The URL can be used to link to this page

2003-10-28 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 28, 2003 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY ROBERT VOLLARO JOHN STROUGH CHRIS HUNSINGER ANTHONY METIVIER RICHARD SANFORD, ALTERNATE SENIOR PLANNER-MARILYN RYBA PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUP 5-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED DUNHAM’S RESORT CORP. PROPERTY OWNER: JOHN, JR. & KATHLEEN SALVADOR ZONE: WR-1A, RR- 3A, LC-42A LOCATION: NYS RT. 9L, DUNHAM BAY APPLICANT SEEKS RECOGNITION AS A PRE-EXISTING CLASS A MARINA PER SECTION 179-10-035 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. LGPC, APA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/10/03 TAX MAP NO. 252-1-75.3, 239.20-1-1, 252-1-89, 90, 91 LOT SIZE: 10 ACRES SECTION: 179-10-060A JOHN, JR. & KATHLEEN SALVADOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing back on the 23 of September was tabled. rd MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-We are in receipt of a letter today, I don’t know if you are copied on it or not, of Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes regarding pending litigation that’s going on between you and the Lake George Park Commission with regards to your marina status. MR. SALVADOR-I have not received it. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you familiar with what’s going on? MR. SALVADOR-I’m very familiar with what’s going on. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you give us a quick summary of where things are at? Because this letter that we’re in receipt of indicates that you do not have permission to run a Class A Marina. MR. SALVADOR-We do not have a Lake George Park Commission Class A Marina permit. We are presently operating under a DEC granted permit to operate a marina on Lake George dated 1982. MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing from the Lake George Park Commission? MR. SALVADOR-Absolutely nothing. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. What we’re going to do, then, we’re going to table this application until you get the issue resolved with the Lake George Park Commission, and also that you get your property dispute issue squared away with your neighbor before I want to see this Board advance and entertain this application any further. MR. SALVADOR-I would like to continue the presentation and public hearing. If you choose, after the presentation, to table it. MR. MAC EWAN-Not going to do it tonight. MR. SALVADOR-Pardon me? MR. MAC EWAN-We’re not going to do it tonight. MR. SALVADOR-I would at least ask you tonight, as is in your record, at the public hearing last time, at a certain point in the public hearing, we were invited by the Chairman to vacate this table, and he subsequently opened the public hearing. Mr. Robert Sweeney testified on behalf of Mr. Frank Parillo that his firm’s concern is that the Pidgeon Plan, that is our site plan, does not accurately depict the existing status of the project. After a long discussion which ensued, it culminated in Board member Mr. Sanford suggesting that if we withdraw the map from the application, we could go on with the permits as the land is identified, the Board could move forward on this. Ms. Radner stated he could do that. Meaning we could withdraw. Although we feel a site plan map is required, as a part of site plan review, we would like to ask the Board for a waiver to this requirement for site plan as it pertains to our application for Site Plan 5- 2003. We ask that you act on this request before we move forward. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll reiterate for you, Mr. Salvador, we’re not going to move forward on this application until you get your legal problems squared away with the Lake George Park Commission and that you can get that settled, and also the situation, the property dispute you’ve got with your neighbor. I do not want to put this Board or the Town in a position that’s going to offer that. The end of it. We’re not going to do it. We’re going to table this thing until you get it squared away. That’s the fair and right thing to do. MR. SALVADOR-In the regulations, there’s no condition that a person cannot apply for a Special Use Permit from this Town just because some pending litigation is going on, or, regardless of who’s involved, or that there’s a property dispute involved. I don’t think you want to get in to title matters. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s right, we don’t. So therefore you get the situation squared away first, then come back and see us. That’s what we’d like to do, and when you get it squared away, come back and see us and we’ll resume this application’s review. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, can the Board make a comment? Can a member of the Board make a comment? MR. MAC EWAN-I’d rather not at this point until he gets things squared away, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-I’m just trying to separate the legal issue that he may have on a dispute of a property line or a boundary line dispute, and his application for a Special Use Permit. I think the two are mutually exclusive. That’s my position anyway. I think we could, if we found, if it wasn’t for this Lake George Park Commission requirement, I think Mr. Salvador has supplied all he needs to supply, to prove that he’s operated a marina back until 1981. If we were to approve that, we could condition that approval that says that this approval in no way impinges on the issue of property line dispute or a boundary line dispute with Mr. Parillo. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. MAC EWAN-If you take a look at the map that was supplied as part of the application, you’ll see that he has probably on average of I think about five or six docks that sit in property that’s in question who has ownership of it. MR. VOLLARO-I saw that. MR. MAC EWAN-If this Board is to review this thing and to give a Special Use Permit, granted on that fact, of X number of docks, you’d be granting him docks, permitting, on property that he may or may not own. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think that that. MR. MAC EWAN-But that’s not the bigger issue here. The bigger issue here is the Lake George Park Commission’s position on this. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t know that when I came into this meeting tonight until I read this letter. That’s another piece of information that I didn’t have when I reviewed this in my little cubby hole at home, but that does. MR. SALVADOR-I don’t think under your rules, Mr. Chairman, that the letter you’ve received has any standing at this meeting. It hasn’t been received in time. We haven’t been put on notice. We have no opportunity to respond. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll give you the opportunity. We’ll table it until you can come up with a solution for this thing. MR. SALVADOR-I’m prepared to move forward now. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re not. MR. SALVADOR-To demonstrate that we qualify. MR. MAC EWAN-John, I don’t want to sit here and banter with you for the next 40 minutes. MR. SALVADOR-You already started to banter. You started that at the last hearing, sir. MR. MAC EWAN-No, I did not. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, you did. MR. MAC EWAN-No, I did not, John. MR. SALVADOR-You interrupted our presentation, okay, you opened the public hearing before we had presented the project, okay, and then you tabled the public hearing before we could respond. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the minutes of that meeting reflect the opposite. MR. SALVADOR-They certainly do. MR. MAC EWAN-So that’s what we’re going to do. Alright? MR. SALVADOR-I think you need a vote or resolution from your Board. MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t need a vote and we don’t need a resolution to do it. We’re just going to table it until you get this issue resolved. MR. SALVADOR-I would suggest a point of order, that you have a vote of the Board. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Counsel, would you like to offer an opinion on this? MS. RADNER-The regulations don’t include any requirement for action on a tabling motion. You’re the Chairman of this Board, and you’re the one who directs the Planning Board. You have on occasion in the past requested a tabling motion. It’s within your discretion whether you wish to have such a tabling motion or whether you wish to table it for the reasons you’ve stated. Once you close the public hearing is when you’ve got a legal obligation to move forward, as long as it is open, and the public hearing remains open. MR. MAC EWAN-My intention is to leave the public hearing open. MR. SANFORD-If he calls for a tabling motion, is it subject to a vote? MS. RADNER-If he calls for a tabling motion, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-And typically when I’ve asked for a motion to table something it’s because we’re looking a long laundry list of items to be submitted prior to our next meeting. MR. SANFORD-Well, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, without discussion, some of us don’t agree that civil, legal issues that may not be part of this application should be part and parcel of the application process, which you’re suggesting, and so you don’t really want to have a discussion on it, but I don’t see where the connection is. We, conceivably, could have a lot of people coming in front of us for grandfathering in marinas, and we’re certainly not going to dig deep and find out if there are any property or other civil actions with your neighbors. In this case we happen to have some information that suggests there might be, and you’re looking to table it. I’m not sure if it’s appropriate for this Board to get involved in civil, legal matters. MS. RADNER-Typically, this Board doesn’t get involved in property disputes between neighbors. That’s something we very clearly have no view over, and that’s for the parties to wrestle over in court. I believe the problem here in this application is that the application itself is showing docks on land that are not labeled as this property owner’s, but are clearly labeled as lands purported to be owned by Frank A. Parillo, and I believe that’s the issue that Mr. MacEwan was trying to address. He can correct me if I’m wrong. The other issue is the legal, ongoing status of the permit as reflected by the Lake George Park Commission Counsel’s letter. MR. SALVADOR-And therefore, we’re asking for your permission to grant a, to allow us to withdraw the plan, the site plan that shows all of this information. Mr. Sanford has already suggested that that is a possibility, and Counsel, at the last meeting, said he could do that. That’s in your minutes, sir, and so tonight we’re asking, we think that’s the best way to solve this. That would remove one set of issues from the table. Okay. As far as the Lake George Park Commission goes, they weren’t ready to grant any Class A Marina permits to the three previous hearings you had, the Smiths, the Hoppers, and the gentleman who worked, who’s on staff of the Park Commission, wasn’t going to get their Class A Marina permit until you people gave a Special Use Permit. Now where are we, in a Catch-22? We can’t get your permit, because we don’t have their permit. They won’t give us their permit because we don’t have your permit. All we’re doing is lining up and presenting the information. MR. STROUGH-Well, I, for one, have no intention of approving the docks in question, but all else in the marina appears to be nearly fine. There’s civil litigation going on between Mr. Salvador and others. MR. SALVADOR-There is no litigation going on pertaining to this property. It’s been settled. There’s none going on. MR. STROUGH-Well, there is a question between you and Mr. Parillo, that’s obvious. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. SALVADOR-They may have questions. I have none. The litigation has been settled. The courts have been heard, and we have incorporated on that map the decision of the courts. That’s all I can tell you. MR. STROUGH-Well, in any event, I will repeat, I have no intention of approving those docks in question until that matter is clarified. MR. SALVADOR-We’re not asking you to approve docks. We’re asking you to approve the issuance of a Special Use Permit to conduct the operations of a marina. MR. STROUGH-But I’ve gone, I’ve been interrupted twice, now, John. Okay. I think, in all fairness to the applicant, that the marina does exist. It’s obvious it exists, and there are at least parts of it that we can approve, if not the whole thing, with the exception of the docks under question, but if we were to tell Mr. Salvador we’re not going to listen to him until he gets all of this straightened away, that could be years, and in the meantime, he can’t use his marina. In the meantime, I think that’s an undue hardship on the applicant. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, evidently, from the letter from the law offices, he has been using it. So it doesn’t seem like it’s been a hardship on him. MR. STROUGH-Well, and furthermore, there might be other questions that come up tonight, in addition to those that we already have, and maybe the matter won’t be decided tonight, but I think we ought to at least hear the applicant out. MR. MAC EWAN-Does this Board as a whole feel comfortable they want to move forward with this? MR. VOLLARO-I, for one, do, as one Board member. You have to ask the rest of the Board, but I feel comfortable with moving forward. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-Yes, I feel we should. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I wasn’t here last month. Reading minutes isn’t the same as being here. The only reason I would like to move forward right now is because I would like to hear a lot more that’s going on and there’s a couple of questions. MR. MAC EWAN-You, too? MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll go forward. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. They’re willing to move forward. I’ll tell you what I’m going to do. I’m recusing myself from this, because I think that we’re setting ourselves on some very dangerous ground here, that, when we’ve had applications in the past that have had a cloud of legalities hanging over them, we have not acted on them. We’ve tabled them until they’ve gotten the squared away, and I don’t see any difference with this application from any other ones we’ve ever done in the past. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Could I ask a question? My question is, after reading this letter, that the LGPC is saying that you’ve been operating a marina for God knows, many, many, many, many years without the proper permit, but nobody’s been taking any action, so, is that, how serious do the authorities really think this is? That’s what I’d like to know. MR. SALVADOR-Well, as I stated. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Are we moving forward at this point? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Can I let him answer that question, though, Craig? MR. SALVADOR-In the absence of having a Class A Marina permit from the Lake George Park Commission, we are operating under the DEC permit we were granted in 1981. There’s, that permit has not expired. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So does that override the LGPC’s permit? MR. SALVADOR-Well, until they issue a permit, that’s how we’re operating. That’s what I presented to you. MR. SANFORD-Cathy, the issue is continuous use. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know that, it’s to continue using it. MR. SANFORD-No, it’s can he demonstrated that he has had use. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, he has done that. MR. SANFORD-So I don’t know how relevant, whether it’s a DEC permit or Lake George Park Commission blessing or what it is. I don’t know if that’s relevant. That’s my point. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, okay, but I think the fact that, if he’s already got a permit, and he’s been operating legally, then where does the issue of the docks come in? Because obviously the people that have granted them the permit, that hasn’t been an issue with them. MS. RADNER-Well, the letters from the Lake George Park Commission says the opposite. It says that they commenced an action in 1998. It does not say that that action’s been resolved, as I read this letter, it’s an ongoing action, and in the opinion of Attorney Auffredou, there is no marina permit and they cannot operate their marina unless and until they apply for and are issued a Commission permit. That is the view of the attorney who represents the Lake George Park Commission. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. All right. I understand just what you said. MS. RADNER-As I understand their position, and I am not their attorney, they do not believe that the DEC permit is an ongoing legal, valid permit at this point in time, and that’s what’s required to be a legal marina at that site right now would be a Lake George Park Commission permit. That’s what’s lacking. It’s a different situation than the other applicants that have been before you, because none of those people were the subject of litigation because of illegal operation of permits. It was a, we’ll review your application when you get your Town approvals. MR. SANFORD-But wasn’t the criteria that we were using in evaluating those, even though, undefined, wasn’t the criteria that we were using that they just had to demonstrate that those slips or properties were, in fact, being utilized from a particular date, I think it was 1981, to the present, and they didn’t have to demonstrate in any particular matter how to prove that. It just had to be something that was sufficient to us. MS. RADNER-Correct. MR. SANFORD-So the fact that the Lake George Park Commission may not want to grant them something, doesn’t have any bearing whether or not these properties were, in fact, utilized, as a marina. MS. RADNER-You can take that view. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. SANFORD-All right. MR. SALVADOR-Neither did those applicants who appeared before you, only one of them out of the four was in the possession of a 1981 DEC permit to operate a marina. The other three did not possess marina operating permits, and they were operating since that time, without a permit, and the Park Commission was not going to issue them a permit until you issued the Special Use Permit. We are in the same hopper. We do not have a Lake George Park Commission permit, and we’re not going to get one until we get a Special Use Permit from the Town. This is the position they’re taking. MR. SANFORD-My understanding, and again, it’s about as clear as mud, but my understanding is what we were really trying to do here, during this period of time, is to almost grandfather in what would be referred to as pre-existing usage, and that was we were going to look back in time to make sure it was done. If that was the case, we weren’t going to subject these people to a full blown site plan review, and I don’t know if we’re doing much more than that, but I think that, if that’s the case, I don’t think we have to be especially concerned about potential civil lawsuits that may or may not exist present, past or future, for much of this, we just merely need to have some appropriate documentation that satisfies a set in fact it was pre- existing according to the criteria we’ve established. I mean, am I missing something? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think so. I think you’re right on target, the way I see it. MR. SALVADOR-Okay, and in all seriousness, we do not want the Town’s permit for the wrong reasons. That does us no good. We want the Town’s permit for the right reasons. MR. MAC EWAN-Are we moving forward here? MR. VOLLARO-I think so. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’m going to turn it over to Chris. All right. MR. SALVADOR-I have not finished. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m turning it over to him. MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Good luck. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead, John. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. To repeat, although we feel a site plan is required as a part of site plan review, and because of the suggestion offered by Mr. Sanford at the last meeting, and because of the agreement with Ms. Radner that we could do that, we’re asking for a waiver of the requirements of a site plan, and we think if that waiver is granted, it would remove a lot of the objections that we’re hearing, because it is the Pidgeon plan that is the focal point of all the objections. If we can rely on our past mapping, submissions, drawings, and demonstrate that that’s all we’re doing right now, that there’s been no increase in use, we could qualify for the permit. That’s the only thing we have to do, and we would ask for that waiver at this time. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I would agree with granting the waiver, pulling it away from this application, and then looking at the substantiation that Mr. Salvador has given us, in terms of the permits that he has, and that would establish the fact that he has operated a marina since 1981. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I would say that it’s the applicants privilege if they want to withdraw the site plan, and then it would be up to the Board to decide whether or not we want to grant the waiver. So that’s how I would treat that. Does that seem fair? MR. SALVADOR-It’s our privilege to ask. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Absolutely. MR. SALVADOR-It’s your decision to grant. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. We get to decide if we want to grant the waiver. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. MR. STROUGH-But, Mr. Chairman, tell me when was the last time we did a site plan, ever since we changed the law, or any marina permit. MR. SANFORD-This isn’t a site plan. MR. STROUGH-This is a Special Use Permit. MR. SANFORD-Which is in lieu of requiring a full blown site plan review. MR. STROUGH-Right, and I don’t remember, we started off doing site plan reviews, then the language of the law got changed, and we’ve basically been focusing on whether it’s been grandfathered, it’s been a grandfathered use or not, without doing site plan. MR. VOLLARO-I think the applicant, John, is asking us to remove the site plan from this application. MR. STROUGH-What I’m saying is the applicant need not ask us because it’s not part of our purview. MS. RADNER-But it’s been submitted by the applicant, and so what the applicant is saying is that he is going to withdraw his submission, and I think that the applicant can say, I don’t want you to consider the submissions, and then present the other information he has that he feels can establish the use and the extent of use of this property. MR. SALVADOR-I think we can ask for a waiver, and that’s what we’re asking for, a waiver. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have anything else to add? MR. SALVADOR-I have a lot, but I think we should address this issue, first, because it would then clear up and allow us. MS. RADNER-Mr. Hunsinger is now the Chairman of the Board, and it’s up to him to decide what order he wishes to proceed and what things he feels he needs. MR. HUNSINGER-I think the way I would like to proceed is to have you present all of the new information that you may have since the last meeting. We will then go ahead and open the public hearing and then take comments from the Board, like we would any other application with the same procedure. MR. SALVADOR-The public hearing is open. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it is. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. SALVADOR-Okay. There’s one other issue here. The Warren County Planning Board has recommended denial until outstanding litigation has been resolved, based on the County Planning staff having been made aware the applicant does not have a valid Lake George Park Commission to operate a Class A marina. Actually, we received the same Lake George Park Commission advisory that the Smiths and the Hoppers received, calling our attention to the need to obtain a Class A marina permit, according to regulations promulgated by the Commission in 1988. Our advisory was received in 1996, eight years after the effective date of the regulations. The Smiths and the Hoppers some 15 years later. It is our understanding that the Lake George Park Commission refused to grant the Smiths and the Hoppers a Class A marina permit before they obtained a Town Special Use Permit from the Town to operate a Class A marina. While our case against the Lake George Park Commission languishes in the courts, and faces the statutory requirement that the Town Special Use permit be issued by January 1, 2004, and anticipating the Lake George Park Commission’s position to be the same as that for the Smiths and the Hoppers, we made this application. Does the County’s recommendation to the Board, that is denial until litigation is settled, put us in a Catch-22? Now the significance of the County denial is that we’re required to have a super majority vote here. What’s that, five out of seven? MR. VOLLARO-Five out of seven. MR. SALVADOR-And we’ve just lost one possibility. So we’re down to six, and by the way, Craig Brown has determined that that is the significance of the County’s denial, that we need a super majority here. Otherwise then we must not proceed until the Lake George Park Commission permit is issued. Then we couldn’t get the County approval before the Lake George Park Commission permit is issued. We FOIL’d, from the County, the form, content, and the date of their advisory, and we just got an answer this morning on that, and we haven’t had time to address that. Mr. MacEwan mentioned some piece of correspondence you got from the attorney for the Lake George Park Commission, and I haven’t seen that correspondence yet. However, I have a piece of correspondence I wonder if you have received, or are aware of. I received this today, and it’s addressed to me as a Class A Marina owner in the Town of Queensbury, and it’s addressed, “Dear Marina Operator: This letter is being sent to you”, by the way, the letter has been issued by the, Craig Brown the Zoning Administrator, “This letter is being sent to you to remind you of the current Town of Queensbury regulation requirements regarding the operation of Class A marinas. You are receiving this correspondence as your name appears on a listing of marinas that have Class A permits issued by the Lake George Park Commission.” MR. VOLLARO-What’s the date of that letter? MR. SALVADOR-October 27. th MR. HUNSINGER-Just because Mr. Brown says you have a permit, doesn’t mean you have a permit. MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me. ”You are receiving this correspondence You are receiving this correspondence as your name appears on a listing of marinas that have Class A permits issued by the Lake George Park Commission.” MR. HILTON-Just to clarify really quickly here, it’s not Mr. Brown saying that he has a Class A Marina permit. Mr. Salvador’s name was on a list, a Lake George Park Commission list. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-Now, more significantly, more significantly in this letter, and it’s telling everyone to get their permit, more significantly, “In the upcoming months, the Town Board may be reviewing a revision to this Special Use Permit section. The proposed revision might 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) allow for marina operators that are operating within the parameters of an existing Lake George Park Commission Class A marina permit to be “grandfathered” as such upon demonstration of such compliance. This may be accomplished by submittal of a Site Plan Review application and current plot plan along with a copy of your current Lake George Park Commission Class A marina permit.” Now, gentlemen, where are we going with this program? I received that today. You are obviously not aware of it. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. Never saw the document, John. MR. SALVADOR-Now, since the last meeting, we. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, could I just ask a question of the applicant? I would like to move forward this tonight, Mr. Salvador, and examine the documentation that you’ve supported, showing your registration from November 14, 1981, and move forward with this, and I think a lot of what you’re telling us, John, may be extraneous information concerning our granting of a Special Use permit to you, based on the documentation you’ve submitted. We’d like to just move forward and see where we go with that. I don’t know how the Chairman feels about that, but that’s what I’d like to do, rather than get all this testimony in from Mr. Salvador. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. I’m prepared to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Are you referring to the documentation we submitted in our letter of October 3, to Mr. MacEwan, as we responded to last meeting’s request for the 1981? rd MR. VOLLARO-Yes, showing registration of existing law, submitted November 14 and th approved October 14. There was, you did a submission on November 14, 1981? th MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And you received approval on October 14, 1982, exactly one year later. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Included in there were the dimensions and distance to adjoining properties, an application to permit operation of marina on Lake George filed November 14. Application is th for 67 boat slips, drawing supplied with permit, added to 67. Now, I have, this is my note, however, going back to the Coulter & McCormack survey, which is now off the table, I hope, I think it’s off the table. MR. SALVADOR-The Pidgeon survey. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we call it the Pidgeon survey. I look at it as Coulter & McCormack survey. That’s what it says on the bottom. MS. RADNER-No, this is a different one. The Pidgeon one is a different one than the Coulter & McCormack. MR. VOLLARO-It is? MS. RADNER-Yes. The Pidgeon one says Plan by Donald Pidgeon down in the corner. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-That’s the one we attached to our application. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. VOLLARO-All right. Now, in there I see, in your documentation, I see that the dock fees have been paid since 1988, ’89, ’90, ’91, ’92, all the way up to the Year 2003, in the sum total of $5,469 dollars to that year, and I see that documentation as sufficient, in my mind, to the fact that you’ve operated a marina on Lake George for that period of time, and therefore in my view are entitled to a Special Use Permit. That’s where I’m coming from on this. So that’s where I am. That’s what I’m prepared to vote on. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. John? MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Well, I’m in agreement with Bob. The only exception is, I’m not so sure, and I’m not so sure Bob knows either of how much dock space, whether we’re talking about the number of piers, number of berths, linear feet, or what that we’re willing to approve. We don’t have a concrete number yet. MR. SALVADOR-I don’t think that we’re seeking approval for a number of docks, a number of boats. It’s a Special Use Permit to conduct the operations of a marina, a commercial marina. Are you going to, for instance limit us, as we use the analogy in a restaurant, you give a permit to operate a restaurant, but you can only sell 10 steak dinners a night. MR. STROUGH-Well, when we do give permits for a restaurant to operate, there is a seating limit, yes. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. MR. STROUGH-And we have to determine how much dock space we have here, because, you know, there are discrepancies in the material, even in which you’ve (lost word). For example, in one document, you’re telling me 67 boat slips, and I’m looking at a document here that’s the official dock survey report dated June 24, ’88, and it says 60 dock slips. So we have a discrepancy of seven there. MR. SALVADOR-Now, wait, that survey was prepared by a Lake George Park Commission park ranger. Okay. How they count and what they, you’ll have to ask them. MR. STROUGH-So there’s a discrepancy. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Also, in your counting, and I kept track of your counting, in the area of the dock, I’m not sure what you want to call it, the dock that has handicap access, etc. MR. SALVADOR-That section of the marina? MR. STROUGH-I think, in the boat dock layout what is titled snack bar area, 30 boats. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And I counted, and counted, and counted and counted, and managed to squeeze in 30 potential boat slips, but it was really tough, and questionable. Furthermore, the one that you have me, and I think this comes from the Coulter map. MR. SALVADOR-Is that the one attached to our? MR. STROUGH-Yes, that’s the one attached. MR. SALVADOR-No, I made those sketches. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. STROUGH-Okay, but the beach area dock that you show in your sketch has changed significantly. Now it’s a wood dock, and isn’t that the very same dock that has the gas pump on it now? MR. SALVADOR-Yes, it’s still a wooden structure. MR. STROUGH-And so there is no permanent berths there? Because even on another map I was just trying to find it, and I will find it, it says, no permanent docking in this area because of the pump area. MR. SALVADOR-No, we dock boats there. MRS. SALVADOR-All the time. MR. SALVADOR-All the time. MR. STROUGH-Okay, well, the nature of the dock itself has changed. MR. SALVADOR-And by the way we pay a dock fee on that, for that purpose. MR. STROUGH-Fine, Mr. Salvador, but the thing about it is, it’s not the same dock that you’re presenting here, and I don’t think the same number of boats can park there that park here. MR. SALVADOR-First of all, Mr. Strough, we’re in this arena where we talk about boat slips and boats, okay. Did you receive my letter that I addressed to George Hilton, responding to his correspondence? I sent a letter to Mr. Hilton on October 24, responding to his letter to us. th Have you seen his letter to us? MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking at your letter to Mr. Hilton dated October 24. th MR. SALVADOR-Yes, okay. In that letter, I tried to address this issue you’re talking about, where he questions the location of the 67 spaces, spaces. Are those slips? MR. STROUGH-Berths. MR. SALVADOR-Dock, what are they? But anyway, we have 67 spaces, exactly the same as we registered in 1981, and by the way, if you’ll look on the application for the marina permit, the question is number of boat slips, that’s the question, and we put 67. MR. STROUGH-You put 67. MR. SALVADOR-We put 67 down, boat slips. MR. STROUGH-1988 says 60. MR. SALVADOR-No, excuse me, they said, what, 60, what? MR. STROUGH-Sixty. MR. SALVADOR-Sixty what? MR. STROUGH-In one mooring. MR. SALVADOR-Docks? MR. STROUGH-Slips. MR. SALVADOR-Slips. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. STROUGH-With one mooring. MR. SALVADOR-That’s how they counted it. MR. STROUGH-That’s how they counted it. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. MR. STROUGH-And in trying to confirm your count, I went to what you’ve labeled as the snack bar area, and counted it up, and the dock that you show me in this map, is not the same dock as it appears today. There’s been changes. MR. SALVADOR-Any changes we’ve made, we’ve had permits for. We did put new fender piles in, things like that, but we had permits for all of that. MR. STROUGH-But, the question is, can you park as many boats as you could before, because the new dock has a pump on it. It has a boat slip in it. MR. SALVADOR-The old dock had a pump on it. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but the new dock is a new configuration. MR. SALVADOR-Very similar. I mean, within a couple of feet. MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. Are the gas pump on this dock in question, the dock adjacent to the beach area, the dock labeled in the Donald Pidgeon Plan as wood dock. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Seven? MR. STROUGH-Yes, Number Seven, as labeled by. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, that plan is, we would like a waiver. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So we should just chuck that. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, we should chuck that. MR. STROUGH-All right. MR. SALVADOR-By the way, Mr. Strough, to help clarify this, in 1981, there was no concern when it came to marina uses about gas sales, mapping them, mapping the location of your wastewater. There was absolutely, there was, they asked specifically the dockage, the dimensions, the setbacks, that’s what they wanted. MR. STROUGH-All right. MR. SALVADOR-Other things were not mapped, and that’s why I offered the sketch. MR. STROUGH-All right. Are there permanent berths, in other words, are the people that rent out dock space on that wood dock in question, which is adjacent to the beach area which is labeled in the snack bar area map, permanent slips, permanent spots on that dock, and how many are there? Where people rent that spot, and they’ve got that spot. Nobody can take that spot, not bringing in a boat and pump up with gas or pump it out or, that’s a permanent slip. If I rented it, nobody can use it. That’s mine. MR. SALVADOR-Not at all. We don’t work that way. We have some docks, as I pointed out in the letter of October 24, that we rent on a weekly basis. Sometimes we rent on a daily basis. th 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) They’re different size boats. Sometimes we can get two in in one place. They’re big boats. We can only get one in. MR. STROUGH-Is there any part of that dock, because people are coming in and filling up with gas or getting other services, that you don’t use, you don’t rent out, because they have to access your services? MR. SALVADOR-If we have occasion and need to rent it out, then we’re not available for the services. We don’t have to pump gas. There’s no rule that says we have to. We might derive more revenue from using it as a dock space rather than a gas dock. MR. STROUGH-That’s a question, and I want Mr. Sanford and Mr. Vollaro to see that I am agreeing with them on the principal, and with you. My disagreement is I want a clearer picture of how much linear feet or how many slips that we’re talking about, because there are discrepancies. We have to come to a, remember, when Bob or Richard or anybody else on this Planning Board says, we approve your marina permit, and I think we should, I just want to say, for how much linear space or how many slips or how many berths. I want an exact number, and I don’t want that number to include the docks that are in question, for now. You can come back, after your litigation, those four and a half slips, some say five. It looks like four and a half to me, they can come back, Parillo can come back because I have no intention of, until we get this settled, of giving him a marina classification on those docks until that litigation gets settled, over those docks. Nobody can use them. MR. SALVADOR-They’re not on our application. MRS. SALVADOR-They’re not on our application. MR. STROUGH-They’re not in it? MRS. SALVADOR-No. MR. SALVADOR-No. MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s clear, and the testimony you give has to be accurate, or this case can be re-opened, even after we approve it. MR. SALVADOR-Our point of departure for this permit, so 1981 registrations and permits we got. We’re not asking for anymore. That’s the point of departure. MR. STROUGH-And you don’t mind us conditioning your marina approval, if we get there. MR. SALVADOR-For? MR. STROUGH-In that we approve everything, if we can come down to an agreement on the number of slips available, and give you approval on that, that we’re not giving you an approval for marina use on the slips in question, the Parillo, Parillo Salvador slips, or whatever the case may be. MR. SALVADOR-The point of departure is the 1981 registration. Certified by the DEC. Can’t ask for anymore. Can’t ask for anymore. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else, John? MR. STROUGH-No, that’s it, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-Richard? MR. STROUGH-For now. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. SANFORD-I think I’m clear on where we’re going with this or where we may go with this. The original submission had the Pidgeon map, which is being requested by the applicant to be withdrawn. This other map that we received has never been part of the application and is for informational purposes only and is not part of the official application. Is that correct? MRS. LA BOMBARD-The Coulter & McCormack. MR. VOLLARO-The Coulter & McCormack map. MR. SANFORD-That’s not part of the application. MR. HILTON-No. If I could interrupt here. At the last meeting the Chairman, I believe, asked for copies of that Coulter & McCormack to be researched and submitted to the Planning Board. That was included as part, to follow up on the Planning Board Chairman’s request. MR. SANFORD-Okay, and the sketches that you did by hand, are they, they’re part of the official submission? MR. VOLLARO-They were attached to the October 14. th MR. SANFORD-I have October 22. nd MRS. LA BOMBARD-Twenty-second. MR. VOLLARO-This is October 14, 1982. It’s in response to John’s, to Mr. Salvador’s submission that he made in 1981. In 1982, it came back approved, for 67 slips, and those 67 slips are a result of Mr. Salvador’s attachments that went along with that. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-And it says application for permit to operate a marina, number of boat slips, 67. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. HILTON-I just want to clarify also. In the applicant’s letter of October 24, he included, he th has included several drawings indicating the potential to dock 67 boats, and I just want to clarify also the DEC permit of 1982 that we keep referring to. Under the description of the marina, it says sale or rental of marina products, services and dock space for 67 boats. I guess I would agree it’s not saying 67 slips, 67 docks. It’s dealing with 67 boats, dock space for 67 boats. MR. SANFORD-Right, and I think the applicant’s done a decent job in explaining that it’s almost impossible to deal with these on an apples to apples basis, and some marinas, do like Mr. Strough suggested, they rent a slip and the slip is to house one boat, and Mr. Salvador has pointed out, it varies from week to week, depending upon the size of the boats and who they may be renting to, and I think we’d just be banging our head against the wall here to get into too much detail, but I think the 67, how did it read in the application, 67? MR. HILTON-Well, it’s actually in the DEC permit. MR. SANFORD-That’s what I mean. MR. VOLLARO-It’s in the permit. MR. HILTON-Yes. It says sale or rental of marine products, services and dock space for 67 boats. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. SANFORD-Sixty-seven boats. I’m comfortable with that. MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me. Our application was for 67 slips. There’s a strong presumption that there’s only one boat per slip, and that’s not necessarily the case. We have a neighbor at the Dunham’s Bay Boat Company, he has six boats in his slip. We, depending on the size of the boat, we could put two boats in one of these slips, depending on the size of the boat, we need two slips for one boat. MR. VOLLARO-But, John, the application that you got says number of boat slips, 67. MR. SALVADOR-That was our application. MR. VOLLARO-That’s all I’m concerned with, how those, if they dock 100 boats in a slip, I could care less. You’ve got, number of boat slips, 67, that’s the number I’m glued to. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. SALVADOR-The question, the question on the application was, and by the way, I got that application at this Town. The Town Hall I picked up that application, okay. MR. VOLLARO-John, I’m with you on this one, okay. You’ve got 67 is 67, and that’s what I see here, nothing more or less, and this is New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Warrensburg, dated October 14, 1982. It’s good enough for me. That’s what we’ve been looking for for every applicant on Special Use Permits. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add, Richard? Until the public hearing. MR. SANFORD-I’m all set. MR. HUNSINGER-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I am, too. I’m catching up on everything, and it’s making sense. MR. HUNSINGER-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I’m just trying to recall, in the Hopper/Smith applications, we actually limited the number of boats that could be rented out, and unless we can come to some kind of agreement on the five boat slips for Mr. Parillo, and, in fact, the launch ramp that obviously by this document is illegal, unless we can separate them out, I will not vote for this. So that’s two down. MR. SALVADOR-The launch ramp, as you call it, is a handicapped access facility. MR. METIVIER-I don’t believe it. You know what, I go by that every day. I don’t believe it’s a handicap access. I see boats sitting there. I see a boat there all the time. It’s a black smoker craft, and I guarantee you that that boat gets put in. I don’t believe for a second that’s a handicap access. I don’t buy it, and besides, even if it is a handicapped access, you’re the one that came up and argued with the woman who wanted to put a handicap ramp in her house. Two years ago, I’ll pull the application. You argued with us because she wanted a ramp at her house, and you’re going to say this is okay. I don’t buy it. You argued with a woman who wanted to put a handicap ramp at her house. So you’re going to tell me this is okay. I will find it and I will get it. MR. SALVADOR-I don’t think I. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, let’s stick to the application before this Board. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. METIVIER-But you’re saying that that launch ramp is a handicap access. So you had every right in the world to put it up. Right, without any permits? MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me. This Planning Board gave us an approval for that facility. MRS. LA BOMBARD-We did, Tony. I remember that. MR. SALVADOR-This Planning Board. MR. METIVIER-After it was done? MR. SALVADOR-No, not at all. MRS. LA BOMBARD-He came years ago. MR. SALVADOR-We had a DEC permit to construct that, and the DEC stipulated, they stipulated the type of construction. Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I remember it. MR. METIVIER-So what is all this document then? