributed to them. MR. VALENTE-I haven’t received anything to date. MR. SCUDDER-We don’t have it. MR. HILTON-Well, I don’t see anything at the bottom of the letter that say copy to the applicant. MR. RINGER-In any event, they would have to certainly address it, though. MR. VALENTE-We will address all these. MR. VOLLARO-All right. The Sketch Plan drawing dated May 22, 2002, and the current drawings, which are dated October 2002, both indicate approximately 85 foot of gravel road. I think we just went through that. The Statement of Intent says that the project will entail extending Baybridge Drive a distance of just less than 1,000 feet. Should this road stay in its present situation, the drawing should show a fully completed road. That’s just my notes, and I think you’ll agree that that’s what we would do. Now, should the subdivision stay in its present form, and you can see from my notes where my thinking was going when I reviewed the project. I would like to see the existing driveways on the north side of Walker Lane shown on the drawings opposite lots one through five. There are currently four curb cuts on Walker Lane to the north of your project, of your project for lots one through five, and I think on your plats, when you come in again, they should be shown, because I see a good deal of interface there. Do you know where I’m at? MR. SCUDDER-No. Is it your thinking that these driveways should be opposed to each other, is that what you’re saying? MR. VOLLARO-I’m not going to design them. I just want you to put on the plats that there are four driveways on the north side of Walker Lane that are directly opposed to your Lots One through Five. Dan, you understand what I’m talking about. MR. RINGER-You want to see the driveways on Walker Lane on the north side, on the plat maps. MR. VALENTE-The existing driveways. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Because I see that as a fairly busy street, since I drive it quite often, and I see the, by the way, that plat we’re looking at only has two curb cuts on it, Mr. Chairman. There are actually three. Because the last lot to the left has no way into it other than a curb cut, I believe. Is that correct? MR. SCUDDER-C.T. Male mentioned that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. RINGER-Mr. Scudder, you’re making some notes on what Bob is saying I hope. Okay. All right. He’s got the notes. So we want to make sure that you’re going to address them. MR. VOLLARO-If the applicant would like, I would let him have a copy of my notes. During the pre- application comments, we asked for an alternate design layout. I’ve been through that. When you do your, come in with your layouts, just refer to 179-7-40. Take a good look at that. Read that Section of the Ordinance, because that’s what’s going to define how that, really that subdivision ought to look. In my opinion, again, your application does not reflect good internalization with the site, and I explained to you what I thought internalization was and what this Board and what this Planning Department has been striving for for some time. I mean, we have meetings between us that are basically workshops that talk about this before, and I think that that’s what I would like to see, and it’s a word we use a lot, internalization, meaning that it’s easy to get around in that particular lot area. Now, on Drawing Q113-C2, what is meant by the future sanitary sewer? Where does it originate, and what are its anticipated flow rates? There’s a, shall I break that drawing out? 113-C2. MR. SCUDDER-What’s the question, Mr. Vollaro? MR. VOLLARO-The question is, what is meant by future sanitary sewer on that drawing? 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) MR. SCUDDER-There’s a parcel of land that’s owned by Valente’s, which is westerly of Baybridge. MR. VOLLARO-Correct. MR. SCUDDER-In order to develop that land, that land is going to have to be sewered. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SCUDDER-And there’ll be a trunk line coming down to this pumping station, and that is the indicated future sanitary sewer. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So when you get to your map plan and report and do your flow rate analysis, are you going to use, in other words, projected flow rates. Are you going to use that flow rate from that western division as part of your sewer capacity? MR. SCUDDER-Yes, certainly. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, what’s the 75 foot setback on Lot 15 refer to? I see 75 foot setback on Lot 15. I think you set your easements up. I understand your easement backs, but I don’t understand what that 75 foot setback on that lot is. MR. SCUDDER-That 75 foot setback is from the stream. MR. VOLLARO-The 75 foot setback there is. I guess what I’m referring to is the difference between the lot setback of 75 feet and the75 foot easement. There’s two things mentioned there, and I was confused as to which was which. Mr. Scudder, it’s not something you have to come up with right now, but I just wanted to talk about it as something on the plat that I just didn’t understand. MR. SCUDDER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Now the eight inch sanitary sewer line in the front of lot 15, this is from the pump station to the road line, appears to be outside the utilities easement. Am I right there? MR. SCUDDER-No, you’re not right. The utilities easement, as you’ll see, slants off to the northeast. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I didn’t notice that as an easement line. I couldn’t find it on the drawing. MR. SCUDDER-Well, that’s what it is. Maybe it’s not clear. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but in other words, you intend to bank that easement off all the way up to the pump. Is that correct? MR. SCUDDER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, assuming whatever sewer district becomes an add on to District Seven, however that runs, should a lift station be equipped with emergency power generator in the event of a prolonged power outage. I don’t see that here, and, you know, having lived in the Baybridge community for awhile through a couple of power outages, which happened just recently, I think that if this is going to be tied to municipal sewer, and I would like to ask Mr. Shaw that question, is an emergency generator to keep the pumps alive during a power outage a requirement or not? Mr. Shaw, if you’d like to answer that, you can come on up. MR. VALENTE-I guess I would have to also ask is the Town going to accept the sewer district extension as part of the municipal sewer district? I don’t know if they are going to actually entertain that or not. MR. SHAW-I think some of these questions are premature until we actually see what we end up having and what they end up actually proposing in their map plan and report, but initially when we see multi homes like that, and a pump station serving that, or a business, it’s possible that they’ll have to have a standby generator. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I was just wondering, in the design iteration, how we go, whether or not that’s a consideration on the part of the applicant or not. MR. SHAW-Certainly the map plan and report, when that forth comes, we’ll have discussions on that. MR. VOLLARO-I think the applicant just mentioned something that’s very germane. One of those things are, when they get finished with this sewer district extension X, whatever it happens to be, will that be taken over by the Town as a municipal sewer district? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) MR. SHAW-Are you talking about Sewer District Extension Number Seven, or are you talking about Valente’s proposal? MR. VOLLARO-No, the one that succeeds Seven. MR. SHAW-It depends on, there’s a couple of things. First of all, if it’s going to be privately owned by one developer, okay, the Town will not own the infrastructure that’s owned by one developer. It could be several lots, but it’s still owned by one developer. The Town (lost words) the infrastructure. If it’s infrastructure serves several owners, okay, either one of two things happen. DEC will not allow a private owner of a sewer mine or sewer main or infrastructure for facilities that serve more than one property owner. So you’d either have to have a holding company formed or it has to be turned over to the municipality. So those are the type of things that, when he gets to the map plan and report, those discussions will be held, and we’ll go from there. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Shaw. MR. RINGER-Thank you, Mike. MR. VOLLARO-Lastly, I am somewhat concerned over the increased traffic on the Bay Road. I brought this up a couple of times before, in different Bay Road projects, and now I see a significant amount of building on the Bay Road, and I would just encourage an integrated traffic study taking into account all the development along Bay Road, and I would suggest that this study be jointly funded. I’m not asking one developer to fund this study, but I think there ought to be a study jointly funded by most recent developers, including the potential traffic generated by this application. If you take a look at all the recent additions to the Bay Road from Walker Lane north is a tremendous amount of traffic. Now, I’ve been through this a couple of times with developers who have come through here. We talked this over with Mr. Schermerhorn during his development, even went so far as to get his engineer, Mr. Nace, to look at whether or not the County of Warren would issue a warrant, and there isn’t enough traffic to warrant a light apparently, but there’s going to be a point at which those two lines cross, and there definitely will be a traffic light there. So, I’m kind of looking, somehow or other, to make sure that one way or another we get to look at a traffic study on Bay Road, because I think it’s going to be needed. As soon as these sewers get in, the place will blossom for sure, and I think that’s all I really have. I think the Staff has finally managed to get something up on the board there. They had a little computer problem, but getting some idea of what the surrounding properties would look like, and, George, if you’d just point out the lot that we’re looking to develop and its surrounding area. That’s the lot that we’re trying to develop, that the developers are looking at here, Mr. Valente, and the surrounding layouts of other lots, and right up in there where the pointer is, and I’m just trying to make sure that we get what looks like a cohesive development, something that fits with what we’re trying to encourage the Bay Road to look like, and that’s really all I’m getting at here. MR. VALENTE-I assure you it’ll fit in very well with, you know, obviously each customer will have a certain recommendation that they will want to incorporate into their buildings, but I assure you they will meet all the standards and exceed them, by all means, as far as what they will look like. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think what you’re coming up with there, that’s really site plan review, and I know that Mr. Chairman is sensitive to site plan versus layout. MR. VALENTE-Right. I understand that. I’m just trying to give you folks an idea of what we’re envisioning there and what we would like to see there. You know what we do and how we do it. So we’ll stick with those standards for sure. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. RINGER-Is that it, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, that’s it. MR. RINGER-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think the vision you have is very commendable, and we’re all on the same page here. Dan, I just have one question, as far as looking at the lots here. The driveways that you have, I think you may have addressed it at the beginning of the evening here. The driveways that go in, are they like for example there’s one between Lot Six and Seven. There’s one between Lots One and Two. Are those like the main driveways that are going to service those lots? In other words, the buildings will not be facing the road, they would be facing towards those driveways? Is that the way you’re kind of picturing it? MR. VALENTE-No, not necessarily. The buildings may, down Walker Lane, like Lots Two, the front of the building would face Walker Lane. The front of the building on Lot One would face Bay Road, obviously. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) MR. VALENTE-But there are shared driveways. So we have less curb cuts going on to Walker Lane, which was a concern I know. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And then where would the parking be? It would be off those driveways, in other words? MR. VALENTE-Right, and we would either access them to the back side of the house, and I know those, again, are more site plan type of issues that we would have to address. MR. RINGER-Here’s a picture of it, Cath, or a drawing of it, showing how that fits. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. Was that on Preliminary, or Sketch Plan? MR. RINGER-No. It came as part of your package. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I guess I missed, I guess I didn’t get in that far. I guess maybe what Bob was talking about is having a driveway go, well, connect Baybridge with Walker Lane, and then people maybe could walk, let’s say, if someone had an appointment in a building on Lot Nine, to see a, I don’t know, an ophthalmologist or something, but then they had to go over to Lot Two, could they walk over, or would they have to get in their car and go back out onto Bay Road and come up Walker Lane again? I think maybe that’s what Bob was getting at. MR. VOLLARO-That’s part of the internalization scheme, yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think I just wanted to make sure I understood what he was saying, but the way I see those driveways coming in, maybe something, you know, like I guess John’s talked a lot about this, too, about accessibility, people being able to walk from, when they’re doing, of course this isn’t a housing development or anything like that, but where people should be able to, you know, be able to move on their feet, instead of having to always get in a vehicle to go from one end to the other. MR. VALENTE-Like a shopping center type of a scenario? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, in a way, yes, but I think that’s what Bob was getting at, and maybe that might be something that you could look into, as far as putting maybe some kind of sidewalks or accessibility from one lot to another, without reconfiguring it, because this is, I mean, you want to get your maximum number of lots in the space that you have, which, you know, looks good. MR. VALENTE-And we haven’t maxed out our density with that, either. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I understand that, right. Okay. I’d like to hear what the people have to say. MR. RINGER-Is that it, Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thank you. MR. RINGER-Okay. We’ve got a public hearing scheduled. So I’ll open the public hearing, and anyone here wish to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. So, in reality, the Valente project will be, the sewer system for the Valente project will be billed as Extension Number Eight of the Quaker Road Sewer District. MR. RINGER-I don’t know the terminology, and the intent is to become part of that District Seven or whatever it is. MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t think it’s going to become part of District Seven. It’s going to be a new district, John, just like you said. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. So it will be sewered, it will be Extension Number Eight of the Quaker Road Sewer District. Is that right? MR. RINGER-Does that sound good, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-I think, before I answer your question, Mr. Ringer, I guess I’m going to remind you that, as I understand it, this is a public hearing for public comment, and if we get involved in question/answer, 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) question/answer, question/answer, that’s not really what a public hearing’s all about. I don’t know the answer to your question, because I don’t have a crystal ball. It is likely that if Extension Number Seven is finalized by the Town Board, it is likely that the applicant would seek Extension Number Eight, but I don’t know if that will happen or not. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. MR. RINGER-And you’re right, Mark, and I thank you for reminding us of that. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. For clarification. MR. RINGER-We’ll get an answer for you. MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me. For clarification, assuming that Mr. Valente is the next one in line, after Sewer District Extension Number Seven is approved, adopted and installed, then that will be called Sewer District Number Eight, Sewer District Extension Number Eight. MR. RINGER-We’ll try to get an answer for you, John. I think that’s right. We’ll try to get an answer for you. MR. SALVADOR-All right. In any case, Sewer District Extension Number Seven and Sewer District Extension Number Eight are neither contiguous with the Quaker Road Sewer District. They are tacked on to another district extension, and what we have here a series of extensions on an existing project, each doing their own individual SEQRA review, and nowhere are we quantifying the cumulative impacts of these additions as we should and could if we treated them as a supplemental environmental impact statement. That’s, I think, the route we should be going. In fact, the Valente project should probably be called Sewer District Extension Number One of the Sewer District Extension Number Seven of the Quaker Road Sewer District. I mean, how do we know, how do we know that Sewer District Extension Number Seven is adequate to accept whatever Sewer District Extension Valente is going to require? Now, was the Town Board the SEQRA Lead Agent for Sewer District Extension Number Seven? MR. VOLLARO-I think so, MR. SALVADOR-All right, and which agency is going to be the Lead Agency for the Valente Sewer District Extension? MR. VOLLARO-I would assume it would be the Town Board. MR. RINGER-We’ll try to get these answers for you, John. MR. SALVADOR-Now, in doing a SEQRA review, the Lead Agency is bound to quantify the impacts of events that are likely to occur in the future, and as they reviewed Sewer District Extension Number Seven, there was a strong likelihood that what we’re listening to tonight was going to occur, and the impacts of that should have been quantified in that SEQRA review. The question came up about the ownership of the land and all. As I’ve seen this done before, these drawings are always entitled proposals. Proposed subdivision. Proposed this. Proposed that, and then in the end, when it’s finally done, the title block can be changed, but it’s only a proposal at this point. MR. RINGER-Thanks, John. MR. SALVADOR-Is that clear, Mr. Schachner? Did I make it? MR. SCHACHNER-Not to me. MR. RINGER-Any other comments? Yes, ma’am. MELONY LONGHITANO MRS. LONGHITANO-Melony Longhitano, and I don’t really know too much, and I unfortunately arrived a little late. I have the first home on Walker Lane. It was bought about two years ago and it’s a duplex, and we bought it for the income, liked the area and things like that. They’re reputable builders. Everything looks quite nice, but I was a little bit concerned, obviously, as others in the neighborhood, on the traffic on Walker Lane, and my first question, how many offices were going to be in each one of these buildings? Was it going to be just one type of office, one type of running business, or was there going to be multiple? MR. RINGER-We won’t give you an answer. We’ll try to get those answers from the applicant. MRS. LONGHITANO-Okay. So you’re not quite sure yet, and also on the planning, how many roadways would be coming out of Walker into the area there? I wasn’t sure if that was set yet or not. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) MR. RINGER-You mean roadways or driveways? MRS. LONGHITANO-Driveways. MR. RINGER-Okay, and we’ll try to get that answered for you. MRS. LONGHITANO-Okay, and then as far as, this may sound somewhat silly, but landscaping and keeping it, you know, more residential looking. Obviously this building looks beautiful, but the area, you know, not to get too commercialized. MR. RINGER-Some of those landscaping things, they’ve given us some landscaping ideas, but most of that will come Sketch, or with site plan when they actually get ready to build the buildings, and you’ll get notices on all those. MRS. LONGHITANO-We’ll get notices, and would we be able, how would we view that type of thing? Like you have that there. How would the public then be able to see? MR. RINGER-Well, the public can always come to the Town office and get that information, and you’ll see it here the night of the meeting for site plan, and there is some landscaping designs that they have drawn that you can get from the Town office to review them. MRS. LONGHITANO-Okay. Thanks very much. MR. RINGER-And we’ll try to get your other questions answered for you. MRS. LONGHITANO-Great. MR. RINGER-Thank you. Any other comments? Okay. I’m going to leave the public hearing open. Go ahead, George, you’ve got some letters? MR. HILTON-I’ve got some written comments, yes. First of all, I have a letter dated November 18, 2002, from Robert C. Morris. It reads, “Dear Mrs. LaBombard: I am writing in response to the Notice of Public Hearing for the above project to be held Tuesday, November 19, 2002. Please be advised that my wife Susan and I, being the owners of property at 8 Walker Lane, object to the planned entrance ways to the proposed subdivision from Walker Lane. Currently Walker Lane is a quiet, residential street and the increased traffic from the proposed professional office complex would destroy the residential character of the neighborhood. In our opinion, all access to the proposed office complex should be from Bay Road, which would seem to be far more appropriate and customary for a subdivision of this type. Please have this letter entered into the official record of the public hearing. Very truly yours, Robert C. Morris” Secondly, I have a letter dated November 14, 2002, from Rich Schermerhorn, and it reads, “Members of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board: Please include my comments as part of the public record pertaining to the Planning Board review of the Fairfield Professional Park. Having reviewed the 14.5 acre subdivision plan submitted by Valente; it is my view that the lot placement (checker board style) is inconsistent with the vision established by the Planning Board for the future development along the Bay Road corridor. In recent years developers, including Schermerhorn Construction, have worked hard to present designs that reflect the vision set out by the Planning Board. I would suggest by contrast to this proposal, one look at Bay Brook Professional Park and the even older Baywood Professional Offices, which also offers a pleasing residential appearance. Also of concern are the additional curb cuts on Walker Lane, with problems being such items as the site line and additional traffic on a road, which is essentially residential. Curb cuts would also necessitate the removal of a substantial part of the natural hedge row which exists on the south side of Walker Lane, a portion of which is most likely in the Town right of way. At the least, a traffic study is merited for a project of this size, similar to ones recently done for the Bay Road corridor. We believe that the wetlands shown on the southern portion of the subdivision are part of NYSDEC jurisdictional wetland #GF-23. As such, they require a 100 foot buffer, not 75 foot as shown. Using present requirements we also believe the report grossly underestimates the paved areas required for developing a typical lot (11 vs. 15 parking spaces). The handling of the stormwater from all developed sites with two “shallow grassy depressions” appears inadequate for the quantity of stormwater accumulated during a storm. Additionally it would seem timely if not as a requirement by agencies such as DEC and ACOE that a cumulative storm water impact study be conducted for old Maids brook and its tributaries. Soil studies and wetland mapping are over 15 years old for this area. Threshold regulations have also been significantly revised. It would be premature for the Town of Queensbury to entertain the addition of a large new sewer user until District Extension No. 7 is completed. Although we have a high degree of confidence in the design, conditions encountered during construction may necessitate minor changes that could have significant impact on an approved site plan. Review at this time is essentially approving a concept based on a concept. Sincerely, Rich Schermerhorn” Lastly, there’s a comment here from Mr. and Mrs. Longhitano, who I believe Mrs. Longhitano just spoke. However, there are a couple of other comments I don’t think were pointed out. So I’ll just read it anyway. “Our questions and/or comments are as following: 1-Being that our home is the first home on Walker cornered to Worlco Insurance could our home if we wanted be rezoned for mixed use? In the event our property value goes 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) down for residential use we could keep the value in the property for commercial. 2-What are Valente Constructions plans in keeping the residential area private in regards to landscaping etc.? 3-There is already a traffic problem on Walker Lane with vehicles traveling at excessive speeds, what is the plan for curb cuts to route the traffic in and out of the subdivision?” And that’s it. MR. RINGER-That’s all, George? Okay. Can we bring the applicants back. You heard the comments. Some of them you won’t be able to answer, but some of them you may be able to answer. We’ll start with the one. How many offices in each building? You probably don’t know the answer to that. MR. VALENTE-Right. Depending on the owners that would come along, depending on their needs, obviously, will depend on what they ask for. MR. RINGER-And you could have one office using two lots or one office using three lots, depending on the size of the office. MR. VALENTE-Absolutely. MR. RINGER-Okay. How many driveways on Walker? You can answer that. MR. VALENTE-I think there’s four curb cuts. MR. VOLLARO-There are four opposite yours, and three of yours. Three, and then across the street there’s four. MR. RINGER-Yes, well, the question was how many, and that would be three would be the answer for that. Mr. Salvador’s questions, who was the Lead Agency on the, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-In all likelihood the Town Board, but again, we don’t have a crystal ball to know for sure. MR. RINGER-I think I was, too, and then who will be the Lead Agency on Valente? Probably the Town Board also, I would guess. MR. SCHACHNER-In all likelihood, but we can’t be sure. MR. RINGER-Mr. Morris, traffic on Walker Lane. Rich, the wetlands, you’ll have to look into that anyway. MR. SCUDDER-Right. MR. RINGER-That was a part of the comments from Staff comments. MR. SCUDDER-Right. That’s been programmed. MR. RINGER-Okay. We don’t have anything else. You’re going to be tabled because you’ve got to get Staff’s comments. You’ve got C.T. Male’s comments to answer. The Highway Department had some questions that you have to answer. MR. SCUDDER-One question. MR. RINGER-Right. MR. STROUGH-Just as a suggestion, have you thought of a circle in the middle, and then the lots? I mean, that would take the curb cuts off of Walker Lane, and might give you a little bit creative arrangement in this area, and maybe just one sewer line. I mean, just as an idea. Okay. MR. SCUDDER-Yes, the answer’s yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. RINGER-You’ve gotten some thought from the Board members, one or two, that would like to see perhaps an alternate design, if you think one is applicable, or try one. If not, nothing says you’ve got to do it, but you’ve heard some of our comments, and maybe give you something to think about or look at. If not, not, but go ahead. MR. SCUDDER-We will think about it and review our thinking. I would also make one comment. With Baybridge Drive extended to Bay Road, it stands to reason that the traffic on Walker Lane is going to be much reduced. MR. RINGER-And I agree with you. Personally, I agree with you on that. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) MR. VOLLARO-Now, that’s true, although I noticed that on that extension there are six curb cuts. MR. RINGER-On Baybridge. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. VALENTE-Yes, but the majority of Baybridge town homes, and you know this, are on Baybridge Drive, Dorlon Drive, and Gentry Lane. So the main, anybody that hits Baybridge Drive from there is going to go straight down to Bay Road. That’s what makes the most sense. So all that traffic will be pulled off of Walker to reduce that side. I think it will be much less than what’s being used now. I mean, we have a lot of people using that dirt road now, which we don’t recommend them doing, but they are. MR. VOLLARO-The people who do front ends in the Town love that road. MR. VALENTE-I know, it’s getting rough. MR. RINGER-If there’s no more questions from the Board, we’ll look to have this tabled. MR. VOLLARO-I just have one question, Mr. Chairman. It is a memo I’d like to read from Craig Brown, of August 7, and I think it’s worthwhile reading here. It’s a short one from Craig. It has to do with tabling. th May I? MR. RINGER-Go. