Loading...
2004-04-20 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 20, 2004 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, SECRETARY LARRY RINGER ROBERT VOLLARO THOMAS SEGULJIC RICHARD SANFORD ANTHONY METIVIER PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2004 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED HAYES & HAYES AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SFR-20 LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF DIXON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES THE SUBDIVISION OF AN 8.47 ACRE PROPERTY, LOCATED OFF DIXON ROAD (EAST OF I-87), INTO 12 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.46 ACRES TO 0.72 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 6-2003 TAX MAP NO. 302.14-1-79.2 LOT SIZE: 8.50 ACRES SECTION: A183 MR. MAC EWAN-Subdivision No. 7-2004 for Hayes and Hayes, this is the project that Preliminary subdivision we were scheduled to hear tonight on Dixon Road. We are not going to hear that application tonight because the proper notices weren’t posted 10 days prior to this meeting. So what I’m going to do is just open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to table this application to our first meeting in May, which is May the 18, pending the proper notification is posted on the property. th OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN: SITE PLAN NO. 50-2003 SEQR TYPE II IAN ROWLANDSON AGENT: JAMES MOONEY ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: SEELYE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES THE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND REPLACE WITH NEW 2,008 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM. CONDITION OF ZBA APPROVAL, AV 77-03. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 77-2003 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/12/03 APA/CEA TAX MAP NO. 227.17-2-14 LOT SIZE: 0.26 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 PAT MITCHELL & JAMES MOONEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-As a follow up to the most recent tabling of this application, the applicant submitted additional information, revised floor area statistics and site plan to reflect that. The only outstanding, as I’ve mentioned in my notes, the only outstanding item seems to be C.T. Male signoff. We received an e-mail the other day from Jim Houston with C.T. Male, that said 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) provided three or four items were incorporated in the plan, he’d be prepared, he is prepared, to issue a signoff, but at this time there is no signoff in the file. MR. MAC EWAN-You haven’t received one? MR. HILTON-Have not at this point, no. MR. MAC EWAN-Pat, you haven’t received one from them either? MR. MITCHELL-I have not received one, no. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Where did we leave off on this application? What was the three or four things, George, that C.T. Male wanted them to have signed off on? MR. HILTON-The applicant has a copy of the e-mail. I’m not sure if I do. Perhaps they could, or I could read it. Whatever. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to give it right to George, and he can read it right in. MR. HILTON-I’ll read it directly, from Jim Houston to Pat Mitchell. It says, Pat, as we have discussed, I have reviewed the information that Dave Klein faxed to me on April 2. The nd information included excerpts from the design plans and it was dated April 2. The revision nd substantially addressed the comments in my March 19 letter. There are a few minor th outstanding items that should be addressed, which include removing the rock cuttings from the well drilling operation, confirmation that the scale of the drawing has been revised. The size of the rock riprap should be noted, DOT specification. Eliminate the extra “as”, in general note three, add “measures” after “sediment control” in general note number one. Provided that these items are addressed, I will be in a position to issue a signoff letter for this project. Pat’s response was that, Number One, a note had been added to remove the rock cuttings from the well drilling operation. Riprap size of three inches to six inches had been added to Note Two to further describe riprap. The extra “as” in general note three has been removed. The word “measures” has been added, after “sediment control”, and the drawing scale was corrected. Pat states that he attached a copy of the drawing file and said that he’d forward it to me, which as I stated, I received this e-mail. However, well, that summarizes it. That’s Jim’s comments and Pat’s comments. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So basically there’s four minor issues, really. MR. VOLLARO-Can you just give me the date of that, please. MR. HILTON-Of the e-mail? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. HILTON-It’s Friday, April 16. th MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Good evening. For the record, you are? MR. MITCHELL-Pat Mitchell, North Country Engineering. MR. MAC EWAN-Bring us up to date where you are right now with this. MR. MITCHELL-All the changes from Jim Houston have been made. I have a set of drawings here with me. I’m just waiting for a signoff. It was just basically changing four notes on the drawing. There was no drawing changes at all. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. It seems to be just tying up loose ends. Does anyone have any questions for them? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. VOLLARO-I don’t. I think everything seems okay in my review. I have no further questions except the signoff. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We do not need to do a SEQRA, Type II? MR. HILTON-It is a Type II. MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone introduce a motion? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll introduce it. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 50-2003 IAN ROWLANDSON, Introduced Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. With one addition, that the changes made to the drawings, in accordance with an e-mail from Jim Houston dated April 16, 2004 be included as supporting documentation for this resolution. Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. MITCHELL-Thank you, sir. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good luck. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISIONS: SUBDIVISION NO. 18-2002 FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED BELL-NAVION DEVELOPMENT CO. PROPERTY OWNER: SARAH MC ECHRON TRUST AGENT: BOSWELL ENGINEERING ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: NE CORNER OF WEST MT. RD. & POTTER RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES THE SUBDIVISION OF A 23.85 +/- ACRE PROPERTY, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD AND POTTER ROAD INTO 18 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1 +/- ACRES TO 2.2 +/- ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SKETCH PLAN REVIEW: 11/02; PREL. REVIEW: 11/18/03 NYS DOH, NYS DEC, ACOE TAX MAP NO. 301.5-1-28 LOT SIZE: 23.85 +/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ED HORICK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 18-2002, Final Stage, Bell-Navion Development Co., Meeting Date: April 20, 2004 “APPLICATION: Subdivision 18-2002 (Final Stage) APPLICANT: Bell–Navion Development is the applicant for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 24 +/- acre property into 18 single- family residential lots. LOCATION: The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Potter Rd. and West Mountain Rd. EXISTING ZONING: This property is zoned SFR-1A, Single Family Residential One Acre. CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This property is located in neighborhood eleven based on the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. SEQRA STATUS: This action is a SEQRA Unlisted action. The Planning Board issued a SEQRA negative declaration for this application on November 18, 2003. PARCEL HISTORY: The Planning Board approved the Preliminary Stage of the proposed subdivision on November 18, 2003. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 24 +/- acre property into 18 single-family residential lots ranging in size from 1 +/- acres to 2.2 +/- acres. The lots are shown fronting on a loop road off of Potter Rd. labeled as Kings Court. The properties will be served by municipal water service and will have on-site septic systems. STAFF COMMENTS: The proposed subdivision has been revised to show a 20 ‘ no cut buffer along Potter Rd., and a 30 ‘ no cut buffer along West Mountain Rd. as required in the resolution granting preliminary approval of this subdivision. Additional buffers of 30 ‘ from the properties to the north and west are also shown on the subdivision plat. The applicant has addressed the ownership and maintenance of the stormwater basin on Lot 13 and the Town of Queensbury Highway Department has provided comment on the maintenance of this basin. As this property involves the disturbance of greater than one acre of property, the Phase II stormwater regulations require that a stormwater pollution prevention plan and Notice of Intent (NOI) must be filed for this application. Staff suggests a condition of approval that prior to filing the final plat, that a copy of the NOI be submitted to Planning Staff. The applicant has submitted information summarizing a recent site visit by a representative of the Army Corps of Engineers. It appears that the two areas of wetland shown on the plat will either be removed or will be non-jurisdictional. Staff suggests a condition of approval that a non-jurisdictional determination be provided prior to filing the final plat. Any comments from CT Male should be addressed during the review of this application.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-Okay. This is the Final phase of a subdivision of approximately 24 acres on the northeast corner of Potter Road and West Mountain Road. As I said, the project proposes to create 18 single family lots. The subdivision has been revised to show the no cut buffer that were discussed at the time of Preliminary plat approval. The applicant has addressed the ownership and maintenance of the stormwater basin on Lot 13 and the Town Highway Department has provided comments as well. As this property involves the disturbance of more 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) than one acre, the Phase II EAP Regulations require that a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Notice of Intent be filed, and our suggestion is that a condition of approval could be that a copy of the Notice of Intent, NOI, be submitted to Planning Staff prior to filing the plat. At the same time the applicant has given us information summarizing a recent visit by the Army Corp of Engineers, and it appears that the two areas of wetland will either be removed or will be deemed nonjurisdictional, and Staff suggests a condition that a copy of the nonjurisdictional determination be provided prior to filing the Final plat. Any comments from C.T. Male should be addressed, and we have the most recent letter from them, dated April 15, th it is not a signoff, however a lot of the items, and I believe you have a copy, seem to be addressed, and that’s all I have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Just two housekeeping issues. I’m assuming we closed the public hearing on the 18 of November? th MR. SCHACHNER-That was Preliminary. MR. MAC EWAN-Right, that was Preliminary. MR. SCHACHNER-So you have to have closed the public hearing at Preliminary. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-You can have a public hearing on Final if you wish to, but you’re not obligated to. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-You can’t have acted on the Preliminary without closing the public hearing. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I just wanted to be sure, that’s all. Good evening. MR. HORICK-Good evening. My name’s Ed Horick from Boswell Engineering. I’m here representing the applicant, Bell-Nav Development. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to bring us up to date where we are right now? MR. HORICK-Basically, we received Preliminary approval at the November 18 meeting. Since th that meeting, we’ve tried to address all the comments that the Board had. We’ve addressed the majority of them, with the exception of the Army Corps of Engineers signoff. We revised the wetland map and sent that back to the Army Corps. We’re expecting a signoff this week, basically stating that the one wetland area that is now shown on the map, your copy probably doesn’t show that, but Wetland Area A was trimmed down and made smaller, and based on our field visit, Army Corps of Engineers verbally agreed that it was a nonjurisdictional wetland, and that’s what the letter is going to reflect. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add, Ed? MR. HORICK-I know we still have to receive DOH approval. I talked to DOH, Department of Health, and they won’t signoff on the project until we receive SPDES coverage. So we have to File a Notice of Intent and obtain coverage for the Phase I SPDES requirements. So that will be, you know, forthcoming from DOH at a later point. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that it? MR. HORICK-Yes. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’ll open it up for questions. Has anybody got any questions regarding design standards, development criteria, street design layout, utilities, site conditions, traffic? Stormwater? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Go. MR. VOLLARO-The stormwater, per the Water Department letter of March 1, 2004, you have to add the following to the plans. Note 13 to Drawing 9 of 9. That the water main construction details, once construction is completed, water mains must be pressure tested to AWWA Standards, engineering should certify to Queensbury Water Department that this has been completed. That’s just a comment that comes out of the Water Department letter of March 1, 2004. With respect to Drawing Number Five of Nine, this is something more for the Board than it is anything else. The daily flow rates are correct, that they’ve used in this application. However, the Queensbury Code, 136, is outdated, and should be revised, and I respectfully request that Staff provide Planning Board members with an updated copy of 136, and the corrections thereto. MR. HILTON-Just a quick comment on that. 136 itself is, has not been changed, but I think there’s a note in 136 that says either 136 shall or apply, or the New York State DOH regulations, whichever, I guess, are more, I don’t want to say stringent, but I’m not sure what the wording is, but I guess at this point the New York State DOH regulations do supercede and we’ve been following those, as opposed to what is written in 136. So I won’t be able to give you an updated 136, but I can give you a copy of the most recent, or the current DOH regulations. MR. VOLLARO-That was more just for the record, Mr. Hilton, so that people understand we need up to date information in order to review applications. MR. HILTON-Absolutely, and that’s fine. I just wanted to make sure you knew that there’s no updated 136, per se. MR. VOLLARO-Fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. VOLLARO-That’s it for me. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions relative to stormwater, sewage? Buffering? Neighborhood character? Anything I missed? MR. VOLLARO-Involved agencies, last one. MR. MAC EWAN-Go. MR. VOLLARO-This is the Army Corps nonjurisdictional. I notice in the draft resolution that Staff has covered that with Note Number Two. So we don’t have to add it to any resolution we may make. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members? We need to do a SEQRA, right? MR. HILTON-It was done previously. MR. MAC EWAN-Previously? All right. Does someone want to introduce a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 18-2002 BELL-NAVION DEVELOPMENT CO., Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. With the following additions: One, modification to Item One, a copy of the requested Notice of Intent and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan shall be submitted to Planning Staff prior to signature of the Final plat by the Planning Board Chairman, and to C.T. Male for their review, per their letter of April 15. A th nonjurisdictional determination from the Army Corp of Engineers shall be submitted prior to the signature of the Final plat by the Planning Board Chairman. With respect to one other addition, add Note 13 to Drawing 9 of 9. Once construction is completed, water mains must be pressure tested to AWWA standards. Engineering should certify to the Water Department that this has been completed. This comes out of the Water Department letter dated March 1, 2004. Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You gentlemen are all set. MR. HORICK-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED WILLIAM TAFT AGENT: MULLER & MULLER ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: COUNTY LINE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 4.26 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 2.22 ACRES AND 2.05 ACRES CROSS REFERENCE: 2 LOT ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION TAX MAP NO. 290-1-9.2 LOT SIZE: 4.26 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MICHAEL CRAYFORD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-Okay. Since this application was tabled last on September 16, 2003, the applicant has submitted a revised plat showing flagged wetlands, stormwater management report, test pits, and well locations. Additionally, the subdivision plat has been revised to show two proposed lots, as opposed to three that were previously shown. These lots being 2.05 and 2.22 acres in size. The land area of the flagged wetlands should be provided, in order to tell whether it will have any impact on allowable residential density. Just as a reminder, the applicant previously had requested waivers from Sketch Plan, grading and clearing plans. Staff suggests a condition of any approval be that the stone wall located on the northern property line shall not be removed, as the Planning Board has stipulated with other projects involving stone walls. Stormwater management report and test pits have been forwarded to C.T. Male and we do have some C.T. Male comments that I believe we handed it to you this evening as part of your, the packet I handed out, and that’s all we have at this time. MR. CRAYFORD-My name is Michael Crayford. Mr. Taft is not well today. So I’m taking his place. Tom Nace is supposed to be here to represent Mr. Taft for any questions you might have regarding the engineering. There were questions at the last meeting, and additional answers you needed regarding the approval process. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you expect him here tonight? MR. CRAYFORD-Tom Nace? Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Well, why don’t we set this application aside a little bit and we’ll move on to the next application and come back to you. How’s that? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. CRAYFORD-Okay. Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 20-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED MIKE & YVONNE WILD AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING, MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION: BLACKBERRY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE SUBDIVISION OF AN 18.67 ACRE PROPERTY, LOCATED OFF OF BLACKBERRY LANE, INTO SIX RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1.4 +/- ACRES TO 7 +/- ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 90-2003; SKETCH PLAN REVIEW: 12/16/03 LOT SIZE: 14 ACRES SECTION: A183 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 20-2003, Preliminary Stage, Final Stage, Mike & Yvonne Wild, Meeting Date: April 20, 2004 “APPLICATION: Subdivision 20-2003 (Preliminary and Final Stage) APPLICANT: Mike and Yvonne Wild are the applicants for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 19 +/- acre property into 6 single- family residential lots. LOCATION: The subject property is located on the west side of Blind Rock Rd. and just south of Blackberry Lane. EXISTING ZONING: This property is zoned RR-3A, Rural Residential Three Acre. CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This property is located in neighborhood four based on the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. SEQRA STATUS: This action is a SEQRA Unlisted action. The applicant has submitted a long form EAF as part of the subdivision application. PARCEL HISTORY: The Planning Board previously reviewed this proposal as a Sketch Plan subdivision application on December 16, 2003. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 19 +/- acre property into 6 single-family residential lots located on the west side of Blind Rock Rd., just south of Blackberry Lane. The proposed lots range in size from 1.41 to 7.09 acres. The applicant received approval of an Area Variance to allow the creation of lots smaller than the three-acre requirement on December 17, 2003. The lots will have municipal water service as a result of a proposed extension of the Queensbury Water District. The lots will be served by on-site septic systems. Site topography varies with some areas of steep slope located in the interior of the property, the majority of steep slopes being located on proposed lot 5. Some areas of NYSDEC wetlands exist on proposed lot 6; however, it does not appear that any development will occur within the wetland or within the 100’ regulated area surrounding the wetland. STAFF COMMENTS: The proposed subdivision indicates a 60’ no cut buffer along the eastern, southern and western property lines. An additional 25’ no cut buffer is shown on the northern property line. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) A stormwater pollution prevention plan and notice of intent (NOI) are required for this application. Staff suggests a stipulation that prior to final signature from the Planning Board Chairman that a copy of the required NOI be filled with Planning Staff. The applicant has included a stormwater management report, which has been submitted to CT Male for their review and comment.” MR. MAC EWAN-George? MR. HILTON-Okay. The applicant proposes the subdivision of land involving roughly 19 acres into six single family lots, ranging in size from 1.41 acres to 7.09. Previously, the Planning Board did review this as a Sketch Plan on December 16, 2003. The lots will have municipal water service as a result of a proposed extension. In general, the topography varies with some areas of steep slopes, and some wetlands. However, it doesn’t appear that any of the development will occur within the wetland or within the 100 foot boundary. The subdivision shows a 60 foot no cut buffer along the eastern, southern, and western property lines, as well as an additional 25 foot no cut zone buffer on the northern property line. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Notice of Intent are required for this application as well. Staff, again, suggests the stipulation that prior to the final signature from the Planning Board Chair that a copy of the required NOI be filed with Staff, and the applicant has submitted a Stormwater Management report which we have forwarded to C.T. Male for their review and comment. We do have some C.T. Male comments that we have provided you with this evening that we received, and at this point, that’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent the applicant. My understanding is that we’re here for Final approval. The applicant has no problem with full compliance with C.T. Male’s letter. Also, there’s a report, I guess, from the Water Department. We’ve seen that. We have no problem with full compliance with what they suggest. We will file the stormwater management plan, the Notice of Intent, and I think there’s, I understand that the Highway Department either verbally, or by letter, has indicated that they need to have the applicant make the transition between the existing Blackberry Lane and the new road complete, including the stormwater management for a short portion of Blackberry Lane. The applicant has no objection to that. So we will comply with everything that has been asked. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. That was per the Highway Department’s letter of April 1. st MR. O'CONNOR-Tom Nace is here and probably can tell you more about C.T. Male than I can. MR. NACE-For the record, Tom Nace. I guess you got the signoff letter from C.T. Male. If there are any specific questions on any of the items, I’ll be glad to address. MR. MAC EWAN-The only thing outstanding is that, that you can’t provide, or? MR. NACE-No, that’s, we’ve already provided it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. MR. O'CONNOR-I just have one other issue. MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. MR. O'CONNOR-When we went through the Zoning Board process, one of the things, and I think Mike has put his heart and soul in this, trying to make it compatible with other area uses and neighbors, we offered to grant Niagara Mohawk a cutting easement along Blind Rock Road. We’ve tried to do that since that meeting, and they tell us that they do not need one. They’ve 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) given us a letter, which basically says that they cut on a regular basis, every 10 years. They plan on cutting along this area within the next three years. They did not say it specifically in the letter, but they told us verbally that they do not want an easement. They think they already have one. So, I’ll file this with you. We still intend to have the 60 foot no cut buffer along Blind Rock Road. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll open it up for questions. Has anybody got any questions regarding design standards? Development criteria? Utilities, street design, layout, traffic? Stormwater/sewage? MR. RINGER-We didn’t get a signoff from C.T. Male. All I got was this letter that we passed out today, April 16, but it isn’t a signoff. th MR. HILTON-But in our file we actually do have a signoff, that we received after. MR. RINGER-But you gave us this today. You’ve got something since? MR. HILTON-Yes, and I had not seen the signoff. I just looked, and it’s sitting there. MR. RINGER-Okay. We do definitely have? MR. HILTON-Yes, we definitely have a signoff. Yes. MR. RINGER-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-I had the same question, Larry. MR. VOLLARO-Stormwater and sewage. I just wanted to ask a couple of questions on that. There are no, I don’t see any perc data on here at all, in terms of these lots. Should there be or should there not be? MR. NACE-Yes, we did, that was one of C.T. Male’s comments, and we did do perc tests just the other day. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. See, I just got C.T. Male’s letter tonight. So I don’t know anything about what C.T. Male said. MR. NACE-Well, we just got it Monday. So we’re not much ahead of you. MR. VOLLARO-I’m flying on half an engine here. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re working on correcting that glitch in the highway. MR. NACE-Great. A couple of more days would make a lot of difference. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it would. MR. VOLLARO-And I just have a question for you, Tom, that the Chairman won’t be asking in an area, but why have you been eliminating the 50 year storm in your design criteria? Is there a reason why? MR. NACE-Well, yes. The new stormwater regs from the Phase Two Stormwater regs from DEC, look at two, ten and one hundred year storm. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. They jump the 50, then. MR. NACE-And so the 50 is really, if we satisfy their criteria for a 100 years, we’ve, by definition, satisfied your criteria for 50. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. VOLLARO-I was just wondering if something came along. Because I’ve noticed in a lot of your stormwater reports that you jump over the 50, and I figured there was a reason for that. MR. NACE-Yes, that’s it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions relative to stormwater, sewage design? Buffering and landscaping? Neighborhood character? Environmental? Involved agencies? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think there are any involved agencies in this. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other criteria I missed? Anything you wanted to add? Let’s open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, we need to do a SEQRA. MR. VOLLARO-Can I ask a question before we do that? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. MR. VOLLARO-Was there any question from C.T. Male on density, with respect to slopes at all do you know, the density calculations? I think there’s fairly steep slopes proposed on Lot Number Five, and I was just wondering how C.T. Male looked at that, if they looked at it at all. MR. HUNSINGER-No. They had some questions in one of their previous correspondence, but the applicant addressed it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-If it’s been addressed. MR. O'CONNOR-I think that was addressed fully when we went before the Zoning Board of Appeals. In fact, we applied for variances because of the density calculations. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-You don’t see it on this map here, but there were two pre-existing, freestanding lots that would have had entrances off of Blind Rock Road, and we melded those into this, and as a result of that, ended up with six lots. Based upon the density requirements for the entire site, with some of the lots being larger than what was required, some of the lots being smaller. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but that was covered in ZBA, was it? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it was. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and that was all included in the variance that they approved? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. O'CONNOR-The calculation, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-George, could you read C.T. Male’s letter into the record. MR. HILTON-Sure. Yes, and just to let you know, the only comment letters we have, from C.T. Male, is the one I handed to you this evening, and the signoff, and I will read that. Neither of them really talk about density, but it says, In response to our April 16 comment letter, we have th received a re-submittal of information, consisting of a response letter and excerpts from a revised drawing. The items received were by fax. Regarding the response to Comment Two, the drywells as proposed are acceptable to the Town Highway Superintendent, but some form of pre-treatment will likely be required to be in compliance with the Phase II stormwater regulations. We have brought this issue to the attention of Craig Brown and are awaiting a response on how to address this issue in the future. Provided that the information included in the fax is incorporated into the final documents, the revisions address our previous comments. Jim Houston. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any time you’re ready, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 20-2003, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: MIKE & YVONNE WILD, 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. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion for Preliminary. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll introduce the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 20-2003 MIKE & YVONNE WILD, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 20-2003 MIKE & YVONNE WILD, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. With the following conditions. A modification to Item One of the Staff letter should read a copy of the NOI and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan be submitted to the Planning Staff prior to signature of the Final plat by the Planning Board Chairman and a copy to C.T. Male for their approval, and Number Five, Water Department comments on S-3, water line inspection, shall be prior to backfill and consideration for using a one inch service for long taps. Item Number Six, the highway comment on good transition from the new wings to the old road without wings should be added to Drawing S-5. Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We thank you. I understand, right now the Health Department is rather slow in getting out their finals, or their approvals. We can go ahead with one house, at this point. We’ve got all the Town approvals. MR. HILTON-Off the top of my head, I think this subdivision has to be filed before any construction begins. MR. O'CONNOR-I think we can, you can build one house on that 18 acre lot. MR. HILTON-Well, maybe you can. MR. O'CONNOR-All right. Would you check that for us? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. HILTON-I’ll check it. MR. O'CONNOR-All right, because I think the intention is for Michael to start his own house while we’re finishing up the approvals. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Just let me know when that plat is available and I’ll come up and sign it. MR. O'CONNOR-I thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s go back to Subdivision 11-2003. SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED WILLIAM TAFT AGENT: MULLER & MULLER ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: COUNTY LINE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 4.26 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 2.22 ACRES AND 2.05 ACRES CROSS REFERENCE: 2 LOT ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION TAX MAP NO. 290-1-9.2 LOT SIZE: 4.26 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MICHAEL CRAYFORD & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-George, do you want to re-do the Staff notes again, please. MR. HILTON-Maybe I can summarize, here. The applicant has submitted a stormwater management report, and test pit information and flagged wetlands on the property. I guess my comment, Staff comment was, how does the new wetlands impact density, as far as, you know, what’s the acreage of the new wetlands. The subdivision plat has been revised to show two lots of 2.05 and 2.22 acres. Just to remind the Planning Board, the applicant has previously requested waivers from Sketch Plan, grading and clearing. Staff had a suggested condition, that the stone wall, located on the northern property line, shall not be removed as this is something the Planning Board has stipulated with other projects. The stormwater management report and test pit information has been forwarded to C.T. Male for their review and comment, and we have received some comments from C.T. Male regarding this project. However, at this time I’m not seeing a signoff, and that’s all I have at this time. MR. NACE-For the record, Tom Nace, representing the applicant. We did receive comments from C.T. Male. I’ve reviewed them. I have not had the chance to respond yet, but I’ve formulated my responses, and we will comply with all four C.T. Male comments. Three of them require minor revisions, and one of them requires an explanation. The question Staff had regarding density, I apologize, I am not able to answer at this point. I don’t have the number in front of me. Matt has been doing the overall subdivision. I don’t have an answer off the top of my head on the acreage of the wetlands. I do not see it on the drawing. I probably could dig it out of Matt’s file somewhere, but I don’t have it in front of me. MR. VOLLARO-It would be a requirement. We know the density area. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add? MR. NACE-Was there any other comment there, George, that I missed? MR. HILTON-Just a reminder, the waivers that have been requested. MR. NACE-Stone walls I don’t see a problem with maintaining the stone walls, and as I said, we will comply with all of C.T. Male’s comments. They mostly deal with showing the intention of the drainage around the houses and providing assurance that it can be graded to drain to the detention berms that are shown. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. NACE-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll open it up for questions. Has anybody got any questions regarding design standards? MR. VOLLARO-The only thing there was the density calculation for design standards. That’s been talked about. MR. MAC EWAN-How do you want to proceed? Do you have issues with it? MR. VOLLARO-Well, we don’t know what the density is, because we don’t know what the area of the flagged wetlands are. So that we can’t come up with a density calculation without that. MR. MAC EWAN-George, any comments? MR. HILTON-Not really, I mean, you do need that information. I guess just as a reminder, the Board, as part of the Subdivision Regulations, would have, you know, the ability to apply the density calculation as you see appropriate, I guess. I don’t know, you know, without that information I can’t even give you a figure as to what’s allowed. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask a silly question. How did it get on the agenda then? MR. HILTON-The information was submitted, and this has been sitting around since September, and we, I think the decision was made that since the bulk of the information was provided that we would get it to you and at least get some comments from you and the public, and again, since this has been sitting around for such a lengthy period of time. MR. CRAYFORD-That’s the first time I’ve heard that question come up. The last time we were here, you asked for those items to be addressed, and they were addressed. So, I don’t know. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think the last time we were here that the wetlands were flagged, however, and I had a question about what agency flagged the wetlands or how did the flagging occur. MR. NACE-Well, if I’m not mistaken, Deb Roberts flagged the wetlands for us. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Because there was no comment anywhere as to what agency was, or who was doing it at the behest of an agency. So I didn’t know how we got to that wetland delineation. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the concern I have here is that, in order for us to be consistent, we’ve had other applications that have wanted to come on the agenda that have not had density calculations done to determine how many lots they can have in their subdivision that have not been allowed to be put on our agenda and yet this one got on. It’s troublesome to me. I mean, in order to be consistent, and it’s a requirement of Subdivision Regs, your density calculations are based on whatever wetlands are on the parcel to calculate how many lots you’re going to be allowed. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-And the one I can think of right off the top of my head is Schiavone, which has been hanging out there because we’re waiting for that to be flagged so we can determine the wetlands. So I don’t feel comfortable even pursuing this thing any farther until we get it figured out, or the applicant can provide that information. How does everybody else feel? 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. RINGER-I’m also concerned, is there another way to subdivide this without having that driveway, you know, 1,000, 1200 feet? I mean, I have a concern with, I’ve always had concerns, when we get these driveways that are 1500 feet, 1600 feet, and if there was another plan to subdivide that without having that, a shared driveway. MR. NACE-This driveway is about maybe 500 feet long. MR. RINGER-Well, 470 to the bend, it looks like, and then coming down. MR. NACE-There’s 470 up to the property. That’s the property line length. Okay. The 470 feet is the property, from the property corner at the northwest corner to the northeast corner. Okay. So it’s about, say 400, a little less than 400 to the bend, and another 150 to the house. MR. RINGER-So what would it look like, Tom, with two lots side by side, versus this with the shared driveway or something? Did you look at that, or? MR. NACE-Yes. One of the driving forces in coming up with the configuration here is the wetlands, room for a house, and establishing septic systems in the better soils back away from the wetlands. MR. RINGER-So it wouldn’t be possible, or it was just a better concept, or what are you telling me? Instead of having a flagged lot, having a side by side, with say a shared driveway. MR. NACE-Side by side, because of the configuration of the hill back in the corner and the good soils, we looked, did look, at side by side, and it just does not work, because all of the good soils are back in the northwest corner. MR. RINGER-I just have a concern with it, and, you know, I don’t like it, is what I’m saying, and if you tired it and it doesn’t work, fine, but I still don’t like it. I don’t have anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-Who did you say flagged the wetlands, Deb Roberts? MR. NACE-Deb Roberts did, I’m sure of that. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Who is Deb Roberts with? MR. VOLLARO-She’s under contract to Army Corps, I believe. Isn’t she? MR. NACE-Well, no. She’s independent, Roberts Environmental. Okay, and she’s worked with the Corps for years and years and years. MR. VOLLARO-I think they sanction her work, though. MR. NACE-Yes. Absolutely. She is one of the more conservative. MR. VOLLARO-Before we table this, Mr. Chairman, I’d just like to ask a question. I notice that the test pits that were done here were done by Charles Maine on October 3, 2003. MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-And they were done in October, as opposed to March and June. There’s an out on that, and I know that you’re sanctioned by our Town Board of Health to do that, other than those dates. Is Charles Maine also sanctioned to do that? MR. NACE-Well, he’s the one I rely on when I don’t feel comfortable. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. NACE-And, yes, he is. MR. VOLLARO-All right. I just noticed that it didn’t follow our 136 between March and June. MR. NACE-He used to be with the Soil Conservation Service. He’s retired, and he did a lot of the soil identification and the soils classification work in Warren and Washington Counties. MR. VOLLARO-I was just, just looking at the property and looking at the mottling numbers, 25 feet, 17 feet. MR. NACE-Feet or inches? MR. VOLLARO-Inches. Feet would be great, and 29 inches and so on. That seemed like that I would expect groundwater to be higher than that, I suppose, on a lot that was so surrounded by wetlands, but if those are the numbers, those are the numbers. MR. NACE-Well, you can see the topography of the lot, too. The better soils are back up slope a little ways, where the topography allows some drainage of the sub soils. MR. VOLLARO-True enough. It just seems that, you know, an area that was, and I don’t know just how wet that really is. I mean, if they, I’m not sure how wet it really is or whatever. They just seemed like the mottling numbers are relatively low in depth, compared to what I would expect in that area. MR. NACE-In fact, I was there when we did these, and looked at the soils with Charlie. MR. VOLLARO-They look okay? Okay. Good enough. MR. MAC EWAN-Question on, for Lot Two A. The location of the well, it just seems kind of unusual to have it located in that area. MR. NACE-To get separate, to stay out of the wetlands, so we didn’t take anymore wetland than necessary, and to have the separation distance from the septic system, to get off to the side so we’re not directly down gradient of the septic. MR. MAC EWAN-Are these boundaries to the wetlands reflective of what she’s got flagged up there? MR. NACE-I’m sorry. Say that again? MR. MAC EWAN-You’re showing, what I’m looking at here is the boundary of the wetlands right there, right near where the well is, the way it kind of jogs in and out there. Is that reflective of what she’s actually flagged up there? MR. NACE-Yes, it is. MR. MAC EWAN-Are the flags still in place, do you know? MR. NACE-I have no idea. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? MR. NACE-No, it wasn’t gerrymandered just to have a place to put the well. It was put there because it was not. MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s not what I’m asking. It just seems odd to me. That’s all, I guess, just the way it’s laid out. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. NACE-Yes, it is. Without looking at it, I don’t know the explanation, but that is the actual flagging. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions Board members may have? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Why the berm for stormwater control? MR. NACE-It’s a simple way to do it, okay. Where you can store your stormwater on the surface and let it gradually filter back into the ground. It’s probably the most effective. MR. SEGULJIC-So the water is going to be held behind the berm, and allowed to? MR. NACE-For a short period of time, after it rains, it may puddle there for, you know, a couple of hours after it rains, and gradually goes down. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. One of the other things I’m uncomfortable with is the driveway through the wetlands. It would make more sense to have the shared driveway, then you could avoid going through the wetland area. MR. NACE-I wasn’t present during all the discussions. I know that was an issue that was discussed previously with some of the previous submissions on this, and I don’t honestly know the reason that it was not shared. I mean, that would be an obvious advantage, I would think. Do you recall? MR. CRAYFORD-No, I don’t. I think there was a declaration of how much area was to be disturbed for the driveway, it was acceptable at the time. MR. NACE-The amount of wetland disturbance is acceptable. It’s under the tenth of an acre, but I can’t speak to why. It seems to me there was, George, do you remember? There was something in the Code, well, as I remember, that forced us to show a driveway on the lot. Right? MR. HILTON-That I don’t recall. I can tell you the Code, lot width. Because of the, this is an arterial, you would either have to have double the lot width or a shared driveway in a case like this, because County Line is an arterial or collector. I don’t recall any discussions that that had to have a separate driveway. Quite honestly, if the wetlands weren’t there, I think a shared driveway is preferred. Well, I mean, and the disturbance, I agree, it’s probably within the Nationwide permit or whatever, but I think the idea of a shared driveway is probably something that’s preferred out here. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, did you have something? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was just going to comment. The original proposal was for two lots in the front lot with a shared driveway, and then the back lot had its own. So maybe that was the reason why there were two driveways. They just sort of carried over from the old design. MR. MAC EWAN-As I recall, I think the driveway was started being cut out there when this was in front of us back last fall. MR. NACE-That’s right. Way back there was a culvert put in. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? I’d ask you to give up the table for a few minutes. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED FRED CHASE 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. CHASE-Good evening, gentlemen. My name is Fred Chase. I’m the owner of the property directly north of the proposed site. I’m going to supply you with a couple of more photographs. You should have a whole stack of them there, from last fall. I’ll give you these three for now to start with. One of the issues that George has listed, that the committee had asked for last fall, under Staff comments, and I say fall, September 16 meeting, asked for a th clearing plan, and after coming in to George’s office last week and reviewing the documents that are on file, I didn’t see any clearing plan, and as the owner of the property directly north of there, I’m very concerned with the way the driveway is being designed up through there. If you will look at, well, let’s see, the road view, basically it’s the horizontal photograph there, and I’ve staked off approximately where the property line is, and then over where the proposed driveway would come up through. If you will look at this photograph up here, all of those trees that are just this side of the line would have to be removed. I went through, and without counting exact numbers and measuring, which I originally was going to do, there were in excess of 40 trees of six inch or larger diameter, of Ash, Oak, Cherry, and Beech, that would have to, excuse me, of Oak, Cherry, Hickory, and Ash, that would have to be removed to put that driveway up through there. Also, there’s been the reference to the stone wall. There is one major stone wall that runs the property line, but there’s also a secondary stone wall, and if you looked, there’s basically an old farmer’s trail that comes up, kind of an opening on that photograph, and all the land slopes from the north, and from the northwest, down into this property. Well, there’s a secondary stone wall, and that’s this photograph that’s marked secondary stone wall, I believe, that runs along the south side of that old trail, and that would have to be removed. Every barrier from this piece of property is going to be eradicated, except on the very west side. I don’t know when that photograph was taken, but I supplied an aerial photograph last fall that should be in your file, that shows that Mr. Taft has already removed a great number of trees from the property on the southeast corner and the northeast corner, that’s of primary concern, that secondly, or thirdly, I guess, we talked about the stone walls, thirdly, I looked at this stormwater plan that’s proposed with the berms for the house, and that really doesn’t address the runoff of the water from a 600 or 500 or whatever it is foot driveway that runs uphill, and if any of you would like to drive down County Line Road at this time, you’ll see that water is pooled there, both on my property, and on Mr. Taft’s property, and that, I know on my property, that has not gone away since back in October. It froze solid and it still sits there. Where is all this water going to run to? That has not been addressed in that plan. I also was looking at the layout of the houses and the septic system, and it seems that the septic systems are up on the back side of the house, and the land slopes from the back down. They’re putting the septic systems higher than where the foundation is going to be. I guess, with two closing things, that I’d like to read a brief thing from last August’s, August 3 Glens Falls rd Business Journal, and the headline was “Queensbury Approves Open Space Vision Plan” On July 7, the Town of Queensbury unanimously approved an Open Space Vision Plan. The need th to protect open spaces in this rapidly growing community was publicly acknowledged for the first time in the Town’s 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Queensbury Land Conservancy also distributed 17,160 surveys, in Queensbury and Glens Falls, to determine the attitude of local residents concerning the need for open space. The survey found that 90% of the respondents supported the development of an open space plan. Preserving the region’s rural character was listed as top priority, followed by protection of endangered species and wildlife habitats. I bought that piece of property four years ago, and it’s just been one little house after another that keeps creeping up the road, and we keep slicing it up, and I commented last fall that I think there’s a lot of beautiful parts of Queensbury, but this has been one of the few open spaces, and now we’re allowing it to be cut up and butchered, and I really find that upsetting, and lastly, I would say, I received a letter from, notice of this meeting, and the footnote of the letterhead says, home of natural beauty, a good place to live, and I hope it remains that way. Thank you, gentlemen. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I’ll leave the public hearing open. Do you gentlemen want to come back up. MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, just to clarify. In reviewing the tabling resolution of September 16, I can go down the items, as to what you were looking for. It says a plat that will identify th Federal and State wetlands, location of a well for Lot Two, contour lines, test pits to be dug in 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) the area of the proposed infiltration bed, resulting data as well. Stormwater plan and no further development will occur until the applicant receives Planning Board approval. A clearing plan was not one of the items you suggested. As I mentioned, they have requested a waiver. You can certainly choose to either grant the waiver or require them to show areas of clearing, but I just wanted to clarify that that wasn’t something that, you know, this Board specifically asked for on September 16. th MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? Obviously, we’ll table this thing to have the density calculations provided to us. MR. CRAYFORD-May I respond to the comments that Mr. Chase made? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. MR. CRAYFORD-Okay. Last fall, Mr. Chase showed photographs of a bulldozer running down through that area, and that was me clearing some brush out, and the plan is to keep that natural right of way, which has been there for years, the way it is, without cutting anymore trees down. So as far as destroying the natural environment, nothing’s going to change, except some brush removal, and some rebuilding of the stone wall. To comment on Mr. Chase’s working on his land. If you notice, just north of here, where his lot is, he’s been working on his property, which is actually, if it was designated so, would be wetlands also, and he’s churned that all up, and muddied it all up, had his tractor stuck in there, and he’s throwing stones when he should be protecting his own property. If Mr. Chase wants to keep open wetlands, he should probably make an offer to buy the land, and that’s all I have to say. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from Board members? Any additional information that you’re going to require that you don’t have in front of you tonight? MR. VOLLARO-One of the things that came up is the fact that because of the topography and the fact that everything is going to be flowing pretty much to the south, and the east, the water flow, the fact that the septic fields are higher than the house is an interesting comment that the last person up here, Mr. Chase, made. I don’t know whether that’s really good practice or not. Does that mean that we’re going to have to pump to those fields? I don’t know what that elevation is. MR. NACE-Yes, they will be pumped to. MR. RINGER-C.T. Male made the same comment, too. That’s one of, that you have to address the C.T. Male. It’s Number Two on C.T. Male’s comments. MR. NACE-It’s an effluent pump. It’s something we use quite frequently. MR. VOLLARO-The pumps I know, but I just was, I know you’ve got to pump uphill. MR. MAC EWAN-Why would you want to lay them out that way? MR. NACE-Simply because that’s where the better soils are. Okay. Oftentimes, just because of the topography of the soils, the various site conditions, we end up having to pump up to the septic system. Actually, for the septic system itself, it’s better because it doses the field and then gives it a longer period to rest, so that the effluent, when it doses into the field, utilizes more of the length of pipe, more of the field, than normal gravity flow does. So it’s actually, it’s probably better for the septic system to be pumped to, than to just have gravity flow trickling in all the time. MR. VOLLARO-The D Box gets exercised pretty well that way, with the pump. MR. NACE-Yes, it effectively uses the full length of the lateral, versus just the front end. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it makes sense to me. MR. MAC EWAN-Your test pit information on your plat, Number 58, which is the last test pit. Should that be Number Five? MR. NACE-Number 58? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I’m looking at on mine. One, Two, Three, Four, and Fifty-Eight. I’m guessing that should be a Number Five. MR. NACE-That should be Number Five. You are absolutely right. MR. MAC EWAN-If you’re looking on Lot 2B, Test Pit Four for where the proposed house is to be located, and if you look at Test Pit Number Five where the proposed septic is to be located to that house, what’s the difference between the soils that I’m not seeing? MR. NACE-What do you mean what’s the difference between the soils that you’re not seeing? Test Pit Number Four has mottling at 19 inches. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. NACE-Test Pit Five has mottling at 29 inches. It’s a good bit better on Test Pit Five than on Four. Just the depth of soil, and the classification is, at least the top layers are generally the same. MR. MAC EWAN-But for Test Pit Four, why didn’t you go down from 21 to 29 inches, 29 inches to 36 inches, to see what the soils were? MR. NACE-Once we found mottling at less than two feet, that sealed their fate. We need two feet of natural material for septic systems. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? Does someone want to introduce a motion, please, to table? Table it to our first meeting in May, which is the 18. th How quickly can you get the density calculations in? MR. NACE-Monday of next week certainly. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE, FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2003 WILLIAM TAFT, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: Pending the submission of the following items: 1.Wetland delineation calculations so that the proposed density can be calculated. 2. To allow the applicant to address the comments from CT Male and to receive the sign- off from CT Male, close of business Friday the 28 to provide everything. th Duly adopted this 20th day of April, 2004, by the following vote: MR. MAC EWAN-Could you also make a note, too, because we’ll want to go out and revisit this site again before our next Board meeting, make sure she has, Deb’s got those wetlands delineated and the flags are still up. MR. NACE-Sure can. MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, I may not have caught it. What meeting are you putting this on to? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. MAC EWAN-The first meeting in May, which is the 18, and they have until next Friday, th which is the 28, to provide this additional information to Staff. th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MR. NACE-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN REVIEW SITE PLAN NO. 15-2004 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED CIFONE CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY OWNER: JMC PROPERTIES AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SR- 1A LOCATION: SMOKE RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTIONI OF FIVE (5) TWO-FAMILY BUILDINGS (10 DWELLING UNITS). EACH UNIT IS 1,736 SQ. FT. FOR A TOTAL PROPOSED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 8,680 SQ. FT. DUPLEXES/MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING IN THE SR-1A ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 74-01, SB 7-85, SB 11-01 TAX MAP NO. 308.8-1-21.2, 21.3, 21.4, 21.5, 21.6 LOT SIZE: 6.19 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, TOM NACE & MATT CIFONE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 15-2004, Cifone Construction, Meeting Date: April 20, 2004 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 15-2004 APPLICANT: JMC Properties is the applicant for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to construct 5 duplex units (10 residential dwellings) on 5 individual lots. LOCATION: The subject property is located on Smoke Ridge Rd., off of Sherman Avenue. EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned SR-1A, Suburban Residential One Acre. SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Unlisted action. The applicant has submitted a SEQRA short form. PARCEL HISTORY: The ZBA approved an Area Variance to allow the development of duplexes on lots that are smaller than required in the SR-1A zone. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to construct 5 separate duplex units (10 units total) on 5 lots (one duplex per lot) within the Smoke Ridge subdivision located on Smoke Ridge Rd., off of Sherman Avenue. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has requested the following waivers: Stormwater Management Plan - Grading Plan - 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) Lighting Plan - As a note, the applicant has requested a Grading Plan waiver, however, extensive grading is shown on the site plan. As this property involves the disturbance of greater than one acre, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Notice of Intent (NOI) are required to be submitted. Staff suggests a stipulation that prior to the issuance of a building permit associated with this site plan, that a copy of the required NOI be submitted to Planning Staff.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-The site plan proposes the construction of five separate duplexes, 10 units total, on 5 lots within a subdivision called Smoke Ridge, located off Smoke Ridge Road off of Sherman Avenue. The applicant has requested, as I’ve listed, waivers from stormwater management, grading and lighting plans. As a note, the applicant has requested a waiver from the grading plan, however, it appears to me that there is extensive grading shown on the site plan. So I’m not sure if they’re actually requesting the waiver or what. Again, this property is another one of those that requires a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Notice of Intent to be submitted, and again, Staff suggests that a stipulation be included that, prior to the issuance of a building permit, associated with the site plan, that a copy of the NOI be submitted to Planning Staff. We do have some comments from C.T. Male. I don’t believe that there’s actually a signoff. The ones I’ve handed to you this evening are the only ones I’m aware of at this time. Beyond that, that’s all I have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, Tom Nace, Mike O’Connor and Matt Cifone. I guess first of all, C.T. Male’s comments, we did respond to those, but it was late in the day today before we finally got the response down to C.T. Male. So they did not have a chance to look it over and get a signoff back to us, but we have responded positively to all their comments, and incorporated the suggestions they had, as well as provided the additional information, prepared a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and if there are any particular C.T. Male comments that you would like me to get into detail, I’ll be glad to. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess before we start, I mean, if you want to just go over C.T. Male’s comments. I’m assuming, at this point, you’ve addressed everything, you just haven’t gotten a signoff from them? MR. NACE-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Along that general topic, what is your frustration with getting stuff turned around? What do you think needs to be done? I don’t want to get off on a big old tangent here. This has been a problem that’s been going on for some time, and we’ve tried to correct it by changing our deadline submission dates to the middle of the month to give everybody an opportunity to get paperwork shuffled back and forth and it doesn’t seem to be working. MR. NACE-No. We’re still getting comments. We got, C.T. Male faxed theirs to us late Friday, like 4:30 Friday. We got stuff in the mail from the Town, Staff comments, on Saturday. Some of the Staff comments I never got. I don’t know what happened, but we never got copies of them. If you’re looking for signoff’s at the meeting, and it would be nice, it’s obviously easier for you guys if you have something from your engineer saying, we’re all set and done. MR. VOLLARO-It would be nice if I even got to read their letter. That would be even nice. MR. NACE-We really need to get their comments, you know, almost a week ahead of time in order to let us respond, and them, assuming our response is adequate, for them to signoff. So several additional days would be very helpful, if there’s any way to get those out somewhere. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) You know, generally I’ve liked working with C.T. Male’s people. They’re responsive to work with. We can have a dialogue. They seem to be good engineers and they’ve got good review comments and good suggestions, but the timing, wherever it’s breaking down, the timing could be better. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Yes, it could be a lot better. With that being said, have you got anything else you want to add? MR. NACE-No. That’s all. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’ll open it up for questions from the Board. Any questions relative to design standards? MR. RINGER-Is this the same project we approved a year or two ago, or is this? MR. O'CONNOR-Identical. MR. RINGER-Identical. No changes? MR. O'CONNOR-Except that it’s been re-reviewed with new additional comments, which kind of amazed me. MR. RINGER-No changes whatsoever in what was presented. MR. NACE-In what was submitted, no changes at all. The only changes now have been to address C.T. Male’s comments, okay, and in all fairness, C.T. Male did not review is the first time around. I don’t know why, but it was not reviewed, at least from my file I can’t find any review, first time around. MR. RINGER-It just, the time went by and you didn’t apply for an extension, or, I mean, what happened to, why are we starting all over? I suppose it isn’t important, but I was just curious. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s a matter of disagreement between us and Staff. You have a provision in your Ordinance that says that site plan review expires one year from the date of approval. I would like to, in this instance, also ask for a waiver of that particular provision, and have your approval if you can tonight, go longer than that period, whatever you’re comfortable with. The units, they just did not get built. So we’re back doing the same thing that we did before. MR. RINGER-Our Code’s not set up so you can ask for an extension, then, like we have granted extensions on. MR. O'CONNOR-It is. It is, but in this instance, there were other plans and it did not get asked for. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know that we can grant a waiver to that part of the Ordinances for the one year starting something. MR. O'CONNOR-I can’t tell you specifically, but I know that you’ve done site plans before with a time period longer than one year. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve done phasing before. MR. HUNSINGER-I think you have to start the project within a year. You don’t have to complete it. MR. MAC EWAN-You don’t have to complete it. MR. O'CONNOR-You have to apply for a building permit. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. RINGER-It’s just such a waste of time and money. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does anybody have questions on design standards? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Just one, housekeeping kind of thing, turned out to be academic as far as permeability is concerned, but we only got four of those data sheets, at least my package only had four. You calculated the site development data on the sheet by sheet by sheet basis. There’s four separate site development data sheets supplied, to me, with this application. I was kind of, what I did was I made it into one, but there are four. There’s one of them, but I made it into one. There’s the second one. There’s the third one, and there’s the fourth one, and there’s the fifth one, and there are five, but there are five separate data sheets involved here. MR. HUNSINGER-Which one did you not get, Bob? I got all five. MR. VOLLARO-No, I think I did get all of them. Now, the other thing is the building footprint on each one of them, it’s not going to make any difference in the bottom line. There’s so much property here that it’s not going to make any difference, but it should be 3360, should be the footprint of that building, because there’s two of them. MR. NACE-I’ve got to plead ignorance. Matt filled out the application this time around. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but they should be, each one should be 3360, and not 1736, because there are two buildings. I just have one question, and, you know, I understand where Mr. O’Connor’s coming from. It’s probably very frustrating at the other side of this table, to have somebody sit here and look at these things after the fact, but it seems to me that some of the parking up front of some of these duplexes could be arranged so that cars could get out a little bit easier. I noticed that they supplied four spaces, but very little maneuvering room out front there. I would prefer to see that spread out in front of each duplex so that each car’s got some room to maneuver its way out. If you’ll notice, they’ve got a “T” set up, and I don’t know if that’s the easiest way to do it, if two people are trying to get out, and I’ll let my other comment go, since we’ve reviewed this once before, and I frankly don’t remember commenting on this one, but maybe I did. I was just looking to where we’re going to, what I was looking for was a pre and post water position on this property, retention, and I didn’t see any basins here to basically retain water going onto the Niagara Mohawk properties, and I was wondering what the story was. MR. NACE-It all goes down to that low point, and it’s so permeable that it disappears. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Apparently, you’re going to be, according to your notes, I guess they were yours, Tom, it looks like the septic fields will all be a modified soil design, based on the perc rate. MR. NACE-Yes. Everything is less than a minute. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. I don’t have anything. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions on site development criteria, stormwater sewage design? MR. SANFORD-Is it appropriate to discuss the lack of landscaping that we see every time we drive down this road, and what are the intentions to do something more than what’s been done in the past? MR. O'CONNOR-We have no intentions, or plans, per se, to landscape, other than what is typically done. Probably if you went to the area out off Knight Street where they are presently constructing other homes, you will see that they typically, as part of their package, do some type of landscaping, lawns. Probably better than what the existing houses have right now that 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) you see that are there. That just comes as part of the construction package and it’s done in a general sense, I think. MR. SANFORD-Who owns these, when they’re built? In other words, are these somehow sold to? MR. O'CONNOR-The units across the street are not owned by the present developer. I think there’s probably one owner that owns most of them. I’m not sure who owns them now. I mean, they left ownership of this developer eight, ten years ago, I think, and I think there’s been a couple of transfers since then. So I can’t tell you who, specifically, owns it. The intention is, and we’ve presented it here, is that we would own them and rent them. MR. SANFORD-Well, I, for one, and I think other Planning Board members feel the same, we’d like to see some effort at improving the grounds. That’s my comment. MR. RINGER-This discussion came up last year when you came before us, also, because the area had deteriorated greatly and basically the same comments from the applicant that they don’t own it, the property across the street that is run down, and they don’t have a lot of control over something they don’t own. MR. SANFORD-But they’re saying they don’t intend to do much with these new. MR. RINGER-Other than what the Code says. MR. SANFORD-With these buildings. MR. RINGER-No, other than what the Code says, is what they’ll do. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, what is the intention of the area where you’re going to cut, for stabilization? MR. NACE-That’s all going to be re-topsoiled and seeded and turned in to lawn. MR. SEGULJIC-And I would agree with Rich, you know, I’d like to see some landscaping in the front of these places, at least, to make them look at little better. I’m a little confused when I look at the two plans, too. It appears as if the proposed drainage easement moved between the two maps, the two maps I have. MR. NACE-There’s an existing drainage easement, okay, and we’ve modified it to accommodate the grading and where the water’s actually going to. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, on one map it shows it between Lot 18 and 19, and on the other figure it shows it running through Lot 20, I think. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, through Lot 20. MR. NACE-Okay. The drainage easement has been relocated down to here. The existing drainage easement. MR. VOLLARO-S-1, Tom, shows it on Lot 20. MR. NACE-On Lot 20. Okay. That’s the relocated easement. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. This should be the latest drawing number. MR. NACE-Okay. That’s the original easement, that’s an old, old, old. Okay. The original easement was over here, and when we were doing it before Rick Missita asked if we wouldn’t relocate that drainage easement to where the water was presently going in. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions on stormwater, sewage? Lighting? Landscaping? We know where Mr. Sanford is. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I would agree with Rich. I’d like to see some landscaping. MR. MAC EWAN-Now’s the time to talk about it. MR. SEGULJIC-Have some plantings in the front of the buildings at least, in front of the homes. MR. SANFORD-Well, what right do we have to require or to request a landscaping plan for review? Certainly, if we have that kind of authority, I would definitely support it if, in fact, if we don’t, I’d like to know that as well. MR. HILTON-I can point you to Section 179-8-040, it’s multi-family and non-residential landscaping requirements. As these are duplexes, I believe they’d fall under the multi-family part of that definition, or title. The landscape strip along trees, interior parking lot landscaping, exterior parking lot landscaping. Like I said, landscape strip along the streets. It’s all in there. We have suggested, you know, percentages, parking area less than 25,000 square feet, five percent interior landscaping. We have suggested evergreen shrubs and evergreen trees and deciduous trees. It’s all in there and applicable to multi-family projects. MR. SANFORD-I would suggest, then, that we recommend that the applicant come back to us with a landscaping plan for our review. It’s pretty simple. MR. MAC EWAN-How does everybody else feel? MR. HUNSINGER-We’re going to table it anyway. MR. O'CONNOR-Your definition of multi-family dwelling, which I think is the basis for that jurisdiction, states that any building used or designed as a residence for three or more families. I don’t think you have the right to require that. We can, I have to stand on that, I guess. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you made an earlier comment that you had a standard landscaping package. Maybe, you know, if you could just explain to us what that typically is, and, you know. Because I mean, right now there’s nothing on the map. So we’re going on the assumption that there’s nothing going to be there. MR. CIFONE-I’m Matt Cifone. Typically, probably on a unit like that, maybe four to six trees out front, small, arborvitaes, mulch beds, pretty simple plants that they can’t kill, that will live. We try to keep it pretty simple. They had some little shrubbery, but it died. MR. SEGULJIC-That does sound much better. MR. CIFONE-Well, we don’t include landscape maintenance as part of the rental. So we don’t take care of it after they move in. So that’s kind of what happens. It only lasts so long. MR. METIVIER-Who takes care of it? MR. CIFONE-It’s the responsibility of the tenants. MR. SEGULJIC-Could we at least show the arborvitaes on the plans, then, that they will be planted? MR. CIFONE-Yes, does that have to be done at time of submittal for a building permit, or no? 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. O'CONNOR-We could stipulate that. MR. NACE-Yes, we could show that on each plot plan for a building permit. MR. CIFONE-That’s fine. At that time, we know exactly what. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you plan on retaining ownership of these properties, Matt? MR. CIFONE-At this time, right now, yes. MR. METIVIER-Do you look after these units once they’re rented? MR. CIFONE-Yes. MR. METIVIER-I mean, it just sounded like. MR. CIFONE-No, we have a manager up there that takes care of them, and lives right up there. MR. METIVIER-Wouldn’t he, couldn’t you make it part of his duty to, if we, I mean, that just sounded like a, just a statement that you should retract. I mean, really, that, you know, once they’re done, you know, you rent it and you’re hands are tied. MR. CIFONE-Maybe I shouldn’t have stated it that way. We’ve tried to do landscaping. We haven’t been very successful at it. Maybe we should try something different. MR. VOLLARO-Once you make it the responsibility of the tenant, it’s nobody’s responsibility. That’s the problem. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments? MR. SANFORD-Well, Mr. O’Connor is correct, then, that this is not multi-family? MR. SCHACHNER-That appears to be correct. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So this is kind of the same thing as if an individual just built a house. MR. SCHACHNER-That appears to be correct. MR. SANFORD-We could request it. We can’t demand it, I guess. That’s about how I’m reading this. Is that correct? MR. O'CONNOR-We’ve indicated that we’re willing to submit a modest landscaping plan. We are willing to stipulate, based upon your comments, that we’re trying to listen to, I think we’re more problematic with the journey than actually complying with your comment, but we would, at time of building permit, submit a modest landscape plan for each of the units, and Matt described that as. MR. CIFONE-Four to six arborvitaes. MR. SEGULJIC-Per lot, per site? MR. CIFONE-Yes. Three to four feet tall, with mulch beds. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions relative to landscape? Environmental? Neighborhood character? Any other agencies? And according to Staff notes, you’re requesting waivers from stormwater management, grading and lighting. Anybody on the Board have an issue with that? MR. VOLLARO-No, they’re okay for this project. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask you to give up the table for a minute. We’ll open up the public hearing. Anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Discussion? Do we feel comfortable with conditional approval? MR. RINGER-With a C.T. Male signoff? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. What I’m looking at C.T. Male’s got on here, it’s just housekeeping stuff really, primarily. MR. RINGER-I agree. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t see anything that really jumps out at me, that’s a huge hurdle. It’s pretty much relative to crossing the T’s, dotting the I’s, as far as the drawings go. We need to do a SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 15-2004, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: CIFONE CONSTRUCTION, 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 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) 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 20 day of April, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Tom, have you got a resolution? MR. SEGULJIC-I’ve got a resolution. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 15-2004 CIFONE CONSTRUCTION, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 15-2004 Applicant: CIFONE CONSTRUCTION SEQR Type: Unlisted Property Owner: JMC Properties Agent: Van Dusen & Steves Zone: SR-1A Location: Smoke Ridge Road Applicant proposes the construction of five (5) two-family buildings (10 dwelling units). Each unit is 1,736 sq. ft. for a total proposed square footage of 8,680 sq ft. Duplexes/Multifamily dwellings in the SR-1A zone require Site Plan Review and approval from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: AV 74-01, SB 7-85, SB 11-01 Tax Map No. 308.8-1-21.2, 21.3, 21.4. 21.5. 21.6 Lot size: 6.19 acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: April 20, 2004 WHEREAS, the application was received on 2/04; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 4/16/04, and 4/20 Staff Notes 4/13 Notice of Public Hearing 4/2 Meeting Notice w/project identification marker sent 2/23 Applicant from CB: request for additional information 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 April 20, 2004; 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 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and 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 which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. A copy of the required NOI shall be submitted to Planning Staff prior to signature of the final approved plans by the Zoning Administrator. 2. Sign-off of the CT Male letter dated April 16, 2004. 3. Plantings of six (6) three foot tall arborvitaes on each site within mulch beds. Duly adopted this 20th day of April, 2004 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2004 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED DOUGLAS & TERESA MILLER PROPERTY OWNER: GEORGE DRELLOS AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING/JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: RC-15 LOCATION: SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE SUBDIVISION OF A 20.61 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO (2) LOTS OF 19.2 AND 1.2 ACRES IN ASSOCIATION WITH A PROPOSED SPORTS COMPLEX/RECREATION CENTER ON SHERMAN AVENUE. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ, AV, SP TAX MAP NO. 309.5-1-3 LOT SIZE: 21 +/- ACRES SECTION: A183 TOM NACE & JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DOUG MILLER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 6-2004, Preliminary Stage/Final Stage, Douglas & Teresa Miller, Meeting Date: April 20, 2004 “APPLICATION: Subdivision 6-2004 (Preliminary & Final Stage) APPLICANT: Douglas & Teresa Miller are the applicants for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 20.61 +/- acre property into two lots of 19.42 +/- and 1.2 +/- acres. LOCATION: The subject property is located on the south side of Sherman Avenue, just west of Interstate 87. EXISTING ZONING: This property is zoned RC-15, Recreation Commercial 15 000 sq. ft. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This property is located in neighborhood 12. SEQRA STATUS: This action is a SEQRA Unlisted action. The applicant has submitted a long form EAF as part of the subdivision application. PARCEL HISTORY: The Planning Board previously conducted a SEQRA review for a proposed sports facility related to this subdivision, along with a recommendation for zone change to RC- 15 on December 23, 2003. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 20.61 +/- acre property into two lots of 19.42 +/- and 1.2 +/- acres. The proposed lots would share an access drive off of Sherman Avenue. The property is relatively level with some slope to the north and west of the property. The property would be served by municipal water service and would have on-site septic systems. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has requested the following waivers: Stormwater Management Plan - Grading Plan - Sketch Plan - The requests for waivers from providing Stormwater and Grading Plans seem reasonable since the these issues will be addressed as part of SP 17-2004. It should be noted that as proposed on the applicant’s subdivision plat, Lot 2 would require an Area Variance as the vehicular access for Lot 2 would be from another property (Lot 1) and not from a public street directly to the property. As proposed, having one access point to serve this site off of Sherman Avenue is preferable, but as noted would require an Area Variance.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-Well, the first part of this is the subdivision application, which is before you, and it proposes the subdivision of approximately 20.61 acres of land into two lots of 19.42 and 1.2 acres. The proposed lots would share an access drive of Sherman Avenue. The applicant has requested waivers from stormwater management, grading and Sketch Plan. The requested waivers from providing stormwater and grading plans seem to be reasonable, since these issues will be addressed as part of site plan review, specifically Site Plan 17-2004. Just as a note, it should be noted that, as proposed, the Lot Two would require an Area Variance, as the vehicular access would be from another property and not from a public street. Having one access point to serve this property, as proposed is preferable, but just as a note, it would require an Area Variance. At this time, that’s all the comment I have on the subdivision. When we get into the site plan, we have additional comments, but at this time, that’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. C.T. Male did not address the subdivision, per se, itself, but they directed all their comments towards the site plan. Correct? MR. HILTON-Pardon me? MR. MAC EWAN-C.T. Male’s comments were not really relative toward the subdivision portion of the application, but more directed toward the site plan. MR. HILTON-Well, we forwarded both sets of information to them, but the bulk of the stormwater and the engineering materials were with the site plan. I will have to check. I don’t believe we do. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. NACE-No, you don’t. Again, we have sent them a response, but it was mid-afternoon, and they did not have an opportunity to get back to us. I did discuss most of the items with Jim Houston. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. LAPPER-But first we’re on for the subdivision. For the record, I’m Jon Lapper, with Doug Miller and Tom Nace, and Teresa Miller is here as well. The subdivision is to enable this one acre site, or a little over one acre, to be subdivided off so that could be sold to Henry Longevin, another Town resident, who wants to build a training facility for ice hockey for kids, which is about a quarter of the size of an ice hockey rink. It’s not for games. It’s just for training, but he was very involved with the Youth Ice Hockey leagues and feels that there’s a need for the kids that are driving down to Clifton Park and Malta and elsewhere for ice hockey, and that’s always been part of the program here, part of our original application, and this subdivision is just for that, and when he’s ready he’ll come in for a separate site plan application for his building, and we’re not showing any access on that parcel. We envision that it would hook up to the same access road. That was the Staff comment, but I think that that’s an issue that we would deal with. If the Board wants a condition, that would be fine, that we would ask for a variance, so that it would use this one entrance road if that is the Board’s prerogative. That certainly is better planning than having two entrance drives. I would anticipate that would be an issue with the Zoning Board, but we would prefer to address that at the time that the site plan is submitted for the small parcel, but that’s the reason for the subdivision, for a related recreational, commercial recreational use, but that’s separate from what the Millers are doing. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll open it up for questions. Has anybody got any questions regarding design standards? MR. SANFORD-Well, I have one question, perhaps more to Counsel than those categories that you go through, and that is, could certain SEQRA elements be discussed, even though, as part of the rezoning, we went through the SEQRA process? Especially in light of the fact that the plan in front of us has had some modification from the original, notably the subdivision. So could we further address parking issues at this time? MR. SCHACHNER-If the proposal is in conformance with what you have previously reviewed, conducting your SEQRA review, and I take it that when you were SEQRA Lead Agency for the rezoning, this project was discussed. Correct? MR. SANFORD-Correct. MR. SCHACHNER-And to that extent, one could argue that your SEQRA review has already been done. MR. SANFORD-Correct. MR. SCHACHNER-If what you’re saying is that there are certain elements of the current proposal that differ from what you understood at the time of your SEQRA review, then it would be appropriate to consider whether those elements are material and would result in any different, I take it the result of your previous SEQRA review was a negative declaration. MR. SANFORD-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-So it would be appropriate to consider whether any of the changed elements in the proposed project would result in any different answers to your Long Form, I assume it was a Long Form, to your Long Form Part II question. Does that answer make sense, Rich? MR. SANFORD-Yes, I guess, but that’s pretty subjective criteria that you’ve laid out. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. SCHACHNER-That’s true. MR. SANFORD-I mean, one could argue that the subdivision with this hockey training plan which would be a different owner, could have different intensities of use. MR. SCHACHNER-And you’re correct, that it is somewhat subjective. I agree with that, but the long and short of it is, the guidance that SEQRA law gives you is that if there was previously SEQRA review conducted, which there was, then your job, as the Lead Agency is to see whether what’s currently proposed is materially different than what was previously reviewed or not. MR. SANFORD-Okay, because the reason I bring it up is I’ve received some inquiries from people living around that area that are concerned about the traffic concerns, and as I looked back at this project, I have some concerns as well, and I’d like to see if we can move into that area. You’re telling me, perhaps we can. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, actually I’ll take that a step further and say there’s no question you can, because to the extent you’re worried about traffic, traffic is not only a SEQRA concern, it’s also a site plan review concern. So there’s no question you can talk about traffic. No question. MR. SANFORD-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, if I could, I think that Rich might be wrong on the facts. The subdivision was always part of the project, and the traffic report did include the small traffic generated by the hockey training facility. That is not something new to the project. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I think there is something new to the project, concerning SEQRA, there’s something new. When we did our SEQRA review, we did not have a letter from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation dated January 15, 2004. We did our SEQRA review prior to that date, and now we have a letter from the Department of Environmental Conservation which talks, fairly extensively, about the Karner blue butterfly and the Frosted Elfin Recovery along the Niagara Mohawk Power Line, and I’m wondering how, particularly in the area of SEQRA that talks about endangered species. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. So there’s a good example where you now have new information. So you should evaluate the new information and see whether it would effectuate a different answer to the SEQRA Long Form EAF question about preservation of endangered or threatened species. That’s a perfectly appropriate inquiry. It doesn’t mean you have a different answer. You may or may not, but it’s a perfectly appropriate inquiry. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. NACE-Would you like me to address the Karner blue issue? MR. VOLLARO-Please. MR. NACE-Sure. I went out with Kathy O’Brien, two weeks ago I believe it was, and we walked the property together. Her concern had been that the Niagara Mohawk substation property, which I believe is right in here, that they have a population, known population of Karner blue in that area. I mean, as you can see from the plan, or the photograph here, that’s a fairly open area. She was concerned that, looking at our plan, our site plan, that the power line that shows adjacent to our plan might be open enough that it would also have blue lupine and possibly a Karner blue population. We walked it. In fact, we crawled through the brush along that property, or along that power line. There are two power lines here. One is the high tension wire that’s here, and that is kept fairly open, both by motor vehicles and by NiMo, to keep brush out from underneath the high tension wires. The second power line, which is a low tension or low voltage line, is the one adjacent to our property, and NiMo, because of the type of line it is, NiMo allows the brush under that line to grow up to a certain height, and that line, we walked the whole thing, and she came away saying there’s really not any chance of any blue 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) lupine in this area. She was concerned that there’s a trail down here, right at the very edge, that we might find a few plants, and she still wanted Deb Roberts to go survey it and make sure that we didn’t have any plants right down here in this corner, but she didn’t think, from what she saw, that there would be any there either. Okay. So as soon as we have Deb Roberts, I think it’s going to be about two more weeks before the plants are at a stage where they can be identified, as soon as that occurs, we’ll have her survey that area that Kathy had some remaining concern about, and at that point I think we should be able to receive a write off from DEC. MR. HUNSINGER-So was she going to generate a new letter? MR. NACE-Once we provide her with Deb Roberts’ survey, to determine whether that one area contains any plants at all, then she will give us a letter, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-I think when you looked at this, that the Karner blue issue, blue lupine issue was discussed, and it was acknowledged that this is a completely wooded site, without any open areas that would be suitable. MR. VOLLARO-I agree, Counselor, but we’re now in possession of a piece of information that we didn’t have at that time. We just didn’t have it. MR. LAPPER-That’s just a typical Kathy O’Brien letter, saying that, even though you have trees over the whole site, maybe you might want to create a habitat. There’s nothing on the site, but. MR. VOLLARO-I have some sympathy for that comment. MR. LAPPER-And I think that you were particularly sympathetic to that at the time that we did the SEQRA review, as I recall. MR. MAC EWAN-So where does it stand now with Deb Roberts going back out there and taking a look? I mean, Kathy couldn’t draw that conclusion herself? MR. NACE-Well, the plants aren’t to the visible stage yet. Okay. In other two, three weeks they will be at the visible stage. Then we have to have Deb certify, look at it, and write a letter to Kathy saying I found no plants, and then we should be able to get something back from DEC, but the possibilities of finding plants, you know, we’re not even talking any Karner blue population. I mean, we’re just talking plants. MR. MAC EWAN-Jumping ahead of the game here a little bit. If we were to table, obviously, the site plan portion of it, to next month, would that give enough time for her to do what she’s got to do and get a letter in your possession that says she signs off on it? MR. NACE-Well, would it be possible to go through the rest of the review, find out if there are any? MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely. I’m just trying to get ahead of the game here, because I wouldn’t see us giving any kind of a conditional approval. MR. NACE-By next month we should certainly have Deb’s survey and be able to have something from Kathy. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. Any questions regarding design standards? MR. VOLLARO-Just one, and I was. MR. MAC EWAN-Dealing with subdivision now. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. VOLLARO-We’re on the subdivision, and we’re against our Code 183. Is that correct? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. Right. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. 183-23B talks about radiuses on curb cuts. I notice the drawing for the subdivision doesn’t have a radius there. They recommend, I think, a 40 foot radii when you’re approaching a collector street. MR. NACE-I think that’s for a public street, not necessarily for a driveway, entrance driveway, and I’m not even, is it 40 feet now? MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s what it says in 183-23B. MR. NACE-I’ll review that and we’ll certainly comply with whatever is required. Typically DOT requires a 32 foot radius. MR. VOLLARO-There should be, some radii should be shown on the drawing, however. There isn’t any. MR. NACE-I will review that. MR. MAC EWAN-Where are you talking, at the entrance? MR. VOLLARO-At the entrance. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions relative to design standards? Development criteria? Utilities, street design, layout? Traffic, pedestrian access, circulation? Sight distances? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. There’s two sight distances, Mr. Chairman, called out on the drawing, on the subdivision drawing, and I’m just wondering, having been up to the site itself, are any trees going to be removed in order to ensure that site? Right now the trees are pretty much up to Sherman. Pretty close, or do you think that they’re going to get out far enough so that we’ll be able to implement the sight distances on the drawing? MR. NACE-Sight distances measure a stipulated distance back from the white line. MR. VOLLARO-You have, your sight direction distances here are listed on the drawing. MR. NACE-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Six hundred and twenty-eight feet, and one thousand two. MR. NACE-Okay. They were measured from that stipulated point. MR. VOLLARO-I see. Okay. MR. NACE-I don’t anticipate having to remove any trees, no. MR. VOLLARO-All right. That was just a question. I didn’t know, because the drawing, you know, it’s just got some, I don’t know how accurate that they draw those things. MR. NACE-That’s typically something, when we construct the driveway, we’ll see if there’s any, you know, take a look, typically Rick Missita looks at that, too, and if there’s any brush that needs to be removed, it will be. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking at Mr. Missita’s comments on his April 1 letter, where he has two requests, and I guess the second request is invalid, that all trees planted near the entrance set back far enough for sight distance. There probably doesn’t have to be any trees near the entrance, the way we are now. MR. NACE-No. MR. VOLLARO-But then the water line going to the complex will be bored under Sherman Avenue. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re jumping ahead of the game, Robert. We’re dealing with subdivision. MR. NACE-Is this a letter we could get a copy of, by any chance? MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, this letter is directed at subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-I know. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know whether Mr. Missita understands. MR. MAC EWAN-But that’s site plan criteria stuff. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Any other questions on development criteria? Stormwater, sewage design? Buffering? Clearing plans? Neighborhood character? Neighborhood impacts? MR. SANFORD-Just a quick question on subdivision, Craig. I don’t know where it would fall in. Maybe it’s just I need to get clarification on this, but this is RC-15. So this subdivision that they’re talking about, of 1.2 acres, I mean, obviously it’s far smaller than the 15. MR. LAPPER-No, it’s 15,000 square feet. Roughly a third of an acre. MR. SANFORD-Okay. That explains it. MR. LAPPER-I also have a copy of our traffic report which was dated November 25, which th this Board required. Before you could do a SEQRA determination, you wanted a traffic engineer to do a report, and it does show that the skating, training facility was included in the traffic analysis at that time, in November, well before the SEQRA determination, that the traffic numbers that you reviewed did include both sites, just so that you’re comfortable with that. MR. SANFORD-Okay. That’s it. I’m sorry, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s okay. Any other questions, things I may have missed? No? Anything you gentlemen wanted to add? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’ll ask you to give up the table for a minute. We’ll open up the public hearing relative to the subdivision. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TIM RILEY 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. RILEY-Hi. For the record, I’m Tim Riley. I live in the Hidden Hills subdivision. I just have a couple of quick questions which, perhaps, were addressed at previous meetings, which I wasn’t able to attend. Are we saying that, along Sherman many of those trees, or the bulk of those trees will remain in that buffer zone, and that won’t all just be taken down? MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll cover that under site plan. There’s two separate, it’s confusing, but there’s two separate applications here in front of us tonight. The one we’re dealing with right now is dealing with the subdivision of the land only, and the site plan will get into all that criteria about buffering and landscaping and so on and so forth. MR. RILEY-Okay. Fine. Thank you. MR. NACE-The short answer is that they’ll stay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Any comments from Staff? Any additional comments or questions from Board members? MR. RINGER-If they don’t get a variance from ZBA, what are they stuck with, a lot that they’re going to have to put a driveway in that’s right next to the other driveway? I just don’t understand. We’re going to split this up, and I’m not certainly against splitting it up, but I’m concerned if the ZBA doesn’t give them a variance to have a driveway off of, from another lot. MR. HILTON-Then they could just come off their lot onto Sherman Avenue. I mean, they have physical access. MR. RINGER-Which would have two driveways right next to each other. That would be a concern of mine, then. MR. VOLLARO-They’d be very close. MR. LAPPER-We will make it a condition that we will apply for that variance, at the time that we come before this Board for site plan review of that lot. MR. MAC EWAN-Whoever introduces the resolution, regarding the subdivision, I would put a note in there, or a comment in there, the Board’s opposition to having a separate access off Sherman Avenue for this parcel. MR. LAPPER-As are we, and I don’t think there’s going to be any issue with the Zoning Board. There’s no reason not to grant that. MR. RINGER-I feel the same as you do, Jon. I just wanted to try to cross some T’s and dot are I’s on that. If they said no, then are we hung out there. MR. HUNSINGER-We can’t really make our subdivision contingent upon that. MR. RINGER-I don’t think so, either. I’m looking. I don’t know how we can do it. MR. MAC EWAN-Just put a comment in there. MR. RINGER-Right. That might work, and ZBA would look at our comment and perhaps go along. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. I think that’s your best bet. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. RINGER-Yes. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to move it? MR. RINGER-I would make a motion, then, to approve Preliminary Subdivision No. 6-2004 for Douglas and Teresa Miller, with the stipulation. MR. MAC EWAN-If you’re going to do the thing for the ZBA, do it at Final. MR. RINGER-All right. Then as resolution prepared by Staff. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll second. MR. SCHACHNER-Excuse me for interrupting. Before we do that, I just want to see what the Staff resolution says about SEQRA review. MR. RINGER-We don’t have to do the SEQRA on that. MR. MAC EWAN-No, we don’t. We already did it. MR. HUNSINGER-It just says that they have been considered and we reaffirm our findings. It’s on Page Two. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. So I guess what we need to make sure of is that the Board’s comfortable that none of the new information changes any of your previous answers on your Long Form EAF. I’m not suggesting they should. MR. SANFORD-Well, we don’t know for sure on the butterfly issue. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, but I think that’s going to be more relative to the site plan itself than to the subdivision. We’re going to have a similar resolution for site plan as well, and if we get to that point where it says we’re going to either reaffirm our original SEQRA findings or ask for additional information, we’ll cover it at that point, I would think. Right? MR. SCHACHNER-I’m not following, because it seems to me, unless, again, I’m mistaken, I think you’ve done SEQRA review. MR. MAC EWAN-We did it. MR. SCHACHNER-For the entire project, and I think that the game plan that we’re working on, I haven’t heard the applicant say otherwise, I don’t think the applicant wants you to do new and more SEQRA review, and although the items are listed separately as Unlisted Actions in the agendas, I think you were not proposing to do any new SEQRA review now, and I’m not suggesting you should. What I’m saying is, you’ve previously done a SEQRA review that ended with a negative declaration, and as I understand it, that review included the entire project, as was then proposed and as now proposed, and for what it’s worth, I haven’t heard anything materially different about what’s now proposed, and I think the applicant’s Counsel has pointed out that the scope of the proposed project has not changed from what from what was previously reviewed, but, if you have new information on a particular SEQRA issue, which I gather you do in the form of the letter from DEC, whether you consider that materially new information or not is something I think you need to face before you make any further decisions about any aspect of this project, since it’s all one action and all subject to one SEQRA review. That was very wordy, but did it make sense? MR. RINGER-So the way I take it is you’re saying that the subdivision and the site plan should be taken together for the SEQRA review in this. MR. SCHACHNER-No question about it. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. RINGER-And if we may, so there may be some changes in the SEQRA because of the Karner blue. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. I’m not saying there are, but if those, that’s your decision to make, as the Lead Agency, but what I’m saying is the first thing that you said, that the subdivision and site plan are all part of one SEQRA action, as was the rezoning, and that’s how you’ve dealt with them from Day One. I think the applicant’s been on board with that, and I don’t think there’s any disagreement that it’s all one action, subject to one SEQRA review. So what I’m saying is, to the extent, if any, that there’s new information, and I’m not saying there is. I’m not saying you should change your mind or anything else, but I heard at least one Board member raise the issue of whether there’s new information on a particular SEQRA issue, and if there is, and you feel that you either need to answer one of the Long Form EAF questions differently now, based on that new information, or don’t know whether you might need to answer one of the Long Form EAF questions now based on new information, I’m not sure you can go much further until you have the information. It sounds like the information is soon to arrive, if I’m not mistaken. MR. RINGER-On the subdivision or on the site plan? MR. SCHACHNER-It’s all one action. MR. RINGER-Okay. All right. I agree with you. MR. LAPPER-Would it possible to just make a contingency of a signoff letter from DEC, since Tom’s walked the site, and there hasn’t been any indication of any blue lupine? MR. MAC EWAN-I suppose that’s a possibility. I’m still kind of confused, procedurally, what we’re going to do here. Are you suggesting we’re going to do another EAF? MR. SCHACHNER-Not at all. I’m saying that, and this question came up because at least one member asked about new issues relative to SEQRA. No, I’m not at all saying do a new EAF. In fact, I was saying that, although the agenda might have lead one to conclude that was happening, that was not appropriate. The applicant wasn’t suggesting that. They also confused us a little bit because they submitted another EAF, but that’s neither here nor there. I’m not suggesting you do a new EAF. What I’m saying is that, in light of at least one Board member’s question, there’s new information on at least one SEQRA issue, as I understand it. The new information, correct me if I’m wrong, is a letter from DEC. Part of your responsibility under SEQRA review, as Lead Agency, is, is there any new information, now that wasn’t before you when you conducted your SEQRA review, that changes any of your answers to the questions in the Long Form EAF Part II, and the answer I’m hearing is maybe. MR. SANFORD-And therefore I think what he’s saying it won’t take that long. Perhaps it should be tabled, until we get resolution on it. MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t think you can go further because you don’t know for sure if you’re going to abide by your prior SEQRA determination. I don’t get the sense that you’re not going to, but the point is, you don’t have the answer. MR. HUNSINGER-Let me ask the question. Maybe that would help people. I think the question is related to the Karner blue butterfly. MR. VOLLARO-And Frosted Elfin, both, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Issue, and the SEQRA question is will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species, yes or no. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. VOLLARO-And the answer is we don’t know, until we get a definition on that, from DEC. MR. MAC EWAN-See, I guess I’m looking at it from a different angle, because in my mind, the subdivision approval isn’t relative to any potential impacts on habitat for Karner blue. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, but you’re compartmentalizing things because that’s how you review them as a Planning Board, but remember, not under SEQRA. Under SEQRA it’s all one action. MR. MAC EWAN-I agree with you on that. However, when we do the site plan, we’ve got a resolution prepared for that one which has that very same comment on there, on Page Two of it, reaffirming our original findings, and at that point, I would suggest that’s when we would comment, we need this signoff letter from DEC relative to the Karner blue because that’s what most impacts this portion of the application because it’s relative to the site plan. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. We can disagree, if you want, on this, but what I’m telling you, and I’m not trying to put a monkey wrench into anything, but what I’m telling you as your Counsel is that, since apparently time has passed, and the mere of time alone does not call into question any of the previous determinations, but at least one Board member mentioned the possibility that you have new, and/or different information about one of your SEQRA issues. That being the case, I think legally it’s pretty clear. You can’t go further until you resolve whether that new information does or does not change your answer to the Long Form EAF Part II question that’s relevant to that issue. MR. LAPPER-But there hasn’t been any new information that says that there is any significant. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, that’s my feeling. MR. SANFORD-There may be, Jon. It maybe not even, it might not even be probable, but there may be. MR. LAPPER-I’m only suggesting that we could possibly deal with that as a contingency, as a condition, like another agency approval, that we have to have the ultimate letter from DEC confirming that there’s no habitat. MR. MAC EWAN-But what Counsel is telling us is that, in this particular case, it’s not like getting a C.T. Male signoff or Highway Department okay or the Town Water Department’s okay. This is an issue that’s evolving around our SEQRA determination that was already made. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct, and I’m not saying that that letter, in my opinion, necessarily rises to the level of, remember when Rich first asked the question, I said the thing you have to evaluate is whether the new information is quote unquote or potentially materially new information, and he said it quite correctly, that’s very subjective, and he’s absolutely right. If you, as a Board, don’t feel that the new information is potentially material new information, you don’t have to go there, but if you feel it’s potentially material new information, then I think right now you’re paralyzed by the SEQRA law. MR. SANFORD-You know what I think, though, I mean, at the end of the day, it may prove to be a non-issue, but we’ve held a lot of applicants to a pretty strict standard in the past, and, to be consistent with how we’ve worked in the past, I think it would be perhaps inappropriate to move forward and not wait until we get clarification on the butterfly issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Tom, could I ask you a question? Why did Deb want to come back and look at the site? 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. NACE-It’s not that Deb wanted to. It’s Kathy’d looked at it. As we came out of the very corner of the site, you can see I think right here on the photograph. You see this trail that runs through here? As we were coming out the very tail end of the trail there, the tree canopy opened up just a little bit, and she said, well, if you’re going to find anything on this site, it’s probably going to be along here, but I don’t think so, but I want you to have your biologist, you know, survey it once the plants are visible and identifiable, and the surveyor write a letter to me saying whether or not she found anything. Deb hasn’t been on the site yet, just my walk with Kathy, and this area right here in the corner was the only place she though there was any remote possibility. MR. HUNSINGER-Let me ask the next question. You’re going to have to come back to us for further site plan review. Assuming we can get through the subdivision review, is it your intention to have to come back to present that information to us, for site plan review? MR. LAPPER-Our hope would be that we could just submit a letter to Staff that’s a signoff from DEC, in three weeks when it’s all set. MR. HUNSINGER-What would happen if she, indeed, finds habitat, though? MR. LAPPER-We would have to avoid that area of the site. We’d have to change the site plan. So we didn’t disturb it. MR. MAC EWAN-But the issue here, what Counsel is saying is that it’s relative to the subdivision portion of this project as well. MR. HUNSINGER-I understand that, but where I was going with this was I was going to say it’s my own personal feeling that somebody saying there might be an impact here, to me, is not material enough to change our SEQRA findings. That’s just my own opinion. I’m certainly not representing the whole Board here. So it would be my inclination to go ahead and say that the SEQRA findings are still valid and affirmed, but, if after she does the investigation, and finds habitat, then that would be, to me, materially different. MR. SANFORD-Well, then that’s the perfect reason not to reaffirm a negative dec. MR. SCHACHNER-I have to agree with Mr. Sanford. I don’t mean to interrupt, but, Chris, you asked exactly the right question, and I think the applicant gave you a very genuine, very sincere, and very appropriate response, and the applicant’s response was, and I don’t think anyone is expecting this to happen, by the way, at least that’s my impression, but the applicant gave you a genuine, sincere, and appropriate response, and that response, correct me if I’m wrong, applicant, was if habitat was discovered there, they’d have to change their site plan. So, Rich, I didn’t mean to steal your thunder here, but to my way of thinking, as Counsel, that sincere, genuine, appropriate response bolsters my view, as your Counsel that, in fact, the time of year being what it is, and the issue being what it is, that you have a small, you know, T that still has to be crossed or I dotted on this very issue, where you don’t really know whether you would have to answer the question on the Long Form EAF differently than you answered it when you did your first SEQRA review I think that’s where you were heading, Rich, and I have to agree. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, what was your conclusion? That we would have answered the question differently? MR. SCHACHNER-You tell him. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think any of the information presented, at least in my mind presented tonight, or in that letter, would make me change my answer to that question. Again, that’s just my own personal feeling. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. MAC EWAN-See, what frustrates me here is that, I guess it’s just procedure, the way things seem to be going down here. I mean, DEC was aware of what the issues were with this site. They’ve had an opportunity to go out and see this site. They’ve had an opportunity to walk the site. She’s qualified to know if she sees Karner blue, Frosted Elfin, or lupine, and then she, quite frankly, she’s passing the buck. She’s telling someone else they need to go out and look at it, but she doesn’t want to take the responsibility for it. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, but in fairness, I don’t think you’re listening to Larry’s comment. She’s not qualified, no one’s qualified to do this on January 15. th MR. MILLER-Larry, that wasn’t January 15. They walked it two weeks ago. th MR. MAC EWAN-Two weeks ago she walked the property. MR. RINGER-Yes, but the plant doesn’t come out until May, as I recall this issue. MR. SCHACHNER-There’s plenty to be frustrated about in the whole Karner blue habitat exercise, but a lot of it is just Mother Nature and the cycles. Seriously, I’m being serious. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. So your recommendation is we table this subdivision, providing we get the necessary signoffs or disclosures from DEC, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife, relative to any potential habitat or species on the site? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, because I think you’ll probably need to do that to make sure you’re comfortable with your prior SEQRA determination. As a practical matter, if the applicant said something about this happening in three weeks, then what’s going to happen is, it sounds to me like you could put them on for your first meeting next month, and they’d be not very far from where they are now. I understand your frustration, but I think that’s the appropriate action. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s our, I mean, we’ve got two regular meetings scheduled next month, which already appear to be overbooked, already. So let’s think about adding a third meeting date. MR. HILTON-Right off the top of my head, you know, The Great Escape project comes to my mind. I’m not sure if that’s already a third meeting right there. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know, necessarily, that we’re going to see The Great Escape again until they get their variances from the ZBA. MR. HILTON-Well, a lot of this is, I guess, contingent upon if they get the field survey done and the information from the, or the comment letter from DEC, and when they get that to us. MR. MAC EWAN-And the other question is, now, DEC going to want to wait until the brooding season? MR. NACE-No plants, if there’s no habitat, then what’s the justification in looking for brood? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know. MR. SCHACHNER-But I think, all kidding aside, I think Mr. Nace is correct. I don’t think DEC has ever taken the position of, no, there’s no habitat, but we still have to wait for brooding season. There’s nothing to brood. I think he’s right. MR. MAC EWAN-How quickly, from your end of things, do you think you can get this resolved with her? MR. NACE-Getting a letter out of Kathy? 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Kathy, from what you’re telling us, Kathy’s throwing it in to Deb Roberts, right? And from what you’re saying is that DEC is looking for Deb Roberts to make the determination whether there’s plant species there. Correct? MR. NACE-That is correct. MR. MAC EWAN-So getting a letter from Deb Roberts, I would think, would be a lot easier than getting a letter from DEC. MR. NACE-Absolutely. MR. LAPPER-And we could have that. MR. MAC EWAN-In a couple of weeks? MR. NACE-You would feel comfortable with that letter from Deb, regardless of whether we get a response back? MR. MAC EWAN-If that’s what Kathy O’Brien’s telling you. If Kathy O’Brien’s telling you that she wants Deb Roberts to go out there and survey that site, to be assured whether there is or isn’t lupine there, or species there, correct? MR. NACE-Absolutely. MR. MAC EWAN-I have all the confidence in Deb Roberts’ ability, that she’s going to give us a letter or you a letter that says, yes, there is species, no there isn’t. California Condor is there, I don’t know. MR. LAPPER-Doug just suggested that, in the interest of your schedule and not making it busier, that you could still consider making it contingent upon getting a letter from Deb and getting us out of here tonight. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s nice, but that’s not what we can do. Nice try, though. MR. LAPPER-Had to ask. MR. MAC EWAN-Give you an A for effort. All right. Would someone make a motion to table this subdivision application, please. The question is, I want to table to a date. I’m going to re- open the public hearing on this and I’m going to leave it open. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-George, how about we do this. We say that we’ll table it to our third meeting of May, date to be determined. Can we do that? MR. HILTON-Well, I’m not so sure, at this point, you know, if your comment stands about The Great Escape, if we would even have three. MR. MAC EWAN-Then let’s table it to our second meeting, regular meeting of the month, which is the 25. th MR. HILTON-If we do need a third, we can re-advertise and re-notify and all that. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s just do it when we do our agenda review for May, and see how things are stacking up, if we have to put a third meeting on for new applications that come in, that’s what we’ll do. Let’s table this until the 25. All right. th MR. VOLLARO-If Wal-Mart gets their variance on the 28. th 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll cross that bridge when we get to it. MR. VOLLARO-Look at that as well, put that in the hopper. MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to move this, please? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE, FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2004 DOUGLAS & TERESA MILLER, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: Pending a letter from Miss Deb Roberts concerning a reply to the January 15, 2004 letter from Kathy O’Brien at DEC confirming that there are no lupine plants in the southern end of the property. In addition to the subsequent site visit of two weeks ago by DEC’s Kathy O’Brien and the applicant’s representative, Tom Nace. Duly adopted this 20th day of April, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. VOLLARO-Now, do you want to put the site plan in the same position? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I think we can at least talk about it. If there are questions that need to be answered, and give them an opportunity to refine some engineering that may need to be done, and so on and so forth. So, the next item on the agenda is Site Plan No. 17-2004. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN REVIEW SITE PLAN NO. 17-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED DOUGLAS & TERESA MILLER PROPERTY OWNER: GEORGE & DAWN DRELLOS AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING/JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: RC-15 LOCATION: SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 169,175 SQ. FT. INDOOR SPORTS COMPLEX WITH ASSOCIATED OUTDOOR BALL FIELDS, SITE LIGHTING AND VEHICULAR PARKING. RECREATION CENTER USES IN THE RC-15 ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ, AV, SUB WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/14/04 TAX MAP NO. 309.5-1-3 LOT SIZE: 21 +/- ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 JON LAPPER, TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DOUG MILLER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 17-2004, Site Plan No. 17-2004, Douglas & Teresa Miller, Meeting Date: April 20, 2004 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 17-2004 APPLICANT: Doug and Teresa Miller are the applicants for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to construct a 169 975 sq. ft. indoor sports complex and outdoor ball fields along with associated parking and landscaping. LOCATION: The subject property is located on Sherman Avenue, just west of Interstate 87. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned RC-15, Recreation Commercial 15 000 sq. ft. SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Unlisted action. The Planning Board previously conducted a SEQRA review and issued a SEQRA negative declaration for a zone change related to this project on December 23, 2003. PARCEL HISTORY: The Planning Board previously conducted a SEQRA review for a proposed sports facility related to this subdivision, along with a recommendation for zone change to RC- 15 on December 23, 2003. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to construct 169 975 sq. ft. indoor sports complex and outdoor ball fields on a 19.42-acre property on Sherman Avenue. The site plan also shows associated parking, lighting and landscaping. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has submitted a stormwater management report, which has been submitted to CT Male for their review and comment. As the project includes the disturbance of greater than one acre, a stormwater pollution prevention plan and Notice of Intent (NOI) are required to be filed. Staff suggests a stipulation that prior to the issuance of a building permit related to this site plan, that a copy of the required NOI be submitted to Planning Staff. The site plan shows two types of light fixtures to be used at this location. The floodlights that are shown on the plan do not appear to be cut off fixtures and are not downcast (directing light directly to the ground) as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Are the floodlights designed to provide lighting to rear entries of the building or are they designed to illuminate the building? If the intent is to provide lights for entries, perhaps area lights or full cut off wall-mounted lights could be substituted at the rear of the building. The lighting plan shows proposed foot-candle values as contour lines on the site plan. It is difficult to determine foot-candle averages for individual areas of the site (parking areas, building entrances, building exteriors, etc.) as listed in §179-6-020 C. In reviewing the lighting plan, higher foot-candle readings would be expected to be found on the interior of the 2 foot- candle contour. As a result, the lighting plan submitted shows the occurrence of three different foot candle values across the site, but does not provide complete foot candle readings or averages for different areas of the site as noted above. Are any lights proposed to light the outdoor ball fields? Any lights to be used for the ball fields should be reflected on the lighting plan. The applicant should clarify whether or not the outdoor ball fields will be part of the current phase of development or a future phase. If the plan is to utilize these fields in the future, perhaps this area could be left forested and any clearing and site plan review for these outdoor fields could occur at a later date. Consideration should be given to retaining more of the existing vegetation along the proposed access drive as part of the proposed landscaping plan. Based on the size of the proposed building, 10% of the interior parking area is required to be landscaped per § 179-8-040 D. Providing landscaped islands on the ends of the double row of parking in front of the Indoor Tennis Facility and in front of the Indoor Sports Facility would, similar to the double row of parking adjacent to the access drive, would likely result in the required 10% landscaping. ** See Figure 23 in § 179-8-040 D of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. What is the rationale for the amount of parking proposed (181 spaces)? Given that previous traffic figures provided by the applicant for the rezoning of this property indicated a carpooling rate of 25%, are 181 spaces needed? As the proposed use does not have a parking requirement listed in the Zoning Ordinance, the amount of parking is to be determined by the Planning 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) Board. Should the Planning Board feel that less parking is acceptable at this location, consideration should be given to retaining more of the existing site vegetation in lieu of these parking spaces.” MR. HILTON-Really quickly, I’ll go over a couple of comments that I made here. As far as the stormwater management report, that has been submitted to C.T. Male, and C.T. Male has provided some comments. Again, this project requires a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and NOI, and our suggestion is that, prior to the issuance of a building permit, or, for that matter, filing the final plans with the Zoning Administrator, that a copy of the NOI be submitted. As far as the lighting goes, the two types of light fixtures that appear, one appears to be cut off, the other are floodlights which do not appear to be cut off or downcast. I guess the question is, are they designed to light the entire building or just rear entries behind the dome. If the intent is to provide just lights for the entries, perhaps just area lights or a wall cut off could be used that is conforming to Town Code. In reviewing the lighting plan, it shows proposed foot candle values as contour lines, and just as a general note, it’s difficult to determine foot candle averages for the areas of the site, such as the parking area or building entrances or building