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I remember that. Rich said he was here for that. I remember that going down. MR. METIVIER-When was that? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Four years ago. It was a while ago. MR. SALVADOR-And that’s not being used by handicap people because of a court order. MR. METIVIER-Why is that? MR. SALVADOR-Because Judge Moynihan put a stop on it. We haven’t been able to finish it. It’s not finished yet. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any other questions, Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing more. MS. RADNER-Tony, for the record, what’s the document you’re referring to? You only refer to it as this? MR. HUNSINGER-Tony was referring to the package dated October 22 from Shanley, nd Sweeney, Riley, and Allen that was received by us today. MS. RADNER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else that you would like to add, Mr. Salvador? MR. SALVADOR-Well, with regard to the slips and the boats, number of boats, this has always been a concern and a problem, okay, and if you look at the record of DEC and Park Commission permits, they vary all over the place. We have neighbors who put down 67 slips, for instance, and they got 67 slips. We have others that filled out their, and they got different things from the DEC. Believe me, when you wait 11 months, 11 months for a permit to operate, and you final get it, you don’t study what you get. You just don’t study it. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I think your explanation was adequate. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Can I ask a question. John, this has to do with what John Strough was on. You know, the wood dock, remember when we paddled our canoe over there a couple of years ago. Isn’t that the dock that we paddled up to, where you had your little house that you were building, it was kind of docked on that dock? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I just, and that’s the dock where the people drive up to pump gas? My only question is, and I wasn’t clear with your answer, is that dock going to be rented out and used for other people to dock their boats to? MR. SALVADOR-Sometimes. We have an arrangement, for instance, where someone needs a dock, a place to park their boat, okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So, in other words, let’s say I came in with my boat and I said, I want to dock here because I want to go across the road to see somebody. MR. SALVADOR-No, no. Not at all. MRS. SALVADOR-Not at all. MR. SALVADOR-No, it’s not a public facility. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, then, who are you going to rent that dock to? I would drive up and make arrangements with you beforehand to use your? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So in other words, I wouldn’t drive up in a boat? MR. SALVADOR-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I would make arrangements and say, okay, I would like to, I need this dock for a couple of days, could you rent it to me, and then I would launch my boat and dock it there? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MRS. SALVADOR-We have had people who have mobile home trailers at the RV park for a week or two. They will rent the boat slip for a week or two. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But I mean, I’m just saying, then, if you’ve applied for 67 slips, and you count that, and that one’s not counted in the 67. MR. SALVADOR-It’s in the 67. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That one is in the 67? MR. SALVADOR-It’s a boat slip. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? MR. SALVADOR-If you don’t have any questions. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we have a public hearing scheduled. MR. SALVADOR-I’m concerned about Mr. Metivier’s position. I don’t think he’s fully informed as to what we’ve applied for, what we’ve been given permission for. Believe me, if any agency thought they had half a chance of shutting us down, I think they’d do it, and it’s just we have had to, over the years, insist on our rights. We have qualified, look at the paper. We have registered when we have been required to register, timely. We give complete information. Look at all those other permits that qualified for marina permits, and see if they had sketches of their dock plans. Take a look at them. I have them all, okay. MR. METIVIER-There’s no doubt. I have no doubt that you have operated these boat slips all these years, as I’ve stated to you in the past, I drive by that every day. I can recall back in the 60’s, not the 60’s, the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s, every boat. I could tell you boats that have sat there. I can go back to the fire in ’74 that everything. I know that you’ve operated the marina. There’s no doubt in my mind. All the documentation is here as well. The question remains, you have five boat slips that are in question. MR. SALVADOR-No, they’re not on our application. We are applying for what’s on those 1981 applications and permits. That’s all. That’s all we want. MR. METIVIER-Agreed, but then how do you come up with 67? MR. SALVADOR-Because we registered. We got a marina. MR. METIVIER-I understand you registered for, I understand that. MR. SALVADOR-And they’re there. MR. METIVIER-But the fact remains that there’s a property dispute to this day on five of those docks. MR. SALVADOR-It doesn’t concern these docks. MR. METIVIER-How do you say that, though? I mean, is that, that just makes no sense. Those five docks are part of the 67. MR. SALVADOR-No, they’re not. There are two distinct sections along 9L. There’s the section we call the bridge area. There’s a section we call the snack bar area, and in between are these five docks. They’re not mapped there. Not at all. They’re not mapped in the survey. MR. METIVIER-If you count them on the Pidgeon Plan they are. MR. SALVADOR-No, they’re not. No, they’re not. MR. METIVIER-I’m going to count again. MR. SALVADOR-And by the way, the Pidgeon Plan has been withdrawn for that reason. MR. HUNSINGER-We’re aware of that. MR. METIVIER-But, the point remains that, unless, all right, go ahead. MR. HUNSINGER-If I could ask you to give up the table. If there’s anyone who would like to speak to this application, if you would please speak your name into the microphone, we do record our minutes. Is there anyone that would like to speak? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BOB SWEENEY MR. SWEENEY-Good evening. My name is Bob Sweeney. I’m an attorney and I’m on here on behalf of Frank Parillo. I addressed this Board at the last meeting and also submitted a letter outlining all of our objections to this application. As a follow up, we submitted another letter in advance of this meeting, reiterating our original objections, and pointing out in a number of locations where the supplemental submission by the applicant simply confirms, without any doubt, our issues. The main point of our objection here, and let me say this, and we’ve heard it from everybody on the Board, Dunham’s Bay Lodge has been operating a marina here. They are entitled, at some point, to a marina permit, I believe, but not on the application that’s before the Board tonight for some very important reasons. Our primary objection to this application is, and has been, and we pointed it out in detail in our letters, that originally, before the Pidgeon Plan was withdrawn, and it’s beyond any dispute that Mr. Salvador was in here with altered property lines, on a map submitted to this Board, in an effort to secure a marina permit on property owned by Mr. Parillo. We outlined that for your on the Pidgeon Plan attached to our letter. We’ve numbered the locations and we identified the reasons. The principal reason are the docks that, the five docks that continue to be in question here. There’s no question that that’s Mr. Parillo’s property. There’s no question that the courts have determined that those five docks belong to Mr. Parillo, and there’s no question that the applicant, application, until a couple of minutes ago, included an effort by this applicant to secure a marina permit on Mr. Parillo’s property. It doesn’t take any great stretch of imagination to envision what would have happened here if Mr. Parillo showed up for a marina permit, which he will, on his property, and this Board had already granted a marina permit to Mr. Salvador for those same docks. That’s what we were trying to avoid. Mr. Parillo’s entitled to his marina permit on his marina for his docks, and we don’t want to be in a position where Mr. Salvador has been granted a marina permit by this Board. I would like to now move to the problem created for this Board by the withdrawal of that Pidgeon Plan. The Pidgeon Plan is the only record in front of this Board of the existing condition of that marina. Mr. Salvador is now sitting here saying, this is what our permit was, our DEC permit in 1981. 67 slips, 67 boats in this configuration, and this is what we want a marina permit for. What’s there today? This Board has nothing in its record right now to tell it what is in that marina today. This application cannot be granted on the record before this Board. You know what was there of record in 1981. You don’t know what’s there today, based on your record, and all this Board can vote on is what’s in its record. A decision based on something not in the record or outside the record is, by definition, arbitrary and capricious, and if you look at what your obligation is, under your zoning law, this Board’s obligation, let me read it to you, that the use of the property and associated structures has been continuous to date without interruption since prior to 1981. So your record now shows what was there in 1981, and then nothing. You can’t vote and say that what’s there today has been, the structures and improvements have been continuous and in use since 1981, and that’s the consequence of withdrawing the Pidgeon Plan. Just logically, you have to believe that this Board wants to grant a marina permit based on structures and use of the property, and there’s no record of that here. I don’t know how you can make an application without some kind of plan as to what is being approved as a marina. It takes me back to our concern that the efforts of the applicant here, in at least three different locations, maybe four or five on that Pidgeon Plan, are efforts to usurp the property rights of Mr. Parillo, and that’s why we’re concerned, and again, there’s been a marina there. We all know that, for the appropriate period of time. We would just hope that this Board does not grant a marina permit for marina uses that the applicant is not entitled to, on property the applicant doesn’t own, on docks that the applicant doesn’t own. A couple of other points that I’d like to raise. One is the mass of confusion over this DEC permit. The litigation mentioned in the Bartlett, Pontiff letter, and I haven’t seen the letter, but I know about the litigation, stems from the fact that, in 1981, DEC had jurisdiction over dock registration. Over marina permits, excuse me. That jurisdiction shifted some years later to the Lake George Park Commission. The Salvadors have never obtained a Lake George Park Commission Permit for their marina. They’ve refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the Lake George Park Commission, and they continue to waive around their 1981 DEC Permit and say, this is our permit. We don’t need to comply with a changed law. That’s what the litigation 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) is about, described in the Bartlett/Pontiff letter. That’s why they’re in court. That’s why they’ve been in court for years over this. They had an application pending at one point. They’ve withdrawn that application, and the discussion you heard here from Mr. Salvador about the fact that, well, the reason we can’t get a Lake George Park Commission permit is because we don’t have a Town permit, and who goes first, and is it a Catch-22? No, it’s not. They’ve withdrawn their application. They’re fighting the Lake George Park Commission, and insisting that they don’t have jurisdiction to issue them a permit because they have one going back to 1981, and they refuse to recognize the law that every other marina owner on Lake George has to recognize, and that’s what that’s about. Now, the 1981 DEC permit does identify a configuration and number of docks at that time, and again, in order to grant the permit, you have to certify, you have to make a finding, and the regulation will say that, that same configuration has been in place since 1981. The consequence of not having that in your record is you have to deny the permit. The consequence of that is this is not your Short Form, administrative Special Use Permit. He can still get a Special Use Permit for his marina, but he has to come in for a site plan review application, just like anybody who has changed or expanded their marina, and last point on that is that there have been significant changes and expansions in this marina. They’re in the record of the letters that we put in to your record. A couple of different points. There are affidavits from other pieces of litigation involving this dock marina complex from the Director of Operations, and the Executive Director of the Lake George Park Commission discussing the expansion or extension of docks from 24 feet to 30 feet of all of these docks that we’re talking about being part of this marina. That’s also a subject matter of litigation with the Lake George Park Commission, but there’s sworn testimony from those two people in your record that this marina’s been expanded. You can’t make the finding that you’re required to make under your Zoning Ordinance under those circumstances, if there has been an expansion of docks. How do you know? You don’t know because he doesn’t have a plan of the current configuration of his marina there. He’s withdrawn that from the record. Another location, which was the subject matter of some discussion here, and take a look at it. Take a look at the Coulter & McCormack survey. Take a look at the original 1981 DEC submission. Take a look at the Pidgeon Plan and the dock configuration where the boat ramp is next to the beach area. It is significantly different. The applicant sat here and said, well, yes, it is, but we did all that pursuant to permits. Fine. That disqualifies you from the short process administrative Special Use Permit, and requires you to get a full blown, it just, those significant changes, proof in the record that there are significant changes, proof in the submissions from the applicant there have been significant changes, simply disqualifies you from the administrative Special Use Permit and requires you to go through the full process. The application here is for the, I’ll call it the short form Special Use Permit. This project’s not eligible for that. In concluding, I want to say this. As I said, obviously everybody knows there’s been a marina there. Mr. Parillo is not here to object to something the applicant is entitled to. Only to make sure that his property rights are protected. When this Board gets to the point of properly issuing a Special Use Permit for this marina, we would respectfully ask that this Board make clear that none of the property rights of Mr. Parillo are under or subjected to this Special Use Permit. Those areas are pointed out on the Pidgeon Plan attached to our letter, identified by number. It’s the mouth of Dunham’s Bay creek. It’s Mr. Parillo’s five docks on Dunham’s Bay. It’s a piece of property on the south side of Route 9L that, again, has been the location of the alteration of boundary lines on surveys. We also put in the record a certified DEC survey showing Mr. Parillo’s property located exactly where we say it is, and adding to the evidence that the plan before this Board, until a couple of minutes ago, was an alteration of boundary lines. So we would, as strong as we can, to make that request of this Board, that nothing in the permit that will ultimately be granted to this project infringe on the property rights of Mr. Parillo. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you for your comments. Does anyone else wish to speak about this application? Anyone else? I think for now we’ll leave the public hearing open. If you want to come back to the table. Did you have any comments relative to the testimony? MR. SALVADOR-Yes, please. Mr. Sweeney speaks about five docks. The five docks he speaks of are not mapped on the 1981 application. They’re not a part of it, and they’re not a part of what we’re asking for today, and I would ask Mr. Sweeney how many docks is Mr. Parillo 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) using today in that area? I think you’ll find it’s five, and so we’re not making any claim to that at all. All matters involving the litigation of these boundary lines have been settled by the courts. Done. Finished, it’s over with, and our Pidgeon map reflects that, but that’s been withdrawn. MR. SWEENEY-We heard that before, and I’ve got to interrupt. MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Sweeney, point of order. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m going to give him a little leeway here, if you don’t mind. MR. SWEENEY-Well, we’ve heard that twice, and I can’t sit there and listen to it, and I’ll take this Board through it step by step. We’ve cited the court decision in our papers. I will give the attorney the court order with the legal description. What is on that Pidgeon Plan unequivocally is contrary to the decision of the courts, and let’s take it out and look at it, because. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I don’t know if we need to do that. MR. SWEENEY-The courts have determined that those five docks belong to Mr. Parillo. MR. HUNSINGER-And I think that’s what Mr. Salvador was saying. MR. SWEENEY-If you look on the Pidgeon Plan, those five docks are on the property that this applicant is seeking a Special Use Permit for, and that’s exactly what we’re concerned about. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SWEENEY-And I can’t there and listen to twice now it being said that the Pidgeon Plan reflects what the court decided. It does not, unequivocally, under no circumstances, does it reflect that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you for giving me that leeway, Mr. Salvador. MR. SALVADOR-We can demonstrate that the Pidgeon map does. The Pidgeon map is certified and the Pidgeon map, not that site plan, but the foundation map for the Pidgeon site plan is a full map that has been filed and has been certified and filed at the County. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know if there’s really, seeing as how you have asked us to withdraw the Pidgeon Plan from your application, I don’t know if it’s really worth arguing about the validity or the accuracy of it. Okay. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I agree with that, Mr. Chairman. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thank you, Chris. MR. VOLLARO-Just excuse me for a second. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion, I guess, to approve this with the following, and I’d like to see how the Board feels about these words, that would be added to the resolution. MR. STROUGH-Go ahead, Bob, but I have other questions of the applicant. MR. VOLLARO-You do? MR. SALVADOR-I would like to address. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. VOLLARO-I’d just like to put this out for the Board. This approval is based on our review of data submitted to support the issuance of a Special Use Permit. There seems to be a discrepancy of a number of docks. I didn’t use the word “five”, a number of docks, belonging to either Mr. Parillo or Mr. Salvador. This approval is only for a Special Use Permit to operate a Class A Marina and does not specifically specify the number of docks associated with this approval. That would be how I would like to add the condition. MR. STROUGH-I think there’s more that needs to be done with that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Can I go, Mr. Chairman? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me. I came to the table to address and rebuttal. MR. STROUGH-Go ahead, Mr. Salvador, I thought you were done. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, I thought you were done. MR. SALVADOR-I started. MRS. SALVADOR-I have just one question, while John is looking. Did this Board go out and look at our docks? Did you go out? MS. RADNER-It’s really not the applicant’s place to ask the Board questions. It’s the Board that asks the applicant the questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, Counselor. MRS. SALVADOR-Well, I’m just trying to clarify what was said, that they saw. MR. HUNSINGER-I can assure you that everyone on this Board is familiar with your property. MRS. SALVADOR-All right, then you know where our docks are. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I can’t say that we all went out and counted your docks, but I can tell you that we’re all very familiar with your property. MRS. SALVADOR-Okay, and they’re all on our property. MR. SALVADOR-I’d like to clarify the issues that we have in dispute with the Lake George Park Commission. In qualifying for Lake George Park Commission marina permit, we were insistent that our rights to the level of use that we were granted, that was registered and approved by the DEC, be protected, and we’d get at least that level of use. If you look at the DEC permit, the DEC permit, in your packet there, I’d like to refer to a few things that are of significance and. MR. HUNSINGER-John, I don’t know if it’s the nature of our Board to verify or. MR. SALVADOR-It’s important because it’s been raised as an issue here by Mr. Sweeney, and it needs clarification. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-All right. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. HUNSINGER-If we can bring this into context quickly, then. MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Sweeney seems to know more about our controversy with the Park Commission than we’re allowed to disclose. MR. SANFORD-Mr. Salvador, I don’t believe, though, it’s the opinion of this Board, based on prior conversations that we’ve had, that we feel that your issues with the Lake George Park Commission are particularly valid or important. So despite what Mr. Sweeney had to say, I’m not so sure that we agree with that kind of. MR. SALVADOR-I don’ t know that. I don’t know that and I’ve got to protect my time, and in rebuttal, I’ve got to protect that, and I’ve got to put that on the record. Okay. The DEC marina permit, granted in 1982, if you’ll notice is an Article 9, Title One Permit. This is not to be likened to an Article 15, Protection of Waters Permit. Article 9 of the DEC law pertains to lands and forests. Okay. This permit goes with our land, and we filed this permit for that reason. When I submitted that at the last meeting, it was a document that we have filed at the Warren County Clerk’s Office to protect our rights. The only proviso in this permit says any increase in the number of vessels accommodated or increase in the scope of operations shall require an amendment to this permit. Otherwise, this is good for life. We have not exceeded the level in the permit, and the scope of operations have only been requirements of the Lake George Park Commission. That is a pump out station. That is 24 hour toilets, etc., etc. Other than that, this permit is valid, and the Lake George Park Commission will not recognize that, and that’s our controversy. This is a permit that went with the land, and we’re insisting upon that recognition. That’s our dispute with the Lake George Park Commission. MR. STROUGH-John, are you finished? MR. SALVADOR-As far as the survey goes, the survey, that survey was prepared, as you see, at the end of June, in 1988, it was a hastily thing. Tracey Clothier appeared one day, unannounced to conduct the survey, okay, busy with I can’t tell you what we were doing. She runs, she did this measuring. She did this counting and it was stuck under my nose to sign, and that’s exactly what I did. I signed it, but it’s a dock survey. It’s not, and yet they have all these marina uses down here, but that’s where that, she put down 60 on the list. I don’t know how she got 60. She put it down. She put everything else on that list. That’s not my handwriting. MR. STROUGH-Well, your contention is it doesn’t make any difference if it’s 60, 67, because some boats are going to be 10 foot and some boats are going to be 20 foot. MR. SALVADOR-Exactly. MR. STROUGH-So the 1,021 foot number that keeps reappearing is the total linear? MR. SALVADOR-It’s her calculation, yes. MR. STROUGH-Hers or yours? MR. SALVADOR-Hers. That’s her work. All these calculations are Tracey Clothier’s. She signed. MR. STROUGH-Do you dispute the 1,021 foot? MR. SALVADOR-It has been amended. The Park Commission came out and measured again and that’s been changed. It’s now something in the order of 2600. MR. STROUGH-I didn’t see that. I mean, I looked through the documents. I didn’t see anything. MR. SALVADOR-You’ll see on the invoice. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. STROUGH-I see a total dollar amount. I don’t see the linear feet. MR. SALVADOR-Doesn’t it have footage? It has footage on it. MR. STROUGH-I’ll look again, John. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, it has footage. I think we’re in the order of 2600. MR. STROUGH-So that’s in question. MR. SALVADOR-It’s not a question. MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, you’ve got me to the point where I want to get my tape measure, go up there, measure. MR. SALVADOR-Let’s go. I’m available. MR. STROUGH-And find out what’s what here. MR. SALVADOR-I’ll hold the dumb end of the tape. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, what’s the issue between this 24 feet and you extending the docks the 30 feet issue? MR. SALVADOR-Well, they maintain that I extended these docks without a permit. In fact I had a permit, and that’s in the record. MR. STROUGH-Did you have a permit from the Lake George Park Commission to do that? MR. SALVADOR-No, I had a permit from the DEC to do that. It was just about the time, see, we hadn’t gotten our dock certification. Remember, if you look at the dates, we got a marina permit in March. We didn’t get a dock certification until November, but we had extended the docks in that time. That’s what we did the work. MR. STROUGH-Okay. John, my only issue, and I think you probably understand this at this point, is trying to come to some kind of objective, definite, numerical item here, whether it be number of boats, whether it be linear feet, I don’t care. Just a definite number based on the alterations and everything else, but I think that to deny you permission to run your marina until you’ve settled the litigation, whatever it may be, with the Lake George Park Commission or Mr. Parillo or whoever, to force you to settle that litigation prior to you operating your marina is close to extortion. MRS. SALVADOR-You’ve got it. MR. STROUGH-But, I don’t know if I’m ready, you know, that’s the only issue I have is terms of numbers. Otherwise, I don’t think you should be denied the right, and I agree with Mr. Sanford and Mr. Vollaro, the right to run your marina, but I guess I might be alone in saying the only issue is we have to clarify a little bit more definitively what we’re talking about in terms of slips or linear feet or something. Okay. MR. SALVADOR-How do you want to do it? MR. STROUGH-Well, I can be up Saturday with a tape measure. MR. SALVADOR-What’s going to take you so long? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. STROUGH-But that, just so you understand, as the applicant, that I don’t know where I’m going to, it depends on how Bob words this, but I do have an issue with the change in the configuration of the docks, and I don’t have any documentation that shows the updated forms, and there is an issue between number of slips between one document and another. There is an issue between number of linear feet between one document and another, and personally, I think we, at least three or four of us agree, you should have your marina. We should give you permission to run the marina, but I know at least a couple of us are going to say, John, come back to us with some more definitive numbers, as far as slips, number of boats, or linear feet, that doesn’t include the Parillo property in question. I think you’ve agreed to that, and, bingo, I’m ready to go, but that’s the only thing that I’m kind of like. MR. SALVADOR-I will agree to tabling this application until next month. In the meantime, whichever members of the Board want to come and substantiate any of these numbers, counts, I’m ready to do it, and compare it to this, to demonstrate that there’s been no unauthorized expansion of this marina. MR. STROUGH-And like Tony has said, it’s very clear. You’ve got a marina. It’s been running as a marina, I mean, and you should be allowed to continue to run your marina. The other issues, as Mr. Sanford and Mr. Vollaro pointed out, are civil matters. I think that, and Mr. Vollaro’s trying to word a condition to circumvent those issues. MR. SANFORD-Could we, John, perhaps go for a motion for approval with one of the conditions being that the applicant will provide and have it verified by Staff the linear feet of slips? That way we don’t have to have this come back again? MR. STROUGH-I don’t know if George is going to be comfortable with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, would counsel be comfortable with that? MR. SALVADOR-John, I like your idea. We could do it. MR. STROUGH-He’s happy with the tabling, and he’ll come back with more firmer numbers. I mean, if we have to go up there and measure everything ourselves, but how does the rest of the Board feel? MR. METIVIER-That’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, what was the recommendation, John, for the applicant to give us new information, or definitive number? MR. STROUGH-Well, I see, I think Bob and Richard are pretty happy with everything now, but I don’t want to speak for them. I’m just trying to get a feel for the Board, if they don’t mind. MR. METIVIER-When are our site visits next month? Why don’t we schedule a time, we’ll set it up with Mr. Salvador, that during site visits, first stop on Saturday morning about 9:15 we can walk, count, measure, it’ll take 15 minutes. At that point we’ll know exactly what we’re doing. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not sure we want to do that, though. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But I feel that our past policy, we’ve always been instructed not to confront the applicant when we go on a site visit. MR. METIVIER-So he’s going to come back next month and we’re going to be in the same situation we are right now? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, we can still. MR. METIVIER-We’ll invite the public, anybody who wants to come. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the burden is on the applicant to give us information to either approve or not approve. MR. METIVIER-I understand, but the problem is it’s 8:30. It’s our first application, and where are we? We’re still arguing about the number of docks and the footage. So somehow, somewhere, somebody’s got to get to the bottom of where we are going to go with this. I mean, if you don’t want to be there, we can go and count them. MR. SALVADOR-I want to be there. MR. METIVIER-Well, I realize that, but the problem is we’re not supposed to confront you. So maybe we’ll figure it out for ourselves. MR. SALVADOR-I’m supplying on-site information. MR. METIVIER-I realize that, but we’re basically supposed to do this on our own. So perhaps maybe we’ll do a surprise visit when you’re not around. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess what I would suggest is, again, you know, the burden is on the applicant to provide the information. I would suggest that you provide the information to the Board, and then we can go out and verify what you have provided. That would be my recommendation. Would that be acceptable to the other members of the Board? MR. STROUGH-That sounds good, Chris. MR. METIVIER-He’s provided the information. We just have to go verify it. Correct? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. I have supplied it. I just can’t do any more than this. MR. HUNSINGER-The issue at hand seems to be the number of slips, or the linear feet of docks, whatever measure you want to give us to be the definitive measure on the basis to which to consider your application. MR. SALVADOR-I think we have to stick to number of slips. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-That’s the registration we made. I mean, that’s the statement we made. We affirmed that with our signature. We affirmed 67. MR. HUNSINGER-So you want to say that 67 boat slips is the number that you want your application to reflect? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So then the burden is on this Board to determine whether or not we agree with what you have provided. Is that fair? MR. SANFORD-Mr. Chairman, because we’ve accepted the applicant’s explanation that he may rent, from time to time, for different lengths of boats, some being as Mr. Strough pointed out maybe as small as 10 feet, some being maybe 20 some odd feet or 30 feet, by going up and doing a site plan, we’re not going to readily be able to determine any more than what we have in front of us. Because that’s constantly a moving picture, in terms of what configuration of boats may be moored or docked at that location. So, again, I appreciate what Mr. Strough is trying to do, but from a practical point of view, I’m not sure we’re going to get a whole lot more mileage out of tabling this for another month. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. STROUGH-Well, for one thing, the applicant has agreed that they will supply us with documentation that will clarify either linear feet, the number of slips, or whatever, to a more definitive degree than what we have in front of us because what we have in front of us isn’t definitive enough. MR. SANFORD-Well, you’ve got handwritten sketches that seem to lay out. MR. STROUGH-Handwritten sketches. MR. SANFORD-Well, the other applications we had were handwritten sketches. MR. STROUGH-And I didn’t approve them. MR. SANFORD-They were approved by this Board. All right. MR. STROUGH-Well, I don’t think you’ve got the votes. MR. SALVADOR-I mean, this is all that was required at that time. They didn’t require a certified survey. I’m telling you, look at the record of submissions on this program, and this out-classes them all. MRS. SALVADOR-I think if you look at what we’ve submitted. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what’s the pleasure? Do you want to table this, or do you want to? MR. SANFORD-I would like to work with Bob to at least present a motion, and see how it goes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let’s do that. MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, we are faced. MR. VOLLARO-John, we’re wrestling with a motion now. MR. METIVIER-Why are you going to argue that? Just let him do the motion, they want to do a motion, it could be in your favor. Let them do it. MR. SALVADOR-It might not be in our favor. All right. Listen. Hear me out. We are faced with a super majority here. MR. HUNSINGER-You made your point an hour ago, okay. MR. SALVADOR-We are faced with a super majority. If we table this for a month, and Mr. Strough gets the information he needs, okay, and maybe Mr. Metivier gets the information he needs, and you get that seat filled, with an alternate, we’ll have a better chance at five votes. So, on that basis, I would like to table. MR. SANFORD-Well, to what degree, I mean, why do we need the super majority? I’m a little unclear on that. MS. RADNER-You need a super majority because you have a County recommendation of denial. So you need a super majority in order to pass this to override the County denial. MR. SANFORD-A super majority of the Board or a super majority of the people here? MS. RADNER-A super majority of the Board. MR. STROUGH-And another thing, too, I think if it ends up in being a denial, the applicant has to start the process over again. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MS. RADNER-Well, then the applicant’s back to presenting the whole site plan for review instead of being grandfathered in. MR. METIVIER-But I don’t believe there’s going to be a motion to deny. There might not be a motion to approve, but that doesn’t mean we have to deny it, do we? Or do we? MS. RADNER-If you don’t have the votes to carry, then you want to instead table it, you could do that. You’re probably better off if you think you’re going to need to table it, just going straight to the tabling. MR. SANFORD-Well, why would we be better off if what Tony said could happen? If we could put forth a motion, and it may or may not carry, and then table? MS. RADNER-Then you could put through another motion, yes. MR. METIVIER-If we didn’t carry a motion to approve, could you put a motion to table after the fact, or are we stuck at that point? MR. SANFORD-I think she said you could put a motion to table. MS. RADNER-If somebody has made a motion to approve and you don’t get sufficient votes to move forward on that, it’s not an automatic denial. Somebody could still present another motion, either another motion to deny or a motion to table. MR. HUNSINGER-We’re going to table this, then, because we don’t have enough votes to approve it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I can see we don’t. So we can’t get five out of this Board. I can see that. MR. SALVADOR-And I would encourage you to try to have an alternate in that seat. That’s why we have alternates. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we spent an hour and a half getting to the point where the Chairman wanted us to go in the beginning, but that’s not your fault. We’re going to table this application to our, it’s probably too late for November, right? MR. HILTON-The deadline for November submissions has past. MR. VOLLARO-It’s got to be December. MR. SALVADOR-You could extend that deadline. You do it all the time. MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the pleasure of t he Board? MR. STROUGH-Well, as long as we give Mr. Salvador his approval prior to the season opening, in March or April or whenever the season opens, he’ll be all right. So I don’t think it’s significant whether it’s November or December. MR. VOLLARO-Well, do it in December. MR. STROUGH-December’s fine. December 16 is the first regularly scheduled Planning Board th meeting in December. MR. SALVADOR-The 16 is difficult for us. We have plans to be away. th MR. STROUGH-Will the 23? rd 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MRS. SALVADOR-The 23 we’ll be here. rd MR. HUNSINGER-Why don’t we just say the December Board meeting, and we’ll let Staff and the agenda committee work out the meeting time, taking into account the applicant’s comment. MR. HILTON-That’s fine. We’ll certainly work with the applicant. The deadline is November 17. If we receive information by that date, we’ll place you on a December meeting. th MR. SALVADOR-The information, I believe, is going to be an on-site measurement that Mr. Strough is going to. MR. STROUGH-I’m going up there. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. So we have to do it before the 17, is that the? th MRS. SALVADOR-November 17. th MR. SALVADOR-November 17. th MR. HUNSINGER-Are we all set? MR. STROUGH-That’s fine with me. I mean, I’m one vote, John. MR. SALVADOR-If we can convince you, I think we’ll go a long way. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We’ll see you back in December. MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. MRS. SALVADOR-Thank you. OLD BUSINESS SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED THE MICHAELS GROUP PROPERTY OWNER: JOHN MICHAELS AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION: MOON HILL & BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES THE SUBDIVISION OF A 10.30 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 LOTS RANGING FROM 3 +/- TO 4.04 +/- ACRES. NEW INFO. SUBMITTED. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 40-01 TAX MAP NO. 48-1-13.21 LOT SIZE: 10.38 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing was tabled in June, and there is a public hearing tonight. MR. STEVES-For the record, Matt Steves, representing The Michaels Group on this application. This was before you a few months ago and was tabled for further information. There were a couple of items that were requested. There was a stormwater prevention plan which we had submitted back to the Staff, and to this Board and to C.T. Male. C.T. Male did signoff on that, and there was one Staff comment as far as, on Lots One and Two, to beyond the break away on the first driveway to accommodate the property line in the centerline of the driveway. So it could be considered a shared driveway by their regulations. So that wasn’t a problem. We applied that change, and after the last submission to the Town and to C.T. Male, received another review letter from C.T. Male on the application, basically addressing all the items, they said address, there was a couple of minor things that they wanted placed on the map. We have no objection to those. If the Board wishes, I can go through those three items real quick. Item Number One was the sight distance that we had labeled on the access driveway, and they 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) wanted to know whether that complied with the Department of Transportation sight distance guidelines, and they do . We will put that note on the final mylar, as far as the sight distance of 275 in one direction and 325 in the other is the minimum requirement for that speed, and we have 436 and 351, so that does comply. The other question that they had is that they asked that a culvert be placed at the end of the driveway. We have put that in there. They are asking for a size, length and percent slope on it. I talked to Tom Nace today, that was pretty easy. It’s a very shallow swale along that road now, put in a ten inch culvert at twenty-four feet at about two percent, and that would be fine as far as the C.T. Male. The other question was the diversion swale. On the grading plan that’s shown around Lot Three. There’s just a New York State Department of Health requirement that that swale be no closer than 20 feet to the septic system. That note will be placed on the final mylar, so that during construction people know that that swale has to be a minimum of 20 feet. It is shown at a minimum of 20 feet, but we’ll place the note on there so they know that it’s also a New York State Department of Health requirement, and consideration should be given to replacing of the rock check dams along the swales of the road. That was one of the comments that they had to place rock check dams instead of just a swale, and now they’re asking whether or not we should line the whole swale with stone to avoid any kind of scour downhill, and we have no objections to that either. MR. VOLLARO-I think he also, I think you might have missed one, Number Nine. MR. STEVES-The perc test, I’m coming to that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Sorry. MR. STEVES-My notes are in different order than his, and as far as the perc test and test pits on the property, the perc test has been performed, and they’re consistent with the three to four minutes that we have on the rest of the property. Talking to Tom Nace, as far as the test pit information, no, we didn’t do a new test pit in that area, but all the test pits they had done in this area in previous applications, it’s all glacial till as far as you can dig down, and because of the location of the elevation of 130 compared to about 85 at the lower lot, he is convinced that it is consistent, unless this Board sees a reason to do another test pit. MR. STROUGH-No, I think you made a good point. It’s been an issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else to add? MR. STEVES-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Just a question from Staff, do we have a final signoff from C.T. Male, or is the letter in our package the most recent letter? MR. HILTON-That’s the most recent correspondence. MR. STEVES-Those are those three, or now four items that was discussed, and we have no problem with any of them. If the motion was to approve this, we would have no problems with conditioning it upon that letter being obtained and sent to Staff. Those four items we have already addressed. We’ve just got to send the plan back to them for the signoff. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you want to go first, Tony? MR. METIVIER-I’m fine with this. MR. HUNSINGER-John? MR. STROUGH-Just a couple of questions. In looking at S-1, Matt, and looking at Lot One, I just, and I’m looking at the driveway, and I see that the boundary between Lots Two and Lots One generally runs in the center of the driveway. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. STEVES-Yes, beyond the turnaround. MR. STROUGH-Yes, why is that? MR. STEVES-That was Staff’s recommendation to move it to the centerline of the driveway, beyond the turnoff into Lot One, so that’s the reason I addressed that at the beginning of the my presentation. MR. HILTON-Make sure it’s a truly shared driveway. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. HILTON-As opposed to, you know, any potential issues that might arise if it were completely on one property. MR. STROUGH-Yes. Okay. What kind of agreement would there be with snow clearing and maintaining the road, things of that nature? MR. STEVES-Just as with any other common driveway, that this Board has approved on, you know, shared driveways along corridors would require 300 feet or a shared driveway. There’ll be a deeded restriction inside both deeds for common maintenance of that portion of the driveway. MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s it. Thank you. MR. STEVES-You’re welcome. MR. HUNSINGER-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. On the deed restriction language, it’s on the drawing, and so on, but will a statement on G-1, Drawing G-1, be included in the deeds? I mean, this is a deed restriction and it should be included on the deed, as well as on the drawing. MR. STEVES-I will agree to that, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Now, we’re going to be granting a waiver here for lighting and landscaping. That’s what you’ve requested that waiver? MR. HILTON-Lighting probably wouldn’t, it doesn’t apply to a subdivision. Landscaping, probably wouldn’t apply either because it’s under 20 lots. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that doesn’t, the waivers are not germane to this? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Now, on the, just one question I have, it’s on density, and the calculations with reference to the slopes. MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-The drawing that I saw in here, and I’m looking for it, and I know it’s in here somewhere. MR. STEVES-The eight and a half by eleven with the slope analysis? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Here it is. This doesn’t exactly look like the lot to me. I’m trying to correlate this between the site plan drawing, and it looks. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. STEVES-Well, that also includes all the road topography and it’s the entire property, what you’re looking at is a tin, a triangular network of the points for the topography. So the property sits within the topography. As you can see on our map, our topography extends well beyond the property line on three sides. So what you’re looking at is a geometric figure that is larger than this, but when you take into consideration the property line, and we have the computer only calculate the percentage of slopes over or under a certain amount within that property line. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the slope’s in excess of 15%, I guess it’s 15% we’re dealing with, or is it 25%? MR. HILTON-Twenty-five with the traditional subdivision. MR. VOLLARO-Twenty-five, and, yes, 25%, and the roads are in there. MR. STEVES-But the area that I give you inside that calculation only pertains to within the property line. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STEVES-But what you’re looking at is, the computer has to calculate everything within topography review. Whatever area is shown on your map as having topographic features is represented on that. MR. VOLLARO-On this piece. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think that’s all I had. I just want to take a look at some of my notes here, if you can bear with me for a minute, because I’ve had stuff all over the place here. Okay. No, I think I have it all, Mr. Chairman. That’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Richard? MR. SANFORD-Yes, no, I’m fine, though I would like to sort of inquire as to whether it’s possible in the future to have more visuals on these applications projected and/or on your view for use of the public and for the Board. It would be nice. MR. HILTON-Yes. I think the fact that quite a few of these applications that are on this evening played into the decision, but absolutely. MR. SANFORD-Okay. No, I’m all set. Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m all set. I think that, over this period of time, that the site has developed nicely. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled. If you’d give up the table, is there anyone that would like to speak, either for or against this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CYNTHIA HUBER MRS. HUBER-I’m Cynthia Huber, and I was here about a year and ago fighting against the sandpit that another developer wanted, and I think our neighbors are very pleased with the Michaels Group, and we’re welcoming them to the neighborhood, showing that you don’t have to level the property. Thank you. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Do you want to come back up? I think I will go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-We need to do a SEQRA. This is a Long Form, right? MR. VOLLARO-Long Form, yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 9-2003, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: THE MICHAELS GROUP, 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 28 day of October, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to entertain a motion? Do we have any conditions that are unusual, other than the C.T. Male signoff? MR. STROUGH-Well, the two conditions, Mr. Chairman, do you want me to go with the motion? 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. HUNSINGER-If you’re ready. MR. STROUGH-And I’ll think out loud. The only two conditions that I’ve identified at this point is a signoff by C.T. Male, the Town’s Engineer, and that any deed restrictions noted on the submitted plans also be included in the actual deeds. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll second that motion. MR. STROUGH-Well, I haven’t made the motion. Are there any other conditions? If not, I’ll make the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2003 THE MICHAELS GROUP, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board by Subdivision No. 9-2003 Applicant: The Michaels Group PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: John Michaels FINAL STAGE Agent: Van Dusen & Steves SEQR Type: Unlisted Zone: RR-3A Location: Moon Hill & Bay Road Applicant proposes the subdivision of a 10.30+/- acre parcel into 3 lots ranging from 3 +/- to 4.04+/- acres. Cross Reference: SP 40-01 Tax Map No. 48-1-13.21 / 278.20-1-5 Lot size: 10.38 acres / Section: Subdivision Regs Public Hearing: June 24, 2003 (Tabled) October 28, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received 5/15/03, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 10/24/03, and 10/28 Staff Notes 10/24 CT Male engineering comments 10/22 CT Male engineering comments 10/21 Notice of Public Hearing 9/29 Meeting Notice 9/22 Map S-1 revised 9/19/03 9/22 Application referral to CT Male 9/15 New information received: C-1, S-1, G-1, D-1 7/8 CT Male engineering comments 6/24 PB resolution: Tabled 6/24 PB minutes 6/24 Staff Notes 6/18 C. T. Male engineering comments 6/18 Deed 6/17 Notice of Public Hearing 6/3 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 June 24, 2003 and October 28, 2003, and 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) 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 Planning Board is reaffirming the previous SEQR, 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 28th day of October, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now I’ll make a motion approving the Final Stage. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2003 THE MICHAELS GROUP, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board by Subdivision No. 9-2003 Applicant: The Michaels Group PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: John Michaels FINAL STAGE Agent: Van Dusen & Steves SEQR Type: Unlisted Zone: RR-3A Location: Moon Hill & Bay Road Applicant proposes the subdivision of a 10.30+/- acre parcel into 3 lots ranging from 3 +/- to 4.04+/- acres. Cross Reference: SP 40-01 Tax Map No. 48-1-13.21 / 278.20-1-5 Lot size: 10.38 acres / Section: Subdivision Regs Public Hearing: June 24, 2003 (Tabled) October 28, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received 5/15/03, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 10/24/03, and 10/28 Staff Notes 10/24 CT Male engineering comments 10/22 CT Male engineering comments 10/21 Notice of Public Hearing 9/29 Meeting Notice 9/22 Map S-1 revised 9/19/03 9/22 Application referral to CT Male 9/15 New information received: C-1, S-1, G-1, D-1 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) 7/8 CT Male engineering comments 6/24 PB resolution: Tabled 6/24 PB minutes 6/24 Staff Notes 6/18 C. T. Male engineering comments 6/18 Deed 6/17 Notice of Public Hearing 6/3 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 June 24, 2003 and October 28, 2003, 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 Planning Board is reaffirming the previous SEQR, 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 with the following conditions: 1. All deed restrictions noted in the applicant’s submitted plans be included in the actual deeds. 2. C.T. Male, the Town Engineer, give a sign-off for this application. 3. Recreation Fees in the amount of $ 500.00 per lot are applicable to this subdivision. 4. Waiver request(s) are granted: Lighting and Landscaping Plan 5. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 6. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. Duly adopted this 28th day of October, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. STEVES-Thank you. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS SITE PLAN NO. 49-2003 SEQR TYPE II WILLIAM & LINDA NIZOLEK AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 25 ONEIDA DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES SITE PLAN APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 64-01/TAKUNDEWIDE MASTER PLAN APA, CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/8/03 TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-31 LOT SIZE: 0.05 ACRES/ SECTION: 179-4- 020 JOHN MASON, STEFANIE BITTER, & JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-And there is a public hearing scheduled. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 49-2003, William & Linda Nizolek, Meeting Date: October 28, 2003 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 49-2003 APPLICANT: William and Linda Nizolek are the applicants for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to construct a new basement and second floor addition to an existing structure. Site Plan review and approval is required for the expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA. LOCATION: The subject property is located at 25 Oneida Dr. EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned WR-1A, Waterfront Residential One Acre. SEQRA STATUS: This application is a Type II SEQRA action. No further Planning Board action is required. PARCEL HISTORY: Area Variance 64-2001 (resolved on October 15, 2003) granting setback relief, FAR relief, as well as relief from the expansion of nonconforming structure requirements of § 179-13-010. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to construct a new basement and a second floor addition to an existing residential structure. The overall proposed building square footage is 1536 sq. ft. The height of the expanded structure would be 25 feet. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has requested waivers from the following requirements: Stormwater Management Plan - Grading Plan - Lighting Plan - Landscaping Plan - It should be noted that a representative of the Takundewide HOA signed the Takundewide MOU (approved by the Planning Board on September 23, 2003) on October 10, 2003. Are their any existing stormwater control methods currently being used at this location? If not, some form of stormwater management should be included as part of the site plan. In a letter from the Takundewide HOA to the Queensbury Planning Board, dated August 18, 2003, item 22 as homes are upgraded/expanded and stormwater containment added we will delineate it in states, “… 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) our Master Plan such that we preclude impacting septic system operation. ” Existing or proposed stormwater management facilities should be added to the Master Plan map, which is part of the approved MOU, as well as the site plan submitted in support of SP 49-2003.” MRS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter for the record. As you are aware, we were here in September, in which Takundewide presented their Master Plan which was approved by the Board. Since that point, we went to the Zoning Board, and the Area Variances that we were seeking were all also approved, and now we’re here seeking site plan review which is consistent with the Master Plan. I’m going to have Mr. Mason actually describe per some of the comments that were placed in the Staff Notes, if you would. MR. MASON-Hi. William Mason, representing the applicant as well. Staff comments that we had requested waivers from following requirements. Stormwater management plan, however we did submit, and that’s really, that’s our major presentation that we gave was the modification of the Master Plan map that you approved in September, and we have added, at this Lot, Number 25, which you can see, and it says, see the notes to explain it, where we’ve encircled the home where we collect the stormwater runoff from the home, from the roof. It doesn’t currently exist. So this is an add-on, and roof drains and perimeter drains are to be piped in to a drywell, see Sheet 2 of 2 for details, and I include the Details sheet for you to look at as well, of where it’s going to go and so on. It’s exactly the same square roof surface as what was, what is existing today, and that is not infiltrated, currently runs off on the ground and we are now infiltrating this. So it’s quite an improvement from that standpoint. The grading plan, lighting plan and landscaping plans we’re asking waivers from because there will be no change. The existing exposure on the grading plan will be exactly the same, and the grade will remain the same. No lights will change. The lights on the home a little bit, you know, just outside doors, this sort of thing, but nothing, the landscaping plan, whatever bushes we remove we’re going to try and put right back. It will look the same that way, and that’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. MASON-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Richard, why don’t we start with you. MR. SANFORD-I really don’t have much on this. Since we went through that exercise with the Master Plan, I’m pretty comfortable with it. Now you’re saying, basically, you’re asking for the waivers, but you’re not really asking for, you are doing some stormwater management. Is that what you said earlier? MR. MASON-Well, in the application, we actually checked on the stormwater management plan, if I pulled it out, I think maybe we did ask for a waiver, but that’s not really correct, maybe, I’m changing that, because we actually submitted that. That’s exactly what we’re doing, and in fact, as per the Master Plan agreement, we have to modify the document, and then the document that you’ve gotten with our submission will be included as our new Master Plan, you know, updated as per our agreement. MR. SANFORD-Okay. I don’t have anything further, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I’m okay, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I’m fine. MR. HUNSINGER-John? 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. STROUGH-Is the septic field going in front, or the rear of the building? MR. MASON-The septic field is, it’s where it is right now. We still haven’t determined, there is a 1,000 gallon concrete tank in the ground, which I’m hopeful that we’re going to be able to use it and leave it right in the same location. MR. STROUGH-Is that in the front? MR. MASON-It’s on the back. MR. STROUGH-It’s on the back. I thought, I wasn’t sure, though, if that was a reference. Okay. MR. MASON-And the drain field is, as it shows on the map, the drain field, as near as I can determine, is right about where we show on the map, okay, we haven’t dug it up to find the drain fields on each one of these, but we will during construction. We’ll determine exactly what it is, and of course if we need to we’ll install a brand new drain field. We’ll do whatever we need to at that time. MR. STROUGH-Right. Okay, and the stormwater plan, as stated, was submitted? Was that a later submittal? MR. VOLLARO-He’s going to update the Master Plan to include that. MR. STROUGH-Because that sounds like a good plan. MR. MASON-Any time somebody comes in front of this Board, in front of the other Board to do anything, then they need to update the stormwater management plan. That was part of our agreement in the Master Plan. MR. STROUGH-Right. No, I think that’s wonderful where we’ve gotten with this, although I didn’t think it would take us so long, and, you know, the only other question I have is in the septic field area. Is it an area where somebody might park, and should we put signage or is it clearly? MR. MASON-It’s clearly, there’s a hedge right around the parking lot and the parking area right behind the cottage. For somebody to get on top of that area, they’d have to really work hard. They’d dodge between trees and so on. It’s clearly out on. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. MASON-I don’t think I’ve had a car parked out there in all the years I’ve been there. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I think I know the situation you’re talking about, and I agree. The only other question I have is 25 Oneida Drive. Is Oneida Drive identified? MR. MASON-Yes. It’s one of those private right of way roads, private roads and, yes, the Town put up a sign. MR. STROUGH-Okay. We just must have missed it, because. MR. MASON-It may be buried in the brush right now. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, if you’re not familiar with Takundewide, like we’re not, you drive over everywhere, in everyone’s driveway to finally get to the space. MR. MASON-I’ll use this discussion to make a little note to go check the sign out. MR. STROUGH-All right. I’m fine with everything, and I wish the Nizolek’s good luck. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. HUNSINGER-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I read the minutes. I wasn’t here for the last, I read all the minutes today on that, and I’ve gone over the Memorandum of Understanding, and I have also looked at the Master Plan letters, and so on. I have just a couple of minor questions. I think we’re there. I think that the Memorandum of Understanding, as Mr. Sanford has pointed out, and I just read it in the minutes, that basically it’s not a legal document. It’s kind of a document that says both parties want to get to this place, and this is essentially how we do it, but we don’t have a legal, binding document in the MOU. I did have an opportunity to go through the declaration and covenants, which are all part of this, because I think the people at Takundewide probably look at that document more than they will be looking at either the MOU or this Master Plan. The Master Plan is basically for people like yourself and us to work together with, and the MOU. Most of the people there will be looking at declaration and covenants. Having been in an Association like that, I used to keep it right on my desk. MR. MASON-But they are, through e-mail, they are very much aware of the MOU already. MR. VOLLARO-Right. I’ll bet they are. So, I notice that in Article Eight, what is the criteria used to permit a clothes washer in a particular building, which excludes Buildings Two, Three, Four, Six, Seven, and Eight, which are the cess pool buildings. When somebody makes application to do a washer. MR. MASON-Well, it was based on the septic system, and it was based on the knowledge of what kind of a septic system they have and what it really comes down to is if they don’t have a 1,000 gallon concrete tank with a drain field or the equivalent, something that’s working in that fashion, because there’s other technology that works that well, but there are cess pools still on the property, and those the ones that are. MR. VOLLARO-Building Two, Three, Four, Six, Seven, and Eight. MR. MASON-Exactly. MR. VOLLARO-Right. I got those, and they will not be allowed washers, I would think. MR. MASON-They are not allowed washers. MR. VOLLARO-Now, under Article Two, under Property Rights, and I just want to get this square in my head. This is the delegation of use, and my question is, how is the rental of cottages handled? Is it limited to a specific unit, or are all cottages allowed to rent, and, two, is an expanded cottage, of 1536 square feet, what’s the occupancy limitation and the duration in number of occupants. In other words, in the declaration and covenants, there’s nothing that talks to the rental of these properties, for how long a period of time, for how many people. Right now, we take a unit up to 1536, we would assume we’d have a family in there, I’m assuming that. Now they rent it out for X period of time. Do you monitor that to say, you can only rent for one month, six weeks, two months, whatever, or the occupancy is limited to? MR. MASON-These are all private homes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but do you, in any way, get involved in that, as the administrator of Takundewide? MR. MASON-No, actually we tried to stay out of it. As private homes, we tried to allow the people to use them as private homes. Some rent and some don’t, and we’ve discussed all of these issues, and some of them, it’s a funny situation, because the best guess of what’s happening is the history, and the history of the property is that about half of them don’t rent, and of those, many times they’re vacant through the summer months. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MASON-So the property is getting less and less use as the years go on. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I was just seeing whether the Article Two of the Property Rights and Delegation of Use had any, gave the property owner some feeling for how he or she should operate in that area, and if it doesn’t, you might think about putting it in. That was my only question. MR. MASON-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s it. I think they’ve done a good job. MR. HUNSINGER-Richard? MR. SANFORD-You started with me. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I had, I did have one question. It’s really more for Staff than it is for the applicant. If the applicant knows the answer, by all means. In reviewing the minutes from the ZBA meeting, they didn’t make any reference in their approval to the basement. They only referenced the second story addition. Is it implicit in their approval that the basement was included? Or was it excluded? MR. MASON-It’s included. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MASON-Foundation basement, yes. It says the applicant has proposed 768 square foot second story addition, as well as the construction of the foundation basement of the existing structure. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. In the final sentence of the motion it says that I would move for approval for a 768 square foot second story addition. The way they singled it out, you know, made me ask the question. That’s all. Is there anything else that the applicant would like to add? MR. MASON-If you need more, I know what. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I’m okay. Like I said, the way it was worded, it made me beg the question. Yes. MR. MASON-A different issue came up at the end, and I know that that’s what that was dealing with. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anything else that you’d like to add? MR. MASON-No. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled. If you could vacate the table. Is there anyone that would like to speak either for or against this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR, JR. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. With regard to the statement that was made, these are private homes, this issue was talked about at your Planning Board meeting where I guess you approved this Memorandum of Understanding. Jonathan Lapper indicated that, you know, these are private homes. They’re entitled to do whatever they want in that regard, just as you might be in your private home, and that’s not necessarily the case. These people are bound together in an Association, and they don’t enjoy the same privileges that you might enjoy on your single family residential dwelling on your lot, and so that’s an unfair statement, to characterize these as private homes, that the people have these privileges. The Association By- laws, covenants, restrictions and conditions govern their activities. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. If you could come back. We do need to do a SEQRA, short form. MR. HILTON-Actually it’s a Type II. MR. HUNSINGER-Type II? Okay. MR. HILTON-I just have a question. You, I believe, have an updated plan showing stormwater that you’re going to file as part of the MOU? MR. MASON-It was included. Do you want another copy? I’ve provided many, many copies to both Boards. MR. LAPPER-It showed the drywells, and it might not have been explicit, or easily read. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I guess I’m not seeing that. MR. STROUGH-I didn’t see it, either. I have it as a condition. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Actually, we did get it. MR. STROUGH-I didn’t get it, but it sounds good. MR. MASON-Should I submit one copy to you, or do you want me to? MR. LAPPER-Just show him where. MR. MASON-(Lost words) and this is where we added, this is the drywell, the note is here, we added Note Number Two, and then this is the detail. MR. HILTON-Okay. I guess I didn’t see the detail. MR. STROUGH-Yes, I didn’t see it. No, I’ll just condition it. I just have details for sewer. MR. HILTON-I think it’s something the applicant has said they’ll agree to submitting as part of the final plans. MR. MASON-This is Number Twenty-Five, and the dotted line going around 25 and then gathered together into the deed, okay, and then the notes down here says roof drains and under drains are to be (lost words) for details, and then you look at that, and that’ll tell you the cross section. MR. STROUGH-Well, I saw the holding tank. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Are we all set? I guess I will close the public hearing. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone that would like to make a motion? MR. STROUGH-Yes. Is there any problem with other members of the Planning Board if we just add to the resolution prepared by Staff Bob’s suggestion, I would agree, that we just include to the list of documentation list, in the resolution prepared by Staff, that also included in this is the October 10, 2003 approved version of the Takundewide Memorandum of Agreement. Okay. MR. SANFORD-Why do you want to have that included? MR. STROUGH-Just for extra security. It doesn’t hurt to have it included, as the documentation that we’ve used to determine our approval or not, of this application. MR. SANFORD-I don’t think it’s necessary or appropriate. MR. STROUGH-Well, you stand alone. You’re out on a limb there, to use the former Planning Board Chairman’s metaphor. MR. HUNSINGER-How do other members feel? MR. SANFORD-Well, I don’t understand why you want to do this. MR. STROUGH-Well, just adding the documentation as part of the application. MR. VOLLARO-I thought that the MOU was a reasonably critical document, and one that governed what we were doing kind of by agreement with them, and that ought to be listed in the lists of documents inclusive of all new and received information. MR. STROUGH-Is there any other discussion on that matter, by any other members? Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-The only other comment is that we need to address the waiver requests. MR. STROUGH-Yes, I have that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 49-2003 WILLIAM & LINDA NIZOLEK, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 49-2003 Applicant/Property Owner: William & Linda Nizolek SEQR Type II Agent: Jonathan Lapper Zone: WR-1A Location: 25 Oneida Drive Applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing residential structure. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires site plan approval from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: AV 64-01 / Takundewide Master Plan APA, CEA Warren Co. Planning: 10/8/03 Tax Map No. 239.8-1-31 Lot size: 0.05 acres/ Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: October 28, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received on 9/29/03; and 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 10/24/03, and 10/28 Staff Notes 10/28 PB from D. Hatin 10/21 Notice of Public Hearing 10/15 ZBA resolution: Approved 10/10 Approved version of Takundewide Memorandum of Agreement 10/8 Warren Co. Planning: NCI 9/29 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on October 28, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application 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 Agency Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1. That to the resolution prepared by Staff, to be added to the list of documents should be the October 10, 2003 approved version of the Takundewide Memorandum of Agreement, and 2. We acknowledge and grant the waivers that were requested by the applicant: Stormwater Management, Grading, Lighting and Landscaping Plan. Duly adopted this 28th day of October, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. MASON-Thank you. MRS. BITTER-Thank you very much. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE – PZ 6-2003 RICK MEATH PROPERTY OWNER: SKI & SHORE CORPORATION AGENT: JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS, PLLC CURRENT ZONE: SFR-1A PROPOSED ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: CORNER OF WEST MOUNTAIN RD. & GURNEY LN. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REZONE A 17.82 +/- ACRE PARCEL FROM SFR-1A TO SR-1A. AS PART OF THE PROPOSED REZONING, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER SUBDIVISION. CROSS REFERENCE: NONE RUSH POND CEA TB REFERRAL TO PB: 8/18/03, RES. 383,2003 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/8/03 TAX MAP NO. 288-1-64, 63 LOT SIZE: 17.82 ACRES SECTION: 179-15-020 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-There’s a public hearing tonight. MR. STROUGH-Mr. Chairman, I’m going to recuse myself from this application. Because I may be on the Board approving it, and this is only a recommendation by the Planning Board, and I own property in the vicinity of the property, and so I think there’s too many conflicts of interest on my behalf to sit in on this application. May I be recused? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you may. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Petition For Change of Zone, PZ 6-2003, Rick Meath, Meeting Date: October 28, 2003 “Description: The applicant has applied for a Petition for Zone Change to rezone property located on the corner of West Mountain Road and Gurney Lane. The request includes tax parcels 288.-1-64 (16.12 acres) and 288-1-63 (1.51 acres) (Acreage from Town assessment records.) Both parcels are currently zoned SFR-1A (Single Family Residential 1 Acre). A sketch subdivision plan has been submitted to support the Petition for Zone Change. Submitted for review is "Cluster Layout, Meath Concept Subdivision, Sheet 1 of 1," dated July 2003, last revised ?? August 1, 2003 at a scale of 1 in. = 60 ft. Application: On August 18, 2003 the Town Board forwarded the application to the Planning Board requesting a recommendation, and giving consent to the Planning Board to act as Lead Agency for SEQRA review purposes. See Town Board Resolution 383,2003 attached. The applicant has responded to questions as outlined in the Application - Petition for Change of Zone, as submitted. These questions are to be considered by the Planning Board. The Planning Board is to make a recommendation to the Town Board upon review of the Petition. The County recommended approval during their October 8, 2003 meeting. Recent Property History: This property has been the subject of a previous zone change request from SFR-1A to PO during the 2001-2002 changes to the Zoning Ordinance. Traffic impact concerns were central to the decision by the Town Board to reject the proposal. The PO zone allows professional offices compatible with adjacent residential uses. Planning/SEQRA Review Process: A long form EAF has been submitted with the zone change petition and with the subdivision sketch plan. SEQRA review for subdivision usually takes place during the preliminary phase. The Town Board usually grants the Planning Board SEQRA Lead Agency Status when a project is associated with the Petition for Zone Change. The Town Board has consented SEQRA Lead 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) Agency status to the Planning Board. The Planning Board will review the rezoning materials as well as the sketch subdivision plan. The action for purposes of SEQRA review includes the requested rezoning, and the sketch plan in anticipation of a preliminary subdivision. When the preliminary subdivision is submitted, the Planning Board may choose to reaffirm the rezoning/sketch SEQRA decision, unless the project changes significantly, or if new information is obtained that could impact the environment. Or, the Planning Board may choose to perform a new SEQRA review. Planning Board Review: The Planning Board needs to address each one of the Petition for Zone Change questions when considering their recommendation to the Town Board. 1. What need is being met by the proposed change in zone or new zone? The applicant would like to provide a cluster subdivision, but needs to have a zoning change to accomplish such development. 2. What existing zones, if any, can meet the stated need? All other residential zones in the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance allow cluster subdivision except for the Single Family Residential (SFR) zone. Cluster development allows the same number of housing units as the underlying zone, yet provides flexibility in the development pattern. A minimum of 5 acres is required for cluster in the SR-1A zone. SR zones allow single family, duplex, and multi family residential uses. Other allowed uses include agricultural uses (as per § 179-5-030), cemeteries, day care centers, places of worship, and schools. 3. How is the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones? Adjacent zones include RR-5A to the north across Gurney Lane; SFR-1A to the west across West Mountain Road; HC-INT to the east across the Northway (I-87); and SFR-1A to the south. Current uses of adjoining properties include County offices and facilities to the north across Gurney Lane; County DPW storage to the west across West Mountain Road; Interstate 87 to the east; and single family residential development to the south. The Rush Pond CEA is also located to the south. Clustering may provide a buffer in addition to the CEA designation. The Rush Pond CEA designation includes lands measured 500 ft. out from the 430 ft. elevation contour (the high water mark). Development is not allowed within the CEA area. 4. What physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone? Physical characteristics of the site are indicated on the Long Form EAF. Soils as indicated are suitable for development. Reclamation of the former gravel extraction site will be limited to that required for clustering of residential housing. Most of the current site topography would remain to provide noise and sight buffers. Density requirements for the exact number of housing units needs to be determined as per the zoning/subdivision cluster requirements. 5. How will the proposed zone affect public facilities? Public Utilities; Sewer/Water The parcels to be rezoned are located within the Queensbury Consolidated Water District. On- site sewage is proposed. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) Transportation; Highways/Traffic/Circulation No general traffic generation information has been submitted by the applicant. The sketch plan shows a singular curb cut, which would reduce conflicts along West Mountain Road, a local arterial roadway. The Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual indicates that with 15 single family detached housing units, there would be an average of 150 weekday trip ends total. Single family trip rates are higher than any other type of residential housing. However, there would be no difference in traffic generated due to the zone change; single family housing generates the greatest amount of traffic of any housing type. Schools/Emergency Services/Town Facilities Impacts on the school population and emergency services are not known. The property is within the Lake George School District. Year 2000 Census data indicates that the average household size in Queensbury is 2.52 persons. The property owner is willing to offer the Town land for open space/greenway/trail purposes. 6. Why is the current zone classification not appropriate for the property in question? Clustering is not allowed in the current zone classification. 7. What are the environmental impacts of the proposed change? A full EAF has been prepared for review. A portion of the proposed development is within 500 ft. of the Rush Pond Critical Environmental Area (CEA). No development is proposed within that buffer. A GIS search shows the approximate location of the Rush Pond CEA, and a tiny portion of wetlands that may be located on site (see attached map). The EAF notes that investigation of threatened or endangered species is to take place. Wild blue lupine, host plant for the endangered Karner Blue and threatened Frosted Elfin butterflies, has been observed growing on the west side of West Mountain Road in this vicinity. The site of the proposed rezoning is within an area identified by the NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation and the US Fish & Wildlife Service as an area suitable for habitat for species cited. 8. How is the proposal compatible with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use Master Plan? 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) The proposed project area is located in Neighborhood 3 in the CLUP. See the attached map and CLUP recommendation 3.2, which supports a zone change to a Suburban Residential zone. The cluster subdivision proposed also meets with many of the goals and strategies listed in the CLUP, including items such as open space, greenways, lot sizes similar to surrounding developed land as long as environmental and infrastructure conditions are met, and zoning to support housing types other than single family (see pages 3-7 of the CLUP). Cluster zoning is allowed in the SR zones, but not in the SFR zones, so a zone change would be required before a cluster subdivision could be developed. 2003 Open Space Vision Plan and Map The proposed project plan shows a 100 ft. wide greenway path that could eventually connect to other neighborhoods and a trail system to Rush Pond and Aviation Road. Interconnected trail opportunities are advocated in the Open Space Vision plan and Map (see attached map and plan recommendations). 9. How are the wider interests of the Community being served by this proposal? 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) The rezoning for cluster development purposes addresses conservation of lands, traffic access management, increase in pedestrian movement via trails, and consideration for the Rush Pond CEA. Staff Comments: 1. While there is sufficient SEQRA information for rezoning purposes, staff advocates SEQRA approval for the rezoning only, and not for the subdivision. A biological survey is needed to determine the extent, if any, of endangered/threatened species and habitat. The final cluster subdivision design is dependent on the identification and location of plant/animal species. This suggestion is contrary to the intent of SEQR, which notes in NYCRR 617.3(g) that the entire set of activities or steps must be considered the action, whether the agency decision- making relates to the action as a whole or to only a part of it. However, the same section notes If a lead agency believes that circumstances warrant a segmented review, it must clearly that state in its determination of significance, and any subsequent EIS, the supporting reasons and must demonstrate that such review is clearly no less protective of the environment. Related actions should be identified and discussed to the fullest extent possible. Staff notes that this rezoning activity has been requested to allow cluster planning and subsequent reduction/elimination of adverse environmental impacts. No development activity can take place until the preliminary subdivision is approved. The Planning Board may ask for additional information before making its SEQRA determination. 2. Specific information is needed concerning review items for subdivision density, i.e. exact wetland and CEA boundaries. Calculations are also needed for areas in slope greater than 15%, amount of land for public use, and amount of land in rights-of-way and public utilities. The Planning Board may elect to request such information at this time or at the time of preliminary subdivision plan review.” MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-You are? MR. JARRETT-Tom Jarrett of Jarrett-Martin Engineers. With me is on my right is Bob Holmes from my office. We’re here representing Ski & Shore Corporation, which owns the parcel bordered by Gurney Lane on the north, and West Mountain Road on the west, and the Northway on the east. Rick Meath on my left is President of Ski & Shore Corporation. We’re here seeking a rezoning of that parcel, from SFR-1 Acre to SR-1 Acre, for the sole purpose of proposing a cluster subdivision. The reasons that we would like to use a clustered subdivision are several, including the configuration of the property adjacent to the Northway and constricted by Gurney Lane and West Mountain Road, we feel that there are nuisance issues such as noise and traffic. We’d like to concentrate the development toward the center of the parcel, which will minimize those nuisance issues. We also feel like we can minimize traffic impacts by providing one curb cut onto West Mountain Road, and we can maximize the green space that we retained while presumably potentially offering the Town a pathway to the Rush Pond area, with parking off of Gurney Lane. So we’re here only to represent the rezoning. We would prefer to come back to you for subdivision approval at a later time. Present detailed plans to you at that point. MRS. RYBA-Chris, if I may, Staff usually does a summary just to let you know what the process. MR. HUNSINGER-I had just written that down that I neglected on the prior applicant to ask Staff comments. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MRS. RYBA-Well, just a few things. One of the things you’re here for tonight is to acknowledge Lead Agency Status under SEQRA. The second is that there is a Sketch Plan included as part of this for a project, and that’s typically when the Planning Board does a SEQRA review or takes that Lead Agency Status. The Town Board usually grants that when there’s an associated project, which in this case would be the proposal for a cluster subdivision. So a SEQRA review would really be on the entire project, and that needs to be done before the Town Board can make a determination. Although I believe you can still do a recommendation to the Town Board, but the Town Board cannot make a final determination on the Petition for Zone Change until the SEQRA is in place, or has been done by the Board, Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SANFORD-Marilyn, could you just clarify for me the sequence of what we’re supposed to be dong tonight? MRS. RYBA-You’re going to look at the entire project, including the questions for the Petition for Zone Change as well as taking a look at the Sketch Plan. You are going to acknowledge Lead Agency Status. Depending on your review, you may or may not want to perform a SEQRA review, and you may or may not want to make a recommendation to the Town Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Everyone all set? Bob, do you want to go first? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ll take a crack at Number One here. I guess my first question is, how would the clustering within the gravel pit reduce the noise from the Northway? Because there’s not a significant difference in elevations toward the east that I could see on the drawing. MR. JARRETT-Toward the east? There is significant, actually, if you’re down in the pit, you can barely hear the Northway. The houses down in the pit I think will be sheltered from noise considerably. At least that’s our contention. MR. VOLLARO-Let me just take a look at the map that I was looking at. This is the Northway on this side, and I see a 505 elevation here, and then I see a 500 elevation. That’s five feet. Just so we’re on the same page, I’m on C-11, and I see a 505 contour, pretty close, and that’s 505, and I see the Northway contour here at 500. Well, that’s only five feet. That’s not much. MR. JARRETT-Yes. The upper terrain, on the upper portion of the parcel, is at 500 to 505, and down in the pit is at 485. Actually even lower than that, 480 to 485. MR. VOLLARO-I see the 480. MR. JARRETT-So we go down 20 feet, 25 feet, to the pit. MR. VOLLARO-That’s on the, one of the cul de sacs. They’re down in the pit. That I can see. MR. JARRETT-The upper cul de sac, you’re correct, would not be. MR. VOLLARO-The upper cul de sac which is closer to the Northway. MR. JARRETT-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Is only five feet. MR. JARRETT-That’s sheltered only by trees. Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Only by trees. That was my question. MR. JARRETT-You’re correct in that content, yes. We debated trying to cluster everything down in the pit and felt that was not practical. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. VOLLARO-I guess one of my biggest concerns there is a buffer between the Northway. We’ve had applicants before us, just recently, where we talked significantly about noise and the number of db and trucks accelerating up hills and shifting down and all of that sort of stuff, and we dwelled a lot on noise, noise issues, and of course my position there is I guess a simple- minded one and said basically buyer beware. If you go to buy a house, know that the Northway is close by, but the distances, we’ve got distances here that are awfully close to, I guess, 100 feet. Is that about where we are? MR. JARRETT-Well, we have a, the proposed greenway connector between the southbound on ramp and the clustered, the upper clustered cul de sac, that’s a minimum 100 foot buffer which is the greenway connector, and then we have additional buffer on the properties themselves. MR. VOLLARO-What would be contained inside that buffer, what’s there now? MR. JARRETT-The greenway connector? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. JARRETT-Right now it’s woodland and it would be one pathway that would lead, a walking path or potentially bike path leading to the south and to Rush Pond. MR. VOLLARO-But there’s no foliage in there. Actually trees don’t do much to attenuate sound, by the way. They’re not that good unless they’re pretty close to the ground. So I’m just wondering what kind of sound attenuation we’re going to get for the two houses that are close, but again, I’ve always contended that buyer beware. They’re that close, and they’ve got to know when they buy that that lot, or that property that they’re going to be close to the Northway. MR. JARRETT-Your concern is noted, but I think if we go to a standard subdivision, which is permitted under SFR-1 Acre, we’re got a worse situation. We’ve got more potential noise. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, the clustering helps. MR. JARRETT-We think the clustering helps. MR. VOLLARO-There’s no question about that. In looking at this, I looked at, you know, this potential zone change, and I wrestled around with the highest and best use for this piece, and I guess I’ve come to the conclusion that this is the highest and best use. I don’t see another, I don’t see this as being a professional office location, for example. A couple of things I would like to see, particularly along West Mountain Road. I know that in your Full Environmental Assessment Form, which I’ll get into in a minute, you claim there’s not vistas scenes along West Mountain Road, but I think that there is, and I think West Mountain Road is a scenic road. It should be maintained that way. So I’d be looking for a significant buffer between West Mountain Road where the driveway comes out from the cul de sac, at least 50 to 75 feet of buffer in there or no cut zone to form that buffer. There may be some buffer there now, but I’d like to make sure that between the no cut zone and the buffer we get about 75 feet, and that means that one house may have to be moved slightly toward the road, as you can get them. I guess you can get setback from that. It looks like it’s okay. I didn’t see in any density calculations on the slopes roads, etc. to support the 14 units. Was that submitted? MR. JARRETT-It has not been submitted, no. We have proposed to submit that when we go to Sketch Plan. We had originally planned to go to Sketch Plan later on, and that was discussed with Staff. We’d prefer to stay that way. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I wonder if, at this time, on a recommendation, I’d put this in to Staff, or is it reasonable that we go through certain, because I’ve been through this EAF, only because I 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) wanted to see what it says. Is it practical at this point on a recommendation to cite certain areas in the EAF that I might have questions with? MRS. RYBA-Absolutely, because you’re still doing the SEQRA review. The Planning Board is doing that as Lead Agent. MR. VOLLARO-So I’m going to just go through a couple of questions that I’ve had. One is on Page Two, on what is the depth to bedrock, and you’ve got greater than six feet. Have you drilled for that? Do you know that that’s the case, or is that geological information? MR. JARRETT-Based on the exposed excavations, plus on the Warren County Soil’s information, that’s what it’s based on. MR. VOLLARO-So you haven’t done any drilling to know that yet? MR. JARRETT-The pit itself proved to us that there was no bedrock in that area, obviously. MR. VOLLARO-You’re down pretty far there, yes. Okay. MR. JARRETT-And open excavations within the pit. MR. VOLLARO-Then I guess, what is the depth to the water table. Now, you’re down in the pit, you haven’t seen any water yet. MR. JARRETT-No, and we’re looking at the topography to the south, toward Rush Pond, and it drops off even further. So we’re, and the road cut to the east where the south bound on-ramp is. MR. VOLLARO-Now, on Number Fourteen on Page Three, it says does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community. Well, it says no, but I think that West Mountain Road does have a scenic view, and that as far as the total community of Queensbury is concerned, I think it does have some scenic views, and so I think that the mitigation to that would be if you, if we ever got into that part of it, it would be that we were going to put a buffer zone and some no cut zones along West Mountain Road. Now, I notice that we talk about well drained soils is a word that’s used in here, and I assume that it is well drained soils, but it also, very, very close to Rush Pond, and I’ve got, you know, each one of these are going to have separate septic systems in them, and I’ve looked at it and kind of wrestled around with the idea that, being that close to Rush Pond, but what assurances do we have that we don’t get any leach from the fields themselves that are leaching into the ground in well drained soils, and those well drained soils aren’t carrying some of that to Rush Pond. It was a question I had when I reviewed this, and I’d like to get your feeling for that. MR. JARRETT-Well, the two preliminary answers I would give you is, Number One, by clustering, we stay farther to the north, and away from the Critical Environmental Area buffer setback, which helps, and we will obviously meet New York State Department of Health standards for rapidly permeable soils, which means we may have to put in what we call a cut and fill system. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that was going to be my. MR. JARRETT-Which will provide the additional treatment. MR. VOLLARO-That would be my next question, would there be some mitigation on your part to that, in the event that DOH talked about. MR. JARRETT-We’re cognizant of that, and we’ll be looking for that. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. On Page Four, and I think it might just have been an omission, Number Fifteen isn’t answered, and I don’t think you’re in a 100 year floodplain there, but there’s no yes or no there. MR. JARRETT-It is an omission. You’re correct. We don’t believe we’re in a floodplain. It does not show, GIS information shows that it’s not as well. MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t think you are either. I think you just want to X the right box there. I don’t think I have anything else to offer on this, Mr. Chairman. I’m finished. MR. HUNSINGER-Richard? MR. SANFORD-I do have concerns, I think Bob mentioned them. We had an application not too long ago where it was very close to the Northway, and it just presented a lot of problems to us, in terms of noise, perhaps odors and other things like that. So, I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels, but I wouldn’t mind getting some kind of noise studies associated with these homes that are, these three homes that are relatively close to the ramp, this one, this one, and even this one. Unlike Bob who feels buyer should beware, I don’t think it’s good planning for us to approve problematic sites. So, that’s one of the feelings I have on that. Maybe it’s not as much of a problem as it was down south a little bit on the Northway because of usage, but I would certainly feel more comfortable having that information. MR. VOLLARO-I could see where you could use some decibel analysis, right along where those houses, those three houses that you pointed out, just what is the, particularly going down the ramp, I followed some 18 wheelers going down that ramp when he makes that turn, and he’s already starting to gear up to get on the Northway and he’s making a fair racket when he goes down that ramp. MR. JARRETT-Let me just jump in, that’s one of the reasons we’re coming in here for clustering, because we feel we can better that situation. On a conventional subdivision, we would not have that flexibility. MR. SANFORD-No, we are aware of that. However, your configuration of clustering may prove to have some problems, too. I mean, I just don’t feel comfortable with 100 feet. That’s not very far from the, admittedly it’s a ramp, but it still doesn’t feel good. I’d like to have some more information. MR. HOLMES-This may not be the final plan that we end up with, either. This is just a conceptual plan that we put in here, just for the benefit of the Board, to show them what it could be like. When we come back for actual Sketch Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-I was just going to pose that same comment, that perhaps that would be something that would be addressed better at site plan review, although it is a consideration for SEQRA as well. I mean, noise certainly is a consideration. MR. JARRETT-We wanted you to see our intent, but we will come back with a plan that you can review in subdivision process. MR. SANFORD-What I don’t like to do, is I don’t like to go down the road, it’s so much more difficult to then say, hey, you know, we’re really not happy about it, after a lot of work goes into it and we give the perception that we’re okay with it. I’d rather feel okay about it first. I mean, I don’t know how everybody else weighs in on it, but. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think what we’re doing here is we’re looking to make a recommendation to the Town Board. The Town Board should certainly probably take a look at these minutes before they look at what they’re going to do with this zone change, and I think we want to make our concerns known now before that zone change, we make the 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) recommendation to the Town Board that we wanted to tell them that in that recommendation we have some concerns. MR. SANFORD-See, that’s why I wasn’t sure we had to do the SEQRA before we could go back to the Town Board. Because what if this is, what if our recommendation to the Town Board is okay, yes, you know, entertain the change in zone, but we want to work pretty heavily on the plan for issues just like I brought up. MRS. RYBA-That’s okay except that the SEQRA, the Town Board cannot approve a Petition for Zone Change until the SEQRA has been approved by the Planning Board. MR. VOLLARO-So we have to go through a SEQRA tonight and come up with a neg dec on this SEQRA. MRS. RYBA-Well, you don’t have to do it tonight, but it does have to be done by the Planning Board, before the Town Board can act. MS. RADNER-What you’re recommending to the Town Board is a zone change. If you recommend it to the Town Board, in order for the Town Board to act on it, you have to have completed the SEQRA review. The SEQRA review can continue the full anticipated build out of this project, and also includes the full potential change of the zone, what other things could end up happening on this site because you have now changed the zone. You are not approving the plan. You are not giving Sketch Plan approval by doing it. You are just giving full consideration to the worst possible environmental impacts of the project. MR. SANFORD-Well, all right. That doesn’t make it any easier. MS. RADNER-No, it’s a difficult task. It is without a doubt a difficult task. MR. SANFORD-What you’re basically saying is they could go and not even have a cluster proposal, and they could want to put houses right along the Northway. MS. RADNER-Absolutely, but you’re not recommending that they be allowed to do that. You are only recommending whether the zone change makes sense for this piece of property. In your SEQRA review, you are also not approving or disapproving such a development of houses. You’re determining whether or not this change and whether or not the proposal that’s being planned now, to the extent that we know it, will have negative environmental impact. Whether the people living there will have nice houses, awful houses, houses that sell, are marketable or not, really aren’t things that impact upon the environment per se, unless they’re to the point that you think that having empty houses sitting there that nobody would want to buy could impact the environment, but that’s taking it a bit too far. MR. SANFORD-Well, proximity to the Northway could, and so how are we supposed to, what is our presumption supposed to be on that? MS. RADNER-If you think that the proximity of houses to the Northway is going to have a potential negative impact on the environment, then you have to explore whether that’s a minor, moderate, or severe impact, whether or not it can be addressed with mitigation at that future site plan approval part of the test. MR. HOLMES-(Lost words) is just the zone change itself and whether the zone change has any significance. MR. JARRETT-Right. It’s really the difference between a conventional subdivision and a clustered or to rezone, per se, if that creates an environmental impact, that’s what you need to review for the SEQRA. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MS. RADNER-Well, we think it needs to be a little further than that. Because we are not allowed to segment our review. So we can’t look at something in a vacuum and pretend we don’t know what’s going to happen in the future. MR. JARRETT-We’re making it known to the Board what we’re planning to do. MS. RADNER-So we know what they’re planning to do. They’re telling us they’re planning to develop a cluster development. So you need to consider the potential environmental impacts of that cluster development that they’re telling you they’re going to build. You also need to consider the possibility that their cluster development crashes and burns. You’ve now rezoned the property. What else could potentially happen to the environment due to the rezoning of that property. That’s what your SEQRA analysis entails. MR. HOLMES-Because we’re not saying we’re coming in with this clustered subdivision, just that we may come in with a clustered subdivision. MS. RADNER-There is no plan before it. There is a concept. MR. SANFORD-So why did we get the concept? MS. RADNER-Because you have to have the concept in order to explore those environmental impacts. So that you know what the likely impacts are going to be. MR. JARRETT-The first question from the Board is going to be why do you want to rezone. What are you going to do with it. We’re presenting a concept to you. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So we are lead to believe, though, I mean, I guess what doesn’t make maybe logical, legal sense here is that while this may not have any bearing whatsoever in terms of what they actually may want to do, we may look at this diagram and say, okay, we think we can work with it. We’ll recommend a rezone. They come back with a plan that’s not even clustered at all. MS. RADNER-And if you review it at that point, you feel that they came to you in bad faith, they’re not able to explain to your satisfaction why the project is developed, those may be reasons why you then disapprove the plan, but that doesn’t really need to. MR. SANFORD-But the rezone would have already taken place. MS. RADNER-The rezone would have already taken place, correct. MR. SANFORD-All right. MS. RADNER-And that’s why your SEQRA analysis needs to consider what change you’ve now made to the zone by doing this rezoning. MR. SANFORD-All right. Well, in any event, I would be interested in having some noise level studies done. That’s my opinion. MR. VOLLARO-I guess we ought to go through this SEQRA, though, because I’m with him on the noise. I also want to make sure that this septic system in well drained soils presents no environmental impact on Rush Pond, and I think your engineer has told me what he plans to do, and that would be the way to mitigate. See, what we’ve got to do is look, I guess, at what environmental impacts this could present. I’ve looked at one, which is the. MR. SANFORD-Right, but here’s what I’m trying to avoid. We had an uncomfortable situation in front of us not too long ago where I don’t think very many of us were too enthusiastic about the project because it was right near the Northway, and yet the argument that counsel came 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) back with kind of was, well, it’s zoned residential, and now you’re saying you don’t like it, and it put us at some disadvantage. Here it’s not zoned residential. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, it is. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it is. It’s SR-1A. It’s single family. MR. SANFORD-One. MR. VOLLARO-This is Suburban Residential, which allows them to cluster. There’s a fine line between these two residential, but right now it’s zoned as residential property. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. HOLMES-And if we were coming in with just a, sort of concept of clustering here, if we came in with a straight standard 15 lot subdivision, the houses would be right along the Northway. We’re trying to ameliorate some of those effects. MR. SANFORD-Okay. No, I stand corrected on that. I thought I was looking to go from like commercial or something, professional office. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions for the applicant? MR. SANFORD-No, that’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Well, my question is, you just proposed a second ago, I don’t think anybody caught it. Are you looking to put in single family homes or multifamily homes there? MR. JARRETT-Only single family homes. Detached single family homes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But, I mean, this zoning can allow for it. MR. JARRETT-Correct, but our intent is to go for a single family detached homes, cluster. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. So no multifamily apartment units like that. Okay. Now, my next question has to do with this potential greenway connector, and that would be like a road or a walkway or a path. What would it be? MR. HOLMES-We don’t know what it’s going to be yet, and we won’t know until we come back to the Town later on, if it’s rezoned. We want to discuss it with the Town, see what they have in mind. I know they’ve discussed with us the issue of having some type of a path which ultimately leads down to Rush Pond. There’s another adjacent property owner that might have to get involved. We want to talk with Staff down the road and see what they want to do with this, because we don’t know right now, and those are things that will be worked out when we come back with Sketch Plan. MR. JARRETT-We have discussed this with Staff. They feel it’s a potential benefit to the Town to provide some parking at the north end, bordering on Gurney Lane, and then provide a pathway or allow a pathway along this greenway connector that would lead down to Rush Pond, and we have that on this plan that Bob’s putting on the board right now. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And about approximately how far is Rush Pond from the southern boundary line? MR. HOLMES-Through our parcel, it’s at least 5, 600 feet, and the parcel below gets into the wetland, but it’s not the real fen. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. VOLLARO-It’s about 500 feet, Cathy. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So from this corner, here, the southern corner. MR. HOLMES-It’s probably 1,000 feet anyway. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I mean, I’m just trying to visualize it driving down the Northway, you know. MR. HOLMES-It’s 500 feet on (lost words). MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I think a serious issue is, as far as, with the septic drain off and all of that, and making sure that it doesn’t drain right down there. MR. JARRETT-Compared to a conventional subdivision, is there any additional impact? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I understand, no. This is probably one of the best configurations you’re going to come up with. MR. VOLLARO-Besides, you have a way to mitigate whatever problems you might find, these well drained soils may present, you can engineer around that. So I think that that would mitigate that problem. So the two problems we’re really looking here, from an environmental point of view, are noise and septic. I think those are the two core issues we’d be looking for you to be thinking about. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else, Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I’m fine. Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I received a call the other day from somebody saying, I hear you’re going to put multifamily homes over by the Northway, and I said, where did you hear that, and they said they heard it in their development, somebody started talking, which got me to look as to what Cathy just alluded to, the fact that if we do rezone this, we open it up to duplexes, multifamily dwellings, agricultural uses, cemeteries, day care centers, and not in this case, but others mobile homes. So I realize you’re coming to us in good faith with single family homes, you just want to cluster. It makes perfect sense. However, if, in fact, it doesn’t work out, now we have a problem that we’ve opened it up to multifamily homes, which isn’t a problem, don’t get me wrong, but in this particular area could be duplexes, you know, and again, it’s, and I’m not saying, it’s just the fact that this could happen. So we just have to keep that in mind, and I guess if we look at it, do we send, you know, a suggestion to the Board to rezone, we would have to look at it, worst case scenario, multifamily homes, you know. MR. JARRETT-That is a fair question. MR. METIVIER-Okay. So, I mean, I could ask you a million times over, is that your intent, and you could say no, but we have to look at it as though it would be. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. You could get it rezoned and just sell them, and then the person comes in with the new intent. MR. METIVIER-Although, in that particular case, well, in any particular case, it comes back to the Planning Board to be reviewed. So we could just knock it down. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. JARRETT-If your SEQRA determination is based on our clustered intent of single family homes, then you’d have to re-review it under SEQRA later on if we came back with another proposal. MS. RADNER-You’d have to consider the full impacts of rezoning it, including the possibility that your, you folks go bankrupt and somebody else then purchases the land and now wants to develop it in conformity with the new zone. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We have to take into account the maximum possible build out, at the new zone. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The worst case scenario, and I heard what Tony heard, too, that multifamily was going in there. MR. METIVIER-And that’s just the case is that, you know, I read the application, and understood it to be exactly what you’re asking for, clustering homes, makes perfect sense. It’s a great plan as it sits right now. However, why is there word on the street that there’s multifamily homes going in here, why would they call me, and ask me about it, and regardless of what they’ve heard, you know, we have to look at it, okay, that’s worst case scenario, and again, I’m not knocking multifamily homes. I’m just saying, maximum possible build out, and that’s what we’re faced with, that if we say to the Board it’s okay to rezone this, and we do our SEQRA, it’s based on the fact that there’s going to be multifamily homes here. So, I guess our only possible way to stop that is would anything forward have to go through site plan review? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. METIVIER-Or not rezone. MR. SANFORD-Not rezone it, I guess. MS. RADNER-I think where I’ve caused some confusion is the point I was trying to make to Richard is you’re not approving a project now by doing a site plan based upon that project. You’re just considering worst case scenario. MR. METIVIER-My point is, we could look at this and say, all right, worst case scenario is this. However, it doesn’t necessarily have to be that, because when they come back to us, if it does get rezoned, and they do come back with this cluster, which actually works pretty well, great. It’s done. However, if they did come back and say its multifamily use we could throw it back at them and say, no, that’s not, you know, that’s not what we want to see here. MR. SANFORD-Yes, but we could be hit more heavily, we’re prejudiced in that then the logical argument that follows is that, it’s zoned for that. MR. METIVIER-That’s correct. MR. SANFORD-Give me a compelling reason why you don’t want it. Whereas, right now it’s not. So we’re running in to that question of potentially disadvantaging yourself later. MR. METIVIER-Right, but I do like, again, it’s one of those things, I do like the clustering concept here. MR. HOLMES-It’s a far better use of the land. MR. METIVIER-Far better. Absolutely. So I’m just asking, or just talking to myself that if we do this, we do have something on the back end to prevent certain things from happening. Certain uses. Through site plan review. If we needed to. Help me out. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MS. RADNER-To a degree. I’m not quite sure exactly what you’re asking, but as you’re doing your SEQRA review and you’re considering the impacts, one of the things you can consider is can that be mitigated. So if your concern is that too many pieces of property on this land would allow, would create too much traffic, then perhaps the mitigation would be to limit the maximum build out. I mean, there are things you can do, but if you don’t think that there’s a way you can address an environmental impact, then you’ve reached a stumbling block you can’t get past. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments, Tony? MR. METIVIER-No, I’m set. MR. HOLMES-You’re still talking about, under any zoning, a maximum of 15 units, residential units, no matter how they’re structured. So there’s no worse impact from any other use than there is from the current zoning. MR. METIVIER-All right. I’ll ask the question, maximum 15 units, but if they’re duplexes, is that 30, or is it still 15? MR. HOLMES-Fifteen units. MR. METIVIER-It’s still 15. Well, then really there’s no potential impact there anyway, or if it was multifamily and you had four. MR. JARRETT-It’s the style of house. It’s not really increased density. MR. METIVIER-Okay. That’s fair. MR. HOLMES-So the increase, the change in zone, does not really have any impact, environmentally, because there is no increase or change in type of use of the property. MR. METIVIER-That’s a good point. That’s an excellent point. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s still single family. MR. METIVIER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-Other than other uses, but if it’s still residential, I think actually you could declare a positive impact. Other than, except for the other uses. MR. METIVIER-But again, if 15 units, and you did multi units, it’s not 15 multi units. It would be. MR. JARRETT-Fifteen individual units. They have to have common walls if they’re a duplex, that’s all. MR. METIVIER-Okay. MR. HOLMES-If it was multifamily, if they were duplexes, you could have seven duplexes, seven buildings. MR. JARRETT-Seven and a half. MR. HOLMES-Seven and a half. MR. METIVIER-Okay. I promise that’s it. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there any other comments from the applicant? MR. JARRETT-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Would you like to give up the table? Are there any other questions from the Board? MR. VOLLARO-I have one question, and I guess it’s for Staff, and I’d ask it of Marilyn. It’s just a suggestion that I have. When we look at our single family residential one acre, as it’s zoned today, maybe we ought to include cluster in that, if it makes any sense at all, because that’s what’s happened here. If they could have stayed single family one acre and clustered, we wouldn’t be into this SR-1 Acre, which opens the door to a whole bunch of other uses. MRS. RYBA-And we’ve heard that from at least one other Planning Board member. Certainly that’s something that, you know, can be discussed, in terms of what the Planning Board wants to do for a work program next year for planning purposes, and in fact I’m having a meeting with the Chairman to discuss exactly that. I mean, it was looked at when there was a Zoning Steering Committee and for whatever reasons, the recommendation was to not include single family residential, SFR in the clustering provisions, but that’s certainly something that can be viewed again. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Good. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll ask you to give up the table. I will open the public hearing, if there’s anyone that would like to comment on this application, please come up to the table and state your name. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DENNIS FRANKLIN MR. FRANKLIN-Dennis Franklin. My wife and I own the property directly south of this. I’m a development partner with Phyllis Holtz, the 55 adjoining acres. I’m in favor of the clustering. I think it’s a good idea and it’s a good use of the property, with limitations. The flavor of that street now is single family residential. You look at a house every couple of hundred feet. So what concerns me is the visual of now I’m going to see houses 50 feet apart, or 50 feet of frontage, and the concentration of hard scaping, light. So my concerns is how is that screened from the neighborhood now? MR. VOLLARO-How would it be screened? MR. FRANKLIN-How will it be screened. How will it so that, we are used to looking at, and made an investment in a single family area, where houses are spaced, and I do think this is a good plan. It’s a good use, but how are we not going to look at a cluster, from anywhere? As far as the noise, addressing that, I mean, West Mountain Road is the problem, not the Northway. It’s a 50 mile an hour rough surface road with logging trucks, motorcycles, dump trucks, that’s the issue. It’s not the Northway. I live right there. I think the green scape down through here is exactly what Phyllis and I would propose to do. We don’t want to see developments of the Northway just because it’s not going to look good, and it would provide access. I don’t know what kind of parking lot we’re talking about off Gurney Lane here for the people to park, but, you know, that’s a tricky thing. It’s already a bad intersection with the two on and off ramps. There’s many close accidents there all the time, and also again, I don’t know if I want to look at a parking lot, whatever its reason. MR. HUNSINGER-Those would be, I don’t mean to interrupt you, but those would be some of the details that would be discussed and considered during site plan review. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. FRANKLIN-That’s our concerns, that’s all. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Thank you. Good evening. LENORE GUAY MRS. GUAY-Good evening. My name is Lenore Guay, and I live in the next house down from Dennis Franklin. I have children, young children, nine and ten. I have a concern with traffic also. It is 50 miles an hour which is very fast through there. I have been in contact with the School District and that is an area that’s growing, Lehland Estates right down the road. They’ve discussed that they’re seeing an overpopulation of children already in the area and they have a concern about that area also. So if you’re adding 15 more houses, you’re going to add more children to the area. That intersection is a bad intersection, and once again, it’s a child issue. Children are going to be dashing here, there and everywhere. Scenic wise, you know, it’s affecting the scenery. It’s West Mountain Road. It’s a mountain road, full of woods. We like it. Once again, I’m kind of curious, too, what kind of buffer are we going to see, so we’re not going to see any of that development. I enjoy West Mountain Road just as it is. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? SAM BUTTO MR. BUTTO-My name is Sam Butto, and I live on Gurney Lane. I think we’ve gone through this before with that master plan that you had reviewed a number of months, or maybe even a year ago where there was going to be some discussion about how they would rezone that area to a half acre zone, for other types of use. Now I’m hearing that the proposal is going to open up an opportunity for not just this subdivision, but across the street where there’s other vacant properties, so that there may be opportunities for other people to build mobile homes, or put mobile homes in there, or apartment complexes in there. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I’d like to clarify something for you right now. The only proposal that we have is for this particular site. MR. BUTTO-I understand that. MR. HUNSINGER-So any discussion about something across the street would be speculative. MR. BUTTO-It would be speculative to think that across the street would be zoned differently? Or that it should be? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the only thing before this Board is the property in question. None of the other property adjacent or across the street. So, if you’d just direct your comments to this property. MR. BUTTO-It all becomes incremental, though, doesn’t it? I mean, that’s the concern that I think that my neighbors would have, that it would become incremental. I mean, we’ve gone through this before. I think that’s a wonderful plan, and the maximum use of that property, which I know has been in the Meath family for a long period of time, and it’s probably about time that something did happen for it, but in terms of the changing of the zone, that really, really does concern me, especially since, as everybody else has said, it’s a very bad intersection. There’s a lot of people that speed on that intersection, and especially in the mornings when you’re trying to get on the Northway or going to work. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Thank you. Good evening. KATHY FRANKLIN 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MRS. FRANKLIN-Hi. Good evening. My name’s Kathy Franklin, and I actually had more of a question than a concern. It’s already zoned for 15 houses, basically, as things stand. So we’re not adding any more or less children. One of the big differences is that you have one cut onto that highway, in this plan, versus a potential seven or eight cuts, if you had single family houses. So I think that, in fact, improves the traffic situation. Having people there may give us some clout, finally, to get the speed on that highway reduced. Because it’s outrageous. It’s not 50. It’s 60. Because you’re going downhill. Having obvious, something happening there may help us in that. So I think this project has a lot of very positive aspects. Some of the things that worry me about it are that this pit is a pit, and part of the buffer for the whole community has always been the opposite side of that pit, which is what I look at, which is a big hill filled with trees, and it’s above a stream, actually right now it’s a river because of yesterday, but ordinarily it’s just a stream, but it’s a Class A Stream, and it goes into Rush Pond, and I think you have to, if you’re going to cut the top of that hill, to fill, to help bring down the inside of the pit, to improve the drainage going in to the pit area, to mitigate against the blacktop that you’d probably have to add, I basically am worried about what happens to that hill, both in terms of the aesthetics of the neighborhood and that stream, and also because, if it remains single family SFR, there would be one house, then another house, then another house. This potentially could have a circle of eight or nine houses, or it could have an apartment complex on the top of the hill. I mean, there’s nothing in the zoning that says that can’t happen. Also, my other question is, what are these other possibilities? I’ve heard a cemetery, mobile homes, apartment buildings, duplexes, is there any kind of zoning that, basically from what I can tell from everyone else who’s spoken, everybody likes this plan, and everybody’s worried about the zoning, and I’m wondering if there’s some middle ground there, to protect the property and to make it in keeping with what’s there now, and enhance, further enhance the area, because it’s a fairly nice area to live in. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, Kathy, that’s what we were just saying with, talking to Marilyn on the side here, is that if we could amend the Zoning Ordinance to let SFR allowed for clustering, and that’s not an impossibility, but those things take time. MRS. GUAY-No, I realize. MR. HUNSINGER-And that’s what the applicant has proposed to us, is the current zone does not allow clustering. MRS. GUAY-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-He wants to do a cluster development. The best zone that allows cluster development is the SR-1A, which also allows those other uses that you heard Tony mention. MRS. GUAY-And is there no way to make a zoning SR-1A with the proviso that it does not include any other possibilities in that, can you subdivide a zone, I guess is what I’m asking, and maybe you cannot. MR. HUNSINGER-No, but any of those other uses would require site plan review. So there would be additional review by this Board. There would be additional opportunities for public comment. You and your other neighbors have already made your concerns know. Certainly the applicant is now aware of them. We’re aware of them, and, you know, it’s our job to make sure that those are taken into consideration, in whatever the applicant may propose, assuming he moves forward. MR. SANFORD-Chris, what would be required, and why does it take so much time? It seems to me that as more and more discussion has taken place that what we really would prefer to be dealing with is just an application to sort of cluster, rather than to rezone this, and Marilyn said some time next year. What is the process that’s involved and why is it so lengthy? MRS. RYBA-It isn’t lengthy. I think it takes initiative, either from a Town Board or Planning Board or even a property owner to, you know, come forward and say we want to see this 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) proposal, we would like to see this, and we’ve heard that from one or two people. I think, you know, it takes some leadership to develop that. MR. SANFORD-Well, could our recommendation be to the Town Board that what we want to do here is keep this single family but allow it to be clustered? That’s our recommendation to them. Why are you shaking your head that we can’t do that? MRS. RYBA-I was just going to say, the zone, when you’re doing a Petition for Re-zone, you have your zones listed, essentially, if you wanted to subdivide it further, you’re creating a whole new zone, zoning district, and we have about 30 right now. So if you wanted to create a new zoning district, then that’s, you know, a different process. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think what Richard was suggesting is that we recommend to the Town Board that single family residential one acre, that clustering be allowed within that zone, and the comment that I was going to make is, just as considering a zone change opens up additional uses on this site, if we were to propose to the Town Board that clustering be allowed in all SFR-1A zones, then that would open up any property with that zone to consider clustering. MRS. RYBA-You could do that as a separate recommendation from this Petition for Zone Change. MR. HUNSINGER-The only point I’m trying to make is that either way, there are ramifications, as a result of any change. MR. SANFORD-But we can’t think of too many negative ramifications for going with single family residential on, through site plan approval, allowing cluster. What’s the down side? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know. MR. SANFORD-Right. So my question is. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s not on the table, though. That’s not what this application is about. MRS. RYBA-Chris, I’d like to make one clarification, because I’ve heard this from more than one person, and I think it’s important to note that mobile homes are not allowed in this district. You need a mobile home overlay, and there is no mobile home overlay on this particular parcel. So mobile homes would not be allowed unless somebody came forward and there’d have to be a special public hearing to go in front of the Town Board and that’s usually not done. It could be, but I wouldn’t envision that happening here. MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks for that clarification. MRS. GUAY-I just wanted to say I really think clustering is an excellent idea for a lot of different reasons, not the least of which is environmental. It makes an enormous amount of sense not to cover everything with blacktop. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Any other comments? I guess I will close the public hearing and ask the applicant to come back up to the table. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I just want, in light of the discussion about allowing clustering in Single Family Residential, you know, the job of the Planning Board is to act on the application that’s in front of us, and while that might be a good idea that we might want to propose to the Town Board, our job right now is to consider the application that’s in front of us. So, whether we make that, you know, separate recommendation or not is sort of outside of our responsibility. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. SANFORD-Well, I don’t know if it is, Chris. Our recommendation could be that we think the right way to do it is allow clustering in SFR, and let them deal with it. I mean, if it’s not going to, if they can deal with it, let them deal with it. I don’t know why we feel we have to be handcuffed here. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think we are being handcuffed. We’re presented with an application that we have been asked to consider. MR. SANFORD-Well, but we think the more appropriate way of doing it, because we’ve discussed the potential, although we hope not the expected, negative outcomes that could happen if we do the rezone to what we’re lead to believe is just a clustering application, but it doesn’t, it may be something different than that, and so what our guidance to perhaps the Town Board is, the best way for you to proceed here is to allow clustering in SFR, rather than to rezone, and that’s what I think they’re asking our opinion. MS. RADNER-You’ve got a duty here, you’ve got a role as a zoning board. You have an application before you. Your role is to either approve the application, deny the application, or approve it with conditions, and that’s pretty much what you’re handcuffed by. MR. JARRETT-That’s what we want to jump in with right now. If we could pose a question to the, to counsel, we’d be willing to stipulate a condition that we stay with single family residential, that whether it be a conventional subdivision, if we have to fall back to that or the clustering, which we propose, but we’re not proposing any of the uses, and we’d be willing to condition the application that way. We also would support the Board’s recommendation to the Town Board that clustering on an SFR-1 Acre makes sense. MR. SANFORD-Right, but if you did that, I mean, I understand where the spirit of your suggestion is coming from, but then you sold the whole parcel of land to somebody else, does that follow with it? MR. JARRETT-That would have to follow with it. MR. SANFORD-Would that follow with it? MR. JARRETT-We’re offering that. We understand that. MR. HUNSINGER-I know we’ve talked about this before with petitions for zone change. MR. SANFORD-Well, then that sounds like a solution. MRS. RYBA-The other point I would like to make is that, if you condition it that way, why bother to do the petition for rezone? It would then be considered an SFR zoning district, and the point I was trying to make earlier is if you start conditioning petition for zone changes, you are creating an entirely new zoning district. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You can’t do that. MS. RADNER-It makes enforcement very difficult because you end up creating more and more different zoning districts. To a limited degree, you can condition applications. We generally recommend that you not condition an application for rezoning so that you create a new zone. MR. HUNSINGER-Any additional comments from the applicant as a result of the public comments? 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. JARRETT-Yes, a couple of minor ones. We appreciate the neighbor’s comments. The parking area that’s proposed at the north end, that would support the pathway down to Rush Pond, is certainly not fixed at this point, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, that it would have to be reviewed. We share the concerns with regard to traffic, and I think that would have to be looked at in detail. With regard to the slopes on the property, and the existing pit, it’s not our intention to manipulate those slopes greatly, but we do plan to soften the slope somewhat to provide what we think is a more attractive proposal, but we would have to present those details to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments, questions from Board members, Staff? Any Staff questions? MRS. RYBA-I do have a couple of comments, and that is, in looking at this, I just want to make sure that you know the process. The Planning Board needs to acknowledge Lead Agency status under SEQRA. You need to do your SEQRA review, that’s the second step. The third step is making the recommendation for the Petition for Zone Change, and in doing the SEQRA review, you would go through the form. You understand that. In doing the Petition for Zone Change review, you really should be asking and answering the questions that are listed in the application and also in the Staff Notes. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anybody like to offer a resolution acknowledging Lead Agency status? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make the resolution, Mr. Chairman, acknowledging that this Board, the Planning Board, accepts Lead Agency Status on the Zone Change for PZ6-2003 for Rick Meath. MR. HUNSINGER-And that would be in accordance with the draft resolution prepared by Staff? MRS. RYBA-Well, actually, the draft resolution is one of these joint things, with the Be It Further Resolved that’s incorporating the SEQRA. So I would advise really that until you do the SEQRA, you just do the accepting Lead Status first. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. MRS. LA BOMBARD-What if we don’t want to be the Lead Agency for this? Seriously. MS. RADNER-Then you would need to suggest to the Town Board that they assume Lead Agency status and they would need to acknowledge Lead Agency status, in which case they would have to be the ones to do the SEQRA review. MR. VOLLARO-So they would have to deal with this problem, is really what you’re saying. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, that’s the way I feel. MR. SANFORD-That’s the way I’d like to go. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I really would like to go that way, because they’re going to have to deal with this problem ultimately anyway. I mean, they’re the ones that make the decisions and vote on a problem like this. MS. RADNER-Well, just ask yourselves if you’re in a better position to assess the environmental impacts of this change or if they are, and it’s your vote. MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s one of the reasons why the Town Board has given it to the Planning Board. 