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. RINGER-Is it regarding tabling this Bob, or just tabling in general? MR. VOLLARO-It says, Tabling requests for pending applications, this is the subject of a letter written by Craig Brown, by the Zoning Administrator at that time, and now, as a matter of fact, dated August 7. th MR. RINGER-Okay. Read it, please. MR. VOLLARO-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. If the applicant does not return, in time, with the necessary information, the application shall be deemed incomplete and abandoned. (This may be a helpful addition to any tabling motions.)” MR. RINGER-Well, I don’t think we have some major changes that they have to do here, Bob. How long do you think it’s going to take you to answer C.T. Male and the other comments that you heard from the Board tonight. MR. SCUDDER-A month. MR. VOLLARO-That’s well within the 62 days. I think he’s just talking about tabling in excess of 62 days. MR. SCUDDER-I hope we can resolve these things in less than a month. MR. RINGER-So I’m looking for someone to work on a tabling motion. It shouldn’t be too difficult, but I’m going to take five minutes here, and I’ll ask John and Bob to come up with a tabling resolution. We need five minutes. So we’ve got five minutes. Okay. Are you guys ready? MR. VOLLARO-We will be in a minute. MR. RINGER-Okay. On talking with Counsel, we don’t have to table this motion. We’re just going to, or this application. We’re just going to continue it and we’re going to continue it and give you ideas as to what we want to see when it comes before us again, which will probably be next month, and Bob will read that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So we don’t have to make a motion to table it. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) MR. RINGER-We don’t have to. The way Counsel has explained it to me, as long as we’ve left the public hearing open, we don’t have to table this, just move it to the next meeting, or to another meeting, and tell you the things that we’d like to see at the next meeting, and Bob will read those off. MR. VALENTE-Then that will give us time to address all your concerns. MR. RINGER-Right. MR. VALENTE-Very good. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Before I read it into the record, I’ll let you pick a date when you’d like to come before the Board again, knowing that you’ve got these thirty days or so to look this over. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The two meetings in December are a Tuesday and a Thursday, the week before Christmas. MR. STROUGH-The Thursday wasn’t finalized, though, that had a question mark on it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It did? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. RINGER-Well, we don’t have to put a date anyway, according to Mark. MR. SCHACHNER-Wait. You don’t have to formally table is what I said, but having some guidance as to when the continuation will occur is important for continuation of the public hearing. The public is entitled to know when the public hearing is scheduled to resume. MR. RINGER-Okay. Our meetings for December are the 17 of December and tentatively the 19 of thth December. Do you think you could have either of those, your information? MR. SCUDDER-Could we shoot for the 17? th MR. RINGER-We’ll shoot for the 17. th MR. HILTON-Yes. I was just going to suggest that, because based on what we’ve received so far, we may be able to have everything on that evening, and not have the 19. Again, that’s not finalized, but given the load, th the agenda load that we’re looking at right now, we may only have that one 17 meeting. So it would be th better to shoot for that. MR. RINGER-That would be nice, if we can do it, but I don’t want a midnight meeting either, George. MRS. LA BOMBARD-God, no, George, not that week. I’ll be sick. MR. RINGER-Go ahead, Bob, if you’ve got that down. We might be midnight tonight. I hope not, but. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m going to make a motion to extend. MR. RINGER-Not necessarily a motion. You’re just going to move this. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. There is no motion. There’s a movement of this application to the 17 of th December, and at that time the applicant should address some of the following. One, the C.T. Male comments of November 15, 2002, address the wetland delineation with the agency of jurisdiction at their discretion, and we’d like to see an alternative design. That’s going to be up to you. The seven members of this Board will look at that, make a determination, and if there is an alternative design, with the accommodation of a sewer layout, tentative sewer layout that would go with that recommended alternative design. Taking into account also the comments of the Highway Superintendent’s letter of 11/19/02, and of the Wastewater Superintendent’s letter of 11/12/02, and those are the only things that the applicant should be prepared to address on the 17 of December. th MR. SCUDDER-Mr. Chairman, are we going to need new letters from the Highway Superintendent and the Wastewater Superintendent? MR. RINGER-No. All you’ve got to do is address the questions that they’ve brought forward. The Wastewater Superintendent, I don’t know if he actually had a question for you, but you can review that. MR. SCUDDER-I didn’t think he had a question. I think it was just a comment. MR. RINGER-I didn’t, either. That’s what I thought, too. George, did you have anything else? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) MR. HILTON-No, I think it’s pretty obvious. There’s a list of things to address. MR. RINGER-Okay. So, that’s it. You know what you’ve got to do. If you need anything, get a hold of Staff and they’ll be able to help you through. MR. SCUDDER-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. RINGER-Thank you. Have a nice evening. MR. VALENTE-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 47-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED AMERI-LOG PROPERTY OWNER: DAN & CAROL MARGOLIS ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 134 LAKE PARKWAY, ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES TO BUILD AN OPEN WALLED BOATHOUSE WITH STAIRS AND A 34’ X 37’ SUNDECK ON EXISTING U-SHAPED DOCK. BOATHOUSE IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 02- 339, 98-312, 97-599, 96-706 LGPC, APA, CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/9/02 TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-10/9-1-10 LOT SIZE: 0.46 ACRES SECTION: ART. 4, 179-4-020 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DAN MARGOLIS, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing back on October 15 was tabled. th MR. RINGER-George, do you have anything? MR. HILTON-Nothing new. The application was tabled last time, I guess for the Board to consider visual impacts to the property owner to the north, and the fact that there was no representative for the applicant here. I have no additional comments. MR. RINGER-Okay. The floor is yours. Please identify yourself. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I am here this evening representing the applicant and filed with you his consent or authority for me to represent him. My understanding of the application is simply for a boat cover. It meets all the dimensional requirements of the Ordinance. It’s not out of the ordinary. I’ve looked at the Staff comments. They had no comments as to any negative impacts. We’ll answer whatever questions you have. MR. RINGER-Okay. I’ll start down at your end, John. MR. STROUGH-Okay. The only concern I have about that is the property owner to the north. Have you heard anything from him? Who is that, by the way? Do you know the name? MR. O'CONNOR-I think it’s Adamson. MR. STROUGH-Adamson? Have you heard anything from Mr. Adamson on your proposal, and obviously he knows about it. Right? MR. MARGOLIS-I have not heard anything from them. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Because he seems to be the only person that might be impacted by this. MR. MARGOLIS-That’s the only person. MR. STROUGH-And if he hasn’t addressed any concerns, well, as of yet, then I don’t have any concerns, other than that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. RINGER-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t have any concerns at all. This was, at one time, scheduled for expedited review, but it wasn’t within the window, and so we got to look at it again, but having reviewed it, I think it’s fine. You know what my big thing is, the high water mark and how that was generated, and the applicant did it exactly the right way. So, I have nothing. MR. RINGER-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m going to abstain on this, because I did not, I wasn’t involved the past couple of months. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) MR. RINGER-I’m going to have to abstain, too. I wasn’t here last month either. Richard? MR. SANFORD-I would have approved it last month. So I don’t know why we didn’t. MR. RINGER-Okay. Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I agree with Richard. MR. RINGER-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-No problems. MR. RINGER-Okay. Mike, did you give Staff a copy of this? MR. O'CONNOR-No. MR. RINGER-Okay. I’ll give this to Staff, then. We’ve got a public hearing that Craig had opened, and I don’t see where he closed it. We have a public hearing. So I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone from the public? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. RINGER-The next thing is SEQRA. Did Craig do a SEQRA on this? MR. VOLLARO-No, we did not. We do a Short form on this. MR. RINGER-Yes, Short Form SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 47-2002, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: AMERI-LOG, 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 November, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 47-2002 AMERI-LOG, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger 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. 47-2002 Applicant: Ameri-Log Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Dan & Carol Margolis Agent: Zone: WR-1A Location: 134 Lake Parkway, Assembly Point Applicant proposes to build an open walled boathouse with stairs and a 34’ x 37’ sundeck on existing U- shaped dock. Boathouse in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Cross Reference: BP 02-399, 98-312, 97-599, 96-706 LGPC, APA, CEA Warren Co. Planning: 10/9/02 Tax Map No. 226.15-1-10 / 9.-1-10 Lot size: 0.46 acres Section: Art. 4, 179-4-020 Public Hearing: October 15, 2002 November 19, 2002 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 11/15/02, and 11/19 Staff Notes 11/1 Meeting Notice 10/15 Planning Board resolution – Tabled to 11/19/02 10/15 Staff Notes 10/9 Warren Co. Planning 10/8 Notice of Public Hearing 10/2 Meeting Notice LGPC 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 15 and November 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 Duly adopted this 19 day of November, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford NOES: NONE 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) ABSTAINED: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 52-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED ADIRONDACK SUPER STORAGE PROPERTY OWNER: AIRRON INDUSTRIAL CORP. AGENT: MULLER & MULLER ZONE: LI LOCATION: COUNTY LINE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 9600 SQ. FT. BUILDING ENCLOSED FOR INDOOR VEHICLE, BOAT, TRAILER, AUTO STORAGE. SELF STORAGE FACILITY IN A LI ZONES REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 1336, SP 56-90, UV 7-1990 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/13/02 TAX MAP NO. 297.20-1-2 MICHAEL MULLER & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 52-2002, Adirondack Super Storage, Meeting Date: November 19, 2002 “Project Description: The applicant proposes to construct a 9600 sq. ft. building to be used for indoor vehicle, boat and trailer storage. Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-9-080 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? Self-Storage facilities in a LI zone require site plan review and approval from the Planning Board. The proposal meets the setback and permeability requirements of the LI zone. 2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting public services and facilities? No additional burden on public services and facilities are anticipated with this proposal. 3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the town? Impacts of this type are not anticipated with the proposed site plan. 4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project? Impacts of this type are not anticipated with this application. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. The new addition would be constructed next to an existing pole barn near the center of the property. The addition seems to be compatible with the existing site and would meet all required setbacks. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. On-site circulation adequacy will be effected by the frequency of use of the proposed building as well as what type of use occurs in the existing on site pole barn. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) The adequacy of on site parking must take into account the current use of the pole barn at this location. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. Pedestrian access is not proposed and does not appear to be an issue with this application. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. Information on existing stormwater facilities has not been submitted. The applicant has submitted a stormwater management plan for the proposed addition, which will be reviewed by CT Male. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. The application states that no water and sewer service will be necessary for this addition, and that the addition is for storage only. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants. No new landscaping or screening has been proposed with this site plan. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. Emergency access and provisions appear to be adequate at this location. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Impacts of this type are not anticipated at this location. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): UV 7-1990; resolved 1/17/1990; to allow 2-family house on property Staff comments: The applicant has submitted a request for the following waivers: Grading Plan Lighting Plan Landscaping Plan A stormwater management plan has been submitted and is being reviewed by CT Male. The proposed storage building will meet the height and setback requirements for the LI zone. Site permeability will be within zoning requirements. Since this use is somewhat unique a parking requirement is not listed in the Zoning Ordinance. The required number of parking spaces should be based on the new use of the property and should take into consideration other existing uses at this location. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted, a short form has been submitted.” MR. RINGER-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-The applicant has submitted a request for the following waivers, grading plan, lighting plan, and landscaping plan. Stormwater management plan has been submitted, and there have been some comments made by C.T. Male. The height and setback requirements will be met, as part of this proposal. I think the only, well, main issue appears to be the parking requirements. There’s no set parking requirement 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) in our parking schedule for a use of this type, and we should base any parking, with this addition, it should take into consideration the existing uses on the property. MR. RINGER-Okay. Introduce yourself for the record, please. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett-Martin Engineers. With me tonight are George Sicard, owner, and Mike Muller, agent for the proposal. MR. RINGER-Okay, Tom, do you want to tell us a little bit about? MR. JARRETT-George proposes to construct a 9600 square foot shed style building adjacent to an existing barn, property located on the east side of County Line Road also known as Queensbury Avenue. The parcel is 11.4 acres in the Light Industrial zone. Building would be a shed style roof, 36 feet high, constructed on a concrete slab. We’ve proposed an eaves trench style stormwater management system to meet the Town of Queensbury stormwater standards. I guess that summarizes it. MR. RINGER-Okay. You saw Male’s comments? MR. JARRETT-I did. Essentially they’ve made two comments. One is to suggest we place stone at the bottom of the eaves trenches that we’ve designed. I don’t have a problem with that condition. Number Two, they suggest gutters and downspouts, and I would like that, the Board not to condition our proposal with that recommendation from C.T. Male. I feel that they’re a maintenance headache. I don’t think they add anything to this particular project, and our eaves trenches are designed to function without gutters and downspouts. MR. RINGER-We’ll get back to that one, but we’ll start with Cathy. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Come back to me, please. MR. RINGER-Okay. Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Taking a look at C.T. Male’s modification letter, or their letter to the Jarrett-Martin design, first of all, I guess that in the Muller and Muller letter dated October 15, 2002, there’s a slight paragraph on Page Two that says additional site development miscellaneous, no changes or additions to existing site improvements that pertain to drains, culverts, retaining walls, fences, fires, etc., are planned. I think the fact that we’re putting in these drains and infiltrators probably negates that paragraph. Would you agree with that? MR. MULLER-I think it’s a correct statement. There are no changes intended to the existing. What exists there now, there are no changes proposed. MR. VOLLARO-I see, to existing site improvements. MR. MULLER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the improvements are basically to the new addition. MR. MULLER-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-All right. So, concerning the C.T. Male letter, you really only want to have us consider the addition of the stone underneath, as opposed to downspouts and drains, is that what you’ve got in mind? MR. JARRETT-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-It’s because of the maintenance factor on those? MR. JARRETT-Yes, and we designed our system to function without gutters and downspouts for that reason, and I feel that it’s counterproductive to add a maintenance headache. MR. MULLER-Mr. Vollaro, I talked to one of the designers of these types of buildings, and he said that he’d be glad to put gutters and downspouts on it . He’d be glad to come back every year and put new downspouts and gutters on it. They’re just going to come down. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Sure. Other than that, I don’t have really any, we were over there looking at the building. I know what it’s going to be used for. It’s pretty much the same as the existing usage, just a little add on capacity, and so I would probably be in favor of this application, and recommend the approvals for grading, lighting plan and landscape plan as well. MR. RINGER-John? 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) MR. STROUGH-Okay. Stone walls, do you know anything about their history? MR. MULLER-None, I don’t know. MR. STROUGH-You didn’t create them. MR. MULLER-No. MR. STROUGH-So they’re pre-existing. MR. MULLER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-So they may have some potential historic value. MR. MULLER-And if they do or if they don’t, there’s no intention to move them, even go near them. They’re way off the back of the property. Actually, that most easterly one is the County line. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and the reason why I’m concerned is, well, right now we’re developing an open space plan and part of it is that we do want to preserve as many of the stone walls as we possibly can because they do delineate the original property lines, and if you don’t have any plans for them, that’s fine. MR. MULLER-Yes. There’s no plans to disturb them at all. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now the, on the north side, I see we’ve got a little, well, a few junk cars. Is that going to be added to as time goes on? MR. MULLER-It could be, but there’s none on this property. MR. STROUGH-They’re on the adjacent neighbor’s property? MR. MULLER-Right. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, that’s interesting. On the other side of the stone wall. MR. MULLER-Those are referred to as collector items, not junk cars. MR. STROUGH-I’m sorry. MR. MULLER-But they’re not on this property. MR. STROUGH-Okay. No, other than that, I think it’s a fine proposal, and I’m seemingly in favor of it. Thank you. MR. RINGER-Richard? MR. SANFORD-I have no questions. MR. RINGER-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-One of my first comments in reviewing it was the number of waiver requests that were being asked for, and I guess there was one in particular that kind of bothered me, and that was under additional site development miscellaneous, and it’s checked, the Board may request other elements as considered necessary, and they checked waiver request. I mean, obviously we can’t grant you a waiver request for something that we don’t know if we’re going to ask you or not. So that was kind of interesting to check that one, but, no, I would agree with my colleagues. I really don’t have a problem with the project. I certainly don’t have a problem with the major waiver requests that are being asked for. At first I thought maybe some landscaping would be appropriate, but since there’s really no change in existing landscaping, I think it’s okay. MR. RINGER-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-Everything appears to be fine to me. I have no problems with it. MR. RINGER-Lighting. Is there any lighting that you plan for this, or, so no additional lighting? Okay. We’ve got a public hearing scheduled. So I’ll open the public hearing. Does anyone from the public wish to speak? 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. RINGER-We’ve got a SEQRA to do on this. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Are you ready? MR. RINGER-Ready. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 52-2002, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ADIRONDACK SUPER STORAGE, 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 November, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE MR. RINGER-I have a question myself here, just for the Board, on C.T. Male’s comments on the gutters. How do we feel as a Board, I mean, Tom has made his thoughts to us. I mean, generally when our engineer makes a comment we don’t override it without getting some information from him, but I just want to make sure that the Board is in agreement with Tom’s comments, that the gutters aren’t necessary. MR. STROUGH-I looked at it as a. MR. HUNSINGER-I agree with you, we usually don’t go against our engineer, but the way he worded this, to help derive the most benefit, so he’s not saying that it won’t work without the gutters. MR. RINGER-I’m not an engineer, and we get the comments from our Town Engineer, and I think we should discuss them when they’re there, and, Tom, I do appreciate your comments, too, but I want to make sure that our Board is in agreement on it. MR. STROUGH-Yes. I agree that it looks more like a suggestion to me, and it’s not absolutely needed, and the applicant is agreeing to do the first item listed. So I think that’s going to be effective stormwater management plan. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) MR. RINGER-And I don’t necessarily disagree either. I just wanted to make sure that we gave some discussion to it, and, Bob, if you’re prepared to make a motion, I’m certainly ready for it. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I am. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 52-2002 ADIRONDACK SUPER STORAGE, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan Review No. 52-2002 Applicant: Adirondack Super Storage Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Air Ron Industrial Corp. Agent: Muller & Muller Zone: LI Location: County Line Road Applicant proposes construction of a 9600 sq. ft. building enclosed for indoor vehicle, boat, trailer, auto storage. Self Storage Facility in a LI zones requires Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. Cross Reference: UV 1336, SP 56-90, UV 7-1990 Warren Co. Planning: 11/13/02 Tax Map No. 297.20-1-2 Lot size: 11.1 acres / Section: Art. 4 Public Hearing: November 19, 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 11/15/02, and 11/19 Staff Notes 11/15 CT Male engineering comments received 11/13 Warren Co. Planning 11/12 Notice of Public Hearing 11/1 Meeting Notice 11/1 Application materials sent to CT Male 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 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 approving the waivers for the Grading Plan, the Lighting Plan, and the Landscape Plan with the following conditions: 1. Approval of the requested waivers as stated before (Grading Plan, the Lighting Plan, and the Landscape Plan), and 2. Implementation of C.T. Male’s letter of November 13 concerning a six inch layer of stone th beneath the infiltrators, as a modification to the Jarrett-Martin proposal in their letter of October 24, 2002, and 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) 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: Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 11/19/02 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: 1. Duly adopted this 19th day of November, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE MR. RINGER-You’re all set. MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much. MR. MULLER-Thank you. OLD BUSINESS: 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 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 16-2002, Preliminary Stage/Final Stage, Michael Cantiello, Meeting Date: November 19, 2002 “Project Description: Applicant proposes to subdivide an 8.47 acre lot into seven lots ranging in size from 1 acre to 1.51 acres. Study of plat: Lot arrangement: The lots are shown fronting on either Ridge or Cronin Rd. Lots in this subdivision which cannot meet the width requirements for arterials and collector streets will share driveways as required by the Zoning Code. Topography: The interior of the property is generally level. Areas of steep slopes do not exist on this property. However, the northwest area of the property begins to slope down to the north and west toward Cronin Road. Water supply Sewage Disposal: This property is served by municipal water service. The subdivision plat proposes on site septic systems to be built with each individual lot. Drainage: The applicant has submitted a waiver request from the requirement of providing a drainage plan. Lot sizes: Lot sizes between 1 and 1.51 acres as shown on this subdivision plat are within the requirements of the SFR-1A zone. Future development: With the exception of Lot 3, which has an existing home on site, every lot shows an approximate location of a home to be built within this subdivision. State Environmental Quality Review Act: Type is Unlisted, the applicant has submitted a short form. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): A search of Town records found no prior Planning Board / Zoning Board applications. Staff comments: The applicant has submitted a letter seeking waivers from providing a grading and drainage plan. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) The proposed subdivision indicates shared driveways for lots that do not have double the lot width as called for in Section 179-19-020 C of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed subdivision plat indicates a tree line on the west side of the property running through proposed lots 6, 7, 2, and 1. Some clearing of existing vegetation will need to take place on these and other proposed lots in order to construct the homes and driveways shown on the plat. The impact that the clearing and grading and construction will have on stormwater management, drainage and runoff on and off site cannot be addressed with the information submitted. In order to provide some screening from existing homes in the area, maximum retention of vegetation should be encouraged as called for in Section 183-25A(c) of the subdivision regulations.” MR. RINGER-The only thing, that’s seven lots, not six lots. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. RINGER-There was an error on the thing, but it’s seven lots. Okay. Staff comments, George. MR. HILTON-First of all, the applicant has submitted a letter seeking a waivers from providing grading and drainage plan. The proposed subdivision indicates shared driveways for lots that do not have double the lot width, as called for in the Zoning Ordinance. One of the main issues seems to be a clearing of existing vegetation, grading and increased impervious surfaces. The impact that this would have on stormwater management and how it would affect the surrounding properties is unclear. It cannot be determined at this time with the information provided. Also, in terms of vegetation, the maximum retention of vegetation should be encouraged for adequate screening from surrounding properties. That’s all I have. MR. RINGER-That’s it? Okay. The floor is yours. MR. STEVES-Good evening. I’m Matt Steves with VanDusen and Steves, and I represent Mr. Cantiello who is with me tonight. As the Staff has stated, this is a seven lot subdivision, at the northwest corner of Ridge, or I should say the southeast and southwest corner, I’m sorry, of Ridge and Cronin. Seven lots, four of them fronting on Ridge Road. Three of them fronting on Cronin Road, and there is no new infrastructure here. It is going to be Town water with on-site septic. It’s fairly flat, gently sloping site, with suitable soils for septic. As far as the Staff comment, as far as the grading and drainage plan, as before this Board many of times with different residential subdivisions, unless we are in an area that is near a CEA or there is new infrastructure, such as roads to be put in, or we’re on extremely steep slopes, we usually don’t provide a grading and drainage plan for individual residential lots. It’s not like with the one acre being the smallest and up to 1.51 acres being the largest, that you’re going to have a large impact with a single family residential home and the placement of a driveway. There’s not a significant amount of grading. We would definitely entertain some kind of a restriction on the tree clearing. We have no intention of clearing all those trees on the west line, just enough to accommodate the house. We’ve provided the driveway to the extreme east on that Lot Seven and Six border to provide for less impact in the tree clearing. We also are not objected to stormwater measures that are in place that have to be in place as far as the State erosion control measures that will be in place on every lot. In addition to that, if the Board wanted to see like eaves trenches or something, we’re not objected to that, but again, on the single family lots that are not overly built, as you can see the area of these lots, and without any steep slopes, and the soils are suitable for stormwater absorption. I discuss this with Tom Nace in detail this morning. He reviewed all the septic and the stormwater, and the existing ground, and he saw no reason for it. Unless this Board wants to address that, that’s our stand on that. MR. RINGER-I thought the soil over there was clay and a lot of bedrock and stuff? That’s not the case, up on Ridge Road? MR. STEVES-The test pit information is basically the first 26 inches on every one of them basically loamy, fine sands. They have a basic perc rate in that area of two minutes, twenty seconds, ranging from about two and a half minutes to eight minutes, which Tom Nace feels is suitable for stormwater collection in the grass areas outside the house, but like you said, if the Board wanted, we would stipulate that we would put in an eaves trench, on every house. We would put that on the plan as a detail, that they would be required to put eaves trenches on the buildings. MR. RINGER-I saw the Staff notes, and that was one of the things that was commented on was the stormwater. Anyway, we’ll hear from the Board. Richard? MR. SANFORD-Yes. I live not too far from there, and it’s all bedrock, in the Ridge Meadows area, and so when Larry brought that up, I’m a little bit concerned that there might be quite a bit of rock there. MR. STEVES-We did eight test pits through, as you can see basically on every lot, except the existing home lot, and they went down to mottling for the sewer design, for the septic design, but they went deeper than that in most cases, at around 50 inches, and they didn’t encounter any bedrock in this particular site. I do 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) agree with you, there is bedrock in that area. We did not encounter it on any of the lots where we performed test pits. MR. SANFORD-Okay. No, that was my only concern, was whether or not there would be a lot of rock under there, but I guess you’ve checked that out, and you’ve ruled it out. I don’t have anything else. MR. RINGER-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have anything other than what was mentioned in Staff notes and already agreed to by the applicant, maintaining the existing vegetation to the extent possible, maximum extent possible, you know, the shared driveways have already been commented on. I’m trying to recall what some of the other issues were when we discussed this last month, and, you know, the stone fence was certainly one of them, yes, and then of course the waivers, but I think everything looks to be in order. MR. RINGER-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-It looks good to me, as long as the applicant’s agreeable to leaving some vegetation in place for screening. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. MR. RINGER-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think that’s a good point, whoever just said that. MR. RINGER-Tom. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Tom, about the screening. MR. RINGER-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think at the Sketch Plan we discussed some no cut zones, and I wanted to just explore that for just a minute. I know we talked about retaining that vegetation that sits I guess to the east and to the west here, but what I was really looking at it, I’d have to take a look at what I actually wrote down, suggested a 30 foot no cut zone along the western and southern boundaries of lots one, two and seven. MR. STEVES-And we have no problem with that. MR. VOLLARO-Put it as an official no cut zone. Then we’ll know that that stuff will stay. MR. STEVES-As we said, we discussed that with the Board at the conceptual, and we said we have no problem, and whatever the Board would like to see, we would gladly put that on the final map. MR. VOLLARO-So we can make that as a comment in the resolution if we so resolve that. Is that correct? MR. STEVES-Certainly. MR. RINGER-You’re looking at, what, One, Two and Seven? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. RINGER-Anything else, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I took a look at the test pits and did an average of all of the perc rates for that area, and it came out to be three minutes and fifty-six seconds for a one inch drop, which isn’t all that red hot, actually, when I look at it, from an average point of view. Based on that data, I have a reservation about granting the waiver on grading and drainage plan, but then again, that’s just what I wrote in my notes. Your position about putting essentially eaves drains or eaves trenches in the notes on the plat would probably solve that problem. MR. STEVES-And I’d be more than happy to do so. MR. VOLLARO-I think that I would go along with those eaves trenches. They usually work reasonably well. The problem is, we haven’t, you know, it’s been a dry year, as John just commented to me in my ear a minute ago, and with perc rates of three minutes and fifty six seconds as an average for the entire lot, now some are better, some are worse, that it seems in a dry year they should have been even better than that. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) MR. STEVES-Well, we have to pre-soak the hole every time you do a perc test to emulate what it would be like after a hard rain, so that if you had a septic system in place, you wouldn’t have problems with it. When the ground was saturated, then you do your perc test. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. STEVES-You always saturate the perc test hole prior to actually taking the test, but we have no objection to the eaves trench, which would be more than suitable as even your Staff has said, as far as the gentle sloping. You’re not going to have a lot of rush of stormwater on a steep slope here. So an eaves trench from the downspouts from the house into an eaves trench, stone lined eaves trench, would be more than suitable for stormwater. MRS. LA BOMBARD-What’s a deep, is that like a? MR. VOLLARO-It’s underneath the eaves. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Would all the houses go into one? MR. STEVES-No. Every house would have their own eaves trench. It’s a two foot wide by basically two foot deep stone filled trench in the front and back of the house for your eaves to drip into. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So they come off the, the water comes off the house like in a gutter, and then it. MR. VOLLARO-No, it would shed off the entire roof. If you look at the plan, Cathy, of the house, like that, this is the shed area, and the trench would go here, and a trench would go here, and catch all the drainage. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I see. I’ve got you. It’s around the perimeter of the foundation. Yes. MR. VOLLARO-That makes a lot of sense. MR. STEVES-It’s not as deep as the foundation. It’s like a plant bed that has absorption material within it and it works quite well. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So it’s going to be impervious. MR. STEVES-No, it’s going to be permeable. MR. VOLLARO-Permeable. MR. STEVES-Quite permeable. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But then it’ll concentrate all the water, and it’ll just go, soak right in down. MR. STEVES-It basically detains it and stores it and then lets it gradually get into the soil, but it’s maintained in front of the house so it doesn’t sheet off to neighboring lots, per se, or the potential to sheet off onto neighboring lots. MR. RINGER-If the ground is frozen, and then you get a rain when the ground is still frozen, then that doesn’t work, right? MR. STEVES-It doesn’t work in any kind of ground if it’s frozen. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Just run that by me one more time. I don’t know. I guess it’s because, when Dan Valente built our house, he didn’t want to do that, because we had a big water problem up there. MR. STEVES-Right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So he didn’t want to concentrate, put any kind of, some kind of a receptacle to catch the water that came off the roof, because he was afraid it would just go down and get closer to the foundation. He wanted to bring it away. So I don’t understand. MR. STEVES-Correct. Well, there’s a couple of different options when you’re talking about stormwater off of a roof. You can bring it in to downspouts and gutters into a drywell that you would build outside of the foundation. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. That’s what I thought you were doing. MR. STEVES-No. We’re taking an eaves trench. It would be a couple of feet outside the foundation, and what it does is just tapers off the water to the sides. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) MRS. LA BOMBARD-So it kind of goes like this? I’ve got you. Thank you. I’m a little slow tonight. MR. RINGER-George, if we had that as a condition, when each house is going to be built, how does the Building Department know that there’s a condition on that? How does that get relayed? MR. STEVES-First of all, Mr. Chairman, it would be right on the plan. We’d put it on every lot, that the Staff would have a copy of and the Building Department would have a copy of when people come in for a building permit, and then every copy of this is, you know, I don’t want to speak out of turn for the Staff, but every copy is given to a potential buyer, and it says that eaves trenches will be provided for on every house constructed. MR. HILTON-Even if it weren’t on the plan itself, and it were just a condition, it would be in our system, and it would be up to us to track it and make sure that when it comes in for a building permit that it’s in accordance with the subdivision as approved. MR. RINGER-Thanks, George. Bob, I didn’t mean to interrupt you. MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s fine. I did notice a significant change from the D-1 details that were submitted at Sketch versus the S-2, with the application. The new S-2 drawing allows infiltrators, standard pipe absorption and shallow absorption trenches. It seems it talks to three methods of septic. MR. STEVES-That is correct, depending on, Tom Nace did the engineering, who couldn’t be here tonight, had other obligations. Because of the fact, where we’re trying to place the different homes and as you know, if you’re up near Ridge Road, the soils are a little quicker, and when you get down toward Cronin Road, they’re a little slower, as you have mentioned already, Bob. So Tom wanted to have all three different, or all three systems that could potential be on here based upon the soil perc rate. That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I guess my question is, and this is, as you well know, and some members of this Board well know, I’m currently building and house, and somebody’s got to stay on top of the builder to determine which of these three systems are suitable for that particular house. How does that occur? I mean, I’m just going now from my own experience just recently tracking my own builder to do exactly what it says on the print, you know, build it like the picture kind of thing. MR. STEVES-You have a chart that is basically based upon your perc rate, and the higher the perc rate, the more feet of lateral you need, or you can go to a different type of system, and then reduce your length of pipe. So a lot of it depends on the builder and/or the homeowner, which one of the expenses they want to incur. MR. VOLLARO-Because I had just a note, why not standardize on something like infiltrators, which work well in most instances, in most, if not all, infiltrators and then you get to the Elgin system, which is, in my opinion one of the better ways to go. MR. STEVES-And you’ll find typically with the Elgin it’s used in areas that you have a lot of space constraints, and that’s the reason it’s used most likely. Like I say, all three of these will work there. That’s why Mr. Nace proposed them. MR. VOLLARO-So this would be basically at the contractor’s discretion, based on the kind of ground that we may see. MR. STEVES-That’s correct, and where they build the home on the lot. We’re showing them where we say that it is, you know, a good location to build, but on the one acre lot they have a lot of options of where they’re going to build. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. STEVES-They might choose to build away from the road, put their septic up near the road, or choose to build closer to the front, put your septic out back. Therefore, you have the types of systems you see. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess my last question is back at this last meeting we had, Marilyn Ryba raised a question, and I looked at it myself, about the tax map resolution, and I was going to ask Staff whether you’ve resolved that. The application calls, it says that the Tax Map Number is 59-4-4. Marilyn claims it’s 59-4-1. Has that been in any way resolved, George? Has anybody looked into that? MR. HILTON-If you’ll just give me one second here. We show the old number as 59-4-1, in our records. We show the new number as 297.14-1-3. Either way, the notices that went out to the public, and I believe the application itself, have the new number, which makes it, I mean, it’s correct for the purposes of review. MR. VOLLARO-It’s correct. Okay. So Marilyn’s question has been resolved. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) MR. STEVES-That’s correct. The old number was 1, and all the new numbers are being placed on the map for filing at this time, and we do concur with Staff on that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now what is the disposition of the stone wall, by the way? Where are we with that? MR. STEVES-That’s on the lots that are on the northeast corner. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. STEVES-On lots that are not part of this application. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. They’re not part of this application. Those stone walls are not part of this application. Okay, and that takes care of my questions, Mr. Chairman. I’m finished. MR. RINGER-Okay. John? MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, the stone wall seems to extend quite a ways down along side of Cronin Road. I mean the finished stone wall that somebody has done that lives on the corner of Cronin and Ridge, they’ve repaired that wall, and it looks like maybe even added to it, but it looks nice, but it does seem to extend along down Cronin Road quite a ways, and into the property you’re claiming it’s not. MR. STEVES-If it does, just barely, and to the extreme easterly end of Lot Five. MR. STROUGH-I mean, it’s not, it’s just a mound. It’s not, you know, a reconstructed stone wall. MR. STEVES-Correct. It’s not the stone wall that they were discussing along the intersection of Cronin and Ridge at the last meeting, the substantial beautiful stone wall that is there. MR. STROUGH-No, it’s not that, but there still looks like there’s remnants of a stone wall, even on your property. MR. STEVES-Yes. There is some remnants. That’s correct, but not the wall that I thought this Board was talking about. MR. STROUGH-Is there any effort or thoughts about maintaining or preserving the remnants of that stone wall, I mean other than the driveway that’s got to go through there. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. MR. STROUGH-Not only aesthetically is it pleasing in that area, but historically it might have some significance. I don’t know that for sure, but you heard previous conversations. So you know where I’m coming from. Another thing that does concern me is, you know, when you dug the test pits on October 11, th and it’s been a fairly dry season, and we see mottling down two feet, or just a little over two feet, in some places, four foot in others, that does have a concern, you know for me, when it comes to the septic systems. Also, and I see you’ve given a detail for a shallow absorption trench, which is something that you may have to go with, are you planning on having, and I’m going to come back to that thought, but are you planning on having basements in these homes? MR. STEVES-I’m not constructing these homes. These lots are for sale. So, I guess it would be up to the individual homeowner, at deciding on their location for their home, and the builder at the time whether they wanted to obtain a basement or whether they wanted to do a split level or whether they want to do a slab, or whether they wanted to place some fill. I can’t tell you. As far as I know, you’re not building the homes? MICHAEL CANTIELLO MR. CANTIELLO-No. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m concerned, not only for the septic, but, you know, as Cathy has expressed, and, you know, I built homes for about 20 years, part-time, and we come across a lot of problems. If you’re seeing mottling two foot down and I’m sure the water table is not far below that, and this area does have a history of bedrock not that far down. Given all that, I have concerns about basements and having the drains, the drainage around the perimeter of their house, I would certainly recommend at least below that, mid-level, or at least one or two perimeter drains, if I was building a basement there, given the water conditions of the water in the soil, and the soil is silt. It’s loam. It’s not good drainage. It’s less than ideal for building a basement and for infiltration type of septic systems, but I suppose New York State Department of Health is going to probably have to address those infiltration septic systems. Now, how you might know, and you might be able to help me here. How does New York State Department of Health address that? Do you have 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) to submit the test hole data and the percolation rates and the soil types and your septic design to New York State Department of Health? MR. STEVES-Yes, we do. As a matter of fact, the New York State Department of Health engineer was with us when we dug these test pits. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. STEVES-It’s required for any subdivision that is going to go in front of the Department of Health, to have the test pits reviewed by the New York State Department of Health engineer. MR. STROUGH-Did they express any concern at that time? MR. STEVES-No. We explained to him. We showed him, obviously the test pit results. He was right there, and discussed with him the type of septic systems and they had no questions, no concerns. MR. STROUGH-Well, do you also share my concern with having the roof drainage go into a perimeter drain which would be right alongside of the basement wall, without having any further underground drainage? And I don’t know where that drainage would go, to tell you the truth, if the water table is (lost words). MR. STEVES-To be honest with you, no, I don’t agree with you on that. MR. STROUGH-You don’t think there’s going to be any basement water problems? MR. STEVES-No. I didn’t say there would be any, it depends where you build. I mean, I could have a basement water problem anywhere if I wanted (lost words). MR. STROUGH-Well, it depends on how you build. MR. STEVES-That’s correct, and I can’t control how somebody’s going to build a lot, just like any subdivision you can’t control how they’re going to build. That’s the Building Department, and the inspection during the footings and the inspection during the basement. I don’t have a concern with the stormwater on this property at all. No, I do not. Three minute soil average is very suitable for stormwater. New York State Department of Health, you can go up to a conventional septic system up to 45, 50 minutes. So I have no problem whatsoever with the stormwater and/or the septics on this property. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. STEVES-If we did, we would have addressed them before this. MR. STROUGH-Well, like I said, it’s a concern that I have, and I needed to address it, and I’m still not convinced that, I’ve got the buyer beware kind of approach, and I don’t know if that’s a healthy one. Okay, and the stone walls, perc tests. That’s about all the concerns I have on this. Thank you. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Just one input here, to back up what John is saying. I’m just thinking about that design. If you do perimeter drains, not eaves trenches, but perimeter trenches down below the foundation, usually they have to be daylighted somewhere, somehow, and on flat ground like this with high water tables, finding daylight might turn out to be a little difficult. MR. RINGER-That’s it, John? Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, that’s just a (lost words) I have, that’s all. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, going along with that thought. MR. STEVES-Well, there’s a suitable drop on the lots that if they wanted to, the ones that front on Ridge Road, I mean, you’d have to run your (lost word) quite a ways back, and the same that runs on Cronin, but if somebody wanted to put in perimeter drains that daylight, that could be accomplished on all the lots. MR. STROUGH-Well, if I was building on this lot, first of all, I don’t think I’d want to go with the full basement underground. I might go with a split level like you suggested, or something like that, and even at that, I think I would direct all my roof drainage away from the house. I wouldn’t have any of it soak in next to the foundation. I’d have it all in a separate drainage area, not adjacent to the foundation. That’s how I might address that, but we’ll go on, Mr. Chairman. MR. RINGER-Cathy? 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just spoke my peace about the drainage and all that. MR. RINGER-I’m still having trouble with that, too. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I guess I also just mentioned to Bob, like one of, Lot Number Three already has a house on it. So, I’m just wondering, do they encounter problems or, you know, the basements dry? MR. CANTIELLO-Yes, they have a full basement, and it’s dry. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. CANTIELLO-Actually, I’m planning on Lot Number Four to build my own home, and I’m going to do a walkout basement. So it’s going to be partially out of the ground. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So you’re going to build into the hill. MR. CANTIELLO-Right, and then just bring fill around the front. So it doesn’t look like it’s a walkout, but that’s what I’m going to do on mine, Lot Number Four, hopefully. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But those perc rates, like eight minutes to go through an inch, well that’s a long time, isn’t it? MR. STEVES-Well, like I say, for the New York State Department of Health guidelines for septic, and for New York State erosion control, you know, if septic is greater than a minute and less than forty-five, basically, is a conventional system. As far as erosion control, the fastest you can get it the better. Absolutely, but up to twenty minute soils are more than suitable for stormwater, without having to do a lot of detention. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But septics allow that much, that much time? MR. STEVES-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Really? MR. STEVES-Yes, they do. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Interesting. Well, then it’s all within the guidelines. MR. STEVES-It’s all within the guidelines. MR. SANFORD-I just have one observation that I’ve picked up by listening to the comments, you know, there’s a request for a waiver for the drainage plan. I’m not so sure I see a comfort level, based on the comments that I’ve heard from a number of the Board members. I’m not sure, Mr. Chairman, what, would you like a poll of the Board? MR. RINGER-Well, we’ve got a, we’re going to hear from the public, too, tonight, but I’m kind of thinking that, Matt, we may be asking for a stormwater management report on this, because of, as Richard said, a lot of the comments tonight have come from the concerns about the stormwater and where it’s going to go. So we may be asking for that, but we want to hear the public and there may be some other questions that may come up, too. So, unless we’ve got something else from the Board? Okay. I’ll open up the public hearing, and anyone here wish to speak on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. RINGER-Good evening. TOM DOLAN MR. DOLAN-Good evening. I’m Tom Dolan. I’ve lived on Cronin Road more than 50 years. My home is about the seventh home down on the north side of the road. I moved in there into a hot, dry field that was all farmland when I moved there. I had a septic tank and a pump, and then they built six homes above me, towards Ridge Road, and for years everything was all right. We had wells and septic tanks. Then the Town of Queensbury came through with water, and no sewer, and everybody uses more than 1,000 gallons of water every month. For about 10 years everything was all right. Then, my lot started filling up with water. When I moved there, I dug down five feet to find water. Now, you can walk, you’d need boots to walk out through my property. This year everything was dry, but this is the first year that my land hasn’t been puddles or some kind of water out in back, and all I’m saying is that the Town of Queensbury, when they put in water, and don’t put in sewer, they’re causing problems, and there is no plan to have a sewer come up Ridge Road, and if there isn’t a plan, you’re going to be saturating that ground, and it’s going to be all right for the 10 or 15 years, but what happens after that? This is high ground, and if you look at Cronin Road, it’s going downhill, 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) sloping, it would be to the west, and if you go out on Dr. Bannon’s field, which is to the west of Britton’s, that’s damp already. So all I’m saying is you’re going to be putting in thousands of gallons of water on that hill, and where is it going to go? So, I just wanted to bring that up. Okay. MR. RINGER-You’re on Cronin Road? MR. DOLAN-Yes. MR. RINGER-Do you have a cellar? MR. DOLAN-Yes. MR. RINGER-Do you have water in your cellar? MR. DOLAN-I have drains in my cellar, and the water is always moving in the drains. Before I put the cellar in, I dug the drains, and I concreted over it. You come to my house and lift up one of those drains, you would see movement to the water in my cellar, going out back. MR. VOLLARO-So you’ve built a capability for the water to come in and go out? MR. DOLAN-Correct, yes, all the time. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got a through system. MR. DOLAN-Right tonight that water is moving in my cellar, going out back, and in my well, I had a 19 foot well when I first moved there. At the bottom of that well it’s all blue clay. You can bring that clay up and make dishes out of it. There must have been an old river bed or something there before. So, that’s just a little history. MR. RINGER-Thank you, Mr. Dolan. MR. DOLAN-Okay. MR. RINGER-Anyone else? Sir? DUANE PECHETTE MR. PECHETTE-Good evening. My name’s Duane Pechette. The man who was up here before mentioned that they went down 50 inches. I know everyone’s, most everyone’s concerned about bedrock and drainage, it appears, except for these people. Now, someone else mentioned a basement. Don’t you go more than 50 inches for a basement? Would there be bedrock down that far? I don’t know. Does anyone know? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I can answer this, that I knew that the water table, when I built my house, was really high. So I wanted to put in an eight foot cellar so I could finish it off some day. They dug down four feet and brought in fill. So, in other words, you don’t have to go down that far. MR. RINGER-Your question is, how low is bedrock, or when would they hit bedrock. MR. PECHETTE-Yes. MR. RINGER-We’ll try to find out. I don’t know if they know the answer. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The thing is, you don’t have to go down that far. MR. PECHETTE-It appears five of the seven of you are concerned about bedrock and drainage. MR. RINGER-Anything else, Duane? MR. PECHETTE-Leaving vegetation along Cronin Road, is that going to occur? MR. RINGER-They’re going to have a 30 foot barrier on the lots on, where they end on Cronin, the vegetation on Cronin that’s south, there’s nothing been (lost words). They may move it or they may not move it. MR. PECHETTE-So there may not be a buffer there along Cronin Road? MR. RINGER-There may not be a buffer along Cronin. Correct. MR. PECHETTE-Is the entrance going to be on Cronin Road? 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) MR. RINGER-There’ll be two driveways on Cronin Road. MRS. LA BOMBARD-One driveway services two lots. MR. RINGER-Two lots. MR. PECHETTE-So there would be one driveway then? MR. RINGER-Three lots, two driveways. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Three lots, two driveways. MR. PECHETTE-Okay. One driveway will service two, the other one will service one. MR. RINGER-Right. MR. PECHETTE-Okay. I guess that’s it. MR. RINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. PECHETTE-Thank you. MR. RINGER-Anyone else? Yes, sir. BRIAN CLEMENTS MR. CLEMENTS-Hi. My name is Brian Clements. I live on Cronin Road, almost directly across from the lot there. I wonder if someone could point out where on Cronin Road the driveways would be coming out. Would you show that with the cursor on there? MR. HILTON-My best estimate here would be that there would probably be one here, and the one somewhere in here. MR. VOLLARO-That’s about right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s pretty good, George. MR. CLEMENTS-I’ve lived on Cronin Road for over 30 years. I put a fortune into my house in digging up my cellar, putting in drainage, redoing septic systems. As a matter of fact, the last system that we put in it was a built up system. You probably know about those systems that they require on Lake George, for camps, because they don’t want sewage going back into the lake, and that’s what we installed at our house. I know there are a number of people here from around where I live on Cronin Road, and I think that probably they would all say that their land all has heavy clay. Every year, I have water running down through my back yard, and you can see, where it goes into my built up system and where the clay is, it’s puddling there every year, even this year. So, I have a concern about that. I probably should have said to begin with, though, I’m not necessarily against this subdivision. As a matter of fact, I think probably it would help us, you know, if nice homes were built in there for the valuation of our property. So I’m not necessarily against that. I guess what I’d like to see is Sewer District Number Eight be on Cronin Road, rather than over by Valente’s. My first question is, has the subdivision been approved yet? MR. RINGER-No, that’s what they’re here tonight for. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. Since that’s the case, is it common for the Town to start work on utilities like water before the approval of a subdivision? I ask that question because they’ve been going up and down Cronin Road and working on the water line that’s gone now under, right in front of my house across and underneath the street. It looks like this is a foregone conclusion, which bothers me, not because I don’t want it, but. MR. RINGER-The answer to that would be no, probably not. They’re probably working on something else. MR. CLEMENTS-I don’t think so. They’ve gone under the road, and the water has gone over to the other side, but anyway. Is there any, are there any plans for the sewer system to extend, now the sewer system right now on Cronin Road ends at Halfway Brook, down below where Freighoffer’s Bakery is, and I don’t know what’s up on Ridge Road, but I would really like you to consider extending that the rest of the way up Cronin Road and of course we would love it to include this new subdivision also, because of the problems that you all seem to be talking about tonight. MR. RINGER-That’s a different Board than us. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) MR. CLEMENTS-I understand that, but maybe you know some of those people and you could pass along the word. Are there any plans for extending the sewer subdivision that you know of? MR. RINGER-I don’t know of any, but you’d have to ask someone from the Town, you know, or call Mike Shaw. MR. CLEMENTS-I guess the only thing I’d like to ask is, for the people that live on Cronin Road here, if you could just raise your hands if you have clay soil. Just so you can get an idea about where we are. Thank you very much. MR. RINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? DAVE TODRIFF MR. TODRIFF-Well, I live on Ridge, and I have clay soil. MR. RINGER-Could I have your name, please? MR. TODRIFF-Dave Todriff. I live on the corner of Ridge and Cronin, and my biggest concern was like where the driveway was going to come in off of Cronin, on the eastern side of that property. MR. RINGER-You can look at our map, if you’d like. I mean, we can’t tell you exactly, but it’s very close. Here’s your first driveway. Here’s the first lot. MR. TODRIFF-So what kind of a distance are we talking here, 100 feet? MR. RINGER-Yes, or better. I’ll try to get an answer for them on that question, for you. MR. TODRIFF-Okay. My only other comment was, I’ve only owned this home for seven years, and I’m just guessing that the house was built roughly in the 50’s, but I do have three existing sewer holes, three abandoned sewer holes that go through my basement, on the western side of my house, facing this property. I have one existing going towards the intersection of Cronin and Ridge. That’s existing septic. The abandoned septics all went towards the west, downhill, towards this property. MR. RINGER-What is your question? MR. TODRIFF-No question, just a comment. That’s where all the abandoned sewers went, downhill towards this property, but apparently they failed. MR. RINGER-Thank you very much. Anyone else? I’ll hold the public hearing open for now, and ask that the applicants come back up. You’ve heard the comments, basically similar comments that you heard from us. The one question you could answer, if you do know it, what’s the distance to that first driveway from Ridge Road, if you can map it out, roughly. I’ve read your proposal and I realize that what you show there may not what’ll actually occur. MR. STEVES-About 350 feet. MR. RINGER-Thank you. MR. STEVES-From the centerline of the drive to the edge of Ridge Road. MR. RINGER-Any other comments from the Board members? Myself, personally, I’m thinking I want a stormwater management report on this, but I may be by myself on this. MR. STROUGH-Well, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to have C.T. Male look at the hydrologic impact that bringing in Town water is going to have on this proposal, and given the soil type, given the test pit data and the percolation rates, and the type of soils, given all that data, what C.T. Male’s input into how this might affect cumulative use, and how it might affect adjacent uses. MR. RINGER-If we had them do a stormwater management, then C.T. Male would look at it. MR. STEVES-Yes. They would (lost word) to review our stormwater and soil data. MR. STROUGH-But I would like to say that, in addition to this, send a message to C.T. Male that, given this area, it’s got a history. It’s got a history of water problems, and we’re wondering how this extra impact will burden not only these properties but adjacent properties. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) MR. RINGER-Okay, but I guess my question was, do we want a stormwater management report from the applicant, and then C.T. Male (lost words) and then we can address those questions, but I want to get a consensus of that Board if we do want a stormwater management report first. MR. VOLLARO-Based on what I see here, and the soil conditions, and the reaction from the public, as far as clay is concerned and all of that, I think I would like to see a stormwater management report, and then let C.T. Male look at that and comment on what you folks come up with or what Tom Nace comes up with or whatever. MR. RINGER-And how John feels about looking at the total package, too. MR. STROUGH-The hydrologic impact, cumulative. MRS. LA BOMBARD-What’s the order of events we’re going to go with? MR. RINGER-We haven’t got anything yet. We want to make sure the Board feels that we want a stormwater management. We’ve got three so far. MR. SANFORD-I agree with just how you summed it up. That sequence makes sense, and I definitely also agree with John’s, that it’s more than just as it currently exists. It’s as addition use water takes place what might be the impact. MR. RINGER-Okay. Chris and Tom, you feel similar? MR. HUNSINGER-It seems to be the conservative way to go. MR. RINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m not so much concerned with the stormwater. I’m just concerned with the increased water usage. MR. HUNSINGER-Water tables. MR. RINGER-Yes. Okay. So here’s what we’re looking for. We want a stormwater management report, which Tom, I assume Tom will do it for you, and then we’ll get that. We’ll give it to C.T. Male. We’ll also ask C.T. Male, or, Mark, should they also give us the information that John has requested? We can ask them? MR. SCHACHNER-It seems appropriate. MR. RINGER-Yes. So, did you gather, Matt, what John was asking? MR. STEVES-Absolutely. MR. RINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Aren’t we asking beyond the stormwater, though? MR. RINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Personally I’m not concerned with stormwater. It’s more of an issue of you have potentially 7,000 gallons a day being injected. MR. STEVES-That’s what he was talking about. MR. RINGER-That’s what they’ll do with the stormwater and the other things that John has suggested. Then we’ll turn that over to, we’ll give that report to C.T. Male who will comment on their engineer’s reports. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. RINGER-Okay. Matt, have you got that? MR. STEVES-Absolutely. MR. RINGER-Okay, then, we’ll just move this application, and the public hearing is still open, and we’ll move the application, now, what do you think, George, about next month? We’re getting filled now. The 19 looks like a meeting date. th MR. HILTON-Maybe we could do it, yes. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) MR. RINGER-So, right now, we’ll do it this way, either the 17 or the 19. Okay. I won’t give you a thth definite. So this application will be moved to the 17 or the 19. Now I assume the public’s going to want thth to know when this meeting is going to be. So what would be the way to handle that, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-I was going to suggest, before you finished, not saying an either/or. MR. RINGER-Okay. Well, see, the 19, as I understand it, is tentative, but can we make that firm now? th MR. HILTON-Absolutely. MR. RINGER-Okay. Then the 19. It’ll be the 19. So the 19 of December, for the people who are here, ththth we’ll be listening to this again, and they will provide us with a stormwater management report and a cumulative effect of what this will have on the adjacent area. Our engineers will also look at that to give a report on what their engineers do, and certainly everyone is welcome to that meeting, and the public comment is still there. So if someone wants to talk, you’ll be able to do that. Okay. Thank you, gentlemen. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. RINGER-Have a nice evening, and we’re not done yet. We’re finished with all the items on the agenda tonight, but Matt has asked to speak to the Board and John Salvador has also asked for a few minutes. So, Matt will go first. If I could have your attention here, Matt has asked to talk to the Board about a project that hasn’t been presented yet, but just a little discussion item. MR. STEVES-Just a little discussion that’s going to be coming in front of you next month, and I just had a couple of quick questions. This property here that I’m talking about is on the southern side of Sherman Avenue. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The southern side of Sherman Avenue, Upper Sherman Avenue. MR. STEVES-Upper Sherman. The power line that runs north/south from Corinth Road all the way up to Peggy Ann and that area runs on our east line. This is property that’s been owned by Mr. Betters for a considerable amount of time. Just to the east of this, Cathy, about 1,000 feet, is Smoke Ridge area, and across the street and slightly to the northeast of this is Queensbury Forest area. The front portion of this property, as we show the large open area there in the front, has groundwater problems at about 27 inches. As you go southerly toward Luzerne Road, as you’re quite aware of with the other subdivisions we’ve done over there, Smoke Ridge climbs way up, this property does also, and when we get into the back from about halfway back on the property, we get into good sandy soils with depths of 86 inches, and so what we’re looking at here is my client who drove up from New Jersey tonight who’s behind me, Tom Shivoni, what we are looking at is this is in an SR-1 Acre zone, and it’s approximately 50 acres, and that we were looking to do a boulevard entrance and if that’s suitable with the Town, keep the buildings in the back so you have a large green area in the front, so it becomes a community. We’re looking at something similar to Surrey Field. Something similar to Cedar Court, where you have a boulevard entrance and the building’s back away from the road. What we’re asking from this Board is just to look at it, and we know no approval, is with those types of subdivisions you’ve seen in the past, what is your consensus of opinion as far as, do you like to see, these are going to be upper scale town homes. Do you like to see the footprint ownership with common area all the way around it? Do you like to see the lot sit like Waverly, with the property line going down the party wall, or do you like to see each building stand on its own lot? The opportunity presents itself for all three ways on this property. MR. VOLLARO-Is this going to be like a Homeowners Association? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But it’s definitely town homes? MR. STEVES-Well, some town homes and some single family homes intermixed. Correct. Town homes similar to what you see in Waverly Place. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because the one up here is, Surrey Fields. That’s all single family homes. MR. STEVES-I’m just talking in this type of lots which you have. They have lots with a large common area around them, and nicer single family homes. There’ll be an intermix. There’ll be a few single family homes, and predominantly town homes, two unit, two and three unit, Tom? TOM SCHIVONI MR. SCHIVONI-I’m going to try and stick with the singles and duplexes. MR. RINGER-Speaking of Smoke Ridge, isn’t that down the road from there? 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) MR. STEVES-We’re not talking duplexes like. MR. RINGER-Because that’s really turned into a. MR. STEVES-We’re talking a Surrey Field quality single family home and we’re talking a Waverly Place type two unit town home. MR. VOLLARO-So they’ll be two-plexes? MR. STEVES-Single and two. MR. VOLLARO-Single and two. MR. STEVES-Correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ll tell you, I really notice the fact where the houses were set back when we went, we were in Reston, Virginia, which is one of those planned communities. I think it was like the second one in the Country. There was one done in Maryland, where there are millions and millions of people living in that community, but the homes are off, these, the town homes and the developments are right off the main drag, and there’s all these wooded areas as you’re going along the main boulevards, the main roads, and then when you go down, you’re look, oh, my heavens. There’s tons of, you don’t see, you do not see the development as you’re driving along the highway, and then the trees just keep the places buffered from all that traffic. MR. STEVES-Right. You would have some buffering. There might be a lot or two that would front on Sherman Avenue at a later date, but right now what we’re talking about is, you’re right, the predominant clustering of the buildings being in the back section of this property. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I do like that concept. MR. VOLLARO-That makes a lot of sense. That front section is wet, essentially. MR. STEVES-Not wet. MR. SHIVONI-We’re looking maybe to do, you know, maybe like a community park in the front section for the homeowners and maybe a pool area towards the buildings farther back. MR. STEVES-It’s not wet. It’s high groundwater. MR. VOLLARO-But when you get back into where you’re developing, you’re looking at about 86 inches, you said. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-That’s pretty much sand in there. MR. STEVES-It’s all sand. Here’s, Tom Nace, Department of Health and Charlie Main all went out there in late November, or late October, I should say, and the front 27 inches, about 250 feet back, 59 inches, this is to mottling. Sixty-one inches, sixty-one inches, fifty-nine inches, fifty-five inches. So as you get back, you have way more than the four feet, and we dug down on every test pit to 102 inches, 86 inches, and it’s all pure sand as you can imagine in western Queensbury. MR. RINGER-No Karner blue or anything over there? MR. STEVES-Not in this area. It’s very heavily forested. MR. VOLLARO-No fields there at all. MR. STEVES-There’s no fields there at all. The power line there, against us, is fairly wooded. On the other side I would be extremely concerned with the lupine, but not on this property. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now, when somebody buys a town home. MR. STEVES-And we wouldn’t be crossing, excuse me, Cathy, we wouldn’t be crossing the power line to disturb any of that. We have no intentions of crossing. It’s an ownership by Niagara Mohawk. I’m sorry. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I’m sorry. I thought you were finished. When somebody buys a town home, will they, will this be a homeowners association where they will pay a monthly fee for the amenities that they’d like, like snow removal and landscaping of lawns? 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) MR. STEVES-Yes. That’s what we’re here for. We want to see some ideas in that. It would be a Homeowners Association for the common ground at a minimum. Whether or not that’s something we implement, as far as snow removal, like some of the other ones, or allow them to maintain it themselves. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And people that own town homes pay taxes. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. In other words, it’s not the development. MR. STEVES-No. MR. RINGER-I don’t think this Board has ever really taken a position on what type we prefer. MR. STEVES-And I’m not saying to you, I’m just giving you the three scenarios we’re looking at, and showing you the plan with the boulevard entrance and getting the buildings back away, and just making sure that. MR. RINGER-And it all looks great. MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. RINGER-Now you’re going to come for Sketch Plan on the first, I presume? MR. STEVES-We’re going to go right to Preliminary. MR. RINGER-You’re going to go right to Preliminary? MRS. LA BOMBARD-And that’s all wooded on the, bordering the boulevard main entrance. That’s not field. That’s all wooded. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, see, Hudson Pointe did that, too. MR. RINGER-You’ve got a good thing going there. MR. STEVES-We’re trying to create a loop road in there, create a community, and I think you’ve seen the way that has worked on previous subdivisions we have worked on, and if you’re comfortable with that, predominantly, these type of developments as happened over here off the Bay Road corridor in this area of Queensbury, we’re going to propose one on the western side. MR. RINGER-And that would be nice. Sherman Avenue, if anything, it has improved, Sherman Avenue has improved in the last 20, 30 years. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. MR. RINGER-I remember the tarpaper houses and the sand floors. MR. VOLLARO-You go way back, Larry. MR. RINGER-I go way back. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Just the athletic fields and the complex to, as the main, as you get onto Upper Sherman, on the other side of Western, when you’re hitting that, it’s just wonderful. MR. STEVES-Yes, it is. MR. SHIVONI-If I may, living somewhere else and looking to build here, my partner and I have both moved up. We live on West Mountain Road. He lives right off of West Mountain Road and I live right by the ski area, and we’re builders in Bergen County New Jersey. So this is, you know, we proposed this with Matt quite some time ago and, you know, it’s a project that’s going to be close to where our families live, you know. So it’s something that we’re looking to, where we live in Bergen County, there’s a lot of town home developments that are of upper scale, you know, and considered that way, and that’s what we’re looking to try to do. We think it’ll be something different and successful as well. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And how big do you expect to make these homes? 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) MR. SHIVONI-From 1700 to like 2100, in that area. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. So not, you know, just, in other words, it’s not going to be high. MR. STEVES-It’s not your 900 square foot per side duplex. No. MR. SHIVONI-Yes. We are going to conform with maximum height restrictions. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So they’ll be affordable. MR. SHIVONI-Yes. We’re looking to hopefully budget within $145 to $170,000 range, in that area. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s what one developer said they were going to be, and now they’re up in the low 200’s. MR. SHIVONI-Yes, well, I think we can stay with that projection. I think maybe, you know, pushing the envelope in the 200’s in a town home might not be such a good idea, but I think we’re going to be good at that range. MR. STEVES-And you’re going to, depending upon the type of amenities that each individual owner comes in with, but I would say starting around $140,000, $145,000 range. Yes. MR. RINGER-It looks like a workable plan. MR. VOLLARO-I would just make one recommendation. On the single units, in those areas, if you put a single unit on any one of those lots, that the property owner essentially owns the lot, as opposed to the footprint of the house. Now you’re planning to have services like snow removal and things of this, lawn cutting, stuff of that nature. MR. STEVES-We’re going to work that out. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. On the duplexes, it might be a little bit difficult to do that. I know that John Michaels, on the duplexes at Waverly, has take that approach. I think the house, the property around it is common. MR. STEVES-In Waverly? MR. VOLLARO-No, the property is owned. MR. STEVES-The property is owned, right. The actual building, the party wall, the building becomes the property line. MR. VOLLARO-Becomes the property line, right. Rather than have a footprint only with the rest of the land common. I live on a footprint with the rest of the land common, right now, and it presents problems. MR. STEVES-Right. That’s what we’re asking, and we were leaning more toward the lot with the common wall being the property line. MR. VOLLARO-I think that makes sense. MR. STROUGH-And you can still build places for averaging about $85 per square foot? MR. SHIVONI-Yes, we’re going to be $85 to $100, depending on what the final amenities are of each dwelling. MR. STROUGH-Right. MR. SHIVONI-Once we start doing a marketing analysis, we can see what the feel is for people in the town home market, we’ll get a better idea. MR. VOLLARO-I can tell you one thing. I’m building a house. I’m about 99% of the way there, and I’ve estimated now, and taken all the numbers and worked it out to about $114 per square foot. That’s where I’m sitting right now. MR. SHIVONI-Yes, no, I mean, we’re aware, where we live, we’re at about $195. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Do you factor in the lot when you’re talking about that? MR. VOLLARO-No. I’m factoring in the house itself. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Just the house, not the land. MR. STEVES-Just the house. MR. VOLLARO-I could throw a stone from where I’m going to live to your house. MR. RINGER-So the neighborhood just went down. Bob’s going to move in in a couple of weeks. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Just a suggestion. When you do that boulevard effect, I’ll tell you, I think the Michaels Group, when they went into Hudson Pointe, and I jog over there pretty often, where they put in the center, and they did it here, too, in Surrey Field, you know, the perennials in the center, and they did, my gosh, and they just grow by themselves, and then they put the nice Victorian street lamps in there, a couple of them. It just looks so nice, and I don’t think it’s that much more expensive, but once you do it, it just. MR. STEVES-It’s worth it for the character of the neighborhood you create, the prices that you will sell them for will more than offset. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I’m going to tell you, and it’s safe, when you’re jogging and coming, you know, when I’ll go in to the Hudson Pointe from West Mountain Road, because there’s the boulevard effect, it’s safer, even the traffic going in and out is so much safer. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. MR. STROUGH-Thinking out loud, you might want to run this by emergency services, too, I mean, they may have a concern, maybe even suggest carrying that boulevard concept up to the loop closer. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Even around the bend a little. MR. STROUGH-You might. I’d run it by them. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. Like I said, this was just a quick concept based upon the test pits that we wanted to get in here. We were on the docket for three months to have the Department of Health meet us out here for test pits, and every month something would come up with the Department of Health, and there’s no sense in doing it and then having the, it’s no good without them viewing the test pits. MR. VOLLARO-You’ll get good numbers up there. MR. RINGER-You skipped Sketch Plan. So you’ll be ready for Preliminary. That saves you a month right there. MR. STEVES-You’ve got it. We thank you. MR. SCHIVONI-Thanks for your time. MR. RINGER-Thank you. Good luck with your thing, gentlemen. John? Mr. Salvador has asked to speak with us for a few minutes. John didn’t tell me what he wanted to talk about. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Thank you for the opportunity. This deals with the subject of site plan review and special use permits for marinas on Lake George. As you know, you have a couple of applications in and out of your review at the present time. As a result of some Staff notes that were published and issued, dealing with these docks, Craig Brown, in one of the Staff notes, took the position that because the Town had on record certain old building permit files, records of old building permits, and they had gotten certain information from the Lake George Park Commission, that as a result, he determined that the docks were grandfathered, grandfathered meaning legally pre-existing. These are, docks in a residential zone, beyond a certain limit, are nonconforming uses. So he took the position they’re grandfathered, which would mean to me that they are legally pre-existing. I did not think that on the strength of the evidence that he had before him, that he made a sound determination, and therefore I appealed his position. MR. VOLLARO-To the ZBA? MR. SALVADOR-To the ZBA, and we had our first hearing last month. We sort of started the process, and wound up tabling my appeal for a number of reasons. One of the major reasons was that you folks, with Staff, are presently in some kind of a skull session, workshop session, on this whole subject of special use permits for marinas, and so the outcome of that could very well change. It may make my appeal go away, depending on the outcome. In any case we did talk about it, and that was one of the reasons for tabling it last month, but we are on the agenda for tomorrow night, and I will make some additional points to substantiate 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/02) why I think Mr. Brown was wrong in his determination that these docks are grandfathered. I know that you have a workshop session scheduled for early December on this subject. If you have the time tomorrow night, you might want to attend the meeting. I don’t want to argue it here. It’s not appropriate. MR. RINGER-We probably wouldn’t let you anyway, John. MR. SALVADOR-But Mr. Stone did say at the October meeting that he hoped that the ZBA would be a part of your workshop session on this subject, and I don’t know if they are or not. MR. RINGER-It’s a good point. Maybe we’ll see if we can invite some members, John. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. Some of the other reasons why we decided to table was the fact that the applicants in this regard sort of have been asked for more information. MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking about the Smiths and the Hoppers? MR. SALVADOR-Yes, and they don’t seem to be in an awful hurry to come forth. So that was one reason for tabling. Another reason was that, I made it clear to the Board that this is of basin wide significance, this problem. The Hoppers and the Smiths are not alone. Queensbury is not alone in this. This is a problem that has been let go. I think the Commission has taken the easy way out. They tend to promulgate regulations and do nothing about enforcement, and just kind of let the thing go until it’s convenient for them to come forth, and that’s what’s happened to these people, but in any case, tomorrow night, I will be at the ZBA, and if you’re interested. MR. RINGER-And I will see about the ZBA members coming to our meeting on that. That’s a good point, and I don’t know if t hey were invited or not. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thank you. MR. RINGER-Thank you. You have a nice evening. MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. MR. RINGER-That’s it. Any other comments, questions? Okay. We’re out of here. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Larry Ringer, Acting Chairman 51