exteriors, as we’ve done with other commercial site plans. In reviewing the plan, you see that two foot candle contour that you would assume, and I think rightfully so, that there are higher values on the inside of that two foot candle contour, but what are they. I guess it’s hard for me, as Staff, to determine what impact or what foot candle values you’re going to, you know, really find as part of the lights that are proposed, and again, the break down, as far as the averages, based on different sections of the site, parking areas, building entrances, don’t appear to be shown. It’s hard to compare that to what’s required per Town Code. Also, are there any lights associated with the outdoor fields, and as far as the outdoor fields, are they part of this current phase or a future phase, and I seem to recall some discussion, at the time of the rezoning that perhaps that might be part of the second phase, and if that’s the case, perhaps this area could be left forested and any clearing occur at a later date, and as far as landscaping, a couple of comments. Consideration should be given to retaining some more of the existing vegetation along the proposed access drive, and also based on the size of the building, 10% of the interior parking lot is required to be landscaped. I’ve sited a section of the Code that shows kind of a diagram of what we’re looking for, what the Town Code’s looking for, and if they were to landscape off the rows of the parking, it appears it would come close to the required 10%. As far as the parking, they’re proposing 181 spaces, and I’m just raising a question. Given that the previous traffic figures appear to indicate a carpooling rate of 25%, is this number 181 spaces, is that large amount needed? I don’t know if it is or isn’t, but I’m just raising the question, and if, in fact, those number of spaces are not required, perhaps some of the existing vegetation on this site could be retained, in lieu of some of these parking spaces. Again, those are some of the issues I’ve raised. C.T. Male has some comments out there, and that’s all I have at this time. MR. NACE-Okay. We have addressed C.T. Male’s comments, sent them a fax this afternoon, but as I said previously, it was late in the afternoon, and have not had a response back from them yet. Let me go through Staff comments and some of the C.T. Male comments on the plans for you. One of Staff’s comments was the landscaping in the parking lots. This is the old plan. What we’ve done, in the revised plan, we’ve taken this island here, and this island here. This one we’ve left the same size as it is, but curbed it and landscaped it. This one we’ve increased the size of the island and landscaped it. We’ve also, as far as parking, we’re taking our best shot in the dark as to how many parking spaces we need. We think we’ve done a pretty good educated guess, but what we thought we would do is to eliminate this row of parking out here as paved parking. It’s an easy area that if we need overflow parking, we can park out here on the grass. So we’ve eliminated the 17 parking spaces here, and made the edge of pavement back behind that. So if we do need it, people can simply pull off the pavement onto the grass and use that whole parking. Lighting. The lighting we’ve proposed around the, the floodlighting we’ve proposed around the side and back of the facility is simply security floodlighting. There are doors along the back here that are simply emergency exit doors. This floodlighting is downcast, and it’s aimed in at the pavement surface. We’ve used floods to try to minimize the number of lights we need, and spread the light laterally as far as we can. So that’s the reason for that. We have shown it as contour type lighting, or lighting diagram. There will be, obviously as in any light distribution, underneath the light itself will be a higher 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) level of lighting than the two foot, or two foot candle contour, but, I mean, what we’re using here are very typical fixtures. They’re fairly low. They are cut offs, and I think this is back in here far enough it’s certainly not going to create any glare or objectionable light spilling over onto any other properties, but at the same time will provide adequate light to light the facility. We have not, we’ve shown some small pedestrian type single lights at the entrance, and there will be some canopy lighting underneath the entrance detail, that the architect will provide. We haven’t shown that, but we’ll modify the site plan to include that lighting. Existing vegetation along the entrance road, as you see, we’ve proposed street trees along the entrance road. We think that’s a lot more appropriate. The existing trees in there, most of it is pine, white pine, with a very high canopy, and open underneath. If we were to try to leave some of that vegetation, first of all, it’s vegetation that’s grown up in a forest, and once you remove the trees around it, it’s not going to withstand the weather very well, or the winds. I think we’re a lot better with the street trees that we’ve proposed, along that entrance drive. We’ve also, as you’ll note, because of the fact that the existing trees are high canopy, we’ve proposed in-filling with lower material along the back of that buffer to provide some better buffering from the other side of the street. I think, outdoor field lighting, Doug, that’s still no, right? Okay. So there will be no lighting of the outdoor sports fields. C.T. Male had comments on grading and drainage. A lot of them dealing with the new DEC stormwater reg’s, and we have complied with all of their comments and suggestions. The only thing of significance on the septic is they were right. Because of the grades involved and the distances, we will require an effluent pipe out to the leach field, simply because it’s a long distance and our pipe’s going to be too deep otherwise, and unless there are some other specific questions there that you want me to address, I’ll leave it at that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Questions relative to design standards? Site development? MR. VOLLARO-Site development design, are you into that? MR. MAC EWAN-Site development criteria, yes. Site conditions, vehicle access, traffic patterns. MR. VOLLARO-I was wondering about a provision for emergency access along the southern property line, for emergency vehicles. MR. LAPPER-We are landlocked, we don’t have the ability to do that. MR. VOLLARO-Is there any way you can get anything along the southern end? MR. LAPPER-The adjacent property is Arrowhead Equipment, and we don’t have any rights to that. MR. VOLLARO-It just seems to me that the entrance way, if there’s any blockage, we might have a little difficulty, particularly this is a sports arena, getting emergency vehicles in there without them being blocked by either people coming in or whatever. Just, it’s something in noted when I looked at the site plan. My other comment doesn’t apply. Trees don’t have to be removed along Sherman. So, that’s all I have on that one. If they don’t have access, they don’t have access. MR. SANFORD-I have a comment, but it’s just, when we did the rezoning, they did a traffic study, and I didn’t keep my material. Is it possible for me to get a copy of that if I stop by, George? Okay. This’ll be tabled as well as the first one, so we can revisit traffic a little bit next time we meet, I guess. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, we’ll go back to your comment regarding emergency access to the southern portion. What’s your concern, getting around the building? MR. VOLLARO-Well, my concern is the one entrance that we have. We only have one entrance to this facility. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Is there a possibility of, you know, just a thought, is a short boulevard? Have you got room for a short boulevard in there so you have a way of getting around it if you have blockage? MR. NACE-We’ve been around and around this issue on different things. If there’s an emergency, emergency vehicles, if they have to push a car out of the way, they’re going to get through. One way or another. MR. MAC EWAN-We have a fireman here. What’s your policy? MR. RINGER-We would push the vehicle out of the way. It would not be a problem. MR. NACE-If they have to go on the grass, they’ll go on the grass. I mean, it’s typically on. MR. METIVIER-Are there even any trees now that would be an issue? MR. NACE-There will be street trees, but only intermittent, not a hedgerow, no. MR. METIVIER-Are we thinking about big pines that aren’t going to be there? MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I like his answer. It’s fine by me. MR. METIVIER-Put that on the record. MR. MAC EWAN-I just did. I like Larry’s answer. All right. Anything else under design, development criteria? MR. HUNSINGER-I wanted to talk about the parking. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, parking field design. MR. HUNSINGER-The traffic study talked about a maximum of 147 trips. The Staff comments said that there were 181 spaces, but there was a question mark. Now you said there would be 17 that would be for overflow only. So what’s the total number of parking spots being proposed? MR. NACE-Actually, the total paved parking proposed will be the 181 minus 19. So that’s, because I’m losing two with that one island, and we’ll lose 17 on that outer rim. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So 163. MR. NACE-Right, or 162. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I think that’s pretty close to the 147, because the 147 didn’t take into account staff. MR. NACE-Yes, it’s really hard to tell. You’re guessing at the number of drop offs. You’re guessing at the number of carpooling. I say guessing. You’re estimating the best you can. MR. HUNSINGER-I think, I mean, we had talked about this before. I think the concern is similar to the Glens Falls fields just down the road, where you see cars just sort of all over the place, on a busy, you know, Saturday in particular. MR. NACE-In that instance, there’s really no place for, everything’s curbed, and there’s really no place for overflow parking on the grass. I mean, here, if we have to, we’ll park them out on the middle of the Lacrosse field if we have to. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. RINGER-You said, Tom, that none of the fields were going to be lit. So you’re not talking night softball or baseball or playing basketball. Originally, when you came through, Doug, you had mentioned that you had planned on having the facilities lit up for softball at night, and basketball. MR. MILLER-We tossed that around a little bit, as to whether that’s going to slow the process down. If it slows it down more than the Karner blue issue, then. MR. RINGER-I’d prefer not to have it lit. That’s what I was getting at. I mean, you had said before that you had planned on it. MR. MILLER-No, we had not planned on it. We had talked informally about it, and we said, no, we were going to leave it out. If we ever decide to add outdoor lights, we’d have to come back before this Board. MR. RINGER-I don’t think you would unless we made it a condition. So I’m thinking I’m going to make it a condition of any approval. MR. MILLER-That’s fine. I have no problem with that. MR. RINGER-That you don’t have that, or you have to come back, not that you don’t have it, but that you have to come back. MR. SEGULJIC-With regards to the construction of the site, are you going to construct the indoor tennis facility and the multi-use sports facility also? My confusion is just that it says proposed indoor multi-use. MR. MILLER-No, the tennis facility is a future phase projected for one or two years down the road. MR. SEGULJIC-So initially you’re going to construct the indoor multi-use sports facility? MR. MILLER-Yes, the sport building and the outdoor fields. MR. SEGULJIC-And then in the future, the indoor tennis facility? MR. MILLER-That’s correct. MR. SANFORD-Will you phase the clearing of the land along the same time table? MR. MILLER-Well, originally, we had hoped to get off the ground with the main dome structure last year, 2003, to have it open this past winter, and then the outdoor fields this summer. So we’ve kind of pushed Phase I into the same timeframe as Phase II now. MR. SANFORD-No, but what I’m wondering is, if the tennis courts are going to come some time in the future, I’m hoping you’ll delay cutting down a bunch of trees ahead of time. MR. MILLER-In that area? MR. SANFORD-Yes, in that area. MR. MILLER-We could easily do that. I would obviously need to clear a little bit, to keep some clearance to the support building and that sort. MR. SANFORD-Right, because it might not ever happen. Okay. MR. LAPPER-We’ll make that a condition, also. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. MILLER-Yes, I have no problem with that. The only thing that I do, actually Tom may want to look at this, on grading issues. I think we’re probably okay with doing that there, in terms of pushing the topsoil around and not impacting, if it doesn’t impact our adjacent contour lines, I don’t want to have the field to the north of it or the support building, one be in a hollow or one be way up above, because we’ve had to adjust grade in those areas, and can’t in the areas where the future tennis structure is. MR. SANFORD-Well, think about it. We can talk about it next time you come. MR. MILLER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions on site development criteria? Stormwater? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I just have one on the stormwater. Not stormwater, but in stormwater, sewage, you also have a line in there, I believe, that talks about potable water. MR. MAC EWAN-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Trying to get the Town of Queensbury Water Department’s comments in there that a potable water line would be brought under Sherman for the Highway Department. I think they already talked about this. It’s in the letter on the highway thing. MR. MILLER-They’d prefer boring as opposed to an open cut of the highway. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what it is, yes, and then the Water Department added their notes, too, to the water line is to be inspected prior to backfill and the plans should indicate the size of all water meters. That’s something that they require. I just wanted to get that in there, under potable water. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions relative to stormwater, sewage design? MR. SEGULJIC-Sewage, a question about that. On the plans it’s stated the design flow is max daily flow of 750 uses a day and one and a half gallons per use. That seems low, especially if there’s going to be showering on site. MR. NACE-It’s been a while since I’ve gone through the calculations. So, but, no, I looked at it several ways, and I think that’s a pretty accurate estimate, from what I can tell. MR. SEGULJIC-Is there going to be showering on site? MR. MILLER-There is a minimal amount of shower rooms. I don’t expect the majority of 10, 12, 14 year old kids to be showering, changing and showering right there. Most of them are coming dressed to play. Unlike, we kind of got into this, a little bit of dialogue before. Soccer and field hockey, as opposed to ice hockey, you know, where they’re sweating and suited up and doing a full uniform change after at the site. Most kids, for this type of activity, will come already dressed and go home already dressed. MR. SEGULJIC-So you will have a couple of showers on site, but you don’t think? MR. MILLER-There will be some showers, yes, but not, it won’t be showers to accommodate all teams or all participants at all times. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re comfortable with one and a half gallons a day, or one and a half gallons per use? MR. NACE-Average for that minimum users, yes. That number of users is an inflated number on a very active day. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. MILLER-For showers, we’re between two and three showers per locker room. MR. SEGULJIC-And I would assume, if you had any problems, you’d have plenty of room to expand? MR. NACE-Absolutely. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I just have a question. I didn’t see C.T. Male’s letter until tonight, but did they have comments on the sewer design at all? MR. NACE-Their comments on the sewer design, I’ll read you. Let’s see. Yes, invert elevation and/or profiles should be shown for the wastewater pipe. It appears that the system may be too deep using minimum grades, and that’s my response. I told you I ended up putting in an effluent pipe, and they wanted a clean out. I had a bend in a sanitary sewer. They wanted a clean out there, and that was it. MR. VOLLARO-That was it. So they didn’t question gallons per day? MR. NACE-No. MR. VOLLARO-Versus leach line lengths, then. MR. NACE-They did not. MR. RINGER-You keep mentioning youth facility. This is going to be an adult facility as well as a youth, isn’t it, Doug? I mean, you’re going to have adult leagues as well as youth leagues. MR. MILLER-Yes, and again, for the most part, if there’s any showering, it would probably be more likely to occur with that age, but, are you looking to play? MR. RINGER-I had rotator cuff surgery late last week. So I don’t think I’m ready for anything right now. MR. MILLER-The showering, though, even for that is usually fairly minimal. MR. RINGER-Well, I just, you kept saying youth, and I wanted to make sure that the adult, there was an adult program as well as a youth program. MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions relative to stormwater, sewage design? Lighting? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I have a lighting question. I think I’m going to go with my notes on the lighting question, but due to the size of this site, I went to our lighting portion of 179 in the Ordinance, 179-6-020, for lighting, in terms of foot candles. Now, in order to comply with the four to one ratio on a site of this size, it’s almost impossible to do. I think you even mentioned that to me at one time before. MR. NACE-Yes. Don’t get me started in your regulations. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but we’ve successfully gone through a prior application to take a look at the average, the min and the max for the recreational parking, building exteriors, building entrances and the driveway. If I can get the average lighting for the entire site to comply with our Code, and get the min/max, I can come up with four to one ratios in different areas, as opposed to a four to one ratio on the entire site. It’s almost impossible to do. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. NACE-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-So I’m really asking that we supply a, Number One, an overall photometric grid across the property. MR. NACE-A grid, yes. MR. VOLLARO-And then go to the overall lighting and give us the average to min to max, for the overall for the recreational parking for the building exterior, for the building entrances and for the driveways, and if you give me that, then I can calculate four to one ratios in those areas. MR. NACE-Sure. We’ll get that done. MR. VOLLARO-That shouldn’t be too difficult to do, and then, in order to augment that, I’d like to see a luminar schedule that describes, gives us a description, the wattage and the type, whether it’s metal halide or whether it’s a sodium, and then we’d have a pretty good look at the entire lighting for the site. MR. NACE-Okay. We’ll do. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions relative to lighting? Landscape design? MR. SEGULJIC-In the front of the indoor multi-use sports facility, could we get some landscaping in front of the building there, along the parking lot? MR. NACE-For the main building here, along here, you’re saying? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. NACE-No, you can’t. One of the real problems is they have to have access, and that’s why there’s a road all the way around here. These domes shed all the snow that falls on them. Okay. So you’d have to be able to get snow removal equipment right up next to the edge of the foundation, all the way around the building, in order to remove that snow. So the next snowfall has a place to slid off to. MR. MILLER-If we don’t pave that area up to the building, it’s going to be a muddy mess. All the snow’s got to be cleared right up to the foundation wall. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I thought I’d ask. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions relative to landscape? MR. SANFORD-Well, just a quick one. You mentioned what kind of visual barrier you were going to have, I think, earlier. Would you go over that again? MR. NACE-Okay. You’re talking about along Sherman Avenue? MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. NACE-Okay. We’ve got the existing tree barrier, but remember that the existing trees are all pines, and have a fairly high canopy. So in behind those, we’ve filled in, and I think, I’ll make sure of what he’s used, I think he’s used a spruce. Yes, he’s used Norway Spruce in a hedge along behind those, because the Spruce will maintain boughs all the way down to the ground, you know, even in full maturity. So that’s are attempt to keep that under story shielded off, so that you can’t look underneath the existing trees into the site. MR. SANFORD-How deep? 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. NACE-How deep? MR. SANFORD-Is the barrier going to be. MR. NACE-It’s a single hedge row of the Spruce, and I think he’s specified seven to eight foot balled bag specimens along there. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a mix of Spruce, four to five feet and seven to eight feet tall, mix. MR. NACE-Doug makes a good point. There is some brush along the road, before you get back underneath the tree canopy. There is some brush, also, right along the road that’ll help buffer. I’m sorry, you were starting to say it’s a mix of Spruce. MR. MAC EWAN-From what your legend shows. It’s all Norway Spruce, but there’s two different sizes there that are called out, four to five and seven to eight foot. MR. NACE-Yes, you’re right. MR. MAC EWAN-But the point that Doug did make is that, you know, from the entrance, you start off with, you know, like a zero width of a buffer there of natural buffer, all the way up, by the time you get to the property line, with the eastern property line, it looks to be. MR. NACE-It’s 50 feet. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, 50, 60 feet thick there at that point. MR. NACE-That’s correct. That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-That’s pretty deep. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other landscaping questions? MR. MILLER-Another thing that might be worth pointing out, too, is that the trees that are put in on the entrance road, as you look into it from the entrance, we’re dropping almost 16 feet, so anybody looking through is going to be actually looking in to the tree canopies, which will help hide things that are further in the property. MR. VOLLARO-Are the finished floors of those buildings going to be sixteen feet below that? Is that what we’re saying? MR. MILLER-Do you have contour lines up there, Tom? MR. MAC EWAN-You’re looking at 384 at the tree line. You’re looking at roughly 398. MR. MILLER-We’re at 400 feet right at the entrance, and at this point, here, we’re down to 386 already. So all the trees along here, are going to be obviously lower than, or declining in elevation as you move in, and we’re at 384 here. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that means the finished floors of these buildings, like the indoor multi-sports facility, that finished floor would be. MR. NACE-Sixteen feet lower. MR. VOLLARO-Sixteen feet lower. So they would be indeed looking through the canopy. MR. MILLER-Yes. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions relative to landscaping? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I had a question on the surface of the fields. Are there any plans to use artificial surface at all? MR. MILLER-The upper fields? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MILLER-No, they’ll all be natural. MR. HUNSINGER-Natural grass. MR. MILLER-Natural grass. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? Any environmental questions, other than the big one we know about? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, noise. I think we’ve discussed this before, but refresh my memory. As far as the dome goes, and keeping that inflated, is there any noise associated with that? MR. VOLLARO-You mean a compressor? MR. SEGULJIC-A compressor. MR. MILLER-Staff’s comments, I think in the December meeting, were, the question about noise from generators outside, the units are very similar to a regular rooftop unit that you’d have on a building such as this, that will keep it inflated. You don’t have, once it’s up and inflated, you don’t have tremendous air leakage that you’ve got to replace. If we shut everything down and leave the door shut, it would take about three days for the dome to come down. MR. SEGULJIC-So there’s actual compressors, then? MR. MILLER-No, it’s just a fan. MR. SEGULJIC-Just a fan, and the fans are located on the ground, or up high? MR. MILLER-The fans are located on the ground, in an insulated, soundproof, I won’t say soundproof, but sound. MR. MAC EWAN-Deadening. MR. MILLER-Deadening, thank. MR. SEGULJIC-Supplying positive pressure to the dome to keep it. MR. MILLER-Supplying positive pressure, partial outside air, you can vary the amount of outside air and the amount of air that’s been re-circulated back in, so that you can heat and cool that air. MR. MAC EWAN-Those are the rectangle areas on the south of the building that C.T. Male was questioning? MR. NACE-Correct. MR. MILLER-There’s one at the southeast corner, and one at the northwest corner of the larger dome. The structure that’s, or the projection off of the southwest corner is actually a vehicle air 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) lock. In order to bring a vehicle in there, I’ve got to move it in to that air lock, close the outside door, before I open the inside door. So I don’t have large pressure loss. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other environmental questions? Neighborhood character? Involved agencies? We know about DEC. Anything else I may have missed. Anything you want to add? I’d ask you to give up the table for a couple of minutes. We’ll open up the public hearing. Anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-All right. We’ll leave the public hearing open. Tabling. Tom’s been writing. MR. SEGULJIC-Should we go down the list? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Revise a set of plans, C.T. Male signoff. Letter addressing the potential for Karner blue habitat, no trees removed along Sherman Avenue, trees to remain in area proposed indoor facility until construction of facility, tennis facility. MR. HUNSINGER-If they’re going to do a new drawing, should we have it noted on the drawing that the fields would not be lighted as well? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, outdoor fields not to be lit. Okay, and then lighting grids, with ratios for driveway, building entrances, did you say anything else, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Building exteriors, driveway, recreational parking, and the overall site, building entrances. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then a list of light fixtures and wattages. MR. VOLLARO-Right, and you want foot candle for average min and max for all of those. MR. NACE-Can we sit down with you, Bob, as we develop that, and make sure we’ve got what you want? MR. VOLLARO-Sure. MR. SEGULJIC-Anything else? MR. MAC EWAN-I’m cautious about that. MR. RINGER-Yes, I was going to say no to that. MR. MAC EWAN-Procedurally, I’m very cautious about that. MR. SCHACHNER-Or do it with Staff, not with a member. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, do it with Staff. MR. VOLLARO-Staff, you know what I’m looking for, George. We’ve talked about this. So you can just go to the, just pull the sheet out. You’ve got it. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Fly with it, Tom, tabling it to the May 25 meeting. th MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 17-2004 DOUGLAS & TERESA MILLER, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Until May 25, 2004 with the following conditions: 1. Submission of revised set of site plans. 2. Receipt of a sign-off from CT Male regarding their comments. 3. A letter advising us of the potential for Karner Blue habitat on site. 4. No trees to be removed along Sherman Avenue except in entrance and exit areas. 5. No dead trees in area of proposed indoor tennis facility to remain in place until time of indoor tennis facility construction. 6. Outdoor fields not to be lit. 7. Lighting grids with ratios for driveways, building exteriors, overall site plan and parking areas. 8. Note as to average minimum and maximum foot-candles for the site and a list of light fixtures and wattages. 9. With submission of information by close of business on May 14. th Duly adopted this 20th day of April, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MILLER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MICHAEL O’CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-Can I ask you a question? MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-And I have something I have to talk about with the Board, also. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-I’m going to represent Hayes & Hayes on the Dixon Road site. Which is a 12 lot subdivision. I understand that you tabled it tonight because that the sign for the subdivision application was not posted on the property. I, and I’m not sure, in your conversation with myself, we believe, or we posted a sign a week ago Monday. We’re not disputing the adjournment, which was eight days ago. Has anybody been to the property to see it? Are you satisfied with the posting at this point? MR. MAC EWAN-A week ago Monday? MR. O'CONNOR-A week ago Monday the signs were put up. MR. MAC EWAN-George, when was our meeting up here, last Tuesday? MR. HILTON-Our meeting was on Tuesday. MR. MAC EWAN-Of last week, right? MR. HILTON-Our meeting was Tuesday the 13. th 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Bruce Frank was there on Monday the 12. th MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-The sign wasn’t there. I was there the morning of the 13, the sign was not th there. MICKIE HAYES MR. HAYES-I’ll go there tomorrow, and see where it is. MR. MAC EWAN-There was no sign there. The only sign that was there was the one from November 2003 application, and there were no other signs, and that was laying down on the ground. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-So that’s why, I got out of the car, because I thought maybe someone had knocked it over, and when I saw that it was a very old sign, I knew it wasn’t the right one. MR. O'CONNOR-Secondly, in reviewing notes, in the comments before, I’m not sure, and maybe Town Counsel will give me direction, but it seemed like there was an awful lot of discussion, and money spent on studies that had to do with environmental impacts that aren’t really related to the project that’s before you, and my position is, I understand that the Northway is in close proximity, and there was questions about noise generated from the Northway, questions about. MR. RINGER-I don’t mean to interrupt you, Mike, I’m sorry, for a minute. I’m concerned that, at the beginning of this meeting tonight, our Chairman said that this item was not going to be discussed, and we had public here for this, and the public has left. Now, if we start discussing the item again, I think we’re out of line. I appreciate your comment, Mike, and everything, but for protocol and stuff, if we’ve already announced that we weren’t going to discuss this, and the public left, and now we seem to be discussing it, I don’t think it’s appropriate. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I’m not asking for your response this evening. MR. RINGER-I know, but you’re still discussing the project, and we. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t want to come, a month from now, and be back at base zero. I’ll tell you my comment is that, unless Counsel can point to something that tells me that we, in developing a parcel that’s adjacent to the Northway, are responsible for the noise of the Northway. MR. RINGER-Craig, I still feel that. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m hearing you, Larry. I’m hearing you. MR. RINGER-And I’d like to get Counsel’s opinion on it. Again, Mike, I appreciate everything you’re doing here, but I just don’t think it’s appropriate, and, you know, I’d like our Board to make a motion on it, or at least get Counsel’s opinion, if nothing else, before we go any further. That’s all. MR. SCHACHNER-Do you want me to chime I? MR. MAC EWAN-Chime in. MR. SCHACHNER-I think Larry’s concern is very appropriate. If Mr. O’Connor said that he is not looking for a response to anything tonight, if he wants to literally throw out a question that 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) nobody responds to, and if that’s the case, and it’s one short question, I don’t know that I see much harm in that, but I think any discussion or response by any Board, I agree with Larry’s concern is very appropriate. MR. RINGER-I just feel receiving information of any kind might be inappropriate. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Larry’s concern is very appropriate. MR. MAC EWAN-Would it be better advised that your concerns that you have relative to what you need to do for this application is directed towards Staff and Counsel, because I heard you say at the beginning it had something to do, you know, I’m going to chime in, Mark, you know, give me a legal opinion on this, or whatever. Maybe if you just start funneling your conversations with them. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think Mark will respond to my request for a legal opinion. MR. SCHACHNER-He’s right about that. MR. MAC EWAN-I tried. MR. SCHACHNER-Write a letter to the Board with whatever his question is. MR. MAC EWAN-There you go, can you do that? MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Thank you. Let me ask you a general question, not with regard to the Hayes property. Just as a general person who practices in the Town. If I buy the O’Connor property, that’s next to Exit 18, am I going to be responsible for the noise that’s generated from the Northway for that property? And that’s the question. That’s a general question. That’s not something that’s out of a public hearing. Right, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-It’s very general. MR. O'CONNOR-I mean, there’s no basis, I understand some of the concerns that were raised and some of the discussions that were had, but it’s the same thing with my comments, and I apologized to Mr. Sanford before. I look at the Ordinance and try to develop a presentation based on the Ordinance, and sometimes you come in and you get, you wonder where you’re going when you get off into side tracks. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, be careful. The answer to your question about the hypothetical question you asked is not the answer you think it is, because although I think you were correct. You did a good job of preparing in accordance with the Ordinance, I think you’re forgetting about a State statute that’s far, far, far broader than the audience, and I don’t have any trouble telling you right now, in this public forum, that under certain circumstances, the answer to your question, to your shock, is yes, and applicant may well be responsible for Northway, for accounting for Northway noise, in a certain specific application context under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. Absolutely. MR. O'CONNOR-I think the New York State SEQRA Ordinance has no accountability, and maybe we differ on that. It is a procedural act that says that you will consider those impacts in an appropriate manner that are set forth in another Ordinance. MR. SCHACHNER-Not the second part. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I disagree. MR. SCHACHNER-I strongly agree with you on the first part. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. See, I, have a good evening. I’m not going to do much on noise. I’m not going to do much on admissions, guys. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. One other note. MR. O’CONNOR-Thank you. MR. SCHACHNER-And I have something I have to bring to the Board’s attention, also. MR. MAC EWAN-Mine is very short, sweet, and to the point. This Adirondack Park Agency thing on the 27, I’m assuming there’s people from the Town going. th MR. HILTON-I guess I would be assuming, too. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you going? MR. HILTON-Personally, I’m not, at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Anybody wants to go, it’s from 10 a.m. to noon. It’s going to be up at Cornell Cooperative Extension in Westport. I’m sure there’s going to be people from the Town going. It’s going to be well worth going. MR. VOLLARO-Westport, New York? MR. MAC EWAN-West Port, New York. Essex County. Staff can make arrangements for that. Just let Staff know that you want to go, or you’re available. Tony, you’ve got a lot of time on your hands. MR. METIVIER-What? MR. MAC EWAN-Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-I have to bring a matter to the Board’s attention, and that matter is that you’re currently scheduled, we’re currently scheduled, to have a Special Meeting Thursday night to discuss the application for the paint ball facility. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-There has been a filing today, I believe today, correct? Yes. There’s been a filing hand delivered, it says it was hand delivered yesterday, but it was received today, here at Town Hall. And the filing is an appeal by some people of our Zoning Administrator’s determination that this is an allowed use at the property, and that appeal may, and I underline the word may, result in this Board not being able to convene and start the site plan review process Thursday night, because that filing may, legally, cause what’s called a stay or a postponement of any proceedings relating to the application. We’ll get, Staff will be in touch with you with more information about that, obviously before Thursday night, to know whether you can convene or not, but you may not be able to convene. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You’ll let us know tomorrow. MR. SCHACHNER-We’ll let you know tomorrow. No later than Thursday morning, but I think we’ll let you know tomorrow. MR. SEGULJIC-Why is that? What does that mean? MR. SCHACHNER-Which part? When we’ll let you know, or the whole thing? MR. SEGULJIC-No, no, no. What the whole thing means, I mean, why? 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. SCHACHNER-Why are they appealing? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Who’s appealing? MR. SCHACHNER-Gabriel Armando, Leslie Armando, Thomas Rosencrans, Sue Beadle, Christine Hull, Arthur Hull, Dagmar Schmallhaus, Harry Baxendale, Marion Policastro, Peter Policastro, Timothy Bardin, Lisa Coutu, Dominic Aguilino, Deborah Aguilino, Suzanne Blood, William Blood, Catherine Williams, Nathanial Williams, Richard Burch and other neighbors. MR. MAC EWAN-And other neighbors. I like that. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I’m reading to you from a letter. MR. MAC EWAN-Takes care of everyone on Northwest Village Road. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m reading to you from a letter that was filed with this appeal, dated yesterday. It says hand delivered. It’s stamped received here in Queensbury Zoning Office today, at 8:20 a.m., which would make sense why it’s dated yesterday and received today, filed by the Law firm of Caffry & Flower, and it’s signed by Attorney John Caffry. There’s a provision of New York State law which I can read to you, if you want, but the gist of it, and I’m quoting it almost verbatim, is that an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s determination stays, that’s the legal term for postpones, all proceedings in furtherance of the action being appealed from. The reason there’s some gray area here is because you have to make such an appeal within 60 days of when the zoning determination is made, and here, our Zoning Administrator actually made two different determinations. He made one on November 12, and this appeal th obviously was not filed within 60 days of that, and you’re all familiar, I think, with his November 12 determination. The gist of it was that it was an allowed use, not requiring site th plan review. He then made a follow up determination on March 12, March 12, a follow up thth determination in which he said, yet I’m still saying it’s an allowed use, but now I’m saying it’s subject to site plan review. These folks are appealing the part of his determination saying it’s an allowed use. We may take the position that that determination was made back in November, and not timely appealed, in which case you call can convene Thursday night. That may not be a winning position. We have to think about that. MR. SANFORD-Who hears this? MR. SCHACHNER-The ZBA. MR. SANFORD-No, no, no, no. I’m saying, doesn’t a judge have to rule on whether there’s a stay here? MR. SCHACHNER-Not typically, not unless somebody goes to seek a judge’s opinion. I mean, the law says what the law says, and this letter ends by saying, please advise us as to whether the Town concurs that the stay of Town Law 267 A6 applies, so that all parties may plan accordingly, and our intention is to form an opinion about that and to advise accordingly. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So you’re basically going to, you or whoever makes the decision, is going to get back to them and say we don’t agree or we agree with your interpretation of that. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. We may confer with the ZBA Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask a couple of hypotheticals here. If you go back and respond to those people’s positions and say that, you know, you missed your timeframe here. We’re going to go ahead and proceed with that, obviously their next move, they take it to the Supreme Court and see if they can get a judge to put a stay on it. So the judge puts a stay on it, and they’re stopped. 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/20/04) MR. SCHACHNER-That’d be my guess. I would presume so. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, I’m hearing what you’re saying, Mark, but I guess my position would be, let them run their course through the ZBA. Get all that out of the way before they even come and see us. That would be my position. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, okay. I appreciate your input. MR. RINGER-They have a right to try to do that, if they can, but it does effect the applicant because he wants to open in May, and he’ll never get opened in May with this delay. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-I appreciate your input, and I’m not being rude at all, but this is, I think this is really a legal issue that we need to advise the Zoning Administrator and the ZBA about, and they’ll take our advice or not, but I appreciate your input. MR. VOLLARO-Will the ZBA be the ruling body, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. It’s an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s determination to the Zoning Board of Appeals. That’s the channel. MR. SANFORD-I see. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Let us know. MR. SCHACHNER-We will do so. Thank you. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 62