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, the practice in the past has been since we deal with site plans and zoning more often than the Town Board, we’re more qualified to make those decisions. MR. SANFORD-Well, I mean, it’s not just that, though, I mean, again, I think we have a problem with some of the zoning rules, and what I’m hearing is, even though the applicant is willing to accommodate what we’ve addressed as a potential problem, our own Staff and legal advisors are saying, yes, but you really shouldn’t do that. So, basically, that’ll accomplish what we really want, but, you know, they’re not recommending it, so I’m not so sure that, at least where I sit, I’m particularly productive in this capacity, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think we’re all feeling a little bit of that pain, because of the way this, the more you sit here, the more you recognize that our current zoning needs to be looked at again maybe a little bit more carefully. This is one of the instances where we’ve got to look at that. It places us in a very difficult position. MR. SANFORD-Can you poll the Board to see if I stand alone on feeling comfortable with accepting the voluntary, you know, they volunteered that they would condition the application to keep it single family, and if I stand alone on that, fine, but I’d be interested in hearing how the rest of the Board feels, because Staff hasn’t given me a compelling reason why that’s problematic. So, I’d like to hear from others on that. MR. VOLLARO-I would go along with that, Rich, except that, I think as counsel has said, if the applicant was to go bankrupt or whatever, then all of what he has to say I don’t believe holds water again. I mean, it doesn’t, it’s not incumbent on the next applicant to have to acknowledge what the prior applicant said he would do, or is it? MS. RADNER-Generally a condition at this level is the condition of the application, and does run with the land, but there have been situations where there’s been a new property owner which has turned around and filed a lawsuit. I’ve got two of them sitting on my desk right now, where a successor property purchasers had problems with conditions and for various reasons, and I won’t go into the details of those cases, ended up with litigation. So, I mean, I can’t look in my crystal ball and tell you what will and won’t happen here, but you’re required to look in your crystal balls and look at what the potential impacts of this are to the greatest extent you can. MR. SANFORD-I think that actually helps our case, rather than hurts it. Really. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, there has been a resolution of the Town Board on the 18 of th August consenting to the Planning Board to act as the Lead Agency for SEQRA. I mean, there’s, I did not read the minutes of the Town Board meeting, but apparently the Town Board feels that it’s most appropriate for the Planning Board to act as the Lead Agent on the proposed zone change. MR. SANFORD-But I think what I’m saying, and perhaps Cathy is agreeing with me, is that we would feel more comfortable with that Lead Agency if, in fact, we knew that we were dealing with single family residences, and the applicant seems to feel okay with that, and so I’m almost saying I think that our votes, at least in terms of taking Lead Agency status, is conditioned upon whether or not the rest of the Board feels comfortable just conditioning the application, and I haven’t heard. Do you feel uncomfortable with it, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I think it’s a bad precedent, and we have discussed this at length every time there’s been a Petition for Zone Change, and it’s typically been the advice of Staff and counsel that we not put any special conditions that may be challenged in a lawsuit, or may be questionable as to the enforceability. The ultimate control of the Planning Board is in site plan review. MS. RADNER-You did pass a resolution seeking Lead Agency status. 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MS. RADNER-So you’re acting consistent with your past. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I feel that, I’ll be honest with you, that’s an awful lot of land for 15 houses, and I really, you know, I’m not doubting anybody’s integrity, but when we go through the SEQRA and I have to look at the most, you know, the strongest and the most significant impact that can happen by changing your zone, I’m going to have a tough time getting through this, even though, from what you’ve said, I think that has to be irrelevant when we go through the SEQRA, and I think that’s going to be very difficult. MR. JARRETT-(Lost words) there’s an awful lot of land for the number of houses, with 17 and a half acres (lost words), theoretical calculations may be able to support 16. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I guess what I’m saying is, I mean, single family houses. That’s an awful lot of houses put in to. I guess I really have this problem, you know, the problem with Queensbury is it’s a small Town, really, and I just, you know, I guess I shouldn’t, I’ve heard that they’re going to be, you know, the bottom line is multifamily, and that’s where the best return for your investment is going to lie, and then when I go through this, the SEQRA, I have to think about the greatest possible impact, even though you’re saying that it’s going to be single family residences, and I believe you, but yet I still have to look at the greatest impact here. I personally wouldn’t like to do anything on this tonight. I’d like to think about it a little bit longer. MR. HOLMES-Even if it was multifamily, though, it would still just be 15 building units. Which is what we’re currently doing. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s right, but a multifamily unit, a multifamily footprint is going to have a heck of a lot more people in it than a single family residence. MR. JARRETT-Actually, the average occupancy in a multifamily is going to be less with 15 homes than a detached single family. Most traffic impact is from single family houses. MRS. LA BOMBARD-If each one of these is a multifamily. MR. JARRETT-Fifteen units totally. Total. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I thought it was 15, I didn’t quite catch . MR. JARRETT-No, that’s what, I think, Tony asked. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Tony asked that question. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I thought it was 15 footprints, and then in that in that footprint you could have maybe four units, for a total of 60. MR. HOLMES-No, the maximum units is 15. MR. JARRETT-Fifteen dwelling units, however they’re configured. MR. VOLLARO-On that basis, we’re not looking at an awful lot of risk here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Then we could do a SEQRA, and we could still, and it’s a recommendation, too. The Town Board can end up doing what they darn well please, too. MR. SANFORD-Yes, I’m with you. 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MOTION ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THIS BOARD, THE PLANNING BOARD, ACCEPTS LEAD AGENCY STATUS ON THE ZONE CHANGE FOR PZ6-2003 FOR RICK MEATH, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, in connection with the Rick Meath project, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review, and WHEREAS, the Executive Director has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED The Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, The Executive Director is hereby authorized to give such notifications and make such filings as may be required under Section 617 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York. Duly adopted this 28th day of October, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Long Form? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I’ve got it. “Impact on Land Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?” MR. METIVIER-No. MR. SANFORD-It won’t? MR. VOLLARO-I think it will, but it’s minor. MR. METIVIER-It’s, yes, I mean, you’re not. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, again, what we’re considering is a change from single family residential one acre to suburban residential one acre. Is that going to have a greater impact, yes or no? MR. METIVIER-No, that’s why I said no. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Impact on Water Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL)?” MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-No. MR. SANFORD-How about Rush Pond? 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. METIVIER-Again, same thing you just mentioned, whether you have 15 units, one or the other, maximum build out is still 15 units. So it doesn’t have any significant impact on Rush Pond or elsewhere. MR. SANFORD-Okay. I agree. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?” MR. VOLLARO-No. This is just, I think Mr. Hunsinger’s put his finger on it. This is just, these questions are related to zone change only. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MS. RADNER-No, to the whole thing. MRS. RYBA-To the entire project. MS. RADNER-Right. The whole project. MR. SANFORD-We don’t have a project in front of us. MRS. LA BOMBARD-We have a concept. We have to look at the concept, don’t we? MS. RADNER-You have to look at the concept that’s been brought before you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, it’s certainly going to affect surface or groundwater. MR. METIVIER-Surface and groundwater, however. MS. RADNER-Okay. Then go through the examples. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, then the examples, would it require a discharge permit? MR. METIVIER-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Will it require use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project) action? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. METIVIER-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Will it require supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. METIVIER-No. MR. SANFORD-Can I just interrupt for one minute, please? I’m sorry. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, you can. 69 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. SANFORD-Can we request of the applicant to bring us a real deal plan and then provide our recommendations, as opposed to this? MS. RADNER-If you don’t feel you have enough information to do SEQRA without that, then you could, but again, with the concept plan, I mean, apparently you already feel you have enough, you’ve started the process. MR. SANFORD-Well, we started the process thinking that we were addressing SEQRA in terms of a zone change only, not in contemplation of a proposed plan which we don’t feel we really have at this point. We have a sketch, potential idea. MRS. LA BOMBARD-See, when you do site plan and you go through this, we’ve got the engineering that tells us how the impacts are going to be mitigated. Here, we’ve just got a concept, that doesn’t really show us anything. It’s just telling us basically where buildings are going to be configured on those, that 17 acres. MR. HOLMES-Obviously we don’t want to go through getting a full plan because the Town Board could still turn this down for some reason. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s right. MR. HOLMES-But I think if you continue to go through those questions that you were going through, you’ll still end up with no answers to all those, based on the proposed use that you could have. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly, and that’s why I said to start going down through the list. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. So if we keep the concept you’re talking about in mind, with 15 single family dwellings on 17 acres, in a cluster arrangement, all right. You’ve got that, guys? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, but again, as Staff and counsel keep reminding us, we have to consider the greatest impact, and in your mind if you think that’s the greatest impact then that’s what you need to be considering. MR. SANFORD-Well, if we do the request, what’s the most they can develop on this property? MR. HOLMES-Fifteen units. MR. METIVIER-Roughly about the same. MR. VOLLARO-Fifteen units. So we’re not taking an awful risk here. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. METIVIER-No. MS. RADNER-And again, I mean, you’ve done these in the past where you’ve said, you know, hypothetically this sort of a project could have impacts on water, can they be addressed through mitigation, can they be addressed through engineering. Those are the sorts of things you’re going to have to consider here. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly, and that’s where we say yes. MS. RADNER-So you’re not approving the plan, but you’re considering it. Give it a hard look. MRS. LA BOMBARD-We’re okay. Let’s continue. 70 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. HUNSINGER-I think we’re on Question Five. MRS. LA BOMBARD-We’re on Five. “Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?” MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patters, or surface water runoff?” MR. METIVIER-Possibly, but minimum. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Possibly, small to moderate, but I think that could be mitigated with engineering. MR. METIVIER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Impact on Aesthetic Resources Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think we heard from neighbors that there is the potential, but again, it could be mitigated through site plan review. So, small to moderate. MR. SANFORD-I agree. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I’ll tell you, I don’t want to get into that right now, but I think that the way this is going to, this could be configured, and it could be very nicely visual. MR. HUNSINGER-I agree, but there is the potential for some negative impact. MRS. LA BOMBARD-There are places on that road that are real eyesores. MR. SANFORD-But there’s the potential though, Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, the potential. Okay. “Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. METIVIER-It could in a positive way. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. “Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14(g)?” MR. SANFORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. 71 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. VOLLARO-I think Rush Pond is classified as a CEA, and I think there could be some impacts there, but I think they could also be mitigated. These would be septic impacts on well drained soils. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, again, you read the examples, and I think you would answer no on any of those listed. That the project’s not located in a CEA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But you can put in your own examples, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. VOLLARO-It’s just that it’s 500 feet away. I think it’s pretty close. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s potential. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, there’s potential there. MR. HUNSINGER-Small to moderate impact, mitigated through site plan review. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Character of the community or neighborhood “Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community?” MR. SANFORD-Possibly, but again, site plan could minimize that or mitigate it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, again, you look at the examples, it’s not going to increase the population by more than 5%. It wouldn’t increase the municipal budget by more than 5%. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, you know, though, if they were multifamily places where their rental properties, it’s still 15 buildings, but it’s still going to affect the character of that West Mountain corridor. MR. HUNSINGER-So what do you want to say? MR. SANFORD-Yes, but it can be mitigated. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, again, you know, using the worst case scenario, that would be it. MR. HOLMES-You could mitigate it through berms, through (lost words), site plan review. MR. SANFORD-I think we can minimize it, if we had to deal with it. Hopefully we’re not going to have to deal with it. MR. HUNSINGER-So small to moderate impact, mitigated through site plan review. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I would say. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that what people want to say? MR. SANFORD-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. “Is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. SANFORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. VOLLARO-We didn’t hear any tonight. 72 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, we heard a couple of concerns. MR. VOLLARO-Well, they weren’t adverse environmental impacts. Potential adverse. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But one is the character of the community and the neighborhood. I mean, it is not a rental community or neighborhood up in that area. Easy on, easy off the Northway. All right. I guess we’ve gotten negatives on everything, right? MR. VOLLARO-With mitigation on some. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Would anybody like to make a motion for a negative SEQRA declaration? RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. PZ 6-2003, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: RICK MEATH, 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 28 day of October, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. LaBombard ABSENT: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Strough 73 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. HUNSINGER-Would anybody like to consider a recommendation to the Town Board? MR. VOLLARO-We have a draft resolution for that, don’t we? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we do. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make a motion. MRS. RYBA-Did you want to go through the 10 questions? The Petition for Zone Change. MR. VOLLARO-These are the ten questions? MRS. RYBA-They’re actually nine questions. MR. VOLLARO-Nine. What is being met by the proposed change in zone or new zone, is that, those are the questions? MRS. RYBA-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I guess we’ve got to go through that, Mr. Chairman. MR. HUNSINGER-Wouldn’t we just make these part of the resolution? MRS. RYBA-You can if whatever is written in Staff Notes is acceptable to the Board. MR. VOLLARO-Are these questions questions that were supplied by, see, there’s two pieces to this. one looks like it might have been prepared by Staff, and the other looks like it might have been prepared by the applicant. There’s two companion pieces here. MRS. RYBA-In the application there are nine questions which the applicant addresses. Staff also takes those questions and reviews them against additional information or other information if it wasn’t presented by the applicant for an independent analysis, and then these questions go to the Planning Board for further consideration. If you’re happy with what’s been presented by the applicant and/or Staff, that’s fine, but to make a recommendation you may want to go through those nine questions. If you’re satisfied with everything you’ve heard, then that’s up to you. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I guess so I can identified, this doesn’t say, this document doesn’t say this was prepared by Staff, and this was prepared by the applicant. MRS. RYBA-Your Staff Notes are Staff Notes. MR. HUNSINGER-Staff Notes are Staff Notes, Bob. MR. JARRETT-Bob, the one in the application was prepared by us. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, why don’t we go through the, I’m going to go through the Staff Notes 1. What need is being met by the proposed change in zone quickly, see if everyone’s in agreement. “ or new zone? The applicant would like to provide a cluster subdivision, but needs to have a zoning change to accomplish such development.” I think we talked about that extensively. “2. What existing zones, if any, can meet the stated need? All other residential zones in the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance allow cluster subdivision except for the Single Family Residential (SFR) zone. Cluster development allows 74 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) the same number of housing units as the underlying zone, yet provides flexibility in the development pattern. A minimum of 5 acres is required for cluster in the SR-1A zone. SR zones allow single family, duplex, and multi family residential uses. Other allowed uses include agricultural uses (as per § 179-5-030), cemeteries, day care centers, places of worship, and schools. 3. How is the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones? Adjacent zones include RR-5A to the north across Gurney Lane; SFR-1A to the west across West Mountain Road; HC-INT to the east across the Northway (I-87); and SFR-1A to the south. Current uses of adjoining properties include County offices and facilities to the north across Gurney Lane; County DPW storage to the west across West Mountain Road; Interstate 87 to the east; and single family residential development to the south. The Rush Pond CEA is also located to the south. Clustering may provide a buffer in addition to the CEA designation. The Rush Pond CEA designation includes lands measured 500 ft. out from the 430 ft. elevation contour (the high water mark). Development is not allowed within the CEA area. 4. What physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone? Physical characteristics of the site are indicated on the Long Form EAF. Soils as indicated are suitable for development. Reclamation of the former gravel extraction site will be limited to that required for clustering of residential housing. Most of the current site topography would remain to provide noise and sight buffers. Density requirements for the exact number of housing units needs to be determined as per the zoning/subdivision cluster requirements. 5. How will the proposed zone affect public facilities? Public Utilities; Sewer/Water The parcels to be rezoned are located within the Queensbury Consolidated Water District. On- site sewage is proposed. Transportation; Highways/Traffic/Circulation No general traffic generation information has been submitted by the applicant. The sketch plan shows a singular curb cut, which would reduce conflicts along West Mountain Road, a local arterial roadway. The Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual indicates that with 15 single family detached housing units, there would be an average of 150 weekday trip ends total. Single family trip rates are higher than any other type of residential housing. However, there would be no difference in traffic generated due to the zone change; single family housing generates the greatest amount of traffic of any housing type. Schools/Emergency Services/Town Facilities Impacts on the school population and emergency services are not known. The property is within the Lake George School District. Year 2000 Census data indicates that the average household size in Queensbury is 2.52 persons. The property owner is willing to offer the Town land for open space/greenway/trail purposes. 6. Why is the current zone classification not appropriate for the property in question? Clustering is not allowed in the current zone classification. 7. What are the environmental impacts of the proposed change? 75 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) A full EAF has been prepared for review.” That we all had a chance to look at. We just completed the SEQRA process. “A portion of the proposed development is within 500 ft. of the Rush Pond Critical Environmental Area (CEA). No development is proposed within that buffer. A GIS search shows the approximate location of the Rush Pond CEA, and a tiny portion of wetlands that may be located on site (see attached map). The EAF notes that investigation of threatened or endangered species is to take place. Wild blue lupine, host plant for the endangered Karner Blue and threatened Frosted Elfin butterflies, has been observed growing on the west side of West Mountain Road in this vicinity. The site of the proposed rezoning is within an area identified by the NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation and the US Fish & Wildlife Service as an area suitable for habitat for species cited. 8. How is the proposal compatible with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use Master Plan? 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) The proposed project area is located in Neighborhood 3 in the CLUP. See the attached map and CLUP recommendation 3.2, which supports a zone change to a Suburban Residential zone. The cluster subdivision proposed also meets with many of the goals and strategies listed in the CLUP, including items such as open space, greenways, lot sizes similar to surrounding developed land as long as environmental and infrastructure conditions are met, and zoning to support housing types other than single family (see pages 3-7 of the CLUP). Cluster zoning is allowed in the SR zones, but not in the SFR zones, so a zone change would be required before a cluster subdivision could be developed. 2003 Open Space Vision Plan and Map The proposed project plan shows a 100 ft. wide greenway path that could eventually connect to other neighborhoods and a trail system to Rush Pond and Aviation Road. Interconnected trail opportunities are advocated in the Open Space Vision plan and Map (see attached map and plan recommendations). 9. How are the wider interests of the Community being served by this proposal? The rezoning for cluster development purposes addresses conservation of lands, traffic access management, increase in pedestrian movement via trails, and consideration for the Rush Pond CEA.” Were there any other comments that people felt should be added to any of those items, or did they have questions or concerns about any of the things that were in the Staff Notes? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, under Staff comment number two, “Specific information is needed concerning review items for subdivision density, exact wetlands and CEA boundary calculations are needed for areas of slopes greater than 15, and the amount of lands in right of ways. The Planning Board may elect to request such information at this time, or at the time of Preliminary subdivision plan review. So we would elect not to ask for it at this time, I guess. I guess that’s the sense of the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re talking about the end of Staff comments. MR. VOLLARO-The last page of what you read, under Staff comments, right after Question Number Nine, number two talks about specific information being needed that we could ask for either now or at the time of Preliminary subdivision plan review, and I guess we’re electing here to take it at the time of Preliminary subdivision plan review. I guess that’s where we are. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess my comment on that, Bob, is when we considered the SEQRA review, we considered the maximum potential build out of the property, not taking into account any slopes that would minimize unit density. So therefore we’ve already taken into consideration the maximum potential build out. 76 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I can buy that. That makes sense. I think we’re through these nine questions, and with that, I think we’re looking for a motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD FOR A REQUEST FOR PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE PZ6-2003 FOR RICK MEATH, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Petition for Change Of Zone – PZ 6-2003 Applicant: Rick Meath Property Owner: Ski & Shore Corporation Agent: Jarrett-Martin Engineers, PLLC Current Zone: SFR-1A Proposed Zone: SR-1A Location: corner of West Mountain Rd. & Gurney Ln. Applicant proposes to rezone a 17.82 +/- acre parcel from SFR-1A to SR-1A. As part of the proposed rezoning, the applicant proposes construction of a residential cluster subdivision. Cross Reference: None Rush Pond CEA TB referral to PB: 8/18/03, Res. 383,2003 Warren Co. Planning: 10/8/03 Tax Map No. 288-1-64, 63 Lot size: 17.82 acres / Section: 179-15-020 Public Hearing: October 28, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received on 8/1/03; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 10/24/03, and 10/28 Staff Notes 10/28 PB resolution: SEQRA Negative Declaration 10/28 PB resolution acknowledging Lead Agency status 10/21 Notice of Public Hearing 10/15 Sketch Plan application received in support of rezoning request 10/8 Warren Co. Planning 9/29 Meeting Notice 9/23 Resolution seeking Lead Agency status 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 28, 2003 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 77 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The Planning Board approves a recommendation to the Town Board for a request for Petition for Zone Change PZ 6-2003 in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 28th day of October, 2003, by the following vote: MRS. LA BOMBARD-The reason I’m going to vote no is because I’m considering the greatest impact and the fact that I think our zoning committee through the two, three, five years, whatever it was that they zoned everything and fixed everything and just reconfigured all the zoning, and made recommendations. They spent a lot of time thinking about it, and I’m going to go with their judgment that they had originally. They worked pretty hard at it, and I think they had their reasons for keeping this SFR-1. MR. SANFORD-I might as well state my reason for voting no. I have no problems with the proposal as presented, but I would not like to see rental properties put up there, and I think we’re leaving ourselves open for that, and so I thought we could have found a better solution, but apparently not, so my vote is no. AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Sanford ABSENT: Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan MR. HUNSINGER-It’s carried, right? You’re all set. Good luck. MRS. LA BOMBARD-They could still put up 15 houses along West Mountain Road. MR. SANFORD-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So is the majority whoever is present, or do they need four votes? MS. RADNER-For this, yes, three to two, majority. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s only a recommendation. SITE PLAN NO. 47-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED NIGRO COMPANIES, INC. AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER, CURT SCHWARTZ ZONE: HC-MOD. LOCATION: 751 GLEN STREET, GLEN SQUARE PLAZA APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA AND FENCE ASSOCIATED WITH A NEW BUSINESS IN THE GLEN SQUARE PLAZA. RETAIL USES IN THE HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 84-03, SV 24-90, SP 16-94, AV 21-94, UV 12-94 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/8/03 TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-25 LOT SIZE: 6.33 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 JON LAPPER, STEFANIE BITTER, & STEVE POWERS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 47-2003, Nigro Companies, Inc., Meeting Date: October 28, 2003 Site Plan 47-2003 “APPLICATION: APPLICANT: Nigro Companies is the applicant for this request. 78 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to construct an outdoor storage area and fence associated with a proposed tenant (Tractor Supply Company) in the Glen Square shopping center. LOCATION: The subject property is located at 751 Glen St. EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned HC-Mod, Highway Commercial Moderate. SEQRA STATUS: This application is an Unlisted SEQRA action. A SEQRA short form EAF has been included as part of the application. PARCEL HISTORY: Area Variance 84-2003 (resolved on October 15, 2003) granting relief from the parking requirements in order to allow 140 less spaces than required. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to construct an outdoor storage area associated with a new tenant in the Glen Square Shopping Center. The approximately 20,000 outdoor storage area is proposed just to the west of the main retail building in this shopping center. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has requested waivers from the following requirements: Stormwater Management Plan - Grading Plan - Lighting Plan - Landscaping Plan - The applicant has indicated that the outdoor storage area will be fenced in. What type of fence is proposed for this area? What is the proposed height of the fence? The applicant has submitted photos showing an outdoor storage area at another Tractor Supply Company location. Will materials be stacked and stored at the Queensbury location similar to what is presented in the photo? The outdoor storage area and the materials within the storage area may be visible from adjacent properties, including properties along Route 9. More detail of the proposed fence, detail of any screening proposed for this outdoor area, proposed stacking heights of materials, as well as the type of materials being stored in this outdoor area should be provided to the Planning Board for review while considering this application. Is any additional lighting proposed as part of this plan? Will there be large truck deliveries at this location, and what types of vehicle loading/unloading facilities are proposed as part of this site plan?” MR. HUNSINGER-Staff Notes, George. MR. HILTON-The main issue with this appears to be, I guess what type of screening. The applicant has indicated the storage area will be fenced in. We’d be interested to see what type of screening is proposed, what type of fence is proposed, what type of materials are being stored here, visibility from Route 9 is an issue. It should be addressed by the Board. A question, is any lighting proposed as part of this plan and will there be any large truck deliveries and what type of vehicle loading, unloading facilities are proposed. Those are really our main concerns, and that’s all we have at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thanks. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. 79 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. HUNSINGER-The floor is yours. MR. LAPPER-Okay. For the record, Jon Lapper, my associate Stefanie Bitter, and Steve Powers, on behalf of Nigro Companies. As the Board may recall, we were here in around 1994 doing a complete renovation of this site. We changed the uses along Glen Street. There used to be the old Carvel A-frame, which is now the Taco Bell. We’ve expanded the bank, and we’ve converted a restaurant into the video store. Nigro Companies has a lease with Niagara Mohawk so that they’re able to lease a portion of the parking lot and do considerable landscaping in that area under the power lines next to Taco Bell, which they do a pretty nice job with, and that softens that area of Glen Street, which is otherwise pretty well paved. As the Board’s probably aware, the farthest space from Glen Street, which used to be Eckerd Drugs, has been vacant for about three years, since Eckerd relocated to Ridge Street in Glens Falls. That’s a 20,000 square foot portion of a building. They have received a lease from a national retailer, Tractor Supply Company, which is very interested in being in our area because of the demographics. They’re in 30 states with approximately 450 stores. They do require an outdoor storage area, which is not unlike what Lowe’s and Home Depot have, of course it’s not anywhere near as tall as what Lowe’s has. We were at the Zoning Board last week to receive a parking variance. The Zoning Board was very supportive and thought that we had actually proposed to get closer to the parking requirement by making the size of the parking stalls smaller because the new Code allows them to be smaller, and the Planning Board thought that this type of use isn’t going to need a lot of spaces. Under the Code it would require 200. We have a letter from the Company that we included saying that this is just not a customer intensive business. It just has large items, and that they were, 50 was the most customers they’d have peak hour any day, and on that basis the Planning Board gave us an even greater variance than we asked for and recommended that we keep the parking stalls the size that they are now. If at any time there was a parking issue, we have the ability to go to the smaller stalls, if this Board wanted us to, but the Zoning Board thought it was not necessary to do that and didn’t require us to. The issue did come up at the Zoning Board and I know that Mr. Strough, for one, was at that meeting. The issue was raised by the Zoning Board, the same as it was in Staff Notes, as to whether or not we could provide some screening of the fenced area. The Staff Notes ask for the height of the fence, and it’s only eight feet. So it’s nothing comparable to what the home improvement warehouses have, but we did have, in the last week since we were at the Zoning Board, we did have a planting plan, which I will give you, which is pretty straightforward, but we’re proposing to remove pavement in front of the fenced in area, put a curb, extend the sidewalk area with a real curb, put in this five foot area with shrubs which we’re proposing. We’ve got the sides of red barberry, dwarf euonymus, gold finger, potentilla, spirea, and some annuals, and junipers as a ground cover, and I’ll submit that. That’s something that wasn’t part of our original approval. It’s pretty far from Glen Street where it’s tucked in the back, really, around the side of the building. An area of the site that’s been virtually unused. This plan does also show where the loading dock is, which is in the back, which was a question that Staff asked. This use would be serviced by tractor trailers, just like all of the other uses in the Plaza, and that shouldn’t be any problem at all. Everyone else is already using them. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments? MR. LAPPER-Not at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Richard, do you want to go first? MR. SANFORD-Sure. I have no problems with this at all. I’m glad that you’re addressing that fenced in area. I had some issues about that. I think it’s good to have somebody in there. It’s not going to have a high intense use, and I’ll turn it over to whoever goes next. MR. HUNSINGER-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. As long as they’ve got all the things taken care of. 80 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. HUNSINGER-John? MR. STROUGH-Well, it’s a tractor company. It seems fine, but, I mean, what kind of tractors? We’re not talking about caterpillar 450’s here or something. MR. LAPPER-It’s not really a tractor company. That’s just a name. We submitted a list of what they sell. Here’s the list. This may or may not be included. We did submit this to the Zoning Board. The category items are farm maintenance products, general maintenance equipment, lawn and garden products, animal care, apparel, and automotive accessories. The subtopics, under farm maintenance products, fencing, tractor parts and accessories, agricultural spring equipment, tileage parts, specialty feeds, animal supplements and medicines, veterinary supplies, livestock feeders, general maintenance equipment, air compressors, welders, generators, pumps, electrical products, plumbing, paint, lawn and garden products, riding and push mowers, tractor mower parts and accessories, tillers, fertilizers, long handled tools, no short handled tools I guess, animal care, feed and supplements, health and medicine products, tack and equipment, pet supplies, apparel, ladies mens work clothes and western wear, mens ladies work footwear, work garden gloves, and finally automotive accessories, batteries, lubricants, tarps, tie downs, truck tool boxes, trailers, towing parts accessories, fuel tanks. How’s that? MR. STROUGH-It’s pretty hard to nail down. No caterpillar 450’s in there? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. STROUGH-It seems like it’s kind of like a Falls Farm and Garden kind of. MR. LAPPER-I think it’s a cross between a home improvement warehouse to a certain extent and a Falls Farm and Garden. MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Or an Agway kind of. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-So it’s an eight foot chain link fence? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And did you say you’re going to supply some kind of? MR. LAPPER-What you’ve got and what I just handed you was the planting plan. MR. STROUGH-I don’t know, is it just me? I’m having trouble seeing where the plants go. MR. LAPPER-See where it says landscaping bed, in front of the fence? MR. VOLLARO-It’s kind of hard to review a plan like this on the night of the application. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So you’re saying towards the façade of the building? MR. LAPPER-Exactly. Parallel with the façade. MR. STROUGH-And the rest of it’s going to be exposed. MR. LAPPER-Because they asked if it just goes to the hill. It goes up to the Mall where the NiMo power line is. 81 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I don’t know if I’d want it exposed, you know, the police go around there, at least they can see if somebody’s in there. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-You don’t want to mask the whole thing. MR. LAPPER-This will mask what you see from Glen Street. MR. STROUGH-This will just dress up the front. MR. LAPPER-And Bob just said that you did just get this, and the reason was because this was suggested to us at the Zoning Board. So that’s why we quickly put together a plan. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, are you going to have additional lighting for this? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. STROUGH-So the street lighting that’s there is going to be ample? MR. POWERS-The existing site lighting, I’m Steve Powers with Nigro. The existing site lighting and the man door lights that are on the side of the building are adequate. MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s it for me. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I guess I only have one meaningful thing, and that’s, again, in the housekeeping area here. Go to your site development data. Jon, I always catch you with this. I don’t know why. You’ve got, you know, you’ve got 22% that’s non-permeable. That’s actually 76.3, okay. It’s your total non-permeable over your parcel area, it’s 76%. MR. LAPPER-You’re right. MR. VOLLARO-So I’ll just make a recommendation to Staff to make sure that that’s cleared up, and that the 17% in the final goes to 81.5, and that’s my only comment. Other than that, it looks pretty good to me. MR. LAPPER-And we’d even change the permeability from what’s there because this was already paved. MR. VOLLARO-Exactly. When I saw 22% I didn’t know what you were doing. MR. LAPPER-Yes, that would be better, but we can’t meet that. MR. HUNSINGER-Staff questions? MR. HILTON-Yes, just in looking at the plan real quick, the plan indicates a six foot high chain link fence. You had indicated eight. MR. LAPPER-Eight. MR. HILTON-I guess just some clarification. MR. POWERS-The original plan, I had just talked to Tractor Supply today. The original plan was a six foot high with a barbed wire top on it. They’ve now done away with the barbed wire and it’s just an eight foot high chain link. 82 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. HILTON-Eight foot high chain link. Okay. Just one other question. The materials being stored behind the fence, will they exceed the height of the eight foot fence or will everything be below? MR. POWERS-Everything is planned to be eight foot high or lower. MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. STROUGH-And nothing outside of, everything’s going to be contained in the fence? Right? MR. LAPPER-I think at times, like other retailers, they might have sale items out in front of their front door or something. We’re not asking for an outdoor storage area. MR. STROUGH-Nothing permanently stored outside the fence? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. STROUGH-Other than the occasional sale stuff. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. METIVIER-I was going to bring that point up, actually. The Tractor Supply in Amsterdam is a mess. I mean, it honestly is. You drive in that place, it’s just a mess, and I honestly hope. MR. LAPPER-Here’s my response, Tony. Nigro Companies is a very well respected property management company. They not only manage what they own, which is everything that I mentioned, but also the Toys R Us, which is owned by a neighbor, but they had it redeveloped, and they manage that as well. Very good staff. They keep the parking lot in good shape. They keep the landscaping in good shape. They’re not going to let this place be a mess. MR. METIVIER-I assume that the fence would hold in most of the inventory. It just appears to me that they don’t have enough room in Amsterdam, for the inventory they have. So, you know, I don’t even know what we could do, but I’m going to assume that this will be more, I don’t know, more, you know. MR. POWERS-I think it’s more prototypical to a, Jon mentioned, this company has grown by about 60 stores a year. So they have a prototype. We just happen to have, in the building area, the standard size of their, if they were to build up straight out of the ground a freestanding building, plus their fenced in area. So I’m not familiar with the Amsterdam store, other than I know it’s there, but this is a lot more prototypical. This will fit in the building, and they had the fenced in area for their outside sales and storage area. MR. METIVIER-See, they don’t have that in Amsterdam. So I have the feeling that a lot of the stuff is just out there. So my point was going to be that I’m going to assume that most of their inventory will be kept behind the fence, which is fine. Typically anybody’s going to leave tractors out during the day to get people in. I mean, we all know when you see a tractor, you go for it, seriously, I mean, and there’s no problem with that, but if you ever go to the Amsterdam store, you’d be kind of, I guess amazed at how much stuff is outside, you know. MR. POWERS-Well, we have no interest in having them spread out all over the parking lot, obviously, and we want to make sure that, you know, they will be contained within the area that they lease from us. MR. METIVIER-I don’t doubt. Actually we were commenting the other day. The Plaza does look very nice. I mean, overall, it’s a nice Plaza. It’s come a long way. 83 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. POWERS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments? Questions? MR. STROUGH-Just, is anybody going to get to this site, I mean, through the Long John Silver traffic? MR. LAPPER-That’s a whole other. We expect that will dissipate. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If there’s no other questions or comments, we do have a public hearing scheduled, if you would give up the table. Is there anyone here that would like to speak on behalf or against this applicant? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-We have a Short Form. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, Unlisted. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 47-2003, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: NIGRO COMPANIES, INC., 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. 84 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) Duly adopted this 28 day of October, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. HUNSINGER-I think there would be at least one condition, and that would be on the revised site plan, the reference to the chain link fence. MR. VOLLARO-The six foot? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, eight foot, with no barbed wire. MR. VOLLARO-To include the new drawing A1.12. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. STROUGH-And do want to condition it that, except for the occasional exterior sales, that the retail products are expected to be contained within the store and the proposed fenced in area, and not have a kind of spread going out everywhere? I know Mr. Nigro has got a very high standard for the way his Plaza looks, but just for assurance. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to roll with it, John? MR. STROUGH-Do you want me to do it? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, let John do it. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 47-2003 NIGRO COMPANIES, INC., Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan 47-2003 Applicant: Nigro Companies, Inc. SEQR Type: Unlisted Agent: Jonathan Lapper, Curt Schwartz Zone: HC-Mod. Location: 751 Glen Street, Glen Square Plaza Applicant proposes to construct an outdoor storage area and fence associated with a new business in the Glen Square Plaza. Retail uses in the HC-Int zone require Site Plan review and approval from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: AV 84- 03, SV 24-90, SP 16-94, AV 21-94, UV 12- 94 Warren Co. Planning: 10/8/03 Tax Map No. 302.6-1-25 Lot size: 6.33 acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: October 28, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received on 9/15/03; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 10/24/03, and 10/28 Staff Notes 10/28 Map A1.1 (Concept floor plan & landscaping) received at meeting 10/21 Notice of Public Hearing 10/15 ZBA resolution: Approved 85 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) 10/15 G. Hilton from S. Bitter: Waiver request - stormwater, grading, lighting and landscaping plan 10/8 Warren Co. Planning: Approved 9/29 Meeting Notice 9/26 Application referral to Warren Co. Planning 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 28, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application 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 Agency Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1. That the applicant’s final submission will include the Landscaping Plan A1.1, dated August 8, 2003. 2. Except for the occasional outside sale, that retail products will be contained within the store in the proposed fenced in area, and just a notation, there is a change in the proposed fence. The fence that the applicant will construct is 8 foot in height, is chain link, and has no barbed wire at the top. Duly adopted this 28th day of October, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. POWERS-Thank you very much. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 16-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED WESTERN RESERVE, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: WESTERN RESERVE & THEODORE 86 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) RAWSON AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES, NACE ENG., JON LAPPER ZONE: SR-1A, RR-3A LOCATION: WEST SIDE WEST MT. RD., SOUTH OF POTTER RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A CLUSTER SUBDIVISION OF A 34.535 +/- ACRE LOT INTO 13 LOTS – 12 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 1 MULTI-FAMILY W/13 TOWNHOUSE UNITS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 52-01, AV 22-02 TAX MAP NO. 300-1-19,20/87-1-21 LOT SIZE: 34.8 +/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS JON LAPPER, TOM NACE, MICKIE HAYES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 16-2003, Preliminary & Final Stage, Western Reserve, LLC, Meeting Date: October 28, 2003 “APPLICATION: Subdivision 16-2003 (Preliminary & Final Stage) APPLICANT: Western Reserve, LLC is the applicant for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 34.5 +/- acre property into 12 single- family lots, and 1 lot where the applicant proposes to construct 13 multi-family units. LOCATION: The subject property is located on the west side of West Mountain Rd., south of Potter Rd. EXISTING ZONING: This property is zoned SR-1A, Suburban Residential One Acre. SEQRA STATUS: This action is a SEQRA Unlisted action. The applicant has included a Full Environmental Assessment Form with the subdivision application. PARCEL HISTORY: Similar requests to construct single family and multi family homes at this location have recently been reviewed by the ZBA and the Planning Board. A sketch plan application for this current layout was presented to the Planning Board on August 26, 2003. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant seeks to subdivide approximately 34.5 acres into 12 single-family lots and 1 multi family lot with 13 multifamily units. The single-family homes would have vehicular access from a proposed cul-de-sac off of West Mountain Rd. The multi family lot is shown to the south of the proposed single-family homes, with direct vehicular access to West Mountain Rd. As some of the lots in this proposed subdivision are below one acre in size, this application is being presented to the Planning Board as a cluster subdivision, therefore the cluster regulations contained in the Subdivision Regulations and in Article 11 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance apply to the review of this application. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has supplied a density calculation with the subdivision application. This calculation lists an allowable density of 25 units. As this is a cluster subdivision, the land areas of all slopes above 15% are to be subtracted, which the applicant has listed in their figures. Have all natural slope areas above 15% situated east of the Glens Falls water line easement been factored in the applicant’s density calculation? Have any perc tests or test pits been done in the area of the proposed septic systems to verify soil conditions? The applicant has submitted a stormwater management report, grading and drainage plans, which have been submitted to CT Male for their review and comment. The locations of existing areas of blue lupine have not been identified on the proposed subdivision. The existing blue lupine areas, which were shown on the previous subdivision plat for this property, must be identified on this plat. The methods of protection of blue lupine on this site must be addressed as part of a karner blue management plan. If the applicant proposes to use the previously accepted karner blue management plan, that plan must be 87 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) submitted as part of this application. Acceptance of any karner blue management plan for this property from NYSDEC or USFWS should be submitted as part of this application. As staff has commented with the previous subdivision application at this location, the Planning Board, as part of any final subdivision approval, should consider a stipulation that no future subdivision or development of this property shall take place. Staff has previously commented that such a stipulation would protect and maintain the natural state of higher elevation areas of this site, while at the same time preserving areas of this site that may be visible from surrounding locations; both of which are objectives and standards for cluster subdivisions listed in Article 11 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. Any comments from CT Male, the Town of Queensbury Water Department and the Town of Queensbury Highway Superintendent should be addressed during the review of this application.” MR. HUNSINGER-Staff notes? MR. HILTON-Really quickly. Just a summary. The applicant, along with the plan, has supplied a density calculation. I guess our question would be, have all natural slope areas, 15% or greater, been deducted in the lands east of the Glens Falls water line easement. I think our position has been in the past that the unnatural slope areas of 15 or above may not, or probably will not be needed to factor in or compute density, but again, are any natural areas above 15%, have they all been accounted for? Have any perc tests or test pits been done in the area of the proposed septic? The applicant’s submitted stormwater management, grading a drainage plans which have been forwarded to C.T. Male and any C.T. Male comments should be considered. As far as blue lupine on this property, the plans do not, site plans submitted do not indicate the areas of blue lupine which were previously shown on other related subdivision plans. Previous applications to this site contained a management plan, and I guess if the applicant proposes to use that previously accepted management plan, that plan should be at least submitted as part of this application, then we would suggest any acceptance of that plan, as it relates to this revised application be provided from either New York State DEC or U.S. Fish and Wildlife. On a related note, in looking at the site plan, it appears that those two areas are going to be, lupine areas are going to be re-graded for a drainage swale and perhaps the location of an on-site septic system. So the applicant should address that. As Staff has commented previously, we would look for a condition that no future subdivision or development of this property take place. As it is a cluster, it is designed to protect the areas of the site with higher elevations and steeper areas and that is one of the objectives and standards for cluster subdivisions listed in Article 11 of the Zoning Ordinance. As a related item, there is a site plan for the multifamily portion of this property to be reviewed, following the subdivision, and I think that’s all we have at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Mickie Hayes, on behalf of Western Reserve, and Project Engineer Tom Nace. Just to put a little history on the record, as the Board is aware, this is an abandoned industrial site which contains still many yards of concrete, both above and subsurface. The Hayes’ have started the remediation of the site, eliminated a lot of material, over the years, over the last twenty years, approximately, many developers have considered this site because it’s a good location for residential development in the midst of residential area of the Town, but because of the cost of remediation, they elected not to pursue this. Mickie Hayes has just put up our display board showing all of the areas, locating all the areas of the industrial materials that, some of which have been remediated and many of which still need to be remediated from the site. They’ve taken out truckloads upon truckloads of tires, of scrap metal, of concrete, and there’s still a lot more that needs to be removed. As the Board will recall, when we were here, which was probably two months ago, the Board asked us to revise the plan because we had four curb cuts on West Mountain Road because we had the single family dwellings on West Mountain Road, and in order to meet the Board’s request, we completely switched around the site plan so that now we actually have more single family and 88 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) fewer multifamily units, both of which are permitted uses, of course, and Tom will go through the site plan, but we retained the pond which we’re re-shaping as just a visual amenity, including trails, for walking, cross country skiing. The main attribute of this plan is that none of the development is being proposed up on the hill. So in terms of the vistas of the Town, this is a case where clustering really does a lot for the community, because the development happens in much closer proximity to West Mountain Road, where it’s already developed, rather than if you did a single family subdivision all on one acre lots, you would pretty much be denuding, or at least seriously reducing the area where there’s forest up on the hill that you see from a distance, and that’s really a very big point here in terms of this design, and I know that that’s something that the Board was very supportive of the last time that we were here. The subdivision is completely in conformance in all aspects, with zoning and planning. This is a request for a subdivision for the single family lots, and the one lot for the townhouse project, and then the site plan next for the townhouse project. I’m going to turn it over to Tom Nace to walk you through the project. Procedurally, one more point on the record, we were asked to submit this as a new application. Of course this is a continuation of the same process that we’ve been through for many, many months, but the Planning Staff felt that when we switched it around, which was only done at the request of the Planning Board to reduce the number of curb cuts from four to two over, Mickie, how many feet is this on West Mountain Road? MR. HAYES-Under 1,000. MR. LAPPER-Under 1,000 feet, with two curb cuts. When we did that, the Planning Staff asked us to submit a new application, which we did, but the Board knows this is all part of the same process, that that was just a change at your request. MR. NACE-Okay. Real briefly, because of the late hour, I will walk you through the site plan and the subdivision. As you can see, we’ve created a boulevard, a short boulevard entry, for the subdivided lots, the single family lots. There are 12 of those single family lots, most of them on the north and west side of the proposed road. The length of road is approximately 900 feet to the cul de sac, plus some of it is boulevard up front anyway. We will be serving this area with Queensbury Town water, and individual on-site septics. The proposed apartment project on the Lot 13 consists of two four-unit buildings, a three-unit building and a two-unit building, and those are shown in more detail on the site plan for the apartment complex, single entry road branching off to them, again, to cut down the curb cuts. Each unit has its own, or each building has its own septic system, located up in the front area, and again, served by Town water. We have received comments from C.T. Male, responded to those today. I think, George, you talked also with Jim Edwards, or not Jim Edwards, Jim Houston and he’s reviewed our response. I think we’re 95 to 99% in agreement, and he feels confident that, you know, the last few minor issues can be easily worked out. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else to add? MR. LAPPER-For the moment we’re all set. MR. HUNSINGER-Cathy, do you want to go first? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ve just watched this whole process, this whole project evolve and I think it’s basically where I wanted it to be. I don’t have anything specific right now. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I should ask members of the Board, currently we’re only considering the subdivision. Later is a separate consideration that we may or may not be considering the site plan. Tony? MR. METIVIER-Nothing at this point to add, or ask. I, too, am in agreement with Cathy. It’s come a long way from 100 units down to what it is today. We asked for, basically, so far, it’s getting there. It’s good. MR. LAPPER-Thanks. 89 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. METIVIER-I’m done. MR. HUNSINGER-John? MR. STROUGH-This has been a long haul. I mean, what was it, two years ago we had, I think it was closer to 100 units proposed here, and, you know, that didn’t make anybody happy. Then the next proposal was, I think, 48, if I remember right, and then the next proposal was in the 30’s, and then we had concerns with the number of access areas there were, curb cuts to West Mountain Road. Now we’re down to 25, okay, 25 units. We’ve got 12 single family and 13 apartments, and I think that you, in the past, have agreed that there will be no further subdivision of the property, and none of this development is occurring, at least nothing extensively, on the slope of the mountain. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. STROUGH-Preserving that as open space. As far as looking at, we’re looking at, I’m going from memory here, at 35. MR. LAPPER-Thirty-four point five. MR. STROUGH-Thirty-four point five acres, and of which I think less than 10 is going to be now developed, leaving the rest of it undeveloped. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-You’ve come down to a situation where, you know, how much more could you ask for, in terms of allowing the developer, the applicant, to retrieve some kind of return on their investment, minimizing impacts on the community, minimizing impacts on the aesthetic value of the mountainside and the scenic values inherent there, overall, I can’t find too many complaints with the plan as it’s proposed. I mean, you know, but, I do have some lingering questions that were brought out, and I know that we had, at one time in our hands, a blue Karner management plan. MR. LAPPER-I should have mentioned that in our opening remarks. What our, the management plan that we had proposed was because we were naively thinking that we could get the project approved before the season allowed the on-site investigation. We submitted, over the summer, after, we hired a PhD from the LA Group to come and visit the site eight times during the brooding season, and we submitted that report previously. We have copies, in case everyone doesn’t have it, with the same file, but that they found absolutely nothing, and we have a letter that we can read from DEC at the time, which indicated that, if we found nothing, DEC had always acknowledged that these were very remote patches that weren’t, that they didn’t anticipate they could support a habitat, but that we still had to go out and check. So we had the consultant go out and check and we can read you the letter from DEC saying that if you went out and checked and found nothing, then there’s nothing that has to be done. This differs markedly from the property that’s down the street, where there were significant patches of blue lupine, but not the case here. We had three very small patches, and much of it was within the State right of way, excuse me, the County right of way, which we’re avoiding anyway. Previously we had a curb cut going through there. So, as George mentioned, one of the areas we’re proposing to re-grade, but that’s something where it doesn’t, there was no habitat. The blue lupine is not a protected plant. It’s the species, if the species existed, and that’s not the case, and we have that report. MR. STROUGH-Well, okay, well let’s back up a little bit. I think the blue lupine habitat does have some protections to it, and Staff can correct me if I’m wrong. Doesn’t a habitat or a site that has blue lupine have some kind of protection, or can you bull doze blue lupine in a field if you see it? Once you’ve determined there’s no? 90 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MRS. RYBA-What we need to see is a letter from DEC and Fish and Wildlife that states that they’ve looked at the study or the assessment that shows that there is an endangered species there, or a threatened species and that then if there is no, you know, no species there, then there really isn’t a reason to say you have to protect the blue lupine. MR. STROUGH-And haven’t they basically got that correspondence, though? MR. VOLLARO-Well, what I’ve done, John, if I can just interrupt you. MR. STROUGH-Sure, go ahead. MR. VOLLARO-For a minute, I’ve been through all of Kathy O’Brien’s letters, and I’m just going to go through them real quickly, and I think it’ll answer a lot of these questions. If you go down to, start off with her November 25, 2002 letter, go to Page Three, and she says in there, which I think is an operative statement in here, “I will again repeat my earlier statements to the Planning Board and Development Staff. These projects were recurring in the Karner blue butterfly focal area in Queensbury. Closer to the Niagara Mohawk power lines or near known existing populations of either species, rather than the fringe and known population sites. My evaluation of these projects would be much more stringent as to the need to protect even a small patch of lupine. U.S. Fish and Wildlife would also be involved. In the focus areas, new development will have much greater impact on the continued existence of the species in the Town and the lupine factors of any size may have value there.” So she’s really saying, you know, and that’s a real operative factor, I feel, in her letter of 25 November. Then in her letter of January 7, 2003, on Page One, she refers to Mr. Hayes’ short-term protection of lupine, and she says until a survey to determine the presence of the species. Now, in her very latest letter from June 27, it was real interesting, I thought, that was an interesting letter. They apparently, and th with Mr. Hayes, had gone up to take a look and see if they could find any blue lupine and actually any Karner blue butterflies up at the Niagara Mohawk power line area, and you saw them, and you saw a lot of them, and then you went down to your property and saw none. See, now to me, that’s a very, the line of demarcation there for me is absolutely clear. There’s no need for any kind of Karner blue butterfly plan, or anything like that. So I question the need for a blue management plan on this application at all, based on my findings in those three letters. MR. LAPPER-We do have the report from the LA Group. You should have had this previously, but we can resubmit it. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see that either, Jon. I just went basically on, because DEC is basically, to me, the controlling agency here. So, anybody else’s comments, I. MR. LAPPER-And they were willing to do the master plan if that was necessary, (lost words) after the field investigation (lost words). MR. HILTON-Really quickly, my first comment is that this is a new application, and all materials from the other application have not been carried over. Nothing in terms of addressing Karner blue or any threatened or endangered species has been submitted as part of this application, up until this letter. I’m not suggesting that a management plan is necessary. I’m just saying if it’s the applicant’s plan to use the one that they’ve submitted previously, that it should be submitted. MR. LAPPER-And it’s not, because we’re saying that after the study, we would have, but we don’t need it. MR. HILTON-And I guess I would say that, in echoing Marilyn’s comments, that we don’t have anything in the file from New York State DEC or U.S. Fish and Wildlife that indicates that there’s nothing there or that they’re comfortable with removal of the plants. MR. LAPPER-Well, I really don’t want to be argumentative, but we’ve been going through this process really for months if not years. You determined, and I’m not arguing it, that when we 91 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) switched it around and added more single family and fewer townhouses, because of the traffic issue, that that should then be, for tracking purposes, considered a new application, but, I mean, this is our same, it’s our same project. So we’ve gone through extensive work on the Karner blue, and to say, I mean, I think that there should be a note in the file that this is a continuation of that project, even though it has a new number, because nothing’s changed here. I mean, this is, we’ve done all this work on the Karner blues, had all these hearings. It’s all on the same project. With that said, what I submitted tonight is the study that we submitted last time, which was all of the field investigations from the LA Group which shows that nothing was found on the site, but I think the letters that Mr. Vollaro read, certainly have to be considered part of the record for this project. MR. STROUGH-Did, okay, did Curtis Lumber have a positive sighting of Karner blue on their site? Was anybody here back in those days? Cathy, the only one. Was there any positive reading of Karner blue butterflies on the Curtis Lumber site, or was that just blue lupine? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t think so. MR. NACE-That’s been five years ago. MR. LAPPER-But that was in that area where they have all the sandy soils where there’s those large, large patches, near the power lines. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-See, I think DEC’s concerns is that they can do a tremendous amount of good for the Karner blue up there in what they call the central control areas. MR. STROUGH-Yes, I agree with you. That would be best. I just want to make sure everything that we do is lawful. All right. Well, let’s, I did like your management plan anyways, your signs and everything. I like that. MR. LAPPER-And it may come up again on another site. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, some of this is, I don’t know where to draw the line between subdivision discussion and site plan discussion. MR. LAPPER-Well, for SEQRA you should be considering both. Cathi would tell you that. I just got it out a second faster. MR. STROUGH-All right. I kind of looked at the, I had a concern about maintenance of the stormwater devices being proposed. For example, you know, the catch basin identified as Catch Basin One, on Lot Two, there’s a depression. That, I’m assuming that you’re not treating that as any retention or detention basin. MR. NACE-That’s correct. That’s just an inlet. MR. STROUGH-That when it gets graded, that won’t be a depression. It’ll be leveled off, but it’ll still be pitched towards the catch basin. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. NACE-And one of the things that C.T. Male had commented was to make sure that we had easements to the Town along all of the drainage facilities, and we have included those now. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Are they written in the plans yet, or is that something that? 92 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. NACE-Yes, they are written in the plans that C.T. Male has reviewed. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. LAPPER-That was in response to C.T. Male’s request. MR. NACE-Right. It was in response to their comments. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, let’s stay right on that. The swale behind Lot Two, C.T. Male’s suggesting that that swale be brought up and extended to Lots Three, Four, and Five. MR. NACE-Yes, that has been done. MR. LAPPER-We concurred with all those comments. MR. STROUGH-Okay, but if I bought, let’s say Lot Five, and I have my excavator come in, I tell him level the lot out nice so I can put my house on there, yes, the depression in the back, fill it right in there. What would prevent that from happening? MR. NACE-Only the original filed subdivision plans. Okay. If we were in Rolling Ridge where the soils were tight and poor, I would be very concerned about that type of thing. Here, if you end up detaining water anywhere for any period of time it’s going to disappear, and it’s all sandy. It’s deep sands, and that swale that we had shown in behind those lots, there is really very little if any side hill drainage getting to that swale. That’s more of a housekeeping issue. It’s not a swale that I would ever expect to see any amount of flowing water in. MR. STROUGH-It’s a worst case scenario? MR. NACE-Correct. MR. STROUGH-Now, the grid pattern, which shows the slope around the cul de sac. MR. NACE-The grid pattern. What do you mean, you mean the contours? MR. STROUGH-Well, yes, but it’s kind of a, on Plan S-3. MR. NACE-The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now what does that represent, the crosshatching? MR. NACE-Those are steep slopes which require an erosion control blanket, as part of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. So once those slopes have been established, while seed is catching and vegetation is catching, there will be an erosion control blanket on there to keep them from eroding. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, is there going to be a guardrail proposed along the cul de sac that’s near that slope? Because that’s a 20 foot drop. MR. NACE-Right, but it’s a fairly gentle slope. I believe it’s a three on one slope. MR. STROUGH-It’s a 36% degree slope. MR. NACE-It’s a three on one. MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. NACE-And it’s set back, the top of the slope is back a ways from the edge of the road. No, there is no guardrail proposed there. It’s something we can look at. Probably should look at it. 93 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. STROUGH-Yes. Well, public safety, that’s, like I said, a twenty foot drop. MR. NACE-Yes. Let me review the DOT standards for top of slope protection, and if DOT requires protection there, we’ll put in guardrails. It’s a good point. MR. STROUGH-The only other thing that I had in mind was somewhere I read, I didn’t make a note of it, though, landscaping type. I guess the Town Code, if memory serves me right, calls for a certain type of landscaping to be between single family residential and apartments. Now, am I just mixing this up with some other application? It’s getting kind of blurry. MR. HILTON-We had those comments, well, in the site plan notes. MR. STROUGH-Is that where I saw it? MR. HILTON-Yes. A Type B buffer is required between any multifamily and any existing and future or proposed single family development, per the zoning code. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So that’s an issue that we. MR. HILTON-We can talk about it at site plan. MR. STROUGH-Talk about it now, or site plan. MR. HILTON-Talk about it now. MR. LAPPER-We don’t dispute that. MR. NACE-No. Let me pull the landscaping plan out. Unfortunately Miller’s not here to defend himself. So I’ll have to try. This is on the landscaping plan, yes. So we’re talking about the buffer along here, behind these lots, really, because the road itself buffers the residential multifamily from the single family up here. So it would simply be this landscaping buffer, and I’m not 100% conversant with your Type B buffer in the Code, but it has a width of 30 feet, George, on a Type B? MR. HILTON-I think 20. MR. STROUGH-Now, is that the only area we’re going to have apartments exposed to single family residential? MR. NACE-Yes, this would be the only area where they’re in any proximity. MR. STROUGH-There’s nothing to the south of it? MR. NACE-Here? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. NACE-I think there’s at least 40 feet of natural buffer there that will remain. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, let’s see what the Code says and we can work that out. MR. NACE-Sure. MR. HILTON-Twenty foot is the width of a Type B buffer. The Code says number of trees required per 100 linear feet, three, minimum height of required trees, six, and there’s a diagram in Figure 27 within the Zoning Code which shows a cross section of a Type B buffer. 94 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. STROUGH-Does what they propose at least, well still to the south it’s questionable, but between their proposed apartments and the single family, does that meet Code? MR. HILTON-Well, this is different than the site plan, the landscaping plan contained in the site plan application. There’s much more landscaping on this plan between the single family homes than there is on the landscaping plan submitted with the site plan application. MR. NACE-You’re right, George. Okay. We will certainly buffer, we’ll beef those buffers up and make sure they comply with the Code. MR. STROUGH-This outside as well? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Along the neighbor’s driveway. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, staying on the landscaping plan, it looks very nice. The boulevard entrance and the sugar maples. It’s going to, I mean, once that matures, it’s going to be beautiful, in your single family residential area. The only question I have, where you have your sugar maples is at the intersection of the property lines adjacent to the road. That’s also where NiMo likes to locate their junction boxes. MR. LAPPER-It’s going to be all underground utilities. MR. STROUGH-I know, but the junction boxes they like to locate at the T sections of these property lines. MR. NACE-We’ll move the trees back off of the road right of way, so that they’re 10 feet back into the property. MR. STROUGH-That’s good, because then the next issue would be digging the trenches to the J- boxes and connector boxes that NiMo puts in there, and then they always use a two foot backhoe, and we’ve got to stay away from that or jeopardize the trees. MR. NACE-We’ll move those back. Definitely. MR. HUNSINGER-John, if we could just keep the questions to the subdivision. MR. STROUGH-Well, even Staff said, everyone, you’ve got to look at everything. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STROUGH-I mean, what are the questions to the subdivision? The subdivision’s looking at the bi g picture. We’ve got to do SEQRA. So, in any event. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, something as specific as where to plant trees I think is more appropriate for site plan consideration than subdivision. MR. STROUGH-Yes. I think you’re right on that one. That’s the only one, though. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STROUGH-I’m finished for now anyway. Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Bob? 95 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. VOLLARO-I guess maybe we covered this, but have all the natural slopes above 15 been included in the density calculations? That’s all taken care of? MR. NACE-Yes. The natural, the slopes, there are some slopes greater than 15 east of the water line, but that’s all disturbed area. MR. VOLLARO-I think the operative word there is natural slopes. MR. NACE-Right. Correct. MR. VOLLARO-I guess on the next thing, when we look at the site plan, there is some detailed percs on that site plan application. I went through the EIS again, and I got some, just some comments, real quick, on a couple of pages on it. Would it be appropriate for me to go through those? On Page Three of Twenty-One, Number Two, total acreage of the area is 34 and a half acres, then we get down to unvegetated rock, earth or fill, presently it says 5.5 acres, and after completion it’s blank, and it should be, probably something should be put in there. That might have just been an oversight, but. MR. NACE-Not really, because after it’s all done, everything’s going to be landscaped, seeded, you know, nothing’s going to be bare earth. MR. VOLLARO-This should be just a dash in there. Is that it? MR. NACE-It should be zero, in essence, yes. Presuming everything adds up the way it should. Yes. MR. VOLLARO-On Page Four, I have a note on Number Eleven, and I agree with your statement there, does this project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as a threatened or endangered, and the answer is no. On Page Five, I’m getting close to the end here. Page Five, I have a question, Number Twenty, has the site every been used for disposal of solid or hazardous waste? They make a differentiation between hazardous and solid, and you have no, but I think a lot of unused concrete was dumped in there, and I think it can be mitigated, but I think there’s a lot of unused concrete that was dumped in there, and I categorized that as solid waste. MR. NACE-Yes, you’re right. I filled this out as thinking solid hazardous waste, but, yes, if you say solid or hazardous. MR. VOLLARO-I think that it should be yes, and when we get to that, we’ll talk about the mitigation of that particular one, and last but not least is on Page Seven, Number Eighteen, it says will project use herbicides or pesticides and the answer is no, but there’ll be some lawn maintenance up there. You folks are going to be the custodians of that area, the townhouse projects, and you probably will be using some, I guess, a minimum amount, but some, and so we should say yes, and we’d say the answer to that would be, you know, minor, and that’s all my comments on the Full Environmental Assessment Form, and of course there’s no future subdivisions will be allowed on this property. I think that’s something that Staff has already stated, and with that, I’m finished, Mr. Chairman. What I would say is there’s a couple of letters that were given to us tonight. I don’t know whether they’re, are they going to be part of the record, George? MR. HILTON-Absolutely part of the record, and I believe. MR. VOLLARO-I haven’t had time to read these. I just scanned Mr. Carte’s letter and his enclosures, and I haven’t had really time to look at that in any depth. As far as the one on the frosted elfins and Karner blues, I think that’s a moot point at this stage of the game, but I think that Mr. Carte’s letter should either be entered into the record or possibly read into the record. So that every member of the Board has some feel for what he had to say here, as a courtesy to him. He did quite a bit of work on this. 96 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. HUNSINGER-If the letter’s been passed out to every Board member (lost words). MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You’re probably right. I mean, as long as we’ve got it in our hands, even though I haven’t had a chance to read it myself. MR. HUNSINGER-I haven’t read it either. MR. LAPPER-He’s here. I’m sure that he’s going to make a detailed presentation. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m done. (Some Board discussion lost due to microphones) MR. NACE-What we normally measure is to the length of the cul de sac is due to the Town’s concern about emergency vehicle access, which is from the adjoining road to the throat of the cul de sac, and it’s 900 feet, okay, and the regulation, C.T. Male’s letter said that they thought that the Code, Queensbury Code was less than 1,000 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-I can only tell you what the comment says, but the comment is the proposed cul de sac is 1,000 feet in length, which is in excess of the Town Code. Now the Town Code is 1,000 feet. MR. NACE-It is exactly 1,000, right. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-(Lost words) presentation at the last meeting was that it was in excess of 1,000 feet (lost words). MR. NACE-Okay. Well, I think when we changed the configuration of things around, the length of that road has decreased. Things have been pulled back a little bit from where they were previously. MR. HUNSINGER-And I guess I don’t share the same conclusions as my fellow Board members (lost words) frosted elfin and Karner blue butterflies (lost words). (Lost words) letter from the LA Group, but I guess I’m not convinced that (lost words). MRS. RYBA-I do have a copy of a letter from Kathy O’Brien from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Endangered Species Unit, and the letter is dated June 27, 2003, and I believe it’s the most recent correspondence we have, and I can read it. It’s fairly short, if you like anyway, and it’s addressed to Craig MacEwan. “Dear Mr. MacEwan: Marilyn Ryba of the Town Planning Department indicated to me that the Planning Board would like a letter from me detailing the contact I have had with Mickie Hayes regarding his West Mountain subdivision proposal. Mr. Hayes contacted me 6/10/03 asking if I can train his survey people to look for Frosted Elfins and Karner blues. I indicated that Frosted Elfins are really just about done, and Karner blue are near the end of their first brood. I agreed to meet his people on 19 June at the power line right of way off of Sherman Avenue where I was pretty sure some Karner blues might still be seen. I met Mickie Hayes and his surveyor Mike, I didn’t get his last name, that would be checking the sites on the West Mountain property. At the power line, we saw several Karner blue, male and female, and those in attendance got a good look at them. I also brought along a dead specimen of a Frosted Elfin to help indicate field marks of that butterfly, but I again said that I would be very surprised if any were still around. When we were done, Mike accompanied me and Karen Guise,” and as an aside, Karen is with C.T. Male, “to the Sherman Avenue east west power line to see more habitat. Unfortunately, more severely impacted by ATV abuse. We did not see any more Karner blues, and we did not see Frosted Elfins. I hope this information is helpful to the Planning Board. If you need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.” 97 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I didn’t see the sign (lost words). MR. VOLLARO-No, it wasn’t, but my analogy, when I read this, was that they did see, what she says, at the power line we saw several Karner blue, male and female, and those in attendance got a good look at them. Now, if they were up there, during that particular time, I don’t know exactly when this visit was done, but this letter is June 27, my comment to myself, did anyone th see a butterfly on this property, on the Ashton property, or the Hayes. MR. HUNSINGER-No, but I guess my question (lost words). Even the August 12 letter from th the LA Group (lost words) MRS. RYBA-Earlier I had stated that typically we have seen some kind of correspondence from DEC or Fish and Wildlife Service. MR. LAPPER-Just, if we look at that letter that you referred to from August 12, which is from th Dr. Futima, after he did his study, he said I made eight site visits between June 19 and August th 6. During each site visit, I filled out a field data sheet to record information, such as the th weather conditions, nectar producing plants in bloom and other observations, and he included that. So, we hired a PhD, he went to the site. He kept going. I’ve done a number of projects with him, wetlands and endangered species projects. (Discussion lost due to microphone problems) MR. LAPPER-Well, I guess that’s a decision the Board has to make, but if you look at what Bob Vollaro said before, and we started out talking about how these patches were small and remote, that it was, I wasn’t anticipated to begin with that these would support a colony, and then when they went out to the field they saw that it didn’t, and Kathy’s letters that he read talked about where there are important sites in the Town, and this isn’t one of them. So we’re just saying that this is really a minimal site. MRS. RYBA-It might be helpful to, and I’m trying to think back that far, but what this Planning Board asked for in the beginning, I think you had asked for the study, or the survey. MR. LAPPER-And that’s right. MRS. RYBA-So, I don’t know. I haven’t read the minutes to realize exactly what, but if anybody can think back that far, it might help you. MR. VOLLARO-I think what Kathy says in her letter of January 7, on Page One she refers to th Mr. Hayes’ short term protection plan of the lupine, and that would be in effect until a survey determined the presence of the species. I’ve got her words. I can read the words right from the paper if you’d like. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? There is a public hearing scheduled. I will open the public hearing if you’d like to address your Board, direct your questions to us. I would ask that you try to limit your questions to the proposed subdivision at this time, as we will be considering the site plan, perhaps, in a few minutes. Who would like to be first? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOE BRAYTON MR. BRAYTON-My name’s Joe Brayton, 231 Fuller Road, Queensbury. To answer a couple of your questions about environmental, they had them concrete trucks in there for years. They not only dump concrete. They dump fuel oil. They dump motor oil. All that stuff was dumped right in over the bank there. So that answers one of your other questions from solid waste, all right, and the matter of future expansion, I’d like to see that in writing, that they’re not going to 98 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) have any more future expansion of that project, and what are they going to do with all this old concrete? Where are they going to dump that in who’s back yard? Anyone have an answer for that one, I’d like to hear it. Water runoff, these guys say the water all evaporates into the ground, how come there’s all this water in that pond down there, even though it’s sand, I’ve never seen it dry. I’ve lived on that road up there for 34, 35 years. There’s always been some water there, and it sure is not going to do Kelly Carte one bit of good with water runoff there, when they get through with all their landscaping. That’s all I have to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you very much. Who’d like to be next? KELLY CARTE MR. CARTE-For the record, my name is Kelly Carte. I’m the adjacent landowner to the south and west of the project. Here we are again, a very late hour. You’re tired. We’re tired. Everybody’s tired, and I’m sure you’re not going to want to listen to an extended briefing or extended comments on this project, but I have many, and I kind of feel like we keep getting short changed here on this by, we had three times as many people here earlier tonight and they just can’t stay this late, for one reason or another. So they don’t get heard, and what we say, apparently doesn’t get heard very well anyway, ladies and gentlemen, because I supplied a briefing, more or less, for lack of a better term, before the Sketch Plan meeting, a couple of months ago. I meant to be here and it was scheduled for later on, and so I didn’t figure that I had to be here early like usual because it always runs late, and for one reason or another you were done by the time I got here, and I supplied it at this briefing, and I was told that since it wasn’t open for public comment that it would not have been supplied to you at that point in time anyway, but it would be supplied for this meeting here. I just talked to George about it when I gave you my revised briefing there with some more information on it, and apparently it has not been supplied to you, or you have not had it long enough to read it, and you haven’t had this long enough to read this either. I see no alternative, other than to beg your indulgence for the time involved in this, and to go through this point by point, because there are many things that have been brought up here, and many more than need to be brought up. I heard, on a prior application here, that there was some concern from the Board regarding the possibility of multifamily housing at the other end of West Mountain. Nothing, you know, definite. Nothing whatever, but the fact that you were talking about it, that you were debating on whether to do the zoning because of it, change the zoning, all this thing, why the concern for that location where there is no established neighborhood. There’s three or four single family houses down the road there, and I see very little concern for our neighborhood, which is overwhelmingly single family subdivision established neighborhood here, and yet here we have this, again with the multifamily complex right up front, and the road where it’s going to be very plain, and it’s not going to look like the rest of the houses, and I keep coming back to the number one tenant, I think, in the first paragraph that says that the Planning Board is, let me just read this last little bit. One of the main jobs of the Planning Board is to make sure the projects are in harmony with the development pattern of the neighboring properties. Obviously this is in no way in harmony with it. Even the proposed single family houses here, in the street that’s proposed for them, while they are going to look like the some of the streets to the south, Lester Drive, Applehouse Lane, and whatever, of the project, they’re not what the zoning calls for. The zoning says one acre, and I’ve heard many comments being made about how good this looks because it doesn’t encroach on the mountain or the land in the back. Well, there’s a very good reason for that. The applicants are trying to avoid the considerable expense, if not impossibility of making that land back there suitable for building. The land is underwater, three or four months out of the year, it should no more be counted in this for density calculations than the pond should be counted. I have supplied, or tried to supply, pictures, and I’ve done this several times now, and I don’t know whether it’s, I’m sure it’s not deliberate, but nevertheless, the result of renaming this or calling it a new project every time means that the information that we supply does not get passed forward to you Board members here. I had pictures taken of the pond, panorama pictures. I had pictures, numerous pictures, taken of the water, all over the back of this property in the spring, and I don’t know, but you’d have to tell me whether you saw these pictures or got a chance to study them or look at them. I don’t believe so. I believe it was put in the file and forgotten. I’ve tried to supply some more here. 99 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) This is just a quick snapshot here of something that was the, you know, the immediacy of this, after I saw what the plan was here a few weeks ago. The ones that I took were mostly, these latest ones that you’ll find in that packet there were of the area that is proposed for the leach field for the multifamily housing portion of this. The applicants had someone go over there with a tractor and dig six or seven test holes in the area of the leach field, in the area between my property and the pond, and hit concrete in every hole. There’s not a one of them that did not hit concrete, either chunks that they pulled up or chunks that they didn’t even bother to dig down through. I don’t think this is an acceptable type of soil for a leach field, and I can’t, for the life of me, understand why this is even being considered for that type of use. One of the pictures, I also took pictures here after this 24 hours of rain that we had, and one of the holes that they dug, which is about 18 inches deep or something like that, is full of water. Ten hours after the rain stopped, the hole was still full of water. Now, this is not leach field material, as far as I’m concerned, and I don’t understand why anybody would think it would be. To get back to the look of this, and the reason for the clustering, not only is there an almost impossibility of using the land in the back to be able to, or let’s not say impossibility. Not only is it expensive to make the land in the back suitable for building, but there’s the problem of the City water main that goes across that property, which is old and decrepit and who knows what would need to be done to cross that with at least one or two streets in order to be able to use the property in the back. So it’s not through any other reasoning, other than monetarily that they have stayed away from the back end of the property. Now, saying that staying away from that is a good thing, as far as green space and visual effect, I guess, for lack of a better term, is debatable. The applicant has said, or his attorney has said that they’ve stayed away from this because they don’t want to put it up on the mountainside where it’s going to be visible to everyone. Well, the elevation change between the flat area and the mountainside is not that great that you would be able to see the houses there. The Vistas subdivision, which is a half mile up the road there on West Mountain Road, and on the side of the mountain has three or four times the elevation of this particular site, and you can’t see any of the houses from West Mountain Road or from anywhere else. So, putting these houses on one acre lots, the way that the zoning calls for, would almost ensure that half of the houses would not even been seen from the road because they would be back in the woods, they would be back into the wooded area and be sheltered from West Mountain Road. So I ask you what is better. Do we need more green space behind a project like this, that no one sees. The only thing that the people see when you’re driving down the road is an urban subdivision landscape of houses, as opposed to a, something like Bedford Close, for lack of a better term, that lack of a better subdivision that comes to mind. If you drive up to the entrance of Bedford Close and look in, you don’t see 70 or 80 houses or however many houses are in there. They are on large lots and are back in the woods, as these would be if they were required to put their houses back in this house, in this area. I would submit that that would be a much better looking, much better, appear to have a lot more, be more spacious and more greenery than having all the houses up here and the green space in the back. We don’t need anymore green space. There’s 100’s of acres, my land and other lands, to the west, that are all LC-10A. Can’t be anything built on them with any degree of, you know, financial, you know, whatever. They can’t be reasonably built on. Across the street is LC-42A. Hundreds of acres of the City watershed property. There’s green space all over the place around here. We don’t need more in the back. So that these other things could be up to the front here and further ruin the neighborhood. I’m jumping around because I’m trying to go quickly here, and I realize that we’ve been here a long time here, but let me hit a few other. You’ll have the opportunity to read this. I really would like to read it to you, so that you get all the comments here, but I don’t know whether it would be advantageous or not. I don’t want to further turn you off here at this late hour. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we all do have a copy of it. MR. CARTE-Yes. Have you read? Okay. All right. There’s, just as an aside here, talking about this being no more, somebody mentioned, Joe Brayton mentioned they wanted to see that there would be no more development on this piece of property. There’s other land for sale here. I have no doubt that the land immediately to the north, which belonged to either Rawson or Charlie Baker, depending on, I don’t know what the financial arrangements is there but there are several more acres of land that is immediately adjacent to this that is up for sale, or has been 100 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) up for sale as far as I know. So, if this is granted here, there’s nothing to say that there wouldn’t be another multifamily unit plopped right in in that area either. So I want to make, well, okay, address the butterflies, one aspect here. There have been no Monarch Butterflies this year in this area where there are usually lots of them. My wife goes out and collects the cocoons and goes through the thing with watching the butterflies or whatever. There’s milkweed there in that area, and last year there were hundreds of Monarch Butterflies. This year none. So the fact that there isn’t any of the Karner blue there at the time that they looked for it, in the letter I think if I heard right Kathy O’Brien stated that she thought it was too late to be looking for them. They did go to a habitat where there is much more of the lupine and found many of them, but why would she comment on the fact that it’s too late to look for them, and then the applicant have someone go and look from that point through the summer, and expect to find the butterflies there? It may be as simple as, why aren’t the Monarch Butterflies this year when they usually are. They go in cycles, and it may be the cycle is that they’re not there at this point in time. I was hopeful to have, to have had the Town have C.T. Male come up and look at several of the aspects that have already been presented on this matter here that we question, but apparently that has not been done and will not be done. I don’t know. I wanted to ask the Staff. Has anyone from C.T. Male actually gone through any, looked over any of the calculations, the size of the pond, the amount of the water in the back, any of that type of thing, other than just reviewing the information that Mr. Nace provided to them? I mean, have they gone up and done independent, I was going to hire an engineer. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could direct your questions to the Board, and then we can get those answers from Staff. MR. CARTE-I’m sorry. Okay. I was going to hire an engineer to do this. In fact, you know, I had talked to someone regarding this, and I thought that he had indicated that he thought that C.T. Male was going to, or I mean the Town was going to have C. T. Male address some of these issues, which have been, you know, from Day One have been a problem with the amount of water and the size of the pond and the location of the pond and everything like that. MR. HUNSINGER-I can tell you as a matter of record that C.T. Male has reviewed all of the application information that’s been provided by the applicant. MR. CARTE-But have they physically visited the site and made their own things, or have they just looked over the stuff that’s been presented? MR. HUNSINGER-That I don’t know. They have reviewed, and to collaborate all of the calculations that were provided by the applicant. Okay. Well, you know, I have a problem with that, because here on Page Three Mr. Vollaro I think referred to some of the things on this SEQRA form and on Page Three, let me just hit two or three things here, Item Number Three, what is the predominant soil type on this project site? And it’s checked well drained 100% of the site. Now, you’d have to have your eyes closed to be able to say that this site is 100% well drained. I mean, you can’t walk on the land in the back in the spring in a straight line without being up to your waist in water. There are pond sites, there are old impoundments there for farm pond, I think, or something like that, old stone walls. There’s swamp area there. The engineer that I talked to indicated that he thought that it was considerable wetlands on this site in the back here. The fact that the test dig that they did in the area of the leach field had standing water in it 10 hours after the rain stopped here, the bottom of the sand pit, which is in the back of the pond, had standing water, in pure sand, 10 hours after the rain stopped. To say that this site is well, 100% of this site is well drained is ludicrous. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes, and it’s checked 15% or greater, and it’s written in here 18% of the project, and yet when the calculations were made for the density, only 10% of the acreage was subtracted as being over 15%. Now, I’ve heard, and I had a conversation a while ago, a long time ago now, with Mr. Hilton, regarding that, and he said we’re not making the applicant subtract the manmade slopes of 15%, over 15%. I don’t see anything in the Code that makes a distinction between manmade and natural slopes. It says slopes over 15%. The slopes around the pond, the slopes that they are creating, the ones that are already there, are certainly unbuildable land, and that’s what the subtraction is for. The slopes over 15% is supposedly 101 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) land that is not suitable for building. Why would there be a distinction made between the two of these, natural and manmade, Number One, and Number Two, the Code, I believe, says that an applicant has to take into consideration all existing water courses, existing ponds, existing drainage, existing, existing, anything to do with water. The fact that this was once dug does not make it not existing for these people. I stated this once before. In my opinion, if Ashton dug the hole, and they wanted to fill it in, they have a perfect right to do this. When these people bought this property and had an existing pond, and an existing water course, and all the other existing things, this is existing to them. They can’t just go and fill it in or do whatever they want with it, and I don’t understand why it’s still being debated as to whether or not they can, you know, just fill this in or make it whatever, or state it’s whatever size they feel like it, they’d like it to be. The water surface area, one other area in here, it says two-tenths of an acre. Now, again, I would hope that you, some of you people at least would have seen the pictures that I took in the spring here. This, I supplied an aerial photograph taken by satellite. I don’t know the time of the year. I think it was within the last four or five years by the amount of building in certain areas around or whatever. It shows that. It shows the area of Applehouse Lane and it shows quite well the one-third acre lots of the houses along Applehouse Lane. Whatever time of year that pond was, it is roughly equivalent to at least four of these lots, by visual observation. The photographs that I took in the spring showing the pond here show it as, God, two and a half, three acres in size. It is no more two-tenths of an acre than a bathtub is two- tenths of an acre. Why do we not have someone questioning this, and double-checking or double certifying that this is, in fact, accurate. It’s obviously in the applicant’s best interest to make the pond as small as possible, so that they don’t have to subtract more acreage. I have been in contact with DEC regarding the leach field aspect of this because apparently they have the controlling interest, more or less, in the leach field from multifamily residential. It’s not the New York State Health Department, and I pointed out to them that the leach field is within, the way it’s been proposed, within 30 or 40 feet of the high water, the actual high water mark of the pond. If you look at this and look at where they’ve drawn the pond, it’s a long ways away, but if you look at the photographs, and look at where the water actually goes in the spring for several months of the year, it’s within 30 or 40 feet of this, and they indicated that they would be interested in taking a close look at this, because obviously it makes a difference. There was some mention made of the applicant supplying another piece of information here, after the fact to you, and nothing, I guess I didn’t hear whether that’s acceptable or not acceptable, but I would certainly like to have the same opportunity to have you at least go back in the file. I don’t need you to supply anymore information. The information is there. Go back in the file, and dig out the other stuff I’ve supplied and look at it, look at the pictures, look at the photographs showing 16, 20 different spots in the back with standing water, on this land. One of the criteria’s in the subdivision clustering says less than 40 inches to the high water table, and God, there’s no inches. It’s on the top of the ground all over the place, and if this water is disturbed, and Mr. Nace says that he, it’s his opinion that the pond is simply groundwater and the level of the pond goes up and down, depending on the season, and it’s only a matter of the groundwater table. Well, the pictures that I supplied before will show you, in April, if you’ll recall, we didn’t have much snow this last winter, or we had snow, but it did not melt fast, like it has in the past. It was more of a gradual thing, and there was very little rain in the month of April. I took a picture of the pond, early in April. I took a picture of the pond a couple of weeks later after about 12 hours or rain. I took another picture of the pond about a week or so after that, after another 12 hours or so of rain. Each one showed the elevation of the pond going up by about seven or eight inches, and I’m talking about two and a half acres or three acres of water raising seven or eight inches. There’s a stick sticking out of the ground, and I took the same picture and you can easily see where the water level is. Now Mr. Nace’s calculation that his two-tenths of an acre or a third of an acre, it’s different in different areas here, what he said. He said a 50 year rainstorm would only raise the level of that one-third acre pond or two-tenths of an acre pond by nine inches. If that’s the case, then why did this 12 hour rainstorm raise it by, raise a two or three acre pond by eight inches? There’s a lot more water there, and it’s not all groundwater. It runs off the mountain and out of the mountain, and if it’s disturbed, it will be running in my backyard and the neighbor’s on Applehouse Lane’s backyard. There’s no way that they can make the pond smaller and make the water stack up. It just doesn’t work that way. 102 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. HUNSINGER-We will ask all those questions of the applicant. MR. CARTE-Okay. I realize that some of this is back and forth between subdivision and the other here, but I just didn’t make distinction when I was doing this. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t want to be rude, but there are a number of other people that want to comment. So maybe if you could wrap it up. MR. CARTE-Okay. I guess the thing that I want to leave you with that, if you read this and look at the thing, we’re not opposed to the development of this property. It’s been stated before that we want to leave it, and that’s not true. I bought the house the house that I bought, I looked at the zoning around there and determined that this was one acre zoning. I said if it’s developed in one acre, that’s fine. I can live with that. The houses that will be there will be similar to mine. They will not be devaluing in any way, shape or form. All we would like to do is to have the applicants do it as zoned, no special treatments, no making it financially viable for them. If they didn’t get it financially viable in the beginning with the price they paid for it and everything, it’s not the Town’s place to do that. One other question here, do you have in your possession, a letter was supplied by my attorney. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we did get that. MR. CARTE-You did get that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we did. MR. CARTE-Okay, because he wasn’t able to be here tonight, and I just wanted to reiterate what he has said here. You are, if the density calculations on this subdivision, and on the other, in the whole project here, are not done according to the way that the court has stated it has to be done, and the way that the Town Code indicates it has to be done, if it says that you cannot allow anymore lots than would be allowed under a standard subdivision, then there is no other way of determining that number, other than having a full, standard subdivision laid out, and let the applicants try to put as many of them in there as they are legally capable of, and use that as a base number. If anything else is done, then you are, in effect, granting a variance to the applicants. If you don’t know how many you’re supposed to be not allowing more of, then you may very well be allowing a variance, and so I don’t see where you have any choice in the matter of how this density calculation has to be handled here. I don’t think it can be any plainer than what we’ve reiterated to you. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. CARTE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-How many more people would like to speak? It’s been suggested that perhaps we table this to maybe a special meeting so that everyone would have equal opportunity to speak. So if there’s a number of people that still want to be heard, I don’t want to keep the Board here until two in the morning. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. I’m really adamant about this. I mean, we all have to go to work tomorrow morning, and we all worked already eight, ten hours today, and I mean, you go to work on a regular day at eight, seven thirty in the morning and you get a little half hour break or lunch break, I mean, I feel like I’m on a second eight hour day shift, and I think this is a little, and the thing is, Mr. Carte, you did a wonderful presentation, and I’m going to tell you right now, I heard about 55% of it because I am exhausted, and I feel sorry for you because you had to wait this long, and I’ve said this before, and this is my last night on the Town Planning Board. My tenure is done on December 31, however, I’m going to ask my subs to come in, st because I’m getting too old for this, and I have to get up tomorrow morning and face 85 students, and I just feel that this isn’t fair to the applicant, and this isn’t fair to the people that want to speak tonight. 103 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the pleasure of the Board? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t know. I think that, in due respect to the people that are here, and for the Hayes brothers that we should give them some quality time at seven o’clock at night, not at one in the morning. MR. HUNSINGER-John, what’s your feeling on this? MRS. LA BOMBARD-John, you run on air. You could go all night. I’m sorry, but I can’t. MR. STROUGH-I’m looking at it, you know (lost words). I looked at this agenda right off the bat, who allowed this type of agenda? (Lost words), but anyway, not to take it out on the Hayes’ or the concerned residents, but (lost words). MR. HUNSINGER-So, John, would you be in favor of tabling this discussion to a special meeting in November or would you like to hear the last few comments and try to push on? MR. STROUGH-There’s some material that I haven’t review. There’s some material (lost words). I like to think that I am very sensitive to the residents (lost words) and I have a long history of being very sensitive, and I’m just very strongly critical in my position. However (lost words). (Discussion lost due to microphone problems – microphones not on???) MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ll bite the bullet and stay, if you guys want to. I mean, really, because you’re right. I feel bad for the Hayes’. MR. HUNSINGER-Bob, what’s your feeling? MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to grind it out. MR. HUNSINGER-Richard? MR. SANFORD-My opinion is, and it’s not just for this application, but when I heard the public comments, I couldn’t agree more, I’m not trying to reflect negatively on the paid engineers of the applicants, but so often (lost words) where the engineer for the applicant says everything’s fine in terms of, you know, perc rates, etc., etc., and then applicants come up and say it’s wet as can be out there, and I really think we ought to adopt a situation where, at the beginning of the application (lost words) first gets presented, our independent contractor, that is the Town, goes out and does the work and bills it to the applicant, as opposed to this process that we utilize where, I mean, obviously there’s a conflict of interest. It’s no reflection on the engineer, but there’s no question about it, and what are we supposed to do? We’re stuck now with a situation of he said, she said, whereas I would like to have an objective analysis, and that’s why, I mean, I could see myself tabling this, if the next time we address this, we have something that we can feel is impartial and address these issues. Tabling it just to come back and do this over again, I don’t know if that’s (lost words). That’s my opinion on it. MR. HUNSINGER-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I don’t care, at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-I was looking for a quick statement. MR. VOLLARO-I know it’s late. MR. STROUGH-Why don’t we just do the subdivision and not the site plan. 104 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. HUNSINGER-I guess what I’m inclined to do is, since Cathy seemed to have somewhat of a change of heart, is I think in fairness to people that stayed, I mean, I get up at five o’clock. So, you know, I’m already looking at four and a half hours of sleep. I’m not looking for pity, but in respect for people that did stay, so that they could be heard, I think we really owe them the right for them to make their comments and say their piece. So I would like to at least get through the subdivision public hearing, if we can. So if there’s someone else who would like to come on up and make some public comments, we’ll continue on. MR. HILTON-Really quickly, if I could, I just want to touch on a couple of things that have been mentioned here tonight about previous information from the previous application that may or may not have been carried over. I guess, first of all, this is a different subdivision application, and not in name only, for good reason. This is, the first application was presented as six single family lots, one multifamily. This is, in fact, twelve single family lots, one multifamily, and it’s now a cluster. So it’s not like we just decided to change the number. There’s a real reasoning behind why this is a new application, and as a result, all previous materials, including public comment and any correspondence that the applicant may have had has not been made part of this application. So I just want to kind of try to set the record straight on that. It’s not like we just decided to give it a new number. I mean, there’s good reason why. It’s an obvious different configuration and the statistics, the background concerning the application is quite different. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to make some similar comments at the end of the public hearing, but, yes, thank you. MARY LEE SPECTOR MRS. SPECTOR-Mary Lee Spector, Applehouse Lane. The reason that I’m here is because I would like to see the character of our neighborhood preserved. This project will have a huge impact on the character of our neighborhood. I believe that allowing the multifamily units on this site will set a precedent for development in the area, and I would like to know why multifamily units on West Mountain Road in this location are more pleasing than multifamily units on the corner of West Mountain and Gurney Lane. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? THEODORE RAWSON MR. RAWSON-I’ll make it short and sweet. My name, for the record, Theodore Rawson. I live on the northeast side of the property. I’ve been listening to this for a while, going back and forth, and the one thing I can’t get over is what are we going to decide to do with this property? These guys purchased this property. They came to this Board, and they said, all right, we want to do this, what do we need to do. Well, you’ve got to do this. You’ve got to do that. You’ve got to watch out for the water pipe you’ve got in the back. You’ve got to watch the blue butterfly. You’ve got to make sure it’s protected. Everything’s been done, everything that everybody’s asked, Kelly Carte included. Everything that they wanted done, they’ve done. Where does it end? Where does it end? You asked, well, how do we know if there’s enough research on this blue butterfly? Well, how do we know that we’re done here? I mean, we can go round and round and round and round for another two years. I don’t, the man, the way it sits right now, my neighbor and I go down there. We kick out the four-wheelers. We kick out the guys going down there target practicing. I’ve got a seven year old daughter. God forbid anything happened to her, because somebody’s over there target practicing because nobody wants to let that be built up. Now you can sit there and whine over whether they’re double deckers or they’re side by side. It’s progress. It’s going to come. You either embrace it or get out of the way, because it’s going to run over you like a freight train. I’ve listened to people going back and forth, hey, do I want expansion? No, I’d like everything to stop right now, but unfortunately it doesn’t work that way. Who am I to stand in front of them, and tell them they can’t do it? They bought that property. I bought my property. Do I plan on expanding? I don’t know. Maybe I’ll sit there and I’ll wait for spaceships to land, but that’s, you’re, by 105 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) Queensbury zoning that one acre, you’re giving me the right to sit there and put a house one acre. If I meet that, I don’t understand what more I should have to do. I’d rather have houses over there right now, than have people over there target practicing. My barn’s been hit with bullets, stray bullets going around, at the top. So, I’m telling you right now, I’d rather have houses over there than people going over there, kids having parties. That pit full all the time. It’s isn’t full all the time because kids can go down there and start fires. The cops are in there all the time because kids are going in there, they’re target practicing in there. I’d rather have something over there. If these guys are standing by their guidelines, what Queensbury puts forth, I don’t have a problem with it. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? CHARLES BAKER MR. BAKER-My name is Charles Baker. I live at 749 West Mountain Road. I live next door to Ted. We used to own the property that’s being discussed. My wife’s family used to own the property that’s being discussed. I’ve been up here for the last two years, every meeting that was public. I made the same statement over and over. The property has been in the family 200 years, and this baloney about the water being in back and all this other baloney, I dug the pit. The ground was used for farming. There was no water. There was corn raised. There was potato raised. There was wheat raised. There was sheep raised. There was cattle raised on the property, and this baloney about the water being in the back of the property. There’s drainage off the mountain, of course there is. The drainage is natural. There is no big running river brook, whatever it is you want to call it, and if the concrete and stuff that they’re proposed to move is put into the pit and re-shaped, the way it should be, the way they want to do it, it was a hell of a lot better looking than what it looks there now. As was stated before, previous to me, the last week I have been down chasing people out of that pit area, six different times, three of them were on this last weekend. Even during the rain, the fools are down there shooting guns. It’s been going on for years. We have never posted our property. I have lived there, my wife and I have been married 46 years. I have lived there all our married life. She has lived there for 70 years. I posted my property for the reason that people were shooting guns towards the barn, towards the house where Mr. Rawson lives. Eighteen bullet holes in a barn roof, a two and a half story barn. I’ll be damned if I’ve ever seen a deer on the roof of a barn, but there’s been eighteen bullet holes in that roof. This is what we’re contending with as neighbors. My father in law used to claim about the flatlanders moving in and changing everything in the area. Well, I guess that’s what’s happening here. People don’t want to see change. They don’t want to see development. The property, the apple house, I used to own the lot right next door to the apple house. In fact, I deeded 100 feet wide by 386 feet deep over to Frank Brock when he owned it, so that he could extend the property line and get the eaves of the apple house off the property line. I intended to build a house there when my wife and I got married, but we didn’t. We moved up the road. There has been no water on that property, until the pit was dug, and I’m the one that dug it. It’s 32 feet deep, until we had a drought, and then we went, the following year we went another eight foot, so it’s 40 foot deep, from the top of the ground to where the water was during the drought. Now, the water table has risen, because we’ve had so much rain and snow, whatever. Of course it’s up in the air. Of course it’s bigger in the spring of the year than it is at any other time. It is nothing only, groundwater. It’s not water running in, filling a big pond area. I don’t know where all these stories are coming from, and as far as the oil and things that were on the property, we worked a whole summer digging up all of this rubbish, trucking it out of there, disposing of it the way it should be disposed of, before we were stopped from improving the property. I don’t know where all this contamination talk is coming from and whatever else is going on, but it’s a lot of baloney. That’s all I have to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Any other comments, George? MR. HILTON-I just want to read in a letter, signed by Mr. Robert Raymond, and it says, “To All Concerned: Please accept this letter as if I were present to make an oral argument against the proposals submitted for consideration by the Planning Board. If I may divert for a moment to my childhood and I am sure to some of yours. When I was a young lad, my Mom and Dad had 106 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) some pretty strict rules for me to follow. I usually did, however, there times that I didn’t want t follow the rules and tried everything under the sun to convince them I was right and or I would be right if I did what I wanted in spite of what the rules allowed. Guess what….the rules were the rules and if I didn’t like it tough! Mom and Dad were the naysayers and the final arbiter. It was their way or no way. Well in this day and age, the principal is still the same. The rules are the rules. The Planning Board has RULES for applicants to follow to get their proposals on the table. The builder has RULES to get a building permit and no matter how miniscule the construction difference is the Building Inspector’s RULES are always what have to be followed. When will the applicant for a subdivision on the old Ashton Property learn…FOLLOW THE RULES. The Town has spent thousands of dollars to have all property zoned to meet certain specifications. The State Court has determined by case law to ensure that we the people comply with these rules. Then why, why are we the people spending all this time and money to address this issue over and over again? To me it is a simple no brainer, who are the “parents” here? If the Building Inspector makes a determination that some change has to be instituted to meet their codes, then the Planning Board should do the same, make a decision and stick to it. If the rules call for one house then that is all there should be. If the neighborhood/zoning allows for multi-family rental units, go for it. BUT PLEASE DON’T LET THE TAIL WAG THE DOG. Do the right thing and simply direct the applicant to stop and see what the rules and allow and then return with the application within the rules and we the people will go forth happily ever after. Please take into consideration the safety factor for all the Town’s people. West Mountain Rd. is one of, if not the most abused roadways in the Town. When was the last time you obeyed the speed limit….! Not to be accusatory but for emphasis, on the need to live within what the fathers determined was right and needed to be, to enhance the future of Queensbury. Oh, one other thing, as I recall the area that is planned to have the multi-family units, 13 I believe, isn’t that the immediate area where it was determined to be the source and locale of the Lupine, a food source for the Town’s Symbol and endangered species…just wondering. Ah the rules, the rules, the rules. It must be nice to be able to do just as I please. Thank you for listening to my thoughts on the proposal in front of the Board for development of the property commonly known as the Ashton Plant Property. Sincerely, Robert Raymond 6 Applehouse Lane Queensbury, NY” MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Do you want to come back up? I saw you taking notes, too, Jon. I guess a lot of the comments revolved around, well, the water table, the calculation of the slopes, the size of the pond, standing water. I guess to me one of the more curious ones was finding concrete in the test pits. If you just want to comment on some of the general. MR. NACE-That is true, and you will notice in my response to C.T. Male and with the plans, we’ve moved the septic systems as a result. That’s an area where we had not expected to find waste concrete, because of the vegetation that was growing, and we did. Once we found it, we definitely moved the septic systems away from it. MR. HUNSINGER-How about the comment about standing water in the test pits, ten hours after the storm? MR. NACE-Well, the test pits we dug up in the concrete area, we dug down into the concrete. So it would have been surrounded by concrete, so, yes, it’s not going to go anywhere. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s been a lot of discussion sort of back and forth about the calculation of the slopes. Could you just sort of explain again how you had calculated the slopes that were over 15 degrees, in terms of the calculation for density. MR. NACE-Okay. That’s a simple calculation. We identified, in fact on one of our plans we identified all of the areas where the slope was over 15%, and where those slopes were natural slopes, and that was, you know, it was all done on the computer and then totaled up. MR. HUNSINGER-Comments on the size of the pond? I know, again, it’s something we’ve talked about before. 107 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. NACE-Yes. The EIS, there is a mistake. There is not supposed to be .2 acres. It is .6 acres. Actually .62. So I think maybe when it was typed the six was omitted. So it is supposed to be .62, and that is what we have determined as the normal pond level. The pond level varies, as everybody has pointed out. The pond is controlled both by groundwater elevation, and by any surface runoff that comes into the pond. There are no big streams that come in to the pond. There are drainage ways, drainage channels that lead down off the mountain to the pond. So there is some, you know, after a rainstorm, as Mr. Carte has pointed out, there is some change, short-term change in the water level while that water that’s collected into the pond is allowed to filter out into the ground, but also the variation ground water over the season also affects the pond level. Our stormwater calculations were done to determine that because the impervious surfaces we were creating caused runoff directly to go into the pond, versus filtering into the soil, it was simply to determine that there was adequate additional storage available in the pond to accommodate that direct runoff until it has time to filter into the ground. As a point of interest, the, even at what we believed to be the very, very high level of the pond, at the maximum time of spring runoff, even above that level, there’s over a half a million cubic feet of storage available before the pond would, actually more than that. That would be before the pond got up to the level of the apartment houses, okay, and there’s still more above that before it would actually overflow into any other adjacent land, and that would be out to the front, not toward Mr. Carte. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions of the Board or Staff for the applicant? MR. STROUGH-Yes. The natural drainage (lost words) that’s currently going into the pond (lost words). MR. NACE-Yes, they are, well, they’re being picked up, one of them is being picked up into a rock-line, ditch-line, and that is the predominant one, and it’s, you know, it’s not a stream. It’s a drainage channel that intermittent drainage, correct, and it presently goes into the pond and it will continue to go into the pond. MR. HUNSINGER-Where do we stand with C.T. Male? Is the most recent correspondence the October 24 letter? I know the applicant said they had responded to those comments, but. th MR. HILTON-Yes, we received a response from the applicant, addressing C.T. Male’s comments. The C.T. Male letter you have is the most recent, but I, did, as Tom mentioned, speak with Jim Houston today. He indicated to me that perhaps if this Board felt comfortable issuing approval, you could condition it. He wouldn’t be opposed to a conditioned approval on receiving a final C.T. Male signoff. Now to address the comment that was made, I don’t know if anyone from C.T. Male has been on site. All I know is that we have a stormwater management plan and some engineering data that’s been submitted and that they’ve reviewed it. MR. HUNSINGER-I was made, I don’t know if anyone from C.T. Male has been on site. All I know is that we have a stormwater management plan and some engineering data that’s been submitted and that they’ve reviewed it. MR. HUNSINGER-I did want to ask you that question, too. Any other questions? What’s the pleasure of the Board? MR. METIVIER-I just have a couple of comments, some comments that were made. There’s no difference between having multifamily homes here, and at the end of West Mountain Road. You have to realize what we were going through before, and I’m sure you sat through the hour of us deliberating on a SEQRA review, and the fact that we had to find out the purpose of what they want us to do. So I’m not saying that it’s all right in your backyard, but it’s not in somebody else’s. That wasn’t the point, and please understand, that’s not where we’re coming from. It was a totally different angle that we were trying to, you know, figure out there for something, and believe me, if, you know, we knew that they were going to go with multifamily, it would have been a different, you know, it wouldn’t have been a different outcome at all, but there would be a different group of people here tonight for that, too. 108 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. HUNSINGER-Does this Board feel we have enough answers to move forward? Okay. I’ll close the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-We do need to do SEQRA. (Discussion on SEQRA, microphone problems, microphones not on?) MR. LAPPER-Yes, with the changes that Mr. Vollaro indicated. The changes to the Long Form that you indicated. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Impact on Land Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?” Well, I would say, in this case for the better because the place is a mess right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, then the answer would be no. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So, no, but I mean. MR. METIVIER-I’ll agree with that. MR. HUNSINGER-I think the answer is no. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. “Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff?” MR. METIVIER-Yes, but we can minimize it with site plan. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Small to moderate impact. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?” MR. STROUGH-We didn’t get the signoff on that, the butterfly. MR. VOLLARO-We can ask Kathy, all of her previous letters (lost words). MR. STROUGH-The significance seems to be minimal based on the reports that were done (lost words). MR. HUNSINGER-Again, if you look at the question, the question it asks is, well, one of the questions is removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat, and I think the testimony has been that it’s not critical or significant. MR. STROUGH-Well, and condition to any approvals that we would give, I think we’ve got to say that before the applicant develops the areas in question, we do have to get some kind of a signoff from Kathy O’Brien. Right? MR. METIVIER-I would agree with that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Aesthetic, “Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. 109 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Open Space and Recreation. “Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Transportation. “Will there be an affect to existing transportation systems?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood “Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community?” MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t think so. MR. STROUGH-I don’t, either. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t think it will. MR. METIVIER-I think it would be in the best interest to go through 19, to let the public know what that question means. So we don’t have anything come back at us. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. All right. In other words, examples that would apply to Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood, would be, “The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals of the Town of Queensbury. Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment.” MR. METIVIER-That’s it. Thank you. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 16-2003 & 46-2003, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: WESTERN RESERVE, LLC, 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. 110 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) 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 28 day of October, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to introduce a motion? This would be for Preliminary subdivision. MR. METIVIER-No conditions in Preliminary, right? MR. HUNSINGER-No conditions in Preliminary. MR. STROUGH-Well, most of the list that I have here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Are on site plan? MR. STROUGH-Would refer to site plan, with the exceptions of the C.T. Male signoff, the New York State DEC signoff on the Karner blue. I don’t know if that would apply here or with the site plan, and I don’t know if it would really make any difference if it’s here or the site plan. MR. LAPPER-There’s nothing on the subdivision that Karner blue, it’s all on one lot, those few little areas. The subdivision doesn’t authorize the construction of the building. MR. STROUGH-The subdivision, in theory, there’s no excavating or altering of the property. That would be done at site plan. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-I think the only comment you have to make on here is this is conditioned upon approval of a signoff from C.T. Male Associates. MR. LAPPER-On the Final, but not the Preliminary. Right? MR. HUNSINGER-Right, on Final subdivision. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 16-2003 WESTERN RESERVE, LLC, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 16-2003 Applicant: Western Reserve, LLC PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: Western Reserve & Theodore Rawson 111 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) FINAL STAGE Agent: Van Dusen & Steves, Nace Eng., Jon Lapper SEQR Type: Unlisted Zone: SR-1A, RR-3A Location: West side West Mt. Rd., south of Potter Rd. Applicant proposes a cluster subdivision of a 34.535 + / - acre lot into 13 lots - 12 single family lots and 1 multi-family w/13 townhouse units. Cross Reference: AV 52-01, AV 22-02 Tax Map No. 300-1-19, 20 / 87-1-21 Lot size: 34.8 +/- acres / Section: Subdivision Regs Public Hearing: October 28, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received 9/15/03, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 10/24/03, and 10/28 Staff Notes 10/28 Nace Engineering comments in response to CT Male comments 10/28 Received at meeting: letters from K. Carte, R. Raymond; 8/12/03 letter to M. Hayes from LA Group 10/21 Notice of Public Hearing 10/20 Highway Dept. comments received 10/3 FOIL request: K. Carte 9/29 Meeting Notice 9/26 Meeting Notice 9/26 E-mail from CB to M. Steves: subdivision signs 9/23 Water Dept. comments received 9/22 Application referrals to CT Male, Water & Highway 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 28, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application 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 28th day of October, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan 112 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 16-2003 WESTERN RESERVE, LLC, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 16-2003 Applicant: Western Reserve, LLC PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: Western Reserve & Theodore Rawson FINAL STAGE Agent: Van Dusen & Steves, Nace Eng., Jon Lapper SEQR Type: Unlisted Zone: SR-1A, RR-3A Location: West side West Mt. Rd., south of Potter Rd. Applicant proposes a cluster subdivision of a 34.535 + / - acre lot into 13 lots - 12 single family lots and 1 multi-family w/13 townhouse units. Cross Reference: AV 52-01, AV 22-02 Tax Map No. 300-1-19, 20 / 87-1-21 Lot size: 34.8 +/- acres / Section: Subdivision Regs Public Hearing: October 28, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received 9/15/03, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 10/24/03, and 10/28 Staff Notes 10/28 Nace Engineering comments in response to CT Male comments 10/28 Received at meeting: letters from K. Carte, R. Raymond; 8/12/03 letter to M. Hayes from LA Group 10/21 Notice of Public Hearing 10/20 Highway Dept. comments received 10/3 FOIL request: K. Carte 9/29 Meeting Notice 9/26 Meeting Notice 9/26 E-mail from CB to M. Steves: subdivision signs 9/23 Water Dept. comments received 9/22 Application referrals to CT Male, Water & Highway 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 28, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application 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: 113 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) 1. That this resolution is based on receiving a final signoff from C. T. Male on their October 24, 2003 letter. 2 There will be no future development or future subdivision of the proposed multi-family lot labeled as Lot 13. 3. Recreation Fees in the amount of $500 for each lot [12 lots], and $500 per unit for the multi- family parcel are applicable to this subdivision. 4. 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. 5. 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 28th day of October, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Do you want to do the site plan? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think we need to at least introduce it and open the public hearing, and leave it open, since it was warned for this evening. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 46-2003 SEQR TYPE: WESTERN RESERVE, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: WESTERN RESERVE & THEODORE RAWSON AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES, NACE ENG., JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: S R-1A RR-3A LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF WEST MT. RD., SOUTH OF POTTER RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 13 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON A 26.15 ACRE PROPERTY. MULTIFAMILY USES IN THE SR-1A ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 52-01, AV 22-02 TAX MAP NO. 300-1-19, 20/87-1-21 LOT SIZE: 34.8 +/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS JON LAPPER, MICKIE HAYES, TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing tonight. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 46-2003, Western Reserve, LLC, Meeting Date: October 28, 2003 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 46-2003 APPLICANT: Western Reserve LLC is the applicant for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to construct 13 multi-family units on a 26.15- acre property. Site plan review and approval is required from the Planning Board for multi- family uses in the SR-1A zone. 114 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) LOCATION: The subject property is located on the west side of West Mountain Rd., south of Potter Rd. EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned SR-1A, Suburban Residential One Acre. SEQRA STATUS: This application is an Unlisted SEQRA action. A SEQRA short form EAF has been included as part of the preliminary subdivision (SB 16-2003) associated with this application. PARCEL HISTORY: Subdivision 16-2003, being presented for review to the Planning Board on October 28, 2003 proposes the creation of this lot. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to construct 13 multi-family dwelling units on a 26.15-acre property, along with vehicular parking, lighting and landscaping. The applicant has submitted a stormwater management report as part of the application. Vehicular access for this property will be provided off of West Mountain Rd. STAFF COMMENTS: The landscaping plan submitted with this application appears to meet the street and parking area landscaping requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, however a Type ‘B’ landscaped buffer is required between the proposed multi-family use and existing and proposed residential properties. Clearing limits should be clearly identified on the site plan. Staff suggests an alternate type of decorative freestanding light be used that will minimize glare and direct light to the ground, which is a standard listed in the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. In reviewing this site plan, it appears that areas of blue lupine, which were to be avoided as part of a previous Karner Blue Management Plan, may be cleared and regarded in order to construct a drainage swale and an on-site septic system. Staff suggests that correspondence from NYSDEC and USFWS be provided, which consents to any removal or disturbance of any existing blue lupine areas on site. Any comments from CT male should be addressed as part of the review of this application.” MR. HUNSINGER-Staff comments? MR. HILTON-I think we touched on some already, but just to add a couple of things, we mentioned the Type B buffer that’s required between the proposed multifamily use and the existing and proposed residential properties. Clearing limits should be clearly identified on this plan. As far as the freestanding lighting that is proposed, it is decorative. I guess I do have some concern about this. If you look at similar lighting that’s been used around Town, there is quite a bit of glare, and this is a residential area, and I think we want to minimize the impact of lighting on the surrounding properties. I guess we would suggest a decorative feature that, light fixture that directs light to the ground, per Code, per Zoning Code. We mentioned the Karner blue comments before, and any comments from C.T. Male should be addressed during a review of this application. That’s all we have at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Before we go too far, where do we stand with C.T. Male comments? Similar as the subdivision? The applicant has responded to the October 24 letter I assume? th MR. HILTON-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-But we haven’t received comments back. MR. HILTON-Correct. 115 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. In your discussion with C.T. Male today, did they say anything about site plan approval? It seems like a pretty extensive list, to me. MR. HILTON-Yes, it is. I guess without having, Tom, your letter, I guess you just addressed the subdivision comments or you addressed the? MR. NACE-No, I addressed both, okay, and when I talked to Jim Edwards, we didn’t differentiate between subdivision or site plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. NACE-It was just, he felt that the comments were pretty adequately addressed with one or two things that he wanted to clean up, so that he felt comfortable with conditional approval, not making any differentiation. MR. LAPPER-For the record, we concur with the buffer and we’ll certainly change the lighting to provide down lights rather than the decorative lighting that was proposed. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess everyone could probably imagine where I was headed with this. If we’re going to table this anyway because of C.T. Male comments. I’d just as soon maybe do that right out of the box. I don’t know, what are Staff’s thoughts on the content of the C.T. Male comments? Do you think that they’re significant? MR. HILTON-Well, I, again, in speaking with Jim today, he indicated that he wouldn’t be opposed to a conditioned approval. I guess I can’t answer whether that covers the site plan. It seems that the application is pretty interchangeable, and I think Tom addressed both applications when he responded to C.T. Male. I don’t know. MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe we should get the applicant’s comments about the C.T. Male comments. Your response. MR. NACE-Okay. Do you want me to go through my responses? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. NACE-Okay. One of their comments was requesting pavement markings and traffic control signs. We included a stop sign out at the main entry and a stop bar and delineated a centerline through the main entry down into where it divides. One of his comments dealt with, he thought that the parking spaces for the units could create a situation where they were backing out into a traffic area, but what we’ve done, the way it’s arranged, we’ve kept the, all of the accesses to the units and all the parking spaces off of the main entry drive. They’re just on the road directly in front of the units, which is a typical arrangement for an apartment type complex, and because of the very low volume of traffic there, I don’t think that should be any problem. One of the comments was test pits and perc tests in the location of the septic system. As we explained before, we did t hat and found concrete, so that we moved the septic systems, relocated them, and Jim was happy with that, with the new location after he reviewed it, and we provided test pit and perc test information, right in the exact areas of the proposed septic systems. One of his questions regarding septic systems was replacement area, and the way we have addressed that on bigger systems like this is the way DEC recommends that you space the trenches a little further apart so that it allows a replacement trench to be put in between two existing trenches, and that’s the way it had always been planned and shown on this. He asked us to add cleanouts to the gravity sewer lines, and we’ve done that, and we’ve revised a little bit of grading around the gravity sewer lines from the two unit apartment. That’s pretty much it. MR. HUNSINGER-Board questions? Tony? MR. METIVIER-I don’t have any questions. The elevations look good (lost words) town homes. Obviously the homes themselves (lost words). Again, I stress I like the plan, overall I think it’ll 116 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) work very well. It certainly has been a long road. I’m sure you guys are discouraged. The neighbors are discouraged, but at this point, you know, and what I mean by that is that, you know, it was going to be a huge plan, and it doesn’t seem that big anymore. So, I think it’s good. I’m done. MR. HUNSINGER-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think you’ve done, this is going to be a wonderful remediation. You’ve worked so hard on it, and the configuration is wonderful, and I think if there’s any problems with water, you’ve got a handle on it. I’m excited about it. MR. HUNSINGER-Richard? MR. SANFORD-No, again, I’m not sure if (lost words) this particular site, but I do think that you guys, once again, I think the suggestion is not a bad one, that (lost words) independent engineer (lost words) what can be done, George, to make sure that this gets the appropriate level of consideration? (Lost words) MR. STROUGH-I don’t know, I guess I can’t answer whether an appropriate amount of consideration or attention has been paid by our consultant. I can simply say that we had, we received application materials, including stormwater management plans, grading plans, etc., that we did forward to them, and they provided comment. If you feel you have some issues you’d like them to address, I mean, by all means, you can. MR. SANFORD-I’m looking for an objective independent analysis, as opposed to the applicant’s engineer sending their test results to our engineer. I’m not passing any kind of a negative judgment. I don’t want you to think that I am. It’s not just this applications, it’s all our applications that we get like this. The one we had over on Ridge Road, too, where the neighbors were lining up and saying it’s very, very wet there, and the applicant’s engineer saying it’s not wet there. This happens often, and that’s the process that I would like to see changed. I’m saying, and it doesn’t go any further than that. What would be the process of adoption of an independent engineer to conduct certain studies, and the applicant billed for those (lost words) as the price of doing an application. What would be the process you would have to go through? MS. RADNER-You’d have to go to the Town Board and ask them to change our Town Code to require that. As it is now, the Planning Staff and you folks have a certain amount of discretion to bring experts in when you feel it’s required. There’s nothing that mandates that it go out. There’s nothing that authorizes you to do that across the board, and to then bill the applicant for that additional cost. So you need to petition your Town Board members and change the Town Code if that’s what you want to do. MR. SANFORD-You hear that, John? MR. STROUGH-I agree with it. MR. SANFORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else, Richard? MR. SANFORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any questions. I drive by this every day, on West Mountain Road. I’m right off West Mountain Road, on Glen Court, which is just the other side of Sherman. I go back and forth past this site every day, and whatever goes in there is going to be an improvement over what I see there now, that’s for sure, and I think that based on what you 117 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) folks have done in Town, and what I’ve seen you do, I think you’ll do okay, particularly with the (lost words) staying on this project as long as they have, and that’s all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-John? MR. STROUGH-No, well, just in closing, I think, I guess we’re getting ready for final approval of the site plan, and so, you know, there are going to be some conditions. I think we generally agree that there’s going to be a New York State DEC signoff of some kind on these blue lupine. We see agreement on behalf of the applicant to upgrade the landscaping between the apartments and the single family areas, both to the northwest and the south. Guardrail we kind of left hanging. Tom said that he would check to see if, with the State, I don’t know if the State would have purview here, but certainly the Town Highway Department might have input into that. As a public safety feature, I think that it should be strongly looked at. MR. LAPPER-We can either agree to it, or agree that we’ll let the Highway Department decide. MR. STROUGH-Well, then I’d be comfortable if you just agreed to it, because there’s a 20 foot drop off, and you’ve got cars and bicycles and. MR. NACE-Sure. MR. LAPPER-We’ll do it. MR. NACE-We’ll do it. MR. STROUGH-I mean if it was a two foot drop off, who’d care, but it’s twenty foot. MR. LAPPER-That’s fine. MR. STROUGH-And of course we’re going to request the same old C.T. Male signoff, and the light fixtures, they do make the antique light fixtures with the reflective top. It’s built right in, I think, to the glass bulb, and I think that would defray some of the Staff’s concerns about light pollution going into the air and being directed where it shouldn’t be directed. So I like the antique feature, and I wouldn’t want you to go to some commercial looking thing. So, I don’t know how to address that. MR. LAPPER-You want it to be down lights, but you want it to still have the antique look. MR. STROUGH-Yes. A lot of the newer fixtures are designed to, you know, minimize light pollution and direct light where it’s needed. So, I don’t know how to word that. MR. HILTON-Yes. I don’t know how to word it either. I do have some specs here that show decorative lights with, you know, cut offs that direct them to the ground. They’re nice attractive lights. I don’t know. I guess my suggestion would be, I mean, we’d be willing to work with them, and perhaps you could approve subject to Staff review of the lighting plan or something along those lines. MR. STROUGH-Yes, that would be fine. MR. NACE-We understand what you want. We’ll find something that works. MR. STROUGH-Yes, if Staff doesn’t mind doing that. The sugar maples are going to have to be moved back to get out of the way of NiMo. Tom knows where they are. MR. NACE-Actually, that’s part of the subdivision, but we’ll take care of that, make sure it gets done. 118 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. STROUGH-Yes. Okay. So, I mean, you know, from my notes, those are things that I’ve seen that need to be identified as possible conditions for approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else, John? MR. STROUGH-No, that’s it, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-I would also like to see that the clearing limits be identified on the site plan, as suggested in the Staff comments. We could add that to any potential resolution. Staff questions, any other questions? MR. HILTON-I guess just a comment, similar to the lighting, perhaps, a condition that a Type B buffer be provided, subject to Staff review, something along those lines. MR. LAPPER-I think John said that. MR. HILTON-Yes, I just want to clarify. MR. LAPPER-Yes, definitely Type B. We agree. MR. HUNSINGER-Any comments by the applicant? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled. I’d like to open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KELLY CARTE MR. CARTE-For the record, my name is Kelly Carte. I’m the neighbor, adjacent landowner to the south and west of the subject parcel. I’ll make it quick, ladies and gentlemen. Apparently speed is a little more of the essence than crossing the T’s and dotting the I’s here, but just two comments, both of them directed to this particular part of the. I’m going to just read a couple of things out of here. It’s a lot easier than trying to think it through here. I have yet to hear a logical explanation as to why the multi dwelling units on the approximately two or three acre footprint or whatever are being proposed for a single lot, in contravention to the section of the Code that says that you can only have one dwelling unit per lot, regardless of lot size. I know this section of the Code has been ignored in the past, for these types of things, but it doesn’t mean that it’s the correct way to do it. I mean, the Code clearly states you can’t have more than one dwelling unit per lot, regardless of lot size, and here we have 13 dwelling units, on a 20 something acre lot. MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll have the applicant explain that again. MR. CARTE-So for the record, I want to object to that. The other point that I wanted to make is what happened to cutting down the proximity of driveways emptying on to an arterial highway that the Code calls for? The Code calls for double lot frontage in a zone for single family houses and driveways located on such a highway, i.e. 300 foot separation in an SR-1A zone. Why are they proposing to locate a driveway for 13 dwelling units, only 100 feet away from my previously subdivided and accepted entrance to my land in the back? I have about 126 acres of LC-10A land, and 8 acres of SR-1A land, accessed by this strip. Going by the standards that these developers seem to be getting, I could put 20 dwelling units of some sort back there as long as I owned them all, and didn’t delineate individual lots, and they would all be using the entrance 100 feet away from their apartment complexes entrance. I think this is a serious design flaw here and would like that to be addressed. That’s all I have to say. Thank you. 119 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Well, I’ll leave the public hearing open for now. I guess there were basically just two questions that were raised. One is why we’re proposing, why you are proposing multiple units on a single parcel, and then the proximity of the driveways and why you’ve shown the design that you’ve shown. MR. LAPPER-The multifamily units on one lot is what, you can’t have more than one single family dwelling on a lot, a principal residence, but that’s not the case in a multifamily, and this is borne out all over Town where multifamily units don’t have to be subdivided. They’re on one lot, and I can give you examples of a lot of buildings other developers have done that that’s how the Town has always interpreted that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I don’t want to put words in the mouth of the neighbor, but I think he was referring more to the whole concept of why are we proposing a cluster development and why are you proposing 13 lots on the one large lot. MR. LAPPER-And the answer is that it is a cluster and it keeps more green space. I think in terms of permeability, we’ve calculated that we’re at something like three percent non- permeable. So this is really very little impermeable surface, which makes for good planning. The neighbor obviously doesn’t like the project. We understand that, but in the interest of the Town, we think it’s better to leave the more visible land up on top green and vacant, and that’s why this was designed this way. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and then his other question was on the proximity of the driveways, and how it relates to the Town Code. MR. NACE-Well, the driveways, as you are aware, have been a result of negotiation back and forth. We started out with four and we’ve been able to limit it down to two. In doing that, various design considerations have driven the configuration to where it’s at, and we’ve arrived there just through an iterative process, two driveways, and, you know, we felt that it was more important to get down, limit the number of driveways than to have particular constraints of exactly where they were. MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any written public comments, George? MR. HILTON-No, not for the site plan. I do want to say one thing, though. I think the number of driveways is acceptable, based on the lot widths. However, driveway spacing standards for arterials for development with trip generation rates similar to this or at this level, are 330 feet. That’s something contained in the Zoning Ordinance, and not measuring something in the neighborhood of 150 feet between this driveway and the driveway to the south. So that is something that is in the Zoning Code and should be considered. MR. VOLLARO-When you say the driveway to the south, are you referring to their other driveway, or to a driveway? MR. HILTON-Yes, I’m looking at what seems to be a driveway, to the south on this plan. MR. VOLLARO-What drawing are you on, George? MR. HILTON-SP-2, Site Grading and Drainage Plan. MR. SANFORD-Where’s the driveway to the south on that? MR. HILTON-Just off the property, and perhaps the applicant can speak to this plan. I mean, I’m assuming that this is a driveway, edge of curb. MR. SANFORD-The border’s right along the property line? MR. HILTON-Yes. 120 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. CARTE-Mr. Chairman, the driveway is not there. It’s a 50 foot strip of land, access to the land in the back, it just (lost word) been previously subdivided so (lost words) the driveway would be (lost words). MR. HILTON-So there isn’t a driveway there right now. MR. CARTE-(Lost words) it is not located in that area. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thanks for the clarification. MR. HILTON-These standards apply between existing driveways, yes, and this proposed driveway has to be, according to the Code, 330 feet from the closest driveway on this side of the street. MR. VOLLARO-But is this an existing curb cut? I mean, that’s what I’m trying to, if you read your words in the Code, it says existing driveway. Doesn’t it? I mean, can it be identified as an existing driveway by usage? That person, to come out, would now have to contend with your full driveway, it seems to me. MR. CARTE-My subdivision is prior (lost words). MR. HILTON-Is there any vehicular access from that point? MR. CARTE-Not at the moment. MR. HILTON-Okay. Well, a driveway is defined as any entrance or exit used by vehicular traffic to or from land or buildings abutting a road. If that’s not currently being used for vehicular access and it’s not improved, furthermore, I would say that you’d go to the next actual driveway down the road. MR. SANFORD-And where is that one located? MR. HILTON-I don’t know. MR. VOLLARO-Up here somewhere. MR. SANFORD-I know, but where? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know. MR. CARTE-(Lost words). MR. SANFORD-How far is that? MR. CARTE-About another 100, 125 feet. MR. SANFORD-So that might be (lost words). MR. SANFORD-Well, George, what I’m hearing is, even though we can’t see it on the diagram, the actual driveway that he’s using may be within 300 feet. MR. HILTON-You’re hearing that from the applicant. I have no information to indicate that. I don’t know how far the closest driveway is. MR. SANFORD-Neither do, I. MR. HILTON-Not from the applicant, from somebody else. 121 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. HUNSINGER-And this is something that’s clearly in the Code that we can’t approve without verification. Do you show his driveway on any of your site plans, Tom? MR. CARTE-(Lost words – not on microphone) MR. NACE-We will stipulate that we will not measure the actual location of that driveway (lost words). MR. VOLLARO-His driveway he currently uses. MR. NACE-He currently uses. If we have to, we’ll move our access driveway a little bit to the north, to make sure that we have the required separation. MR. VOLLARO-That sounds fine to me. That sounds like a good approach. We’ll take a look at Mr. Carte’s existing driveway and make sure they’ve got 300 feet between. MR. HUNSINGER-And then what if you don’t? MR. LAPPER-We can move our driveway a little bit more. (Lost words). MR. HUNSINGER-That would require you to come back to see us, site plan modification. MR. NACE-If we just move the driveway a little bit, is that considered a modification? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know. I think it depends how far. I mean, if it’s five, ten feet, maybe not, but if you have to move a building and alter drainage patterns. MR. NACE-(Lost words). MR. HUNSINGER-How do members of the Board feel about that? MR. VOLLARO-It’s pretty minor. As the applicant’s engineer described it, it sounds like it’s pretty minor alteration. If it gets to be more than a minor alteration, they’d have to come back for site plan review, it seems to me. Mr. Carte makes a point, I think, and I’m just mulling it over in my mind, looking at the drawing, if that’s, if I understand it correctly, on SP-2, that piece coming out adjacent to your property is what he would eventually want to use as access to the properties up in the back. Is that how I understand it? MR. CARTE-The only access to the property in the back (lost words). MR. VOLLARO-You’d have to get a variance, I would guess. MR. CARTE-Why should I have to get a variance (lost words) my subdivision pre-dates this one. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but you don’t have, the problem that I see, Mr. Carte, is that you don’t have an active, using, this driveway is not actively used. I don’t think it completely locks him out, and if the applicant is willing to make a minor adjustment here to meet the 300 foot, I think we could go along with that. So long as you get to sit down. MR. NACE-Well, I can’t sit here and guarantee you that it’ll be minor, but we’ll find out. MR. VOLLARO-If it’s not, you’ve got to come back to the Board for a modification. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess that would be up to Staff to decide, if it’s a minor adjustment or a site plan modification. It’s your burden anyway. Can we move forward? 122 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. VOLLARO-I feel comfortable to move forward, with John putting in the DEC signoff. MR. STROUGH-Well, I had some other things, too, that I thought of afterwards. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, I had left the public hearing open. So I guess I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-What are your additional conditions, John? MR. STROUGH-Well, I just, well, one is, what is the color of the buildings going to be? Earth tones? MR. HAYES-All earth tones. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thanks. MR. HAYES-Earth tones. Usually we like to use a clay, and then use as trim as an accent. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Are they going to be, on the apartments, different colors, or all the same? MR. HAYES-We try to use the same color main siding, then differentiate every building with trim, accent points to make them all different. Like it would not have a hodgepodge, like a checkerboard. MR. STROUGH-Right, and your idea of earth tone is not the same as Wal-Mart’s, blues and reds. MR. HAYES-No, we find that the clay is a nice color. MR. STROUGH-Should we also say that the proposed maintenance programs for stormwater devices be written in to property deeds where appropriate? MR. NACE-The easements are shown on the subdivision plat now. MR. STROUGH-Yes, I know. I just didn’t know. MR. NACE-I see what, the other thing you were talking about, yes. MR. STROUGH-If some of them should be written in to the deeds. MR. LAPPER-What deeds are you talking about, the multifamily? MR. STROUGH-Well, some of them, some of these stormwater devices, well, one of them is between two, is on a property line between two properties, and the other one runs between properties three, four, and five. I don’t know if they should be placed in the deeds that they’re stormwater structures and some effort should be made on behalf of the owner of the property to maintain those stormwater devices or not. I know they do this in Bolton, and I know this has come up again and again, here. MR. LAPPER-Are you talking about road drainage, John? MR. STROUGH-No. I’m talking about property drainage, the overall site drainage. Some of the stormwater devices that will be on private property. MR. NACE-Correct. 123 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. STROUGH-And I just didn’t know if maintenance of those stormwater devices should be written into the deed so that the owners of those properties are aware that they have some liability, if you will, to preserving those stormwater structures. MR. VOLLARO-I think what’s happening here, though, John, is that you’re going to be. MR. STROUGH-Well, you and I are going to get into this same debate that we get into every time. MR. VOLLARO-Well, not that, but I think that Mr. Hayes is going to be the, you’re going to provide the maintenance for the town homes. MR. HAYES-For the town homes. We’re the owner. MR. VOLLARO-You’re the owner. And you will provide the maintenance. So MR. STROUGH-But he’s not going to provide maintenance for the stormwater structures that are on private property, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t know. That’s a question I’ve got to ask yet. MR. LAPPER-That probably should have gone on the subdivision, though. Right? Single family lots. MR. STROUGH-Yes, along with the, something else we probably missed. We should have probably conditioned it that there will be no further subdivision. We can do that? MR. HILTON-One of the conditions in the Staff resolution which you approved said no future further development or subdivision of that property. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Good. So, Bob, you didn’t finish your though. MR. VOLLARO-I’m finished. It depends on what Mr. Hayes wants to do, as manager of that property, would you be maintaining stormwater devices on and off people’s property for the whole area? How do you? MR. LAPPER-On the single family lots, we could put them on the deeds, but that probably should go on the subdivision Final approval instead of on the site plan. MR. NACE-Well, actually, most of the structures are on the multifamily property. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Then how about as a condition of site plan, it would go with the site plan for the multifamily? MR. STROUGH-The swale, Bob, is going to reach in the back of the property following this ridge all the way up to (lost word) lot. MR. LAPPER-That should be on the single family. MR. STROUGH-This stormwater device right here, that’s on property six and five, that’s on private property, now there is public access to it, I think Tom’s written in. MR. LAPPER-But that the Town would maintain that. That’s part of the drainage for the roadway. So we, when we dedicate the road, we would grant an easement to the Town for the road drainage. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got my owner personal story about how the Town maintains those things, but I won’t get into that at all. 124 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. STROUGH-And there is stormwater devices also on the property where the apartments are going to go. MR. NACE-That’s correct. Those should be maintained by the property owner. Because they’re well off the road. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Hayes said he would take care of those. MR. LAPPER-That can be a condition of the site plan. MR. VOLLARO-I would make that a condition of the site plan for the multiples, for what we’re doing now, that the property manager, and I think that’s what you’re going to become. MR. LAPPER-Property owner. MR. VOLLARO-Property owner/manager would be responsible for all of the drainage devices in the multifamily complex. MR. STROUGH-Then what’s to give us some insurance and assurance that the integrity of the stormwater devices will be maintained on private property, I mean, especially if the landowner doesn’t know about them. MR. VOLLARO-Are you talking up here? MR. STROUGH-Yes, as the two I just showed you, the two, the one running in back from Properties two through six. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but they go into the road. That’s. MR. STROUGH-No, that runs on the back of the property line, Bob. You see this indentation, okay, that’s a valley. MR. VOLLARO-I understand what that is, John, but what is the property owner going to do to maintain that? Dig it out? MR. STROUGH-No, just not do anything to it, like fill it in, that somewhere in their deeds it’s been identified so they know that there is a stormwater. MR. LAPPER-The answer is we’ll agree to put it in the deed, but you’ll probably need to amend the Final subdivision approval for the single family lots, to add it as a condition there, rather than on the site plan, because it’s on the subdivision property. MR. STROUGH-Yes. Okay. We may have to work that out, and then the boulevard landscaping maintenance. Who’s going to do that? Do you have a homeowners association? MR. LAPPER-So the owner of the multifamily is going to be required to maintain that. So that would be a. MR. STROUGH-Even, that’s going to run with future owners as well. MR. LAPPER-Yes, but, that’s right. Right, they’re going to have to maintain the multifamily, too. So it’s just going to be a little more landscaping. It’s not a big boulevard. MR. HAYES-We feel it’s intertwined, both parcels, the look of it, so we intend to, and if it was ever sold in the future would be a condition of sale, but we intend, because we feel it represents, they are married, to a certain extent, and they’re going to represent each other. So we’d rather control the maintenance to keep a standard up. 125 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. LAPPER-So that should be a condition. MR. STROUGH-Would that work? (Discussion by Town Counsel) MR. HAYES-We can do an association. It doesn’t matter. MR. STROUGH-Well, who’s going to own it? Who’s going to own? MR. LAPPER-The Town is going to own it. MR. STROUGH-The Town is going to own it. MR. LAPPER-So the Town, and it will be maintained by the owner of the multifamily as a perpetual requirement of ownership of the townhouses, which is going to require maintenance anyway. MR. HAYES-The association wouldn’t own it, either. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. HAYES-If there was an association, it’s still a Town road. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, the Michaels Group always makes a homeowners association, as they just did, and it made, see, the homeowners have a more vested interest. MR. HAYES-We’ll do it that way if you’re more comfortable with that. I think it’s a good point, being that the Town owns it. MR. LAPPER-I just did that for the Michaels Group, the one you’re talking about, and we’re doing that. We’re not forming a homeowners association. We’re filing a CPS-7 Registration with the Attorney General’s Office. It doesn’t have to go to the extent of filing a formal homeowners association. It’s deed covenants with a disclosure document that the Attorney General approves, and we could do that here. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else, John? MR. STROUGH-No. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the first thing we need to do is amend subdivision approval to include the easements for the drainage soils. MR. STROUGH-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Can we just pass a motion to amend that resolution. MOTION TO AMEND OUR PRIOR APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 16-2003 FINAL STAGE, WESTERN RESERVE, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: In the following manner: That the applicant will include in the deeds of the landowners upon whom have a stormwater maintenance device located upon such property be notified of those stormwater devices and a preservation of those stormwater devices in their deeds. Duly adopted this 28th day of October, 2003, by the following vote: 126 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. HUNSINGER-The next thing we need to do is a SEQRA. MR. LAPPER-No, you did it. MR. HUNSINGER-We did it. MR. STROUGH-We have to draw up conditions. I mean, I have a loose list. MR. HUNSINGER-I have nine conditions. Do you want me to run through them quickly, maybe? MR. VOLLARO-Go ahead. MR. HUNSINGER-DEC signoff on the blue lupine. Upgrade landscaping to Type B subject to Staff review. Downward cutoff on the decorative lighting fixtures, subject to Staff review and approval. Guardrail on the cul de sac. I’m not what we decided on that. That the owner of the multifamily shall be responsible for maintaining stormwater controls as shown on the site. MR. STROUGH-Do we need to do that again if we did it for subdivision? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know. That the owner of the multifamily property will maintain the boulevard landscaping, and that the applicant will verify the nearest driveway cut to the south, to comply with Zoning Code. MR. STROUGH-Well, the boulevard landscaping maintenance, we didn’t get a consensus, but I like the idea, what Jon did, what the Michaels Group did, is the CPS-7, making it the single family homeowner’s responsibility because it is their boulevard, and that some kind of an easement has to be accepted by the Town for them to be able to get to that boulevard to do that maintenance, right? MS. RADNER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-It’s Town property. So there has to be some kind of an easement agreement for the property owner’s. MR. LAPPER-It’s a maintenance agreement is probably. MR. STROUGH-Well, it’s an easement agreement. MR. LAPPER-Well, I don’t think it rises to the level of an easement. It’s more like a maintenance agreement. MR. STROUGH-Or a maintenance agreement. You might be right, Jon, whatever works. MR. LAPPER-It’s just less of a property interest. MR. STROUGH-Fine, if it works. Okay. So the wording, okay, and do you want to include the colors are going to be earth tones in your condition? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 127 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. STROUGH-And the sugar maples. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I had that and I just missed it, and C.T. Male signoff, too. MR. STROUGH-Yes, C.T. Male signoff I’ve got. So do we want to spend 10 minutes and write this up. Anybody else is welcome. MR. NACE-What Chris verbalized was pretty good. MR. HUNSINGER-So we decided that we don’t need any reference to the stormwater control maintenance. MR. METIVIER-Right. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 46-2003 WESTERN RESERVE, LLC, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 46-2003 Applicant: Western Reserve, LLC SEQR Type: Property Owner: Western Reserve & Theodore Rawson Agent: Van Dusen & Steves, Nace Eng., Jonathan Lapper Zone: SR-1A, RR-3A Location: West side West Mt. Rd., south of Potter Rd. Applicant proposes construction 13 multi-family residential units on a 26.15 acre property. Multifamily uses in the SR-1A zone require site plan review and approval from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: AV 52-01, AV 22-02 Tax Map No. 300-1-19, 20 / 87-1-21 Lot size: 34.8 +/- acres / Section: Subdivision Regs Public Hearing: October 28, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received on 9/15/03; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 10/24/03, and 10/28 Staff Notes 10/28 Nace Engineering comments in response to CT Male 10/28 10/28 Received at meeting: letters from K. Carte, R. Raymond; 8/12/03 letter to M. Hayes from LA Group 10/21 Notice of Public Hearing 10/8 Warren Co. Planning: Approved 10/21 Notice of Public Hearing 9/29 Meeting Notice 9/26 Application referral to Warren Co. Planning 9/23 Water Dept. comments received 9/22 Application referral to CT male, Water, and Highway 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 28, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application 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 128 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) 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 Agency Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby Approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff with the following special conditions: 1. That the applicant receive a signoff from DEC on Blue Lupine, 2. That the site plan include upgraded landscaping to Type B, subject to Staff review, 3. That the decorative freestanding lights have cutoff fixtures, the design subject to Staff review and approval, 4. That a guardrail be installed on the southern end of the cul de sac, 5. That the sugar maples be moved off the right of way to accommodate Niagara Mohawk power controls, 6. The colors of the multi-family properties shall be earth tone, the applicant is encouraged to use different trim colors on various units, 7. That a simple Homeowner’s Association be formed to maintain the landscaping of the boulevard, and as part of that there would be a maintenance agreement with the Town Highway Department, 8. The applicant will verify the nearest driveway to the south and adjust the plan as necessary, 9. Final approval is contingent on a signoff from C.T. Male 10. The clearing limits should be clearly identified on the site plan. Duly adopted this 28th day of October, 2003, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-The owner of the multifamily property will maintain the boulevard landscaping. MR. STROUGH-No, no. MR. HUNSINGER-Scratch that one? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I like that. MR. SANFORD-I like that better than the other way, too. MR. LAPPER-Mickie likes that better because it’s simpler, but we’ll do it either way, whatever the Board wants. 129 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/28/03) MR. STROUGH-Why don’t we stick with what the Michaels Group does. It works, and it’s a homeowner’s interest. It’s a CPS. MR. LAPPER-The difference here is that, in the Michaels Group scenario, once they sell the 18 lots, they’re gone. They’re not there. Here someone’s always going to own the multifamily. So if it’s a deed covenant that runs with the land, you’ve always got somebody that has to do it, but again, whatever the Board wants is fine. MR. STROUGH-I just feel better having, because it’s going to be their boulevard. It’s their entrance to homes. They have more of an interest. MR. HUNSINGER-That a simple homeowners association be formed to maintain the landscaping and the boulevard. MR. LAPPER-Well, it doesn’t really need a homeowners association. MR. STROUGH-It’s a CPS-7. MR. HUNSINGER-CPS. MR. VOLLARO-What’s a CPS? MR. LAPPER-Yes. That’s the, it’s called a diminimus registration with the Attorney General’s Office, Department of Law, which is anything that’s under $100, a year in fees. It’s just a short form registration. You don’t have to do the whole offering plan. It’s really cheaper. MR. STROUGH-And as part of that there would be a maintenance agreement with the Town Highway Department. MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks, John. AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. LAPPER-Good night. MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-The meeting is adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Acting Chairman 130