Loading...
2004-04-27 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 27, 2004 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, SECRETARY ANTHONY METIVIER THOMAS SEGULIJC RICHARD SANFORD ROBERT VOLLARO LARRY RINGER PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN REVIEW SITE PLAN NO. 18-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED THE MC KERNON GROUP PROPERTY OWNER: JOHN & KATHLEEN TARRANT ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 338 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING GARAGE TO STORAGE SPACE ALONG WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,760 SQ. FT. GARAGE INCLUDING A FAMILY ROOM/GAME ROOM. EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. APA, CEA CROSS REFERENCE: AV 92-2000, SP 74-2000 [BOATHOUSE/SUNDECK] WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/14/04 TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-72 LOT SIZE: 0.52 ACRES SECTION: 179-4- 020 MR. MAC EWAN-The first item on the agenda is a tabling motion for the McKernon Group, for Site Plan 18-2004. We’ll open up the public hearing and leave it open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-And I’m guessing we’re going to table that, when are we tabling that to? MR. HILTON-The second meeting in May. MR. RINGER-The 27. th MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to move it, please. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 18-2004 THE MC KERNON GROUP, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: Until the 27 of May. th Duly adopted this 27 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 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) SITE PLAN NO. 19-2004 SEQR TYPE II ERIC & LINDA LA FLEUR AGENT: FRANK DE NARDO ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 75 CLEVERDALE ROAD/332 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE AN EXISTING BOATHOUSE WITH A NEW 534 SQ. FT. BOATHOUSE/SUNDECK. SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD IS REQUIRED FOR BOATHOUSES IN THE WR-1A ZONE. APA, CEA CROSS REFERENCE: AV 5-04 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/14/04 TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-75 LOT SIZE: 0.19 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 FRANK DE NARDO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 19-2004, Eric & Linda LaFleur, Meeting Date: April 27, 2004 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 19-2004 APPLICANT: Eric & Linda LaFleur are the applicants for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to construct a new 534 sq. ft. boathouse/sundeck. LOCATION: The subject property is located at 75 Cleverdale Road. EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned WR-1A, Waterfront Residential One Acre. SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Type II action. No further Planning Board action is required. PARCEL HISTORY: The ZBA approved an Area Variance for side yard setback relief for the proposed boathouse on February 18, 2004. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes to construct a 534 sq. ft. boathouse sundeck on an existing dock. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has requested the following waivers: Stormwater Management Plan - Grading Plan - Lighting Plan - Landscaping Plan - The proposed structure appears to meet the height requirements for boathouses listed in the Zoning Ordinance. This item is not being reviewed as an Expedited Review item, as the project involves an Area Variance, which was granted by the ZBA on 2/18/2004.” MR. MAC EWAN-This is a, the applicant proposes to construct a 534 square foot boathouse. Previously this application received an Area Variance for side yard setback relief on February 18. The applicant has requested stormwater management waivers from stormwater th management plan, grading plan, lighting plan, and landscaping plan. The boathouse appears to meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, and the only thing that separates this from an Expedited Review item is the fact that it had to go for a variance, and that’s really all I have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. DE NARDO-Frank DeNardo. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about your project, Frank? MR. DE NARDO-Basically a dock hit by ice in the last year. We put it back together. We had to go for variances because we didn’t meet the setbacks, and we’re just rebuilding it as is. No change in shape. Just laying a new dock up there. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems pretty simple and straightforward. Has anybody got any questions? MR. VOLLARO-I just have one question. It’s not even a question, but it’s a correction to the variance that was approved. It’s minor, but I think from a housekeeping point of view, at the very end, they talked that they’re requesting 1.6 feet of relief, and 1.6 feet is equal to 1.72 inches, and you really want 1.4 inches. Okay. So, just so we get that on the record, the fact that really it’s 1.4 inch of variance that they were granted, and that’s it, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? 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-Does someone want to move it? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 19-2004 ERIC & LINDA LA FLEUR, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 19-2004 Applicant/Property Owner: ERIC & LINDA LAFLEUR SEQR Type II Agent: Frank DeNardo Zone: WR-1A Location: 75 Cleverdale Road / 332 Cleverdale Road Applicant proposes to replace an existing boathouse with a new 534 sq. ft. boathouse/sundeck. Site Plan Review and approval from the Planning Board is required for boathouses in theWR- 1A zone. APA, CEA Cross Reference: AV 5-04 Warren Co. Planning: 4/14/04 Tax Map No. 226.12-1-75 Lot size: 0.19 acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: April 27, 2004 WHEREAS, the application was received on 3/15/04; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 4/23/04, and 4/27 Staff Notes 4/21 Public comment: Helen Horn – No objection 4/20 Notice of Public Hearing 4/14 Warren Co. Planning 4/2 Meeting Notice w/project identification marker sent 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) 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 27, 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, 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. Duly adopted this 27th day of April, 2004 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Frank. MR. DE NARDO-Thank you. FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. FWW 1-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: P O LOCATION: WALKER LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION/DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100 FT. OF REGULATED WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF 32 MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS. DEC TAX MAP NO. 296.11-1-28 LOT SIZE: 11.74 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 JON LAPPER, TOM NACE, & RICH SCHERMERHORN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Freshwater Wetlands Permit No. FWW 1-2004, Schermerhorn Properties, Meeting Date: April 27, 2004 “Project Description: The applicant is seeking a Town of Queensbury Freshwater Wetlands Permit in order to allow construction/disturbance within 100 ft. of existing regulated wetlands. Proposed construction activities are in association with a planned 32 unit multifamily building addition to a site with 48 multifamily units. It appears that the project does not involve disturbance of any of the adjacent ACOE wetlands. Staff review and comments are based on consideration of the criteria for considering a Freshwater Wetlands Permit according to Section 179-6-100 E of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. Staff comments: 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) The applicant’s proposal requires a Town of Queensbury Freshwater Wetlands Permit because the plan proposes construction within 100 ft. of existing wetlands. The requirements for granting a Town of Queensbury Freshwater Wetlands Permit are outlined in § 179-6-100 E (2) of the Zoning Ordinance. These requirements are: 1 – The proposed regulated activity is consistent with the policy of this chapter to preserve, protect and conserve freshwater wetlands and the benefits derived therefrom, to prevent the despoliation and destruction of freshwater wetlands and to regulate the development of such wetlands in order to secure the natural benefits of freshwater wetland, consistent with the general welfare and beneficial economic, social and agricultural development of the town. 2 – The proposed regulated activity is consistent with the land use regulations applicable in the town pursuant to § 24-0903 of Article 24 of State Environmental Conservation Law. 3 – The proposed regulated activity is compatible with the public health and welfare. 4 – The proposed regulated activity is reasonable and necessary. 5- There is no reasonable alternative for the proposed regulated activity on a site which is not a freshwater wetland or adjacent area. 6 – The applicant shall have the burden of demonstrating that the proposed regulated activity will be in accord with the standards set forth in this subsection. The adjacent wetlands are ACOE wetlands, however since it appears that no direct disturbance of the wetland is proposed, an ACOE permit is not required. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted; Applicant has submitted a short form EAF” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-This Freshwater Wetlands Permit is associated with the next item, which is Site Plan 20-2004. A Town permit is required since there is construction or disturbance within 100 feet of an existing regulated wetland. All activity, based on the information submitted by the applicant, appears to be outside of the wetland itself, which is an Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional wetland. I’ve outlined the requirements for granting a permit, as specified in the Zoning Code, and just as a note, the adjacent wetlands are Army Corps Engineer wetlands, as I mentioned. However, it appears that no direct disturbance is proposed, and therefore an Army Corps permit would not be required. Again, this is in relation to the site plan application. This is an Unlisted Action, and a Short Form has been submitted for this and for the Site Plan, Site Plan 20 of 2004. That’s all I have right now on the Freshwater Wetlands permit. MR. MAC EWAN-Procedurally, for purposes of SEQRA, are we going to do SEQRA jointly for both the site plan and the wetlands permit? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, I’m Jon Lapper, on behalf of and with Rich Schermerhorn to my left. Wendy Simino, from Creighton Manning Traffic Engineering is with me as well, and Tom Nace, the project engineer, should be here in about five minutes. I’d like to just make some preliminary comments so that the Board and the public will understand why we’re here. The Freshwater Wetlands Permit is a small component of the site plan, which is the next item on the agenda, and what’s happening here is that, after many years of discussion, at the Town Board level, about bringing the sewer line up Bay Road, up the Bay Road corridor, 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) Rich Schermerhorn, as the Board knows, brought it up, in order to service his new office project on Bay Road, and also to facilitate a connection to the Baybridge Homeowners Association, I assume many of the residents of which are here tonight. Baybridge was under a consent agreement with DEC because they had a failing septic system, and by providing sewer for the whole corridor, putting in the sewer line will enable them to fix their problems, as well as allow Rich to build the office park, and one ancillary benefit is that, by bringing it up Walker Lane, so that it can connect to the pump station at Baybridge, it also makes it an easy connection to his existing apartment complex. So by taking out the area of the apartment complex which is the existing leach field, it leaves more land for development, and that allows him to build the three more buildings and to add the 32 units. The buildings were located on the site in a location that was away from the hill and away from the single family residents, and Maple Row, to leave as much buffer as possible between the single family residents and the three new buildings, and as a result of that, there is some grading that’s needed within 100 feet of the Army Corps wetland. As George mentioned, when he began his comments, there’s no DEC wetland disturbance or DEC buffer disturbance. So there’s no DEC permit. There’s no Army Corps wetland disturbance. So there’s no Army Corps permit, but in the last go around of the Town zoning changes, the Town requires a Freshwater Wetlands permit if you’re within 100 feet of an Army Corps wetland, even though the Army Corps wetlands don’t regulate any 100 foot strip around their wetland. So we’re here for a grading permit within that 100 feet of the Army Corps wetland, and a lot of what’s being done in that 100 foot area is the stormwater management controls, which Tom will explain in more detail, but those serve to treat the water that, right now, is running untreated into the wetland. So the quality of the water that’s going into the wetland after the project is constructed will be better than the quality of the water going into the wetland now, because, again, it goes in untreated, so the silt and other contaminants go right in, and those will be filtered out in the stormwater basins that are proposed. Another related issue which’ll come up in site plan review in the next item, is the stormwater management controls for the whole site that Tom has designed, and I’m sure you’ve read the stormwater report, and certainly engineer did as well, and that shows that, after development, the runoff will be controlled so it’ll be slower on the whole site than it is right now. So in both cases, it would be within 100 foot area of the wetland and for the site in general, the controls that are proposed now will mean that there will be less runoff off the site, and a better quality runoff after this is constructed. Let me turn it over to Tom to just give you some more detail on the Freshwater Wetlands permit. MR. NACE-I think Jon has pretty well covered it, from what I heard, although I came in late. As Jon described, the stormwater management facilities proposed collect all of the runoff, not just from the developed areas of the site, but also from the open grassed slope and behind the proposed apartments, and all the grassed area, collect that. It’s filtered in various, I think there are seven different collection, or eight different collection systems all total. Each one of those has its own means of settling out any sediment that might occur and filtering the water before it goes in. Only the overflow during very heavy storms would go, be piped toward the wetland. The rest of it, the small storms, which comprise about 90% of the total rainfall events, will actually filter into the ground and reach the wetland only through subsurface means. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Any comments that Staff wanted to add? MR. HILTON-No, not at this time, unless you wanted to move in on the site plan or, you know, my comments on those. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Well, procedurally, for purposes of the public hearing, we’d combine the site plan review and the Freshwater Wetlands permit review in the same public hearing? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MS. RADNER-That’s fine, as long as you make it clear that that’s what you’re doing and make sure that the public has an opportunity to speak to both. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SANFORD-Well, isn’t that making the assumption that we’re going to get beyond the wetland issue? MS. RADNER-Well, you have to consider both for purposes of SEQRA because if you ignore what you know is going to be the site development. MR. SANFORD-I understand, but if we find no justification for granting the variance on wetland, then we don’t even move to site plan. MR. LAPPER-It’s not a variance. MR. SANFORD-The permit. MS. RADNER-Permit. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Like Cathi said, for purposes of SEQRA, you have to, you can’t segment SEQRA. So you have to review both these applications at the same time, hand in hand. So I’m thinking, in the interest of the public here, is to have both the public hearings done jointly, so they can speak for both the Freshwater Wetlands Permit application and the site plan itself. MR. SANFORD-Okay. It’s just that I see no, I see absolutely no compelling reason to grant the permit. I don’t know why they designed the site going in to the 100 feet, and my feeling is I’d like them to come back with something that doesn’t show them, you know, within 100 feet, and therefore, I don’t know why I want to spend, personally, a whole lot of time looking at the site plan, when I think that, you know, we have rules and regs in the Town, and I don’t know why it wasn’t considered when they came up with all these drawings that go into it. MR. MAC EWAN-I think those are all issues that you can bring out when we start discussing the site plan, and give everybody on the Board an opportunity to make their comments, as well as the public. MR. SANFORD-All right. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Just, to me, I think that’s the right way, I think, procedurally, to go here tonight. MR. SANFORD-Fine. MR. MAC EWAN-To do them jointly. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-With that, why don’t we go right into the site plan. You can start giving us information on site plan, then we can get to open up the public hearing. SITE PLAN NO. 20-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: PO LOCATION: WALKER LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF 32-MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS (15,104 SQ. FT.) ON THE SITE OF AN EXISTING 48-UNIT MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON WALKER LANE. MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) IN THE S R-1A ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 5-98 TAX MAP NO. 296.11-1-28 LOT SIZE: 11.74 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 JON LAPPER, TOM NACE, & RICH SCHERMERHORN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 20-2004, Schermerhorn Properties, Meeting Date: April 27, 2004 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 20-2004 APPLICANT: Rich Schermerhorn, Schermerhorn Properties, is the applicant for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to construct 32 multifamily residential units (15,104 sq. ft.) on the site of an existing 48 unit multifamily residential complex. LOCATION: The subject property is located on Walker Lane, off of Bay Road. EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned PO, Professional Office. SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Unlisted action. The applicant has included a SEQRA short form. PARCEL HISTORY: The Planning Board approved SP 5-1998 for the existing 48 multifamily units on February 17, 1998. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes to construct 32 additional multifamily units on an 11.74-acre property with 48 multifamily dwellings located on Walker Lane. The site plan also includes site landscaping, lighting, and parking. STAFF COMMENTS: As part of the site plan the applicant proposes to remove existing septic systems and connect this property to municipal sewer service. Has the Bay Rd. sewer district been extended to include this property? Any comments from the Town of Queensbury Wastewater Department concerning this application should be addressed as part of the review of this application. The applicant has submitted the required Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan as part of this application. Staff suggests a condition of approval that a copy of the required Notice of Intent (NOI) be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit for any construction associated with this application. Planning Staff received a traffic impact analysis for this application on April 21, 2004. This analysis has been forwarded to CT Male for their review and comment. A 20 ft., type B buffer is required between this property and the property to the west. The site plan indicates a strip of plantings on the western property line. The proposed landscaping around the building and parking areas appears to meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. In response to §179-5-100 D, the site plan proposes a sand volleyball court and playground area as part of the site plan. The lighting plan submitted with the site plan proposes a series of decorative site lights to be used throughout the area of the proposed expansion. The illumination levels are represented on the lighting plan as a series of contour lines. As presented, it is difficult to determine whether the proposed foot-candle levels conform to the standards listed in §179-6-020 C 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) (parking area, building exterior, etc.) of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, the light uniformity ratio has not been provided and cannot be calculated based on the proposed lighting plan. The proposed light fixtures do not appear to be cut off, down cast fixtures as required by the Zoning regulations. Perhaps a different light fixture could be used that would be the same architectural style, but would comply with Town code by directing light to the ground. It appears that some of the slopes that will be created as part of the proposed grading plan exceed the 30% limit listed in §179-5-170. What type of erosion control will be used prior to, during and after excavation on this site? CT Male will provide additional comment on the applicant’s grading plan. Any comments from CT Male, the Town of Queensbury Wastewater Department or Town of Queensbury Water Department should be addressed as part of the review of this application.” MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to go first on the Staff notes? MR. HILTON-Sure. The proposal is to construct 32 additional multi-family units on this property which already has 48 multi-family units. It’s located on Walker Lane. As part of the plan, the applicant proposes to remove existing septic systems and connect this property to municipal sewer service. It’s my understanding that since the writing of these notes that this property is within the sewer district. However, the coordination, if you will, of disconnecting the existing fields and connecting to the sewer infrastructure will have to take place. The applicant has submitted a stormwater pollution prevention plan. However, again, as a condition of approval, if the Planning Board chooses to approve this project, Staff suggests a condition that the required Notice of Intent be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit for any construction associated with this project. Planning Staff received a traffic impact analysis for this application on April 21, and this analysis has been forwarded to C.T. Male for st their review and comment. A 20 foot Type B Buffer is required between this property and the property to the west, and the site plan indicates a strip of plantings on the western property line. Proposed landscaping around the buildings and within the parking areas appears to meet the requirements of the Zoning Code. As I mentioned here, Section 179-5-100D talks about recreation facilities for multi-family projects. The applicant’s plans show a volleyball court and playground area in response to that Section. The lighting plan submitted with the site plan proposes a series of decorative lights, and the foot candle readings, the light intensity that’s shown, are represented as contours, and as a result it’s difficult to determine what the foot candle levels are for various portions of the site, such as parking area, building exterior, etc. It’s difficult to see if that conforms to the requirements of Town Code, and additionally the light uniformity ratio doesn’t appear to be on the plans, and it’s unclear whether these fixtures are cut off or downcast, and again, my note here says perhaps a different light fixture, similar architecture, but one that has some kind of hood or baffle or something in it to create a downcast fixture that’s conforming to Town Code, perhaps that could be used. There’s some grading proposed with the project that appears to exceed the 30% limit listed in the Zoning Code, and Staff’s question, my question is, what type of erosion control will be used, prior to, during, and after excavation of this site? C.T. Male may have additional comments on the grading plan, and as I’ve mentioned, any comments from C.T. Male, the Wastewater Department or the Water Department should be addressed, and, just as a note, we handed out C.T. Male comments to you tonight. Late today we did receive a letter from C.T. Male. It says Walker Lane signoff, and at some point, if you’d like me to read it, I can read it into the record, and we do have some written public comment, at such time the public hearing is open I can read, and that’s all I have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The floor is yours. MR. LAPPER-So now we’re proceeding into a discussion of the site plan, and again, the 32 units are facilitated by the sewer line that Rich has constructed at his expense to date. He will be compensated for part of that by the Town, and he gets a credit against the buy-in for the district, for the units that he’s going to construct, which, in the map plan and report, did include these 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) 32 units. So it was always his intention, as we were moving through the process with the sewer line, that if he didn’t need the septic field, he would replace the septic field with three buildings with eight units each. Traffic has been raised in some of the letters that we read from some of the neighbors, and Wendy Simino is here to address traffic. She has prepared a traffic impact report, and that’s been submitted to C.T. Male, and they have approved that, and I’ll, in a few moments, hand the microphone to her to just address that and answer any questions the Board may have on traffic. I guess probably we should start off having Tom walk you through the site plan and just show you what we’re proposing. MR. NACE-I’ll make it real quick. The proposed, I don’t know if you can see it from this distance, the proposed addition to the site consists of four buildings, similar to the existing buildings on the site. They’ll each be eight unit buildings. If you’ve been out to look at the site from Walker Lane, this area is back in behind all of the existing buildings and pretty well shielded from view behind those existing buildings. Even now with the leaves off the trees, there’s only one view port through here, that you can even see the portion of the site that will be developed. The buildings will be constructed at a floor elevation, just very slightly above the existing buildings here. That requires removal of the material that was placed in here for the septic systems, and the grading of this hill in behind is shown on the grading plan, that will be graded in a fashion identical to the hill behind the existing units. So the steepness of the slope and the ground cover of the slope in behind the units will be the same as the existing. It’s a three on one slope. We will, as you can see on our response to C.T. Male’s comments and to Staff’s comments, we are proposing to cover this entire slope, after it’s graded off, cover it with an erosion mat that will serve to protect it until grass cover is established. Parking is internal inside, between the units, to help shield the parking from view from outside. Lighting, minimal lighting is proposed, identical to the existing parking lot and building areas. In response to Staff comments we did revise the lighting fixture, and I think we submitted a catalogue cut of that, with the response to comments. It will be a fixture that looks the same. It’s a globe type style fixture, but it has a shielded luminar inside that directs the light down and cuts down on any horizontal or vertical glare. Other Staff comments, let’s see, we will file the Notice of Intent, obviously. We’ve prepared the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, in accordance with DEC requirements, and both that and the stormwater management system has been designed in accordance with their requirements. Staff mentioned the buffer. We have provided a buffer along the western property boundary up at the top of the hill that will help fill in the under story of the existing treed buffer. There’s a mature, forested tree buffer in the back of these adjacent lots. The lower evergreen material that’s provided in this buffer will help fill in that lower area from view. It should be noted that the roofs of these buildings will be significantly below eye height, level eye height, when viewed from up at the top of the hill. So this is, you know, this site in here will be down at the level of the existing, and view from up here will actually look out over the top of the proposed buildings. We addressed lights. We addressed the erosion control. C.T. Male comments were predominantly stormwater and technical corrections to some of the drawings. We have addressed all of those and received a signoff from C.T. Male. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Rich Schermerhorn, for the record. Just a few things I want to just clarify. Based on the letter from Craig Bramley to the Town, as far as the people opposed to the project, just a few things I want to clear up. One of the things which happens to be on their list here is about the water runoff, and some problems that they’ve had with the runoff down on Walker Lane. I talked to Rick Missita two days ago, and I asked him if there was any current problems or past problems with Walker Lane. There was past problems with Walker Lane with some drainage problems. Those past problems were not related to my property or my apartment complex at all. It was determined, back five or six years ago, when it was put to paper, that they thought I had septic problems, and they were feared of e-coli and all this other stuff, and it was determined that it had nothing to do with me. It was coming from up above, the properties west of me. The Town, Rick Missita had said that there’s under drainings on both sides of the road that they put in several years back, and just currently, about a year and a half ago, and I didn’t recognize it until he told me today, I have a photo here of where they 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) actually created a shoulder on the side of my road, and actually from aerial photographs, you’ll be able to see it if I pass them out, they actually put a channel going into my crushed stone basin at the entrance of my parking lot. So now all the water goes into my retention area, which I’m perfectly fine with. It solved the problem for the Walker Lane property. So I just want to clarify that. The water from the roadway. Rick did indicate to me that he did walk through with the General Manager, which they’ve had a couple throughout the years. They walked through with him, and he named another person who I believe is here tonight, and he walked through with his assistant, and he pointed out to these people, after walking through the Baybridge complex, that some of the drainage issues were self-inflicted that they have, based on the grading that was done. He talked about some of the roof elevations and where the water drains to. So, again, that’s unrelated to me, and he emphasized, and I asked him several times, you know, is there anything that has to do with my project that’s created any drainage problems, and the answer was no. I did talk to Chris Round and George, and I asked them just please if you could call and verify that, because I don’t expect everybody’s going to take my word for it, but I did check on that. The other thing that seems to be of concern is traffic concerns, which I won’t go into detail with that, because I left it to Creighton Manning and the Town’s engineer to address those concerns, which I believe they have addressed, and the other issue that they have on the list here is the quality of life issues. Well, I guess I don’t know what they mean by quality of life issues. I mean, in the past, based on the letters, and what the derogatory statements that, not all, I’m not going to generalize, but some of the people have said about my apartments is that, you know, crime has risen, there’s littering. There’s problem. Well, I do want to say one thing. I do have over 400 units now, and they’re 100% full, and we a have a waiting list of people trying to get into my units, and I’m not aware of any situation that has been any serious crime, or any serious situation, in any of my units, that I’m aware of. The people that live in these units are people in this community that we all know. They work in this community. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them are related to maybe even some of the people in the crowd tonight, but I know at one time or another I had to rent. I’m sure most of the people in the crowd had to rent at one time or another, but with Queensbury being a thriving community, and as we all know, these big box stores keep coming, you know, we need a place, obviously, for these people to live, and, you know, I know everyone’s concern is, gee, can’t you put it somewhere else, not in my backyard, but for years I’ve studied all the zoning locations in Queensbury where apartments are permitted. Bay Road corridor happens to be the area that is the highest density, the MR-5. It was always intended for growth, office buildings, apartments, townhouses, you know, high levels of housing. The other thing I’d like to bring up, they talked about the concerns with DEC, and that certainly, you know, I’ll let Tom and the Town Engineer address that, but again, I’d just like to address the public that this is an area that, you know, is zoned correctly for what there’s a need for, and I hope we can see through this, and I’ve always been flexible with the Planning Board, with the Town, so I guess we’ll open it up to the public after, I guess Jon or myself gets done, and we’ll try and address things from there. Thanks. MR. LAPPER-I just want to have Wendy address the traffic issue at this point. WENDY SIMINO MS. SIMINO-My name is Wendy Simino. I work for Creighton-Manning Engineering as a project engineer, and we were hired to look at the traffic, to see if there was any impact from the proposed additional 32 apartment units. For a residential type development, we typically look at the commuter traffic periods, because that tends to generate the highest amount of traffic in and out of a residential area. So we did some traffic counts at the Bay Road/Walker Lane intersection on a Thursday in April, a couple of weeks back, between seven and nine in the morning and four and six in the afternoon. From those volumes, we narrow it down to the highest hour out of that two hour period, and then we take and we considered like 2006 to be our design year, and we took the existing volumes and increased those volumes by two percent a year, to come up with our background, which adds on some growth in the area that will occur, whether or not our project is developed. Then we take, the Institute of Traffic Engineers has a Trip Generation Manual which is the industry standard for all different types of development throughout the country, that they have rates for apartments, and that’s where they developed the number of trips that would be expected from this development, which was 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) approximately 19 trips in the morning and 35 trips in the afternoon, then those trips are then distributed onto the roadway network. We distributed those based on the existing traffic patterns since the Bay Road/Walker Lane intersection has residential land uses coming out of Walker Lane. So we’re assuming that it’s a good assumption that the new use would follow the same types of patterns. Then we conduct a capacity analysis, using highway capacity software, which, again, is another industry standard that’s used, and that gives us a, what we call level of service, which is kind of a grading system for an intersection. There’s a letter between an A and an F. An A is the best level of service and F is the worst, and it’s all based on average vehicle delay. For the Bay Road/Walker Lane intersection, in the built conditions with our projects, our levels of service were at a Level of Service B, which is on the good end of the scale, with less than an average of 15 seconds delay per vehicle, and this showed an increase of less than one second per vehicle average over what is expected in the 2006 condition without this project. So the conclusion of our study was really that this project, from a traffic standpoint, is going to have very little effect on the intersections and the adjacent road system. MR. LAPPER-Thanks, Wendy. It’s also worth pointing out, at this point, that C.T. Male is aware that the County, because Bay Road is a County road, is already in the process of planning upgrades which will create turning lanes in the median. They’re going to space out the lanes, re-stripe it, because the pavement width existing is sufficient for that. I think it’s another year when that’s actually going to happen, but that should make left turns easier, and that’s documented in your engineer’s notes as well. I guess, at this point, we’ll take questions from the Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you clarify, what was the week that you took your traffic analysis? MS. SIMINO-April 8 was the actual date. th MR. MAC EWAN-April 8. Is that the week that ACC was off? th MS. SIMINO-I don’t believe so. MR. MAC EWAN-No? Okay. Anything you wanted to add, George? MR. HILTON-Not at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll open it up to Board members. Has anybody got any questions regarding design standards? MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I have a rather extensive list. I followed your site plan review. So as you go through, I’ll be addressing each of those. So I’ll start off with site development design. MR. MAC EWAN-Nobody’s got questions relative to design standards, building design, layout, conformance with design, Comprehensive Land Use Plan, so on and so forth? MR. SANFORD-Yes, but, Bob, you have them, too, right? MR. VOLLARO-No. On design standards I have nothing. MR. SANFORD-Again, I don’t, looking at the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, I’m not sure what this project gives back to the Town of Queensbury. It looks to me what you’re trying to do, I mean, Queensbury is getting very heavily built up, and you’re looking for variances. You’re butted right up against the wetland. MR. LAPPER-We’re not looking for any variances. The record should be clear. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. SANFORD-You’re looking for a permit, what’s it called, a Freshwater Permit, which basically the Town specifies you should be outside of 100 feet, and you’re looking to have your project within 100 feet. MR. LAPPER-No. We were looking to do grading within 100 feet. Perhaps you weren’t paying attention when I made the opening statements because perhaps you’ve already made up your mind on this project, but what I said was that we’re going to be creating basins within that 100 feet that are actually going to filter and increase the quality of the water before it goes into the wetland. MR. SANFORD-I know, and the project’s going to actually diminish traffic, probably, but. MR. LAPPER-No, traffic’s not a problem because 32 units can be accommodated by the existing road network. MR. SANFORD-Jon, I’m trying to make a couple of points here. For the record, I would like to see perhaps two of these units, 16 rather than the 32. I think it would be probably better, in terms of congestion. Right now I don’t see where this compliments anything, in terms of the rural nature and character as specified in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan of the Town of Queensbury, again is trying to do the maximum kind of build out possible, given the land constraints, and in answer to the Chairman’s inquiry, that’s my comments. It’s just too much in too little. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Well, our answer to that is that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan points out that Queensbury needs a mix of residential housing alternatives, in addition to single family. There’s certainly a demand for that, as Rich said, he’s 100% rented. Not everyone in the Town of Queensbury is in a position to afford a single family residence. There are single parent families, people moving in to Town, people in transition, older people that have sold their home. So the Comp Plan does address that. We’re not maxing this out. We could put more units on the site. We’re doing this per zoning without any variances at all, and I think we have a very good explanation as to why we meet the standards for the Freshwater Wetlands Permit, and certainly, as a result of this, we’re not going to be causing any kind of pollution to the wetland, to the adjacent wetland, which would be the reason for denying this. MR. SANFORD-Well, in reading Staff comments, Jon, they list a number of criteria that really have to be met in order to receive this Freshwater Wetlands Permit. MR. LAPPER-That’s right. MR. SANFORD-And I’m looking at Number Five. There is no reasonable alternative for the proposed regulated activity on a site which is not a freshwater wetland or adjacent area. Are you saying that there’s no alternative other than the plan you’ve proposed? MR. LAPPER-We’re saying that this is the best plan, because of the location of the wetlands on this site, that that is the best place to put the stormwater basins, and therefore we have to be within the 100 feet, within 100 feet of a wetland, and again, we’re not disturbing a wetland at all or a buffer to a DEC wetland. We have to be within 100 feet of the Army Corps wetland. MR. SANFORD-If you had 16 units instead of 32, would you be creating more of a problem or less of a problem? MR. LAPPER-We’re not creating a problem at all? MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. LAPPER-I’ll let Tom address that. MR. NACE-As far as the stormwater impacts to the wetland, there would be no difference. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. SANFORD-And why is that, because two more buildings wouldn’t have any more runoff? MR. NACE-Actually we’re limiting, okay, the amount of rainfall that hits the site is going to be the same regardless of whether the buildings or not are there. The only effect the buildings have on stormwater runoff are the quantity and the peak flow rates that leave the site, okay, and what we’re doing with the stormwater is actually limiting those peak runoff rates to significantly less than they currently are. MR. SANFORD-So, if you had two units versus four units, you’d have the same amount of pavement? MR. NACE-No, but we would still have the same stormwater controls on the site, and the limitation on the stormwater control is the design of the basin and outlet structures. MR. SANFORD-Well, anyway, I’m going to be interested in hearing what the public has to say about this project, but, again, I think I’ve made my feelings clear. That’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions relative to design standards? Site development? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do. The site conditions on slopes I noticed that the Staff mentioned greater than 30%. I took a good look at that. I think it actually comes out to 31.6. I did a line across. I think that’s pretty insignificant. It’s a half of one percent. So I’m going to call that within 30. I think that’s, you could change the repose of that hill to get to 30, but on paper it looks like 31, so that’s pretty close. It’s hard to call from a piece of paper. MR. HILTON-If I may, I just want to add, I calculated it at 33, and, yes, I mean, one and three percent is, I mean, I don’t know how to quantify that personally, I guess, but just to bring to your attention that Section of the Code that does call for 30, and it’s in the Code. That was the intent of that comment. MR. VOLLARO-You can make the position to change the angle of repose on that hill to 30%. MR. NACE-We typically use, I mean, a standard, a grading standard for slopes that are easily maintainable is one on three, which is 33%, and that’s just an engineering standard, regardless of what town you’re working on. MR. VOLLARO-I know, but George is citing a Section of 179 that talks about 30%. MR. NACE-Is that a recommendation, or is it a? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know whether it’s a design standard. I don’t know. MR. HILTON-I think that Section is actually, not a standard or something that the Board has the ability to waive. I think it’s a, you know, cut and dried regulation. That’s my reading of it. MR. NACE-If that’s a cut and dried regulation, we can back that off to 30%. MR. VOLLARO-Just a second and we’ll take a look at that, just real quick, 175. It comes under Mining and Excavation. That’s another thing that I was concerned about. Just the title of it didn’t kind of fit what we’re doing here. It’s 175-5-170, Mining and Excavation. MR. HILTON-Yes, except, if you look up the definition of Excavation, it talks about removal of 200 cubic yards or more, which I believe this falls into. Correct me if I’m wrong. MR. NACE-Typically your mining and excavation doesn’t cover, doesn’t address or doesn’t apply to the projects which are, have that excavation as part of a site development, a necessary part of the site development. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. HILTON-Well, again, the definition of Excavation is separate and different from Mining, and this Section talks about Mining and Excavation, and Section A talks about Excavation, where if you look at the definition, there’s a definition, and it doesn’t say if it’s associated with a site plan or not. It talks about if there’s removal of 200 cubic yards of dirt or fill or whatever, and again, it talks about the slopes. MR. NACE-Rather than getting in to a long debate, why don’t we just say that we’ll change it, if Staff and legal, Town Counsel decides that that’s a real regulation that applies to this project. MR. VOLLARO-It has a very basic statement. It says slopes caused by the excavation shall, upon completion, not exceed 30%. Those are the words, just so they’re on the record. MR. NACE-If it turns out to be, you know, required, we’ll change it. MR. VOLLARO-We’re still on site development design, Mr. Chairman? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Do you want to go forward with it, with the next one? MR. MAC EWAN-Are you all done with questions on that? MR. VOLLARO-No, I have traffic questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Site development. We’ll stick with that topic. Do you have questions? MR. SEGULJIC-With regards to Unit B, it looks like, just to clarify for me, the corner of that building is 129 feet from the stream? Is that what I’m seeing? MR. NACE-Unit B? MR. SEGULJIC-Unit B. MR. NACE-That is correct. MR. SEGULJIC-So how far is the building from the wetland itself, then? Because I don’t think there’s a scale on the drawing. MR. NACE-There should be a scale. MR. SEGULJIC-What does it measure out to be? So we’re looking at 40 feet? MR. NACE-Okay. You have a scale? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. SANFORD-The building’s 40 feet from the wetland? MR. SEGULJIC-The building’s 40 feet from the wetland. MR. SANFORD-I thought they said there wasn’t going to be any building within 100 feet of this parcel? It says grading only. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, we’re on to you, I guess. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I had questions on traffic. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Vehicle access and traffic. Go ahead. MR. HUNSINGER-In reviewing the traffic report, if you look at Figure 3.1 and 3.3, there’s really no difference between number of cars on Bay Road, between the no build and the build scenarios. MS. SIMINO-What do you mean no? If you look at 3.2, the bottom half of 3.2 shows the trip assignment, which is the trip generator that I talked about. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MS. SIMINO-And those were added on to, if you add 3.1 and the bottom of 3.2 are added to get 3.3, and there’s not much difference because there’s not much traffic to be generated. If I talk about the 19 trips in the morning, that gets divided up to four trips entering the residential development and fifteen trips exiting the residential development. Now, if you take those four trips, some of them are going to be coming from the north. Some are going to be coming from the south. So when you, you take that and you split it all up, the actual, there’s not like one movement that you’re adding the total amount of trips to. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, I could see where there was a difference in the traffic patterns, but the, okay, I’m sorry, I guess I misunderstood. I was looking at the larger number on Bay Road. You had 317 going south, and you had the same number. MS. SIMINO-Right, and that’s a through movement. So that we’re not adding anything to that movement, because we’re looking at who’s going to be coming in and out of Walker Lane, to and from our development. The through’s on Bay Road, we’re not going to be adding to that for our specific project. MR. HUNSINGER-Gotcha. I understand. Okay. MS. SIMINO-That number was increased when we looked at the background condition where we added the two percent per year to up that number a little bit to account for other developments and other growth and other, you know, new people driving and just a general increase in traffic. MR. HUNSINGER-I understand now. I see what you did. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Robert? MR. VOLLARO-I have one. I guess I’m going to have a fundamental disagreement with this traffic report, and I’ve got three reasons, or two reasons, really. Let me just clarify something. Tom, has C.T. Male responded to this traffic comment? MR. HILTON-Yes. In their signoff, again, which we received today, they have a couple of paragraphs, and one of them deals with the traffic. I can read this whenever you want me to. MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t you read it in right now. MR. HILTON-Okay. It’s a letter dated today, from Jim Houston, C.T. Male, and it says, “In response to our April 23, 2004 comment letter we have received a re-submittal of information from the applicant’s consultant consisting of a response letter dated April 26, 2004, excerpts from the revised plans and excerpts from the revised Stormwater Management Report. This information was faxed to us for our review. The soil test data indicates that the groundwater elevation below the proposed detention/infiltration basins is approximately 2.0’, which is less 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) than the minimum of 3.0’ required for this type of basin per the NYS Stormwater Management Design Manual, I discussed this with the applicant’s consultant earlier today and it appears that the bottom of the basins can be raised to meet this criteria. Regarding our review of the traffic impact study, the study suggests that an increase of 35 vehicles per hour during the worst case afternoon peak hour will have minimal impact on Levels of Service at the intersection of Bay and Quaker Roads. We concur with those findings. Additionally, the study only modeled one lane traffic along Bay Road, without any center turn lane. It is our understanding that the County is about to stripe the existing road to create a center turn lane. This will further improve left turning vehicle movements from Bay Road onto Walker Lane. Provided that the basin bottom elevation is raised, the revisions address our previous comments. If you have any questions related to this matter, feel free to call our office. Sincerely, C.T. Male Associates, P.C. T. James Houston, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer” MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand that. To continue on from there, this report, as many other traffic reports are, based on an isolated case in front of us. Now, Bay Road is at a point where we really need a cumulative analysis. We’re going to need a cumulative analysis on Bay Road, as opposed to each and every one. I mean, the next application for Willowbrook has got a Creighton-Manning study that talks to that one, and each time you talk about an intersection on the road, we talk about, what does the addition to that do to the traffic? I’m trying to take a look at the Bay Road from all the way, all the way up from Haviland all the way down to Quaker. You take a look at what’s going on there, and it’s pretty heavy. Secondly, the study did not include, which I think was very important, from 11 to 12 noon, when ACC changes, that’s very, very, I know, because I go in and out of there occasionally, when ACC is changing between that 11 and 12, you can almost not make a left turn out of Walker Lane, almost cannot do it, and I think there’s a lot of the residents here would probably concur with that. It is, it’s hellish, really. So that’s why I think that those two things on this traffic report, at least the 11 o’clock until noon ought to be re-examined carefully. MR. NACE-Can I address one of your issues there, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Sure. MR. NACE-I talked to Bill Lamy at Warren County, a couple of days ago, and Bill informed me that they are retaining, or have retained now, Earth Tech to do a corridor access management study of Bay Road from Quaker to Haviland, the section that you’ve proposed, and I understand they’re getting started. MR. VOLLARO-That’s good news. MR. NACE-They’ve put out a request for surveying proposals for that, and they’ll be going ahead with studies. MR. VOLLARO-And they’ll probably add some escalations to that in time, over years, just like this young lady did here. MR. NACE-I imagine so, and they’ll be looking at what controls are necessary to make it work better, and whether the turn lane provides everything or whether additional controls are needed. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. I can see that that would be a big help, if we could get a corridor examination. MR. HUNSINGER-I think everybody knows that there are times when making a left hand turn onto Bay Road is almost impossible. Another time is about ten of eight in the morning. A lot of times I’ll be coming out of Stewart’s and go to make a left hand turn out onto Bay to so south, and with all the traffic going to ACC, it’s almost impossible, but I went up to visit the site this evening. I came out Walker Lane at quarter of six. I didn’t even have to stop at the stop sign, because there was no traffic. I mean I did stop sign, but I didn’t have to because there was no 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) traffic. So, I mean, there’s always going to be anecdotal information that suggests something other than what a study is going to show. Because they only studied that one day, in those certain hours. MR. VOLLARO-I think what Tom has offered here, the fact that Mr. Lamy is going to do an end to end traffic analysis of that road from Haviland down to Quaker, is good news to me. MR. SANFORD-What’s the point to this project, though, Bob? In other words, this study, and most of the studies we get, typically look at the incremental impact of, in this case, of 32 additional units, and not the cumulative impact of all that development. I remember when we had the other project, I was concerned about safety. I was told, hey, a traffic study said it’s not an issue. I believe there’s been some fatalities on Bay Road since that point in time, but what does it mean? I mean, you’re pleased there’s going to be this cumulative study, but how do we address this particular project in the meantime? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’d like the project to be looked at, Number One, I would like at least that eleven to noon time and as Mr. Hunsinger said, there’s a time at eight o’clock in the morning when you can’t get in and out, and I think this study ought to examine those, those two areas. MR. SANFORD-And I agree, but, you know, going back to a point that was raised when we were doing some measuring here, when Tom was asking some questions, I mean, I think I was told by Jon there wouldn’t be construction within 100 feet of the wetland. There would merely be grading or basins. Is that correct? Now, I don’t know, I have a rule here, and it looks like Building B is clearly going to be within 100 feet of the wetland, and possibly a good section of Building D would be as well. Am I wrong in how I’m looking at this? MR. LAPPER-We still have some comments. I want Wendy to get on the record to respond to Bob on traffic, but to answer that, there’s no disturbance of the wetland, so that there are no permits required from DEC or the Army Corps. There is grading within the buffer, and you’re correct that one corner of the building is within probably 40 or 50 feet of the wetland, but because the water is not coming from the building and going into the wetland, but it’s going in to a controlled basin where it’ll be treated, there’s no impact on the wetland, as a result of that construction, or that grading. MR. SANFORD-But there is a Freshwater Permit required of Queensbury. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and there are standards. MR. SANFORD-Queensbury basically says, hey, you’ve got to be 100 feet outside of? MR. LAPPER-No, no, that’s not what it says. It says that if you are not within 100 feet, if you can’t stay outside of 100 feet, you need to have a permit, and those permits are under the DEC standards to make sure that it’s not going to impact the quality of water in the wetland, and we have assured that that is going to be the case, and those are the standards. It cites the section of the State Freshwater Wetlands Regulations. MR. SANFORD-Well, for the record, the building will be within 100 feet? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Two buildings will be within 100 feet. MS. SIMINO-Okay. Regarding the traffic comments, the morning peak hour that we looked at does include the timeframe that you were concerned about in the morning. The peak that we found was 7:45 to 8:45. So the conditions in here does show what the average delay per vehicle during that time period, and it is, like I said, a Level of Service B, which it’s an average vehicle delay, but it’s saying that the average vehicle can get out of that intersection with a very reasonable amount of delay. Regarding the eleven o’clock to noon hour, that time of day is not 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) going to have as much traffic generated by the residential development. We typically look at the combination of the worst case scenario for both the surrounding roads and the development. Typically, a residential development, the highest amount of traffic generated is in the morning when people are leaving to go to work, and in the afternoon when people are coming home from work, and that also tends to be a high time of traffic on the adjacent street for the same reason, people are also going to work and coming home from work, and that noon hour, so you might have a higher traffic on Bay Road, but your ins and outs of your residential development will be less, and I did, actually, before I came here, a little sensitivity analysis to see if we increase the Bay Road traffic, and I added 250 cars in each direction on Bay Road, and I still came up with, for both, in the morning, a Level of Service C, I think, and in the afternoon it dropped to a Level of Service D with average vehicles delay of still 30 seconds or less per vehicle. Those conditions, regardless of adding 250 cars on Bay Road, in each direction, it’s not going to warrant a traffic signal at that intersection. There’s less than 60 cars coming out of that development. Those are not conditions that are going to warrant a traffic signal, and like this gentleman was saying, sometimes there are periods, at an unsignalized intersection, where there is delay during the day, but you can’t just put up a traffic signal or warrant, and the County is, actually looking, like we said, at doing some improvements which will help not only this intersection, but if they do that along the whole corridor, that two way left turn lane, what that does is gives room for vehicles turning left from Bay Road into Walker, or any other facility, it gives them a little refuge area, so that they will remove themselves from the through lane, and then also when cars are leaving the side roads, it gives them a refuge area that we call like a two stage left turn, so that you can actually find a gap in half the traffic, if you need to, get out there and then wait and then merge into the other lane, which will help during the busier times of day, but based on this analysis, those are not warranted, needed, improvements, based on this particular development. They will help, but they’re not warranted because of these 32 apartments that we’re proposing. MR. VOLLARO-When you say warranted, you’re talking about warranted for lights? MS. SIMINO-Well, there’s also warrants for left turn lanes, and warrants for, you know, there’s a warrant for turn lanes, as well as there are warrants for, and because the levels of service are good, and the delays are not that high, as well as the volume in and out of Walker Lane, you know, this project is not warranting those lanes or the signal. MR. VOLLARO-Well, at least it’ll give, if we’re going to put a turn lane in there, it will give people a place to park safely while they’re trying to make that left turn, if that’s striped in that way. MS. SIMINO-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Right now, when you stop there, you risk getting tailgated, you know, rear ended as the expression goes, because you’re in the drive lane, and what happens when you’re stopped there is people move over and get off the drive lane and onto what is no man’s land in there on Bay Road. It’s kind of like a bicycle path, people walk on it, but people go around and use that in order to bypass the car that’s waiting to make a left. MS. SIMINO-Right. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s dangerous. MS. SIMINO-Yes, but it’s also typical of two lane highways everywhere, where you have unsignalized intersections. MR. VOLLARO-I’m trying to change that, you see. MS. SIMINO-But you can’t widen every single road to accommodate a left turn. If it’s warranted, yes, and, yes, this situation will improve, no doubt will improve Bay Road. There’s 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) no doubt in that, but our analysis does not show that this project is the reason why that needs to be done on Bay Road. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m done with my spiel on traffic. MR. MAC EWAN-Does any other questions relative to traffic? MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, can I go back to site development? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. SEGULJLIC-Why 32 units? MR. LAPPER-Because taking out the septic leach field that’s existing now creates the room that allows 32 units, and that’s, when you do the math under the Zoning Code, that’s less than what the site can accommodate, in terms of the area requirements. MR. SEGULJIC-Why not 24, or? MR. SANFORD-16? MR. SEGULJIC-Or 40 or 16? MR. LAPPER-Because the site can accommodate 32. Thirty-two is what the zoning allows, and there’s a demand for apartment housing in Town. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Let me just stress that. I know this comes up, you know, year after when I come front, I mean, if I proposed 100 units, you’d probably ask me, gee, why not 60 units? If, you know, we want to minimize the amount of units or subdivision, lots in subdivisions, then maybe it should be addressed, but, I mean, this isn’t the first time my project, or anybody else, this comes up a lot, why so many units or can’t you scale it back. Well, land, obviously, is at a premium. Everyone knows that now. Queensbury is a growth area. There is a demand for the amount of units that I’m doing, and, you know, the other thing I just want to point out, I know we just spent, the Town of Queensbury just spent I think it was almost seven or eight years on the new Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Everybody in this room got noticed in the newspaper, Queensbury newsletters, please come out to the Town Hall, voice your opinions if zones need to be changed, whether it’s density increased, or increased or decreased. This is an area that is, Bay Road is the last area in the Town of Queensbury that is going to permit this type of housing, and I feel I really know the area well. If you ask me a section of Queensbury, I could probably tell you what the zoning is. The days are, the land is getting numbered, as far as the amount of sites that it’ll allow density, and like I said earlier, as long as we keep approving the big box stores, the Targets, the Home Depots, the Lowe’s, the Dick’s Sporting Goods that are coming in, all these other big box stores, people have to have a place to live, and right now, it’s my understanding that within the Town they’re doing a study, Chris Round and Marilyn Ryba, about trying to even get affordable housing in Queensbury. It’s an issue that’s becoming a problem. So, I mean, just because these are apartments doesn’t mean that these are bad people or we’re creating a bad situation. So, you know, I do prefer to stay with the 32 units. MR. SEGULJLIC-Well, can we, I mean, for example, Building C is eight units. Instead of having Building B within the 100 foot, within 100 feet of the wetland area, couldn’t four of those units, eight of those units, be added on to Building C? MR. SCHERMERHORN-You mean add them on to my existing ones? MR. SEGULJIC-No, the new Building C. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I’m not sure I understand the question. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. SANFORD-Make Building C bigger, and eliminate Building B. MR. SEGULJIC-Eliminate Building B, move them all over to new Building C. MR. SCHERMERHORN-You mean make it like a twelve unit building or something like that? Well, I’ve been in front of this Board before where I’ve come in and not all these people, but I’ve been in front of the Board where I have come in with 10 unit buildings and 12 unit buildings, and then the aesthetic concern comes in that the buildings are, you know, a half a mile long, and that was actually going back to Hunter Brook. I actually had ten unit and twelve unit buildings, and then I actually scaled them back to eight’s, four’s and six’s, that are currently over there now. So eight has always been a, you know, a decent number. MR. SANFORD-The difference is, in this particular case, here, you are requesting a permit to be within 100 feet of a wetland. You do a nice job talking about the need for affordable housing, and I don’t disagree with you, but there’s another side to that as well. Our school system’s taxed right now. The more students you put into the school system will cause those types of rates to go up. I don’t know if you read in the paper, they’re far, the cost of the school system is going up far greater than the cost of inflation, and so there’s a lot of infrastructure costs to the Town for these types of housing projects, as well as meeting perhaps a good goal, which is to provide some affordable housing for the people who are working at the big box stores, as you’ve mentioned, but again, there’s also, you know, where’s the green space? I was very pleased, a year or so ago, when you had a development, and you had some land, and you seeded that land over to the Town for some green space, perhaps some habitat for the Karner blue, and it was the first time it happened, and I said, well, isn’t this great. He’s basically embracing the concept of the rural Queensbury, and giving something back as a developer. Here what I see is an incredibly congested, maxed out, dense program, infringing upon wetlands, where I don’t see the need for it, and I think that’s what some of these questions are directed at, Rich, and, you know, we can disagree, but, I think, you know, there’s reasonable basis on both sides. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. Again, I have to go back to the fact, and, yes, I have, in the past, I’ve just done two subdivisions up on Bay Road I’m doing one, on Sherman Avenue, where I’ve given 12 acres on one and 18 acres on another one, but those were areas that specifically, those were areas that would warrant that. What I’m getting at, again, and I guess I’m trying to, the zoning here was put here for a reason. It hasn’t changed in 25 years. All the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the information that’s been provided, this was an area that was meant to be high density. It was meant to have sewers. It was meant to be the business community of Queensbury, the residential, you know, office, multi-family. I’m not doing anything, anything that the zoning doesn’t allow for. I mean, there may be another situation, yes, I can come in and I can give more green space than others, but to get areas where you can have this type of housing, it’s limited. MR. SANFORD-You see, the zoning allowing for something is one way of looking at it. The other way of looking at it is, the zoning doesn’t necessarily disallow it, but really what we’re interested in is a good plan, a plan that’ll compliment the best interests of the Town of Queensbury, and hopefully that’ll compliment your project, but, you know, if your argument is you go strictly by what zoning won’t disallow, then why do we have a Planning Board? MR. LAPPER-Well, but we’re also connecting to the sewer system. I mean, one of the benefits here is that we’re taking out a large leach field and connecting to the sewer system, which is going to get treated. So that’s an environmental positive impact, and, as Rich said, this is the area of Town that was envisioned for sewer. It’s going to have sewer. This is where the high density should be, and if you look at his photograph of Baybridge across the street, that’s high density residential as well. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Point taken. In an effort to move things along here, I mean, we understand where each side’s position seems to be on this, is that, if there’s some way that the 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) encroachment on the wetlands can be avoided, it’s as plus/plus for everybody. I think that’s the sense I’m getting from Planning Board members. Anybody else have any questions about vehicle access, traffic patterns? MR. VOLLARO-I have an emergency access question. MR. MAC EWAN-Go. MR. VOLLARO-I looked at the site, and I don’t see any provisions for a fire truck to easily service the expanded site, particularly in the winter months. Now, we’ve got an 11.76 acres here that is now maxed out at 80 units. I mean, I think to jump on Mr. Sanford’s words, this site is really maxed out, but I’m trying to see what the emergency service would be on the expanded site. The whole site. It looks like, during snow months, it might be very difficult to get a big piece of equipment in there. I don’t know. MR. NACE-I don’t really follow, Bob. All the turning radiuses, you know, in through the site, around this loop, and back, through the site, are turning radiuses that allow. MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s good in dry weather, Tom. I’m talking about during the winter months when we have snow, and we’ve got snow being piled, and, you know, whether that amount of access inhibits a large vehicle in any way. I’d have to defer to Mr. Ringer here. He’s been on these vehicles and understands them a little bit. Larry, what do you think? MR. RINGER-Well, I really don’t understand what you’re asking Bob? If it’s plowed, we can get in there and we can turn around. Your exposure is going to be at one building at a time. You’re certainly not going to be exposed to all the buildings at one time. MR. SCHERMERHORN-The four new buildings, under the new Code. MR. VOLLARO-The four new buildings are sprinklered? MR. SCHERMERHORN-The four new buildings that will be constructed, the new New York State Code, those will have sprinkler systems in them. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s interesting. MR. RINGER-You’re sprinklered, all your buildings are sprinklered, Rich? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. All new ones, yes. MR. RINGER-Very good. Very good. Is that part of the new Code, Rich, or did you just put the new sprinklers in? MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, that’s part of the new Code now. MR. RINGER-Okay. MR. SCHERMERHORN-All the ones at North Brook have the same thing, sprinklers. MR. NACE-So, I don’t know, Bob, does that answer your question? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I listened a little bit to what Larry had to say. I was concerned about large vehicles being able to negotiate that site. If he’s been on the back of these vehicles, he understands them better than I do. He seems to think that the site is, will accommodate large vehicles. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. RINGER-I don’t see any difference in the site in the summer or the winter. You’re going to get in. As long as they can get turned around, they’re going to back out, but I don’t see it as being an issue, getting in and out of there at different times of the year. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. RINGER-If that was your question. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just had that as a question, you know, taking a look at the site. MR. RINGER-I’m not an expert, though, you know, if you have a real question on it, or a concern, we should send it to the Fire Marshal and let him look at it, and send it on the Company. MR. VOLLARO-He made no comment here, I notice. He did make a comment on our next application. MR. RINGER-On the next one, on the next application I saw he did. MR. VOLLARO-But I didn’t see anything from him on this application at all. So that’s why I asked the question. MR. RINGER-Yes, well, you’re dealing with a little different animal here, you know, you’re spread out, and it’s not a real exposure, particularly with the sprinkler, it certainly reduces your exposure considerably. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions relative to emergency access? Stormwater/sewage design? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I have a question there, Mr. Chairman. I’ll go to another section of my notes, and just talk to that, to the sewer design for a minute. My understanding, and I’d like the applicants to correct me if I’m wrong, even if this, these four units were not built, there’s an agreement between the Town of Queensbury and Mr. Schermerhorn to put the sewer up Walker Lane. Is that correct? MR. LAPPER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So, essentially, these two things are mutually exclusive. MR. LAPPER-Well, no, they’re not mutually exclusive, because the sewer line facilitates getting rid of the septic field. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. No, I understand that, but in the event we didn’t, let’s say, the worst case analysis, we didn’t do these four buildings, the sewer line would still be constructed and would still feed the existing buildings there at Baybrook? MR. LAPPER-Rich has committed that the sewer line will go up Walker Lane by the end of May. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. RINGER-I read somewhere, and I can’t find it in here, I heard something about if you’re going to tear down a leach field, that there’s a waiting period or something? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. LAPPER-Yes, Tom will address that. MR. VOLLARO-That’s part of my question, Larry. MR. RINGER-I’m sorry, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Getting along into it here. I wanted to suggest a construction schedule be provided showing the steps leading to the start and completion of the project. Now, there we would be integrating into that the start of the sewer, bringing it up Bay Road. The connection to the existing buildings, the removal of effluent pumps, the installation of grinder pumps, taking out the laterals up at the top of the field, taking out the septic tanks. Then, those fields have to, that’s where I’m trying to get where DEC is coming from on that, whether those fields have to lay in rest for a while. MR. NACE-Okay. I’ll take your questions one at a time. Obviously, the sewer is coming up Walker Lane, as Rich said, by the end of May. Then Rich will connect, disconnect the existing pumps that lead up to the effluent field, and install different pumps and pump raw sewage into the new Walker Lane sewer, into the Bay Road sewer. At that point, the fields will become inactive. Now, we’ve done a lot of checking. I’ve talked with the Health Department. Rich has talked to DEC. Neither of those State agencies have any hard and fast standards about what you do with an abandoned septic system. Today I finally was able to get a hold of an engineer at the United States Environmental Protection Agency, in a branch they call their Small Flows Clearinghouse, which deals specifically with septic systems and small community sewage systems, and what he told me was, first of all, very authoritatively, that any bacterial growth or bacterial mat in the soil underneath the septic system, is generally, once you disconnect the system and stop using that, that maximum life for any harmful bacteria in that is 10 months, maximum. Any pathogens that happen to be in the sewage effluent that goes into that field he said are normally much shorter life than that. So, what we’re going to propose is that once the fields are disconnected, that they sit fallow, unused, untouched, for ten months, okay, and at that time they would be excavated and removed from the site. MR. VOLLARO-All right. Okay. So there’ll be a fallow period in there. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-I noticed that, in the Creighton-Manning report, the traffic report, just says, this is just an aside, this report deals with the Year 2006, I believe, is the outside, that when I look at the Freshwater Permit, which is we’re talking these permits, these two things in the same veins. In the application itself, the Freshwater Permit application, it says approximately completion of the project is the Fall of 2004. So there’s a conflict in there. MR. NACE-Well, that was filled out before we had the information regarding the septic field. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So 2006 is really what we’re talking about. Is that correct? MR. NACE-That is correct. MR. MAC EWAN-That 10 month waiting period you were talking about, for the septic system being abandoned. You said it was a gentleman from the EPA? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Where was the office located? MR. NACE-It’s Western University, called their Small Flows Clearinghouse. MR. MAC EWAN-And DEC didn’t have any position on it one way or the other? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. NACE-No. They didn’t. MR. MAC EWAN-Or the Department of Health? MR. NACE-No. I talked with the Troy office of Water Supply, DOH. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions relative to sewage? Flood plains, retention, detention design? MR. VOLLARO-No. I left that pretty much up to C.T. Male, in looking at that. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions relative to lighting design? MR. VOLLARO-I have one for parking that I think is also part of site development design that you didn’t ask about yet. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I did. MR. VOLLARO-Did you? I’m sorry. I will. On parking, the expansion will now consist of 80 units totally. Now, that’s the 48 existing and the 32. Now 179-4-040 allows one and a half dwelling units. Now the site, that would put their site at about 120, 117 are currently there. If I allow, just looking at these four buildings, if we allow one and a half for that, I get 48 spaces. So I guess what I’m really saying is that those 48 spaces, coupled to the existing 117 spaces, gives me 165. That puts me 37 and a half percent over Code as it stands. So for this one Board member, I would limit the parking on those four buildings to Code of one and a half per unit. Because when you couple the whole thing together, you’re going to be 37 and a half over Code anyway. Code would be 120. MR. LAPPER-I’m not sure that at the time that Rich built this, about 10 years ago, that it was the standard. I think that was in the new regs, that the parking minimums were also the maximums in Queensbury now. So I don’t think that that required a variance at the time. MR. VOLLARO-No, but I’m just looking at the site when it’s totally completed now. We’re going to have, basically you’re going to be, you have 165 spaces against Code of 120. So you’re 37 and a half percent over. MR. SANFORD-I think what Jon’s saying is it begs the question, do they need a variance. Unless they change it. MR. VOLLARO-We’ve got certain discretions in parking, not much in this particular instance because it’s not a verigous use, like it was on Wal-Mart, but I still feel that we ought to limit these spaces to 165, for the total. MR. HUNSINGER-What would you want to see the total, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-The total will be, right now it would be 165. The spec would be 120. You take your. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s 117 existing, and they’ve proposed 58. MR. VOLLARO-They proposed, well, no, they’re proposing 58, but I only want to give them 48. Forty-eight is Code, one and a half spaces per. MR. HUNSINGER-I see what you’re saying. MR. LAPPER-Bob, Rich is agreeable to limiting it to 48, if that’s what you want to see. MR. HUNSINGER-I might disagree with that, if we have some latitude. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. VOLLARO-You mean to make them larger? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Because right now I see the site as 37 and a half percent over existing Code, and I thought that was a little bit extensive, but, you know, you make a point. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, a lot of these townhouse developments, when there isn’t enough parking, it creates greater problems than you have if you have too many, and I’d rather have a few extra, so that when people have company and guests come to visit, things like that, there’s a place for those cars to go, rather than in the right of way. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, you know what, maybe our Code of one and a half is a little too restrictive. I don’t know. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, I mean, we look at it on a case by case basis. I don’t think 10 spaces, over the course of the whole development, is going to make a big deal, but I certainly wouldn’t want to see any less than what is required, you know, not take away from the excess that’s there now. MR. VOLLARO-Graft another 10 spaces. MR. SANFORD-The question is, do we look at it or does ZBA look at it? MR. HILTON-Well, first of all, the applicant is proposing 58 spaces with the new addition. I guess it’s kind of up in the air as to whether we’re looking at the entire site or just this expansion, in terms of the parking, but if you look at just the expansion, the one and a half parking spaces per unit comes out to 48 spaces, 20% over that brings it to 58. So they’re right at the 28, or 20% over, for the expansion here. MR. LAPPER-So it wouldn’t require a variance. MR. HILTON-So it wouldn’t require a variance. That portion. MR. SANFORD-Well, I mean, that’s if you look at it in an incremental, but if you look at it as a collective project, then it does. MR. HILTON-It may. MR. SANFORD-Who’s to say? MR. HILTON-Yes, it may, but. MR. LAPPER-Those were permitted at the time that the project was approved. MR. HILTON-If there’s some sense in that, I don’t know. MR. SANFORD-Who’s to say? MR. RINGER-I think we can say that, if we feel so inclined. I don’t think we can take, cut the parking places in the new addition, or cut the parking from the old. If we cut them from the old. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the old is there. MR. RINGER-The old is there. That’s what I’m getting at. The old is there. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. VOLLARO-I’m willing to give them the Code of 48. Chris has a point that says, look, the other 10 may be enough of a buffer to help out, and I’m willing to go with that, Chris. MR. RINGER-I’d rather be over than under, certainly. Like Chris said. I’d rather be over than under. MR. VOLLARO-Again, you know, if the Code is wrong, if we have a Code that doesn’t really express itself correctly, we ought to find a way to change that Code. MR. MAC EWAN-Another time. Another place. MR. VOLLARO-I realize that. MR. LAPPER-We had that discussion with the Board when you approved the North Brook project on Meadowbrook. Rich always was concerned with not having enough spaces because people park on the lawn and then it trashes the lawn. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I remember that. MR. LAPPER-So that’s why it’s 58. He just took the 20%, in this case. MR. RINGER-I think we all agree with it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Can we jump back to lighting now? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we can. MR. MAC EWAN-Does anybody have any questions on conformance with design standards? MR. SEGULJIC-I do. I think the lighting fixture you picked out is very nice, but how about making it downcast, to shield the? MR. NACE-We have, in our response to Staff comments, we submitted the cut sheet for a shielded. It’s the same type of light, but it’s a shielded luminar in the light. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, just one more, I’d like to just jump back to sewage for one more minute, and go back to Mr. Shaw’s. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Vollaro, you need to keep up the pace here. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that, sir. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead, back to sewage. MR. VOLLARO-Just real quick. On the 4/6 e-mail from Mike Shaw, he asked that something be put into our motion if we were to approve this, that states before a permit is issued for connection, detailed plans for the parcel’s connection shall be reviewed by the Wastewater Department. I just wanted to get that in. MR. LAPPER-That’s just the technical design. MR. VOLLARO-I understand, but he asked that that be included, and I just. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I just wanted to mention something about the lights. Currently there’s no post lights in there now. There’s just coach lights on each side of the doors. The coach lights do illuminate it, just enough for the people to get in and out, and for safety. I’m not opposed to 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) eliminating post lights if people are concerned with the illumination of post lights. That will add, I mean, they are illuminated enough with a light, a coach light on each side of the entrance doors. So I’m not opposed to that. Otherwise, I could go with what you want. MR. SEGULJIC-I have no problem with the pole lights, just that they should be downcast. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions relative to lighting? MR. SEGULJIC-Do we want to see max min’s? MR. VOLLARO-Well, what I’d like to, you know, on this site, I don’t know whether it’s applicable or not to even look at four to one. Tom, that’s something you and I ought to have a cup of coffee over one day, about four to one ratios, but I’m not allowed to talk to you. So we can’t do that. In any event, I would like to have, probably, and I don’t know whether I need it, but, you know, the photometric diagram that you supply here really doesn’t give me a good feeling for foot candles on the ground. It’s very difficult to determine what they are, without having a grid type of a display. MR. NACE-We’re working diligently at trying to get the software to do the grid correctly. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. On this site, I’m not sure that getting the average, the max and the min, in order to calculate four to one is absolutely necessary. I just wanted to state that. Now, it appears that there are eight poles lights that are on there, and the Ordinance now, now you’ve got the deflectors on there to send things to the ground. MR. NACE-It’s really not a deflector. It’s a shield inside the luminar. MR. VOLLARO-Inside the cone. I don’t know. Rich, how do you feel about the lights? Right now, when I go through your development. MR. LAPPER-Which one? MR. VOLLARO-The one off Walker Lane. Because I’ve been through there just one night this week, taking a look at the lights. MR. SCHERMERHORN-The one we’re talking about right now? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I feel the lighting I have on the buildings is adequate. MR. VOLLARO-I do, too. I thought it was lit well enough for me to drive in. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I’ll tell you the problem I’ve run into with my other projects, specifically the one over on Hiland, on Meadowbrook Road, the light posts I have out there, people just complain that they’re illuminated too bright. We have some people that want them on later than others. Some want them off earlier. This particular project, the coach lights work fine. I mean, I don’t find them necessary, but I mean, if you, the Board would like them, I’m happy to put them. MR. VOLLARO-In order not to light up the night sky, Mr. Chairman, I would accept the applicant’s idea of eliminating the post lights. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. SCHERMERHORN-I mean, this project is, if it is to go through, these buildings are significantly lower than any of the surrounding residential homes. I mean, it’s much, it’s probably 30 to 40 feet lower than the homes that are to the west of this. So I’m sure they probably appreciate not having anything there, but not having those lights to look at in their backyard, they’d probably choose that over having them there. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions relative to lighting? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Landscaping? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The buffering. I would propose that we continue the 20 foot buffering along the 127 foot to the south that border the lands of Pinchook. We don’t have anything there. The buffering, right now, runs pretty much against Maple Row, which is a Class C buffer, 20 feet. That works. That’s Code. You know the strip I’m talking about? It’s from the old right of way? MR. SCHERMERHORN-The 25 foot strip? MR. VOLLARO-No, no. You know that 25 foot strip that comes out? That’s an old right of way. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-South of that is Pinchook’s land. MR. SCHERMERHORN-You’re talking behind my two existing buildings? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Just bring that Class B buffer down right up to the building line. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I can certainly add more. MR. VOLLARO-I think that would help out in that instance. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I mean, I will say, honestly, it is buffered quite heavily, but we’ll add more, if you request. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve looked. It’s pretty sparse, Rich, when you get in there. If you get to sit where your first existing apartment is, and look up into there, it’s kind of sparse. It would be nice to have that whole 20 foot buffer all the way down to the existing building line of the new property, of the new proposal. Who is Lambi Investments to the north? MR. SCHERMERHORN-That is Monday Leombruno that owns Old Coach Manor Apartments. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. I see there’s some buffering there, some natural buffer shown, on the drawing. MR. SCHERMERHORN-There’s a, I have aerial photographs which I’m happy to share with everyone. There is considerable buffering from Old Coach Manor. MR. VOLLARO-It shows that on the drawing. It shows some buffering there. I just wanted to know who that was. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Any other landscaping questions? MR. NACE-Here’s the edge of Lambi’s here. This is to the north. Lambi is here, and there’s a fairly good tree buffer over there. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Tom, do you want to give them that? That’s when the project was built, before anything existed. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions on landscaping? Environmental? Wetlands? MR. VOLLARO-I think, I had one on that, but I think Mr. Nace has cleared that up. I had an involved agencies, which comes underneath that section, I believe, and I said DEC on the removal and storage and transportation of contaminated soils that exists, but apparently he has gotten information from other than the DEC agency. Is that correct, or is that part of DEC, the agency that talked about? MR. NACE-No, EPA, it’s the Federal. MR. VOLLARO-Environmental Protection Agency. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Bob, just, if I may. I did talk to DEC personally myself several times, and their means of, believe it or not, of dealing with the system is they leave it in place, or, it’s permitted under Part 750, under the DEC reg’s, you can actually use the material on site, for backfill material and cover it, but for the record, that’s not what my intentions would be to do. My intentions would be to aerate it and remove it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that conforms with your engineer’s statement of around 10 months? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We have a C.T. Male signoff? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-From their letter dated 4/23/04, and they also signed off on the traffic report, which I still have some problems with, but anyway, okay. I think that’s it, for me. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions relative to environmental? Noise, air quality, aesthetics, historical factors, wildlife, etc.? MR. SANFORD-I think all the issues earlier mentioned regarding the permit are applicable here as well, and I don’t think they need to be repeated. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Neighborhood character? Neighborhood impacts? MR. VOLLARO-Well, the only neighborhood impact I could see would be the traffic, and other than that, these buildings are very much, they very much conform to the surrounding buildings. It’s all pretty much MR, Multi-Family Residential. MR. MAC EWAN-Other involved agencies? Anything I missed? MR. VOLLARO-No, I think you covered them all. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you want to add? 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. LAPPER-Not at this time. Give up the table for a few minutes. We’ll open up the public hearing. We’re going to do a joint public hearing, both relative to the Freshwater Wetlands Permit and to this Site Plan application. Before I open it up to general comments from the public, you’ve got some written correspondence over there? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HILTON-Right. I’ll try to get through these as quick as possible. First of all, I have a Record of a Phone Conversation between myself and an adjacent property owner, Liz Valente. Took place yesterday at 2:45 p.m. The reason for the conversation, as opposed to Mrs. Valente attending, she’s in Florida and can’t, just got the notice yesterday, in Florida, and couldn’t attend. Her concerns she wanted me to relay to the Board were over potential environmental impacts, particularly wet soil conditions in the adjacent wetlands, as well as negative impacts related to traffic on Walker Lane, and potential negative impacts on the school system, and that’s my summary of my conversation. She did want me to relay her concerns. Secondly, I have a letter from a Susan Morris. It says, “Dear Planning Board Members: I am opposed to the construction of 32 Additional residential units to Schermerhorn Properties on Walker Lane. The land in the area is already saturated and any additional construction will cause more run-off into the wetlands. An additional concern is access to the proposed units. There is only one two-lane road available to these many residential homesteads. This could be disastrous in the event of emergency vehicles needing entrance to the development. Queensbury needs to preserve some land free from buildings. As homeowner of the property abutting the east side of the wetlands on Walker, I urge you to vote NO to additional units on Schermerhorn Properties. Sincerely, Susan M. Morris” I have a letter, it’s a letter and a petition signed by 137 people on Walker Lane, Baywood Drive, Baybridge residence, residents in Maple Row, which is to the west. It says “The purpose of the letter is not to specifically delineate all of the concerns of all parties, but rather to raise the flag to the fact that there are several significant issues that need to be addressed. DEC certainly needs to be involved with respect to the wetlands, water runoff and the proper handling of the septic field removal. Additionally, the Planning Dept. and Board need to determine/verify if all requirements and conditions for the existing 48 unit development site plan were implemented. Our experience at Baybridge has been that Mr. Schermerhorn has been unresponsive to water runoff from the Baybrook Apartment Development (i.e. letters addressing this issue have gone unanswered). We look forward to discussing our concerns tomorrow night at the Public Hearing.” And again, the petition is signed by 137 people in the area, as I mentioned. There’s a letter from Mary Rose Holzhauer. It says, “Dear Mr. MacEwan: As a homeowner in Baybridge and a resident of Queensbury, I have a concern about a proposed project, the building of thirty two units to be added behind Baybrook Apartments. Construction of these apartments would involve removal and rearrangement of much land, trees, and water. There appears to be a significant amount of wet land, small streams, and indigent wildlife, all of which would be seriously compromised or destroyed by the building of thirty two dwellings, and also would likely adversely affect the environment around Baybridge. Living in this area of Queensbury, “Home of Natural Beauty….A Good Place To Live” has been a blessing I hope the Planning Board will safeguard for me. Very truly yours, Mary Rose Holzhauer” A letter from Judge and Duffy Attorneys at Law. It’s two separate letters. The first one concerning emergency vehicle concerns. It says, “We represent homeowners of property adjacent to Walker Lane apartment complex and the purpose of this letter is to express our serious concerns with respect to the proposal to expand the apartment complex, particularly our traffic, fire and emergency vehicle concerns. As you know access to the existing apartment complex is from the single Walker Lane that now services the Bay Bridge development and also Walker Lane residents. It dead-ends in the existing apartment complex after passing through a circuitous route through an uncovered parking lot around a trash disposal center. The proposed expansion of this apartment complex would extend this dead-end access through more uncovered parking lots ending in a wetlands. There is no other way in or out in fine weather. After any reasonable snow storm there is no practical ingress or egress for fire or emergency vehicles at all. The Fire Marshal should address these issues before any discussion of the project is had before the Planning Board. Sincerely, H. Wayne Judge” The second letter from Judge and Duffy says, “We represent homeowners of property adjacent to Walker Lane apartment complex and the purpose of this letter is to express 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) our serious concerns with respect to the proposal to expand the apartment complex, related to the removal of a hill, or mountain, containing the existing septic field which has serviced the very large apartment complex for a number of years. The application for expansion contains a statement that the existing man made septic field will be removed. First of all the grade up to the adjacent property on the west is not man made. The proposal calls for the removal of a mountain saturated with effluent that will result in a grade forty feet in height over a distance of about sixty feet. the new grade created will be taller than a four-story building. There appears to be no plan to hold the bank from erosion. What is the quantity of the material that will be removed? What is in the material? Have any tests been conducted to determine whether the accumulation of septic effluent contains hazardous substances? Where will this material be taken? Are the homeowners in the proposed disposal site entitled to notice that they will soon have a used septic field as a neighbor? How will the deposit affect the groundwater in the disposal area? How has the groundwater in the existing location been affected by the presence and removal of the Septic Hill? Will an environmental bond be posted? We are sure that specialists in the environmental field will know of many more issues than those raised here, but certainly no intelligent discussion of this project can take place until these issues are thoroughly studied. Sincerely, Wayne Judge” I just have two more here. This one is from Terry DeAngelo. It says, “It has come to my attention that Mr. Richard Schermerhorn has requested approval from the Town to construct an additional apartment building to the already existing Bayberry Apartment complex off Walker Lane. It is this proposal that has prompted my letter to you to respectfully request that this request be denied. There is a high volume of residential units already existing within the Baybridge subdivision and Bayberry Apartment complex that collectively contribute to the high traffic flow along Walker Lane. This number of vehicles going in and out of both developments has not been without issue as it stands currently. The idea of increasing that flow of traffic can only worsen a preexisting problem. I am unaware of any potential development plans for the remainder of vacant land in the Baybridge community, but if that is a future possibility, then that would also need to be taken into consideration. I am not an engineer, but I do believe increasing the traffic over a single road being used as ingress and egress for two developments must take a toll on an infrastructure. If I am not mistaken, there is a noticeable deterioration of the roads now. There is, however, an even greater concern and that is the displacement of water in a high water table and poor drainage area. The wooded area behind the building to the left when entering Bayberry Apartments has served a purpose and I cannot see any reason for the Town to allow the development of a vacant parcel that serves as protection against runoff and poor drainage. Would the Town be willing to then place culverts for water diversion or drains with holding tanks to accommodate the additional water created by the loss of this wooded area? We have some fairly substantial water issues in our area as it stands. In fact, are we not seeing the installation of drainage at the end of Walker now to remedy the standing water that occurs? The soil for the area is not conducive to proper drainage, therefore eliminating a source of relief just does not make sense. Believe me when I say that I understand that Mr. Schermerhorn has certainly done his share to boost the economy for the area with his construction and has provided necessary rentals to the area residents, however, his construction should not be at the expense of the current neighborhood, especially when the sole purpose at this point is to provide him with convenient additional income potential. I do not believe it necessary for every square of land to be developed. Isn’t density of an area an issue? Wouldn’t a slice of green space remaining be a good thing? There is enough land available for his continued growth, as I am aware of several other areas of vacant land that Mr. Schermerhorn currently owns. Again, I urge the Board members to reconsider his request for construction. Taking all the issues into consideration, expanding the Bayberry Apartments benefits no one but Mr. Schermerhorn himself and I would find it a great injustice to the area residents to allow this additional construction. I thank you for your time and consideration in this very important matter. Sincerely, Terry DeAngelo 40 Dorlon Drive Queensbury, NY 12804” And the last is a letter from Joyce Smith. “My husband and I are very concerned to hear that there is a proposal by Mr. Schermerhorn to build an additional 32 apartments behind the current Baybrook Apartments that are on the north side of Walker Lane. We hope that such additional building will not be allowed at that site because: 1. We now already have 137 housing units using Walker Lane to enter and exit Bay Road without a traffic light, and Walker Lane is often very busy and dangerous as well for walkers or bicycle traffic as it is now. 2. We understand that there would be excavating of a land elevation of 30-40 feet. Already there are 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) groundwater problems which have gotten worse for the Baybridge Development since the Baybrook Apartments were put in. We fear that these problems will only become worse and that the flooded driveways on Walker Lane will have even worse problems then they do at present. 3. We believe that some of the residents of Baybrook Apartments frequently litter the area between them and Bay Road, and additional units could add to that problem. As a regular walker on Walker Lane, I pick up trash frequently in that area, but am not finding it any farther into the Baybridge area. Please do not allow further expansion of the Baybrook apartment complex. Sincerely, Joyce M. Smith” And that’s all we have, for written correspondence. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll open up the public hearing for public comment. Does anyone want to come up and address the Board? CRAIG BRAMLEY MR. BRAMLEY-Craig Bramley, President of Baybridge Homeowners Association. My first comments, really, are to clarify a few points that I feel were misstatements by Mr. Lapper and Mr. Schermerhorn. I’m assuming, by the diligence and the obvious intelligence of this Board, that the sewer district and extension that’s going to be benefiting our development and Mr. Schermerhorn’s apartments, you know, really is not relevant to this project here. Quite candidly, our negotiations through this project, we were looking out of our interests and he was looking out for his interests, and this was not really a benevolent act on Mr. Schermerhorn’s part to save Baybridge. One final note in that regard. The notion that Baybridge’s leach fields were in disrepair or malfunctioning is simply inaccurate, and that point can be verified by DEC. Moving on to a couple of specific points on stormwater and groundwater situations, specifically on stormwater, there was a misstatement by Mr. Schermerhorn in regards to stormwater which we have sent him a couple of letters over the last couple of years in that regard. There has been water that has generated from the west part of his development on Walker. It’s a small spring. It’s not involved with this leach fields, like some people had intimated before, but it is indeed water that is originating from his property. That was part of the water problems that we had on lower Walker through, you know, severe rain or snow conditions, and indeed there was extreme flooding at certain times, in seasons, over the past several years. I approached the Town, Mr. Missita, on numerous occasions to try to address that issue, and quite honestly was not real satisfied at the response I got from him, and finally, upon meeting with him last fall, he did come out, agreed to put some macadam along the western side, that should be the eastern side of Pinchook’s property, that would feed into the catch basin on Mr. Schermerhorn’s property, and when the crew came to show up to do that work, quite candidly, they were unaware of what to do. Luckily, I was there and directed them, you know, where to put this macadam and indeed to direct the flow into the catch basin, which, up to that point, had been non-functioning. That has taken care of some of the water problems, stormwater, on Walker indeed. Although on some, in some conditions on rainstorms we still find water coming out of the driveway of the Schermerhorn apartments. My point here is sort of two fold. One, in looking at the original site plan, was everything that was agreed upon in the first 48 unit development indeed implemented? I’ve heard from some of the older residents in our development that things like trees that were said to be remaining, indeed, were clear cut. I’m looking at this situation where we, quite honestly, we have not had a response from Mr. Schermerhorn on water that came from his property onto public and other developer’s property. I think the key here is that somehow, you know, if this project is approved, there’s got to be some way to enforce everything that is supposedly in this plan, and that’s a major concern we have, because, quite honestly, our experience has been that Mr. Schermerhorn has not been a good neighbor. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? DREW SPITZER MR. SPITZER-For the record, Drew Spitzer, 21 Gentry Lane. I’m a new homeowner here in Queensbury. I’m happy to have a sewer. The argument that it may or may not have been an altruistic act on Mr. Schermerhorn’s part, I really don’t care. All I know is that now I don’t have 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) to worry about my septic system backing up, and certainly that’s an incremental value to my home, both from a peace of mind perspective, and also if I were to ever sell it. Secondly, I have very many friends and family who do reside in his apartments, and I would say that the quality of life, crime and other comments that were made are generally untrue. I think everyone feels quite safe. I think you’ll find the apartments to be in very good repair. The trash removal, snow removal, lighting and so on, in my opinion, is exemplary, and then just as a general comment, I think we do need apartments. For most of my adult life I’ve resided in an apartment, either here in the greater Adirondack region, or in Manhattan County, and you need that. Not everyone is capable of affording a home. We have many residents who are displaced from our area because there are not affordable one, two and three bedroom homes. I think that’s an important increase to our community. The mere fact that all of his apartments are rented speaks to the quality and the demand. As a neighbor, I appreciate all of the comments of my fellow Homeowner Association members. I think zoning should ensure that the proper steps are taken, such that there isn’t adverse stormwater, that there aren’t septic issues, but I believe we need additional apartments, and if someone’s going to build them, I hope they’re Mr. Schermerhorn. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Ma’am? CLELIA SIELING MS. SIELING-Hi. My name is Clelia Sieling. I live at 45 Gentry Lane. I just moved into the development last June. As far as the traffic survey, you could do any kind of survey you want. I have to get out of there at a quarter to eight in the morning, and let me tell you, it is not a fifteen second wait. It’s a heck of a lot longer. Between the kids coming to ACC and the people coming out of the, I don’t know, it’s the professional buildings over there, on the same side I am, I can’t get out. I have to wait there two and three minutes some mornings. So the survey doesn’t mean anything to me. The other thing I wanted to was an environmental impact study done on this project? With the magnitude of this project, I think one should be done. I’ve seen Mr. Schermerhorn’s trucks come out of right down here, I don’t know the apartment buildings down here, but obviously he must own something in the back, where the dirt, he’s hauling dirt, and the road is filled with dirt. Now that’s going to happen on Walker Lane when he dismantles this leach field. Who’s going to clean that up? And the other thing, as far as comparing the density in Baybridge to the apartments, you can’t compare them. We have a lot more property, for the people who live there. That’s all I have to say. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? STEVE PINCHOOK MR. PINCHOOK-Hello. My name is Steve Pinchook. I’m the property owner on the west side of Mr. Schermerhorn’s property. I have a few items I’d like to discuss here. The sewer line, who currently owns the sewer? Does the Town own it? Or is it Mr. Schermerhorn’s? MR. VOLLARO-The Town will own it. MR. PINCHOOK-Has it been inspected, passed, accepted? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s something the Town Board would have to deal with. MR. VOLLARO-It has up until May 31, I believe. st MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not this Board’s review or authority. MR. PINCHOOK-So isn’t this the cart before the horse? The Town hasn’t even accepted it yet. MR. MAC EWAN-The short answer is, no, it’s not the cart before the horse. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. PINCHOOK-Okay. As this material is stockpiled, I assume there’s going to be some odor. Who’s going to monitor it and take care of this? What’s going to be done about that? MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get your questions answered. MR. PINCHOOK-Okay. There’s a six inch water main that comes in from Bay Road now. Back in 1998, Mr. Van Dusen gave this Board a letter, the Planning Board at the time, not being able to guarantee enough water for the build out of the Bayberry complex, and future build out. Now you’re going to have fire protection. How do we know that a six inch water main is going to adequately take care of a sprinkler system? The drop off point, at the intersection of Bay and Walker Lane, people now actually park on private property, I believe. What happens if that gets developed down the road? There’s no, there’s a safety issue, I think, for kids. The more people, the more cars, the more kids. You go out there in the morning, waiting for the bus. Plus that makes it more difficult for the residents to get out onto Bay Road. I think that should be addressed. Back in 1998, when Mr. Schermerhorn came to the Board, there was a lot of controversy, a lot of give and take, and we finally got to what is there now, there was an agreement. There was no future build out ever indicated back then. I think that the deal was done back then to this parcel of land, and that was it. If you go to the minutes, and I don’t know if you have the minutes from the ’98 meetings, concerning this property, Mr. Schermerhorn, on February 17, 1998, there was an ongoing discussion about Mr. Valente’s build out and maximizing the property, and this is 40 some odd pages of this discussion. I’m not going to read it all, but Mr. Schermerhorn stated, I’m proposing just a little less than half, which is 48 units. So you know I’m not obviously trying to maximize the development. Those are Mr. Schermerhorn’s words. Page 36. I think we got a point where everything was agreeable back then, and it should stay agreeable right now, with no future development. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MR. PINCHOOK-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? BRIAN HOWARD MR. HOWARD-Okay. Let me begin by mentioning that I’m really here in two roles. I came here tonight. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, your name is? MR. HOWARD-My name is Brian Howard. I’m the Superintendent of the Schools in Queensbury, but I should also reveal that my residence is on Walker Lane. So this is why I’m going to speak at this time, and I’m going to start, first, by addressing my role as a resident, and I’ll just pass on my thoughts that, obviously whenever you have a residence, you know something is going to be built close by, you want to make sure it does not detract from the value, that the noise is there, and I’m going to hope that whatever decision you make, that you would keep that in mind. I also have to reflect a comment that was made here when they used the term reasonable delay, when you’re trying to pull out on to Bay Road, and I can assure you that that’s some mathematical formula, but if you’re trying to pull out there at certain times of the day, especially in the morning, you will find that those reasonable delays are not reasonable when you’re sitting in the car waiting to get out onto Bay Road, but I’m hoping all of those things will be taken in to consideration, and, you know, I’ve been here a very short time. It’s been about a year and a half, and I can tell you this is a special community, and quite honestly, obviously I’m biased, I think this is a very special school district as well, and I just want to, as you go through the development, want to pass on some thoughts on behalf of the school district. Would it be possible to get some idea about what would be the increase in the population we would have to serve, and I think there does have to be a balance of population. You want property where people can rent, where there’s single family homes and that, but I’d also say that sometimes you can shift the whole nature of a school district, depending upon if 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) you get out of balance, if you become primarily a rental property. We’re going to be servicing, I’m coming at this from the school, short term residents that are going to be there for three or four years, and then move on, and the services we would provide will be different. So I think it’s very important to make sure that there’s a balance between the types of development that are occurring here, and I just also want to tell you, it’s been fascinating sitting here this evening, because I was unaware of how this process worked. You’re the gentleman who’s been corresponding and keeping us informed at the school district, and we do appreciate that, because the decisions you make obviously have an impact on what’s going to be going on on the school grounds as well, and I wanted to pass on a thank you for passing that information to us. I know you have difficult decisions to make, and I’m hoping that we can give some information. If we can be helpful anywhere along the line, we would offer to do that as well, and that’s it. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much. Anyone else? WAYNE JUDGE MR. JUDGE-My name is Wayne Judge. I’m an attorney. I also live at 30 Cedar Court in Queensbury, and I have lived in Queensbury most of my professional life. I represent a group of homeowners that abut this property on the west. There are a couple of, I’ll try to keep my remarks short because I know everyone’s been sitting here for a long time, but first of all, I’d like to stress a few points. There were no quid pro quo deals made that I was able to find out in my investigation of the background of this. In other words, the sewer system is really totally irrelevant to this project. This project has to be judged on its own merits, and secondly the idea of processing water before it goes into the wetland. There’s no processing, water, in this application as far as I can see, there are some shallow swales that would be probably required for any project, whether it was near a wetlands or not in a wetlands. The next issue is that an application like this is not a personality contest, and it’s not an issue of whether or not this Board likes the applicant or doesn’t like the applicant. I was in the unfortunate position of representing Mr. Wood when he wanted to put an entry way to The Great Escape on Round Pond Road, and it was largely written up in the paper and so on and so forth, and I think he believed that a lot of the members of the Board resented his application, and I don’t think he really appreciated the fact that was difficult for them to carry out their stewardship of the Town of Queensbury and oppose a man who probably has contributed more to the community than anybody in its history. They appreciated that, but they knew that, at some point, they had to say no, if it wasn’t the right project, and this is not the right project, and you should say no. There are a number of issues, we haven’t attained professionals to support our point of view, but there are some issues that are self-explanatory. First of all, the traffic study based on existing traffic is fatally flawed, because all you have to do is drive up Bay Road, and you can see on both sides that Bay Road isn’t totally built out yet. There are buildings that are still empty. Go up further beyond Haviland Road, and you’ll see residential communities being built there. That’s going to add to the traffic count. Was that, all of these systems, the Town is growing so fast, it’s not really valid to take a count today and say this is what it’s going to be in five years. The second thing is that as much as Mr. Schermerhorn is meticulous about maintaining his property, Mr. Schermerhorn is going to sell this property, or he’s going to die, or he’s going to retire or he’s going to move, and someone else is going to maintain this property, and as a Planning Board, we should be looking to the future. I took a couple of photographs myself, and what I was able to see, in my unprofessional eye, is essentially a sea of blacktop. There are no garages here to shelter the cars in the wintertime. The place has to be plowed and sanded, and I imagine salt has to be applied. When cars are parked, they drop grease. So, when we talk about filtering the water before it goes into the wetlands, there may be some portion of it filtered, but there’s so many more people. There are so many more automobiles, and when Mr. Schermerhorn said he doesn’t understand what the homeowners mean by quality of life, they’re not talking about crime. They’re talking about people packed together, and the affect of people packed together. This has to do with the quality of life. The time that it takes you to get onto Bay Road, that has to do with quality of life. The number of trees that you have in the area, that has to do with the quality of life. If you look at the grade that goes up to the westerly boundary of that property, on the existing drawing, what do you 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) see? You see grass where it will grow, and what’s the proposal for that grade that goes up almost four stories over a sixty foot span? The proposal is to put grass if it will grow. That’s not an appropriate way to stabilize a bank. I’m not an engineer, but it wouldn’t seem to me that this is an appropriate stabilization plan for a bank, and it seems to me that, for the future, if you’re planning for the future, as a Planning Board, your stewardship requires you to take a harder look at this project than has been presented to you tonight in this application. I have, the infrastructure issue was self-explanatory. The argument has always been made to the Planning Board, we’re going to bring in this particular project because you’ll have so many more jobs and so on and so forth, but you also have increased fire and police protection. You also have increased highway, water, the whole magilla, education, everything is a burden on the community, and so just as this increase in population in a concentrated area causes problems. That’s basically all I have to say. I’ve put my remarks in a letter. The removal of the sewage. Mr. Schermerhorn’s experts have checked on the disposal of the septic plan today, checked on it today. I mean, we’re talking about probably 30,000 square yards of material, of septic material, that’s going to be disposed of, well there are no open landfills in the Town of Queensbury, or anywhere near the Town of Queensbury, that I know about, and I think a very fair question would be where is it going? I think the residents of the Town of Queensbury have the right to know where it’s going, because this all ties in to a long range plan for the total Town, not just this little particular development, because this little particular development is part of every development that goes up and down Bay Road, and a part of the whole Town. I don’t know if several, I have four of my clients here today. I’m sure that at least one of them would like to make a few remarks, and I’d like to end now and yield whatever time I have to them. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? RANEN CHAKRABORTY MR. CHAKRABORTY-Hello. My name is Ranen Chakraborty for the record. I’m a single family homeowner, and I live in the Maple Row Farms development, subdivision. I’m a single homeowner, but philosophically I’m with a lot of the people who have made comments here, and I am also opposed to the proposed development. I wrote down a few points that should help delineate some of the issues, some of which have been discussed here already. The first one is potential decrease, no, I’m sorry, excuse me, potential land erosion, secondary to the extensive excavation plan, and I think I do agree, I think an environmental impact study should be done. I can only speak for my own viewpoint, in terms of the land that I own, myself, and I’m also very concerned about the extent of the excavation that’s being proposed. Another one that’s been addressed to some extent is the degradation of the view and the scenic beauty that I have grown to love, even in the short time that I’ve been living in the area. One that is just my own individual opposition is the potential decrease in the property value, and I don’t know to what extent that would be, but again, that would be my own personal, and the other individuals who are single family homeowners as well in that subdivision. The last one, and this one, there certainly needs to be discussion, but again, it’s more of something that we may not know the full extent of, and that is the implied liability for occurrences which may or may not occur on our property. This is specifically individuals, just as an example, coming on to our property from other areas, not just Walker Lane but other areas, in this particular case since we are specifically talking about Walker Lane, that would be the development in question, but say an individual came and became injured on our property, we would be, technically, liable, and our insurance rates potentially could go up as well. Not all of these impact on the entire Town of Queensbury, of course, but having two children myself who eventually will be going to the Queensbury school district, that’s another issue that will arise, and also just the general impact on the Town and the quality of life in the Town. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? CLIFF BIENERT MR. BIENERT-Good evening. I’m Cliff Bienert and I represent myself and my wife, Deb Bienert. We own the parcel of land at 54 Browns Path, in the process of building a house, and 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) we adjoin this parcel that we’re discussing at this point in time, and we want to be on the record that we oppose the project, for a number of reasons, and I’d just like to state the obvious again, that a lot of people have mentioned, that we concur with and share the same concern. The wetlands concern, enough has been said about it. Wetlands are valuable for filtration of pollutants before they get into the water stream. They’re extremely important, and this is encroaching. Density, population density. We’re getting excessive. We’re asking for issues. We’re exceeding what is norm. We’re burdening our infrastructure, and it’s been stated already. Site elevation. It was mentioned that the new apartments will have a slight elevation difference. I don’t know how much that is, but right now I can stand in my backyard, by the house, and I can look and I can see the full roof of the apartments below, and that’s not at the edge of the property, that’s at the house. So if there’s a slight elevation, is that four feet? Is that eight feet? Is that ten feet? I don’t know. All of a sudden I’ll be looking in the second floor of that new apartment complex. Traffic count, I agree. I think there’s a significant amount of open data here that needs to be resolved, needs to be understood. This is a very fast growing area, and Bay Road is a very large concern to a lot of people. I think it’s obvious that, to reinforce the point that Mr. Pinchook made, that Mr. Schermerhorn is trying to maximize his development after the fact. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? No takers? All right. I’ll leave the public hearing open for the time being. Do you gentlemen want to come back up, and ma’am. MR. NACE-Okay. Let me start with the last, just to answer the last gentleman’s question about the elevation difference. The existing buildings, I believe this one is the highest, and it’s 334. The new ones, this one will be 332.4. This one will be 332.8, 332.5, and 330.5. So they will all be lower than the highest of the existing ones. When I was making my comment of a few feet higher, I was referring to this existing one, which is 330, and as I said, these are 332.8, 332.4. So they’re two and a half feet higher in the back here than this one, and they’re actually lower, or the same elevation, no, I’m sorry, they’re lower than the very western most of the existing units by about a foot and a half. How does it compare to the slope? The top of the slope, up along this area, is actually higher. Down adjacent to the existing units at the property border, the existing grade is about 358. Up here on the very top it’s about 368. So this is ten feet higher up here, than adjacent to Mr. Pinchook’s land. I guess one of the other issues that got raised frequently, again, was the land erosion, slope. Mr. Judge incorrectly stated that the slope is four stories high over a sixty foot span. It’s really over 120 foot span, being a three on one slope, and three on one is certainly maintainable. It’s pretty much the engineering standard that that’s reasonable for granular soils, to be able to establish groundcover on, and get good groundcover to hold on. The processing of the wastewater is, again, as I described to you, we will be leaving that in place on site. We’re not going to move it. We’re not going to dig it up. We’re not going to stockpile it on site. We’re going to leave it in place, where it is, for ten months, before we excavate it and remove it, to be used as soil. At that point, all of the bio mat, the bio mat is a mass of bacterial growth that really makes the septic system work, and that all occurs within approximately the first 12 inches underneath the bottom of the stone trenches and the septic system. So that area of the stone trench, plus the foot below that, is generally considered to be the area that would contain any bacterial growth, and that growth dies within 10 months. MR. HUNSINGER-I think the question that was asked by a number of neighbors is, where would the soil be taken? I mean, there’s quite a bit of excavation on the site in general, not just the septic, but. MR. NACE-Sure. Yes. It’s not really regulated. I presume that Rich would take it to his, one of his other sites, probably in Fort Ann, and stockpile with his soil pit up there. MR. MAC EWAN-Approximately how many yards of septic field do you think you would be removing? I actually have a two part question for you. MR. NACE-Well, I’ll work on that answer for you. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. MAC EWAN-And the other part I recall, the other question I wanted to ask you is relative to removal of abandoned septic systems, and it’s been during my tenure here on the Board, and I can’t remember exactly what application it was, a few years ago. If I’m not mistaken, I think it’s to be treated as contaminated waste. There are only certain places in New York State that that soil can go to, and it requires DEC permitting. MR. NACE-That’s out of a septic tank. That’s the actual solids material that accumulates in the septic tank. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m talking about an abandoned septic field. MR. NACE-Not that we could find out anything from DEC, as far as regulations. MR. MAC EWAN-For my information, I would want some sort of signoff, blessing, whatever, from either DEC or the New York State Board of Health, Department of Health, I should say. It seems to me they would be the two entities that would have the best control over what would happen with an abandoned septic field and how you dismantle it and what you do with the fill. MR. NACE-How about if we have C.T. Male contact DEC and get that information first hand for themselves. MR. MAC EWAN-George, your input. I don’t know that it’s C.T. Male’s responsibility to do that. It’s the applicant. MR. NACE-Well, no, I mean, as a method of verifying what I’m saying to you. MR. MAC EWAN-I think that would be your responsibility to provide that. MR. RINGER-If Tom provides it, then C.T. Male can verify it. MR. NACE-Sure. MR. RINGER-He’s got it, now put it into a print form, and then we can send it to C.T. Male for verification. MR. NACE-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d feel more comfortable if I had something in front of me in writing that said. MR. SEGULJIC-How about the odor? Is the odor a concern? MR. NACE-Well, as I said before, it’ll be left in place. It won’t be dug up until after it’s sat for a period of time, for 10 months. Okay. Once that period of time has occurred, all of the biological activity in that soil, that bio mat, is caput. It’s done. It’s fed off of whatever bacterial food is still left in there, and there will be no odor at that point. MR. SEGULJIC-So you don’t expect an odor? MR. NACE-No. MR. RINGER-The water line coming in to Walker Lane, that is still a six inch line? MR. NACE-Yes, it is. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have a letter from the Town saying there’s sufficient capacity? MR. NACE-We can certainly get that. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. RINGER-With all the additions in there, we might need a bigger main. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m assuming, from what I’m hearing, the Board does not feel comfortable enough moving forward doing SEQRA tonight? MR. RINGER-We can do SEQRA, but maybe a site plan approval we might have trouble with. MR. SANFORD-Craig, as you see the process, you know, I don’t want to step right out there, but I feel comfortable at least moving forward on a negative way to the applicant on the Wetland Permit tonight. So I don’t know what kind of an answer that is, but my opinion, after what I heard from the public and my own comments, I don’t want to have any of this construction within 100 feet of the wetland, A. I would definitely would like to see the scaled back project for consideration, not the project as it’s currently laid out, and when is it appropriate to address the Freshwater Wetland Permit issue, because I feel comfortable enough, I don’t know about the rest of the Board, but I could address that adequately right now, with a no go. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, when is it appropriate to address the Freshwater Wetlands Permit is now, because that’s part of what we’re reviewing. We’re reviewing it jointly with the site plan review, but you also have to remember, at our SEQRA review, and our SEQRA determination is going to be contingent upon how the Board feels, as far as the environmental aspects of both the permit and the site plan. They go hand in hand. MR. SANFORD-Yes, and that was the discussion we had in the beginning, because I thought we could actually isolate them. MR. MAC EWAN-You can’t. You can’t segment SEQRA. MR. SANFORD-Well, they’re listed as two different actions, and they’re listed as two different SEQRA’s on the agenda. MR. MAC EWAN-They’re listed as two different applications on the agenda because one is a site plan and one is a permitting process. Both of them fall under our same SEQRA review. Any time I mess up here, Mrs. Radner, let me know. MS. RADNER-I will. MR. LAPPER-You’re doing pretty good so far. MR. SANFORD-So what are you saying? Who feels comfortable Pos Dec’ing this thing, or? MR. MAC EWAN-To me, my viewpoint, I don’t think it’s an issue of Pos Dec’ing it, but for me it’s an issue of needing to have a little bit more information before I feel comfortable enough proceeding with a SEQRA review. That’s my position. MR. VOLLARO-You’d like some definitions from either DEC or DOH? MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got two or three things that I’m looking for. MR. SANFORD-Well, the only comment I would have, Craig, to that is, before I would encourage the applicant to continue on this course and put more work into this 32 unit, I think it would only be fair for them to get a, I mean, if we’re not going to feel comfortable with an approval of the 32 unit apartment complex, within 100 feet of a wetland, I would rather let them know now, than to table this and have them do more work and come back and then become more entrenched in the process. I would rather deal with that now rather than later. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. MAC EWAN-How many of you feel uncomfortable about the density of the project, as far as it encroaches to the wetlands? MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t have a problem with the density. I just have a problem with really Building B. I’d like to see that. MR. MAC EWAN-If Building B’s design could be altered? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it’s just, you know, in the buffer zone I’d like to see that turned into a green space or something. MR. SANFORD-Again, what you’re saying, Tom, is too much on too little land. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, if there wasn’t a wetland there, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. MR. SANFORD-Okay. That’s my point. There’s a wetland. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s why I’d like to see Building B eliminated. MR. HUNSINGER-What would you find acceptable, then, Rich? Only 27% of the property is nonpermeable. MR. SANFORD-Well, you know, what I’d find acceptable, or what I desire, what I’d find acceptable would probably be this thing re-done, with two buildings, for 16 units, and I think that would go a long way addressing, or compromising many of the concerns, not fully addressing them, but a compromise to them. I think to proceed with the 32 unit approach, as outlined here, based on what I’ve heard from the public and the discussion we’ve had, just doesn’t seem to make sense. I mean, it really doesn’t make sense to me, and so I think what I would like to do is say we would like you to come back to us with a project half the size, and out of the wetlands. MR. LAPPER-We’re not in the wetlands buffer. MR. SANFORD-Well, all right, 100 feet away from the wetlands. MR. MAC EWAN-So I’m hearing two ideas tossed around here. MR. METIVIER-Do I have a problem with SEQRA? No, I don’t. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have a problem with SEQRA? MR. RINGER-I can’t see an approval on site plan, but I don’t see a problem with SEQRA. MR. MAC EWAN-Why are we doing all this bantering, then? MR. SANFORD-I have a problem with SEQRA. MR. VOLLARO-I think only one member has a problem with SEQRA, that I can see on this Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s move forward with SEQRA, then, and I’ll close the public hearing, then, so we can go ahead with SEQRA. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, before you close the public hearing, I just want to make one quick comment. Mr. Howard, the Superintendent of Schools, was talking about a balance, in terms of the impact on the School system, and I just want to point out, he’s probably not aware that the 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) other project that Rich has proposed is an 80 unit senior housing project that would be restricted to only 55 and over. So that, in terms of a balance, that the 32 units here are balanced by the 80 units that would be senior which would have no impact on the School system, and I just wanted to get that in the record. MR. MAC EWAN-So noted. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-This is the Short Form, right? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Before we get into this, and it has to do with SEQRA, so I just want to, we do have a letter from the Water Department, saying that the capacity is adequate for this. MR. HUNSINGER-I thought we did. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we do have that. That’s in the record. So, I don’t know, you know, I heard comments about not having adequate water supply to feed the sprinkler system. So I would think that the Water Department would have taken that into consideration when they wrote that letter. MR. HUNSINGER-I thought we had a letter. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we do. MR. RINGER-I thought we did, too, but I couldn’t find it. I found it for the other, the other one. MR. VOLLARO-It’s in the other one. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are we ready? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-“Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think existing traffic patterns. MR. SANFORD-And also water. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t know about water. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It asks to briefly explain. MR. SANFORD-My feeling is that a lot of open items still haven’t been resolved regarding traffic, and, B, I believe the Town of Queensbury rule of having buildings 100 feet from wetlands makes sense, and I’m concerned that this would potentially damage a wetland. MR. MAC EWAN-And this is why I asked everyone if they’re prepared to move forward with SEQRA. MR. SANFORD-I’m not. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Because if we get to the point where you’re doing SEQRA, this is where you need to have your information at hand. Do you feel comfortable making a determination one way or the other? MR. SANFORD-I don’t. MR. RINGER-Well, I think we’ve got the adequate signoffs on traffic, and we’ve got the adequate signoffs on water. MR. HUNSINGER-I do, too. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So re-read your question, please. MR. HUNSINGER--“Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And then it asks to briefly explain. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the majority up here say, yes or no to that question? MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I would say no on a couple of reasons. I think the existing traffic patterns are a problem, but I see some mitigation coming down the pike that’s going to help that, and I think that C.T. Male having reviewed the Creighton-Manning documents, I guess I’ve always had a problem, Craig, across the board, with not doing traffic on a cumulative basis, always. I’ve said that every time I’ve been seated at this Board. MR. SANFORD-Well, if you feel that way, how can you say no? I mean, you basically have just said yes. MR. VOLLARO-No. That’s not true. I can’t do anything about the fact that we don’t have an integrated plan. I’m pushing for it, but I, as one Board member, can’t get up and legislate that the thing be done on a cumulative basis. I’m saying that’s the better way to do it, but in absence of that, what we have in front of us here now is a signoff by our own engineer on the traffic, and I don’t know how I can take issue with that. MR. SANFORD-Well, because the people from the public, many of which have spoken, they’ve said that they’ve had a lot of problems getting out of the development, and, you know, I believe that they’re telling us the truth. There’s some problems. MR. HUNSINGER-What the form then asks is that for each adverse effect identified, determine whether it’s substantial large important or otherwise significant, and each effect should be assessed. MR. MAC EWAN-What I want to hear from the Board, though, is I’ve got a yes, I’ve got a no. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m a yes, the wetlands. Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes on the wetlands. Larry? MR. RINGER-No. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-No’s carry it. Next question. MR. HUNSINGER-Two, “Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources or community or neighborhood character?” MR. RINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Three, “Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish, or wildlife species, significant habitats or threatened or endangered species?” MR. RINGER-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Four, “A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. RINGER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Five, “Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. RINGER-No. MR. METIVIER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Six, “Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in one through five?” MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. RINGER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Seven, “Other impacts including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy?” MR. RINGER-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. HUNSINGER-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that cause the establishment of a CEA?” MR. RINGER-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. HUNSINGER-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. RINGER-No. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. MAC EWAN-I hear one voice. I need to hear more. Yes or no? MR. VOLLARO-Well, would you repeat that again, please, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER--“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. SANFORD-Yes. We have it right tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-If yes, explain briefly. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve got one yes. I’m looking for a majority vote here. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t think there’s any substantiating data that I see that substantiates the controversy. That’s part of what I’ve been looking for here tonight. I see our own engineering report, C.T. Male’s report, which was fairly in-depth, their letter was fairly in- depth, as far as environmental, as far as wastewater was concerned, and now we have a signoff from our own engineer, not from Mr. Nace, but from C.T. Male. If we’re going to go against our, and start to question our own engineer’s comments, then I think we’ve got a problem, just generally, on the Board. I think we’ve got to accept what they have to say. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that a no vote? MR. VOLLARO-That’s a no vote. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. RINGER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. METIVIER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-The no’s carry it. MR. HUNSINGER-Before making a motion, I just want to read what the instructions do say. It says, for each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial large important or otherwise significant, and then it goes on to say each affect should be assessed in connection with its setting, the probability of occurring, duration, irreversibility, geographic scope and magnitude, and I think those just go to the comments that Bob just read, that, you know, the engineers have signed off on these issues, and I think the applicant has done a job of mitigating the potential adverse environmental impacts. Having said that, I will make a motion for a negative SEQRA declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. FWW 1-2004 & SP 20-2004, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES, 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: 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 27 day of April, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic NOES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan MR. MAC EWAN-And I’ll quantify my no with the fact that I don’t feel that I had enough information to ascertain a decision on SEQRA tonight, relative to noise, odor, wetlands and to traffic. So that’s why I said no on it. Had I had more information, I could have gone the other way. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think that what Chris read was interesting. It said that, you know, if you could read that again, Chris, just what we have to consider when we had a no vote, or when we had a yes in the loop. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it says for each affect identified above, determine whether it is substantial large important or otherwise significant. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think that right there, I don’t know any of those that were large. I mean, there may be some, but I don’t know about large impact. That’s the word that hit me when it first came through. MR. SANFORD-That’s a pretty subjective term, Bob. MR. MAC EWAN-With that being said, let’s keep the ball rolling here. MR. VOLLARO-It’s a term that they used, not created by me, obviously. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you, Mr. Vollaro. Let’s keep it rolling. Okay. Questions relative to the site plan itself. MR. RINGER-We’ve got to get some more information on the. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve been jotting down a lot of comments that I heard from the public, and questions of my own I had on my list. I’ll just run down what I was jotting down, and we’ll see how big an issue they are to the Board in general. Lighting plan. Are you looking for a lighting plan, or are you satisfied with what you have in front of you? 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. VOLLARO-I’m satisfied with what I have in front of me, at least, because I think Rich has made a generous offer of taking the poles out, and once that happens, I don’t have a problem with the lighting. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I think that’s the bigger issue with lighting, is whether or not we want to see the poles or not. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, now maybe we do. MR. MAC EWAN-You don’t need to see a lighting plan. You don’t need to see lumination ratios. None of that? MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t see a need for it. MR. LAPPER-You have to tell us what you want about the poles, though. MR. MAC EWAN-One member from the public brought up a good point, and I had actually jotted this down earlier in the evening. I would like to see a cross section of the parcel, showing me the top of the slope, the degree of slope, and the elevation of the top of the roof line on the highest proposed building. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-So that you could see if it’s going to be visible from the top of the hill, versus not. That’s one reason why I didn’t follow through on the SEQRA on that. Septic abandonment. DEC criteria and/or Department of Health criteria, what you need to do. Inclusive of that, and if I’m out on John’s limb all by myself on this, jump in and tell me so. How many anticipated yards of contaminated soil are going to be removed from the site, and where is it going. MR. RINGER-And if that is considered contaminated soil, too, if we could get a definition of that. MR. METIVIER-Well, that’s what I was going to say. MR. MAC EWAN-Either the DEC criteria or the Department of Health is going to very specifically say how you handle it, how you move it, if it is a hazard, if it’s not. All I’m looking for is some one of those agencies to provide us with something. MR. SANFORD-But, Craig, would that be solid waste? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know. MR. SANFORD-Because in the SEQRA, no one found that an issue. MR. MAC EWAN-But this is an answer I need. MR. SANFORD-I do, too. MR. MAC EWAN-A question came up tonight about a Fire Marshal review of this site for emergency access, but we also had a letter, I do believe, in the file from Queensbury Central’s. MR. RINGER-That was for the other project. MR. MAC EWAN-That was for the other parcel. Should we ask Queensbury Central to take a look at this? I mean, when you asked them to take a look at that, you sent them a copy of the plan and asked them to comment. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. HILTON-Well, if that was this Board’s direction, yes, we would send them a copy of the plan, and a copy of the resolution. MR. RINGER-I’d feel more comfortable. I mean, I’m not the expert, and that would certainly come from the Chief, but I also think we should have the Water Department look again at that line coming in. We’ve got a sprinkler system. We’ve got a six inch line coming in, and we’re going to lay a five inch hose. A sprinkler system’s going to run separately off our five inch, we’re going to draw a hell of a lot of water, a heck of a lot of water, excuse me, on that. So maybe we should have Town Water look at that, with that sprinkler system in there, too, because that’s going to draw separately from our line, when we lay a five inch in. MR. MAC EWAN-Was the Water Department aware that the buildings are going to be sprinkled? MR. NACE-They should have been. The pipe size going into the building was with sprinkler size shown on the plans. MR. RINGER-But, you know, you’re not going to use a, you know, it’s not a thing that you’re going to have a tremendous amount of fire there, you’re going to need tons and tons of water. We’re going to put some pressure there. Just have a look at it. I’m not an expert, but I would rather have them. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you note that, George, to have the Water Department look at that, and just take another look at it and make them aware that, in case it slipped through the cracks, that this is a sprinkled building? The other issue I had was the issues revolving around drainage on Walker Lane. I’ve heard a lot of public comment to that tonight. The applicant’s stated that they visited the site with the Highway Superintendent. Can we get something from the Highway Superintendent to say the drainage issue has been taken care of? A question was also brought up from the public relative to previous approvals for this site. Check with Bruce and see if there’s any Code Enforcement actions against things that may not have been completed, per previous approvals. I have the note on the truck traffic relative to construction activity, and that was relative to the removal of the existing septic field. So if you can give me an idea, give the Board an idea as to how many cubic yards you plan on removing, you can provide us the information of how many truckloads you figure that’s going to be as well. A comment was brought up about a 1998 Water Department letter saying that they couldn’t guarantee adequate service for future development along Walker Lane. If you’d research your archives, George, for that, and see if Ralph or his predecessor has something on file relative to that. Also, to provide, this is for Staff, if you would provide us a copy of our February 17, 1998 Planning Board meeting relative to this application, a copy of the minutes, and a question also came up about slope, re-stabilization and erosion. The commentor made a comment that he thought this slope was too steep to be able to reclaim with just a grass. MR. NACE-That we’ve already addressed the C.T. Male with the erosion mat, and they’ve already signed off. MR. MAC EWAN-And relative to the C.T. Male signoff that you got late today, that does not incorporate any of the changes in the drawings based on the 23 letter, only a signoff, right? rd MR. NACE-No, no. They had, we faxed them pieces of each drawing. MR. MAC EWAN-Right, I understand that. We’re looking at an April 23 letter. This is all we rd have. You’ve got a signoff this afternoon. MR. NACE-Yes, that’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-All these comments have to be incorporated into the plans. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. NACE-They have been, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-They have been. We don’t have them. MR. NACE-Right, exactly. So you need revised plans. MR. MAC EWAN-Is there anything else? MR. RINGER-Tom, you were also going to make a change in that 30% slope to. MR. NACE-Okay. I’ve got that in my notes. MR. SANFORD-Craig, I mean, I would like to suggest that the applicant come back with an alternate plan showing 16 units, rather than the 32 units, for the Planning Board to consider. It’s well within our rights to request that. I think there’s a lot of density concerns, and, again, I’m not saying it’s a bad idea to have apartments. I just think that this 32 unit is not the best planning that could be done by the Town of Queensbury on this project, and I’d like to see it cut down in half. Then we would avoid the issues with encroaching upon the regulated wetlands. We would eliminate some traffic. Many of the concerns would be minimized if we, basically did as a Planning Board what we’re totally authorized to do, which is to request another plan for our consideration. We would have this current plan that we could look at, plus another one which would be less dense, and that’s what I would like to do, and I don’t know what’s appropriate, but if we want to poll the Board, I vote yes for that. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d be happy to. How does the Board feel about it? MR. RINGER-If they submitted a plan that they think is working for them, and they could have submitted a 40 unit, you know, I just don’t think that we should arbitrarily say we want to reduce it in half. So I’m satisfied with the way they’ve presented it, that it’s the best plan for them, and for the Town. MR. SANFORD-Okay, but don’t you, I mean, do you disagree with me that the Planning Board has that right? MR. RINGER-I disagree with you, Richard, that you say, hey, give us half the plan, you know, give us, I don’t agree with that. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like to hear the rest of the Board. MR. SEGULJIC-I’d like to see them revise the plan to reduce their impact on the wetlands, see how much they can remove from the buffer area. It doesn’t necessarily have to be 16. MR. RINGER-That might be a little more palatable. MR. SEGULJIC-It doesn’t have to be 16 units. MR. MAC EWAN-Robert? MR. VOLLARO-Well, you know, I’m looking at the Code. They’re building to the Code, and I just don’t, I don’t know why you want to reduce this. I think the Town needs this kind of housing, as well as it needs the housing that goes in on Maple Row and a number of other places. People have to have places to rent, and I don’t see anything wrong with what he’s doing. MR. MAC EWAN-What about Tom’s position on pulling the development from the wetlands? MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s two things about this wetland. One, if it was encroaching within 100 feet of DEC, they would require a DEC permit. It’s not. B, it’s Army Corps of Engineers 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) land, and they’re not touching that, Army Corps says that they’re not. No permit is required. So they’ve basically complied with the law, with the rules. They’re not breaking any rules that I can see, except the Town says, if you’re within 100 feet of a wetland, you need a Freshwater Permit from us, from us being the Town of Queensbury. MR. HUNSINGER-And if I could even add something to that, Bob, they’ve also given us a stormwater management plan that shows us that the runoff, post development, is much better than the runoff pre development. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and I think if our own engineers had had troubles with that, then they would have said that. If C.T. Male saw that there was a problem here, you know, in stormwater infiltrating the wetland without the proper filterization, they would have seen it, and I think there is some filtering here. I remember when the attorney got up and talked about it, but I could see that there’s a lot of riprap along here that’s designed to filter, to pre filter before entrance to the field. It’s not an uncommon engineering approach. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-No one’s made any, and I know we probably shouldn’t even be talking about it, but the positive impacts of taking the septic out. I mean, nobody has mentioned that yet tonight. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we didn’t, because I think we’re trying to separate the fact that this. MR. METIVIER-I know. That’s why I said we probably shouldn’t even bring it up, but the fact that remains that. MR. VOLLARO-It’s valid. It’s a valid point. MR. METIVIER-And it’s a valid point for Baybrook as well. I mean, what will the positive impacts of taking those septic systems out be on the area? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, it seems to be the consensus that the Board is satisfied, as a whole, with the concept that’s in front of us, as far as both density is concerned and the proposed location of the building footprint. MR. HUNSINGER-You didn’t ask me. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I did. MR. METIVIER-Yes, he did. MR. HUNSINGER-But, well, I wanted to make a comment, though, that’s really what I wanted to say. I would make, I would start where Mr. Schermerhorn began his discussion at the beginning of the night, which is this project would not be possible if we weren’t extending sewer up Walker Lane and up Bay Road, and that is exactly why you put in public utilities and infrastructure, so that you can do things on sites that you couldn’t otherwise do, and I think that’s why the Town Fathers are extending the sewer line up Bay Road so that we can see new commercial development and new development along Bay Road. It was specifically identified in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan as being one of the growth corridors in the Town, and this is the result. I think the project is consistent with what the long range planning of the Town is. MR. SANFORD-You don’t think it could be made better? You think this is ideal? MR. HUNSINGER-It complies with all the Zoning requirements, Richard. I mean, what else can you say? I mean, sure we can manipulate and say there’s some mitigation that needs to be done here and there, but 27% nonpermeable area. I mean, three quarters of this site is green space. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Chris hit the nail right on the head. I mean, that’s, when the Master Plan was re-done, that was the main thrust of this Bay Road corridor was to have dense projects on there, and having the high density was going to be doable by bringing through sewer. MR. SANFORD-And, again, I mean, I’m not disputing that. I’m saying the reason we’re here, as I see it, is not to cite chapter and verse, because then we don’t need to be here. I mean, we could have an administrator basically say, yes, okay, but we’re here to balance in all of what we’ve heard about the demands on the School system, the problems with putting too much on too little, the traffic concerns, the wetland issue, and we’re basically, what I want to do, at least, is say, let’s make it better, and, sure, I don’t dispute what you guys are saying, in the letter of the law it’s okay. It’s not ideal. It could be made a heck of a lot better if it was less dense. I see that as a Planning Board function, okay. End of discussion. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think this Board. MR. HUNSINGER-And I don’t disagree with you. MR. MAC EWAN-In my tenure on this Board, I don’t think this Board has ever taken a position of looking at any application, ever, in just a black and white fashion. This Board has a lot of latitude, has a lot of room for interpretation. MR. SANFORD-But that’s what amazes me here, Craig, is what I’m hearing here is that basically everybody that spoke wasn’t heard, because everybody that spoke in the audience, and the letters that you’ve read in, all had significant concerns that no one but me, and Tom are appreciating, and I’m just blown away by that. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t share your position on that, Rich. Quite honestly, and I don’t share that position because that alone is the reason why I didn’t support voting on SEQRA tonight because I feel there’s information out there that was brought up, not only during the public hearing, but also questions that we asked amongst the Board to the applicant that I don’t feel are satisfactorily addressed to my satisfaction. I need to have these answers before I’m willing to want to move forward to put my vote on anything to do with this project. So I think I was doing my job. MR. RINGER-We’re not accomplishing much, though. Let’s move on with the tabling motion. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is there anything else that we are looking for to be provided? MR. VOLLARO-I think you’ve given them a complete list. MR. MAC EWAN-George, did you write all that down as I was reading them off? MR. HILTON-I think I did. I’d ask you to just repeat it, I guess. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. HILTON-But before, I just have a couple of questions. If what I’m hearing is correct, we’re looking for a lighting plan that removes the poles, the freestanding poles, and we’ll get a revised lighting plan? MR. MAC EWAN-Not necessarily the lighting plan itself. I guess it’s the site plan shows the poles on there. Remove them off the revised site plan and resubmit it. MR. HILTON-Okay, and I guess, as far as coordination and when we’re going to see this next. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s get through our laundry list, then we’ll figure out what we’re going to see it. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. HILTON-Yes, but just keep in mind that we’re past the May deadline, and May is filled up, actually. MR. VOLLARO-It’s going to be a fact we’re going to be backed up. There’s just no way to get around it, George. MR. METIVIER-Well, hypothetically you have 10 months. Right? MR. LAPPER-No, we need an approval, and then we’ll get going. MR. METIVIER-Well, we don’t even have sewer yet. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s go down through our laundry list. We’re looking for a cross section elevation showing the top of the slope, the slope, and the top of the highest point from the tallest building. Is that the best way to put it, so we know what we’re looking at. Septic abandonment. We want to know how much yards is going to be removed. The permitting, or some sort of signoff, whether it be from DEC or Department of Health. For Staff, a plan is to be submitted to Queensbury Central’s Fire Chief for review and comment. For Staff, the drainage issues relative to the culverts. Specifically, maybe what you could do is forward a copy of the DeAngelo letter to the Highway Superintendent. Because that pretty much, I think conveys the concerns that people who live along Walker Lane have. For Staff, previous site plan approvals, whether there’s any enforcement actions or anything’s been built according to what they were approved to do. This is a research thing, a 1998 letter from the Water Department saying that there may not be adequate service to Walker Lane, and this is for Staff as well, to provide the Planning Board with copies of the February 17, 1998 Planning Board minutes relative to this previous approval, and could you provide clarification to the applicant, provide clarification and/or additional information regarding slope re-stabilization and erosion. MR. RINGER-You need Water Department. Did you put that down? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, to send this back to the Water Department to review it for, I guess that goes hand in hand with the ’98 Water Department letter, relative to the sprinkled buildings. Is that all? We’re looking at June. Just the way things are backed up. Nine items were bumped off the agenda for next month because we just, we’re going to address it, and see if maybe we can pick up another meeting here or there, May or June, and try to catch up on the back log we seem to be having. MR. HILTON-First meeting, second meeting? MR. MAC EWAN-The first meeting in June. So you’ve got the May 15 deadline for stuff that th you need to provide. Does someone want to move that, please? Table it to our first regular meeting in June. MR. VOLLARO-When would that be, George, June what? MR. HILTON-I believe it’s the 15. th MR. RINGER-It would be the 18. th MR. VOLLARO-Eighteenth? MR. RINGER-Eighteenth. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the third Tuesday? MR. RINGER-The third Tuesday. May starts on a Tuesday. That’s why it’s early. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. HILTON-Well, we’re talking June, and I’m looking at the 15. th MR. RINGER-You’re looking at June. Right. I was looking at May. June 15 would be the th third. MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to move it, please. MOTION TO TABLE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT FWW 1-2004, SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: Until June 15, 2004 and will contain all of the information that the minutes show going from the Chairman to Staff. Duly adopted this 27 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 MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 20-2004 SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: Until June 15, 2004, with the notation of all the information given from the Chairman to Staff, as reasons for the tabling. AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NONE: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to jockey around the agenda a little bit here. The next item was supposed to have been Site Plan 21-2004 for Rich Schermerhorn. What I think we’re going to do, in the interest of time, because it is starting to get late, is we have two Petition for Zone Change applications. We’ll do those right now. PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE: PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE: PZ 1-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED JOHN HUGHES AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES CURRENT ZONE: PO PROPOSED ZONE: SFR-20 RECOMMENDATION APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RE-ZONE APPROXIMATELY 1.54 ACRES OF PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED PO, PROFESSIONAL OFFICE TO SFR-20, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 20,000 SQ. FT. THE TOWN BOARD REFERRED THIS APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR AN ADVISORY RECOMMENDATION. THE PLANNING BOARD, AS LEAD AGENCY, WILL ALSO CONDUCT AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AS REQUIRED BY THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA). THE SEQRA REVIEW WILL ADDRESS BOTH THE REZONING REQUEST AS WELL AS A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION. TOWN BOARD REFERRAL: 3/15/04 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/14/04 TAX MAP NO. 296.12-1-23 LOT SIZE: 1.54 ACRES SECTION: 179-15-020 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOHN & RICHARD HUGHES, PRESENT 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Petition for Change of Zone, PZ 1-2004, John Hughes, Meeting Date: April 27, 2004 “Applicant: John Hughes Application No.: Petition for Zone Change PZ-1-2004 Location: North side of Bayberry Dr. “Brookview Acres” Current Zone: PO (Professional Office) Proposed Zone: SFR-20 (Single Family Residential 20,000 sq. ft.) Project Area: 1.54 acres Affected Tax Parcels: Tax Parcel 296.12-1-23 SEQRA Type: Unlisted Meeting Date: Planning Board SEQRA Review and Recommendation April 27, 2004 Project Description: The applicant has applied for a Petition for Zone Change to rezone property located on the north side of Bayberry Dr. off of Bay Rd. Coupled with the rezoning request is a subdivision. The rezone request is to change property zoned professional office to a residential district. A “Map Made for John Hughes,” Sheet S-1, dated January 21, 2004, at a scale of 1 in. = 200 ft. shows the area of proposed zoning. The applicant is requesting the zone change to continue residential development in the Brookview Acres subdivision. Another sketch plan, “Map Made for John Hughes,” Sheet S-1, dated October 10, 2003, at a scale of 1 in. = 50 ft. shows the proposed subdivision. This subdivision includes three lots for residential purposes (lots #2, #3 and #4) and four lots for PO uses (lots #1, #5, #6, and #7). This is the same map that was submitted for proposed subdivision SB-7-2003. Project History: Please refer to the attached letter dated September 4, 2003 from the Director of Community Development, to Mr. John Hughes. It explains that the lots now labeled as #3 and #4 were existing non-conforming lots # 1 and #2 of the Brookview Acres subdivision. The lot lines are the same. The proposed lots #1 and #2 were previously a single parcel. The proposed lot #1 would remain PO, and the proposed lot #2 would be changed to SFR-20. Proposed Lots 2 through 4 are the focus of the rezoning request. See also the memorandum from staff to the Planning Board dated November 25, 2003 that notes a rezoning is needed to develop proposed lots #2, #3, and #4 for residential purposes. SEQRA Review: If the rezoning is approved by the Town Board, the subdivision proposed in SB-17-2003, will be continued as a new or as a revised subdivision application. SEQRA review will be conducted for both the rezoning and subdivision request (“the project”) The Planning Board requested Lead Agency status for SEQRA review purposes for the project. The Town Board consented as per their Resolution 174,2004. The Planning Board will be asked to accept Lead Agency status as per the Resolution prepared by staff. A long Environmental Assessment form (EAF) was submitted with the Petition for Zone Change application. A short form EAF was completed for the subdivision sketch plan. Since the SEQRA review is to cover the rezoning request, and the potential subdivision, environmental information and questions apply to the entire site. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) Staff notes that the answers to the questions in the long form EAF as submitted by the applicant does not refer to other than the 3 lots proposed in the rezoning. Response to Application Criteria The Planning Board needs to address each one of the Petition for Zone Change questions when considering their recommendation to the Town Board. 1. What need is being met by the proposed change in zone or new zone? The applicant notes that the SFR-20 zoning would allow for single-family homes on previously approved lots. There would also be an additional residential lot created. 2. What existing zones, if any, can meet the stated need? The SFR zones are the only zones that restrict residential development to single family only. The SFR-20 zone has been requested to provide consistency with the adjacent zoning. Other allowed uses include a school or place of worship with site plan review by the Planning Board. 3. How is the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones? The adjacent Brookview Acres subdivision to the east of the proposed rezoning is zoned SFR-20. These lots range in size from 0.37 acres to over 1 acre. The majority of the built up lots are closer to ½ acre in size. Zoning to the south, north and west is PO. PO zoning does allow residential uses (limited to duplexes and multi-family). The purpose of PO districts is to encourage professional offices that are compatible with residential uses [see §179-3-040 D. (2)]. Professional offices must be located within 1,000 ft. of the arterial road [see Note 3 Table 2 in the zoning ordinance]. The areas currently zoned PO on the plans are the only areas where professional office uses could be located. 4. What physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone? The applicant notes that the site is flat with an existing public road and utilities. (There is a Town water line only.) 5. How will the proposed zone affect public facilities? Public Utilities; Sewer/Water The parcels to be rezoned are located within the Queensbury Water District. On-site sewage is proposed for the residential lots. The Quaker Road Sewer District (QRSD) and the Hiland Park Sewer Districts are in close proximity. The property directly south of the project is served by the QRSD. Transportation; Highways/Traffic/Circulation Access to the residential lots would be off of Bayberry Dr., a local road. Direct access to lots is preferred off of local roads. The Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual indicates that with 3 single family detached housing units, there would be an average of 30 weekday trip ends total. [Peak hour trips would provide 0.76 trips per housing unit). Schools/Emergency Services/Town Facilities Impacts on the school population would be minimal for three single-family residences. The property is within the Queensbury School District. Impacts on emergency services are not known, but should be minimal. 6. Why is the current zone classification not appropriate for the property in question? 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) The current zone classification of PO does not allow single-family homes. 7. What are the environmental impacts of the proposed change? Staff notes that the answers to the questions in the long form EAF as submitted by the applicant generally refer to the 3 lot rezoning. Our notes refer to the project in its entirety Wetlands The applicant does not show any wetland data on the proposed plans. Staff communicated to the applicant’s representative (March 11, 2004 correspondence attached) that identification, location, and delineation of wetlands may be required for the Planning Board to make its SEQRA determination. Letters documenting inquiries to and responses from the NYS DEC regarding wetlands were not included as part of the application. Environmental impacts cannot be fully assessed without this information. Based on a review of our GIS files no NYS DEC wetlands are located on the property. GIS files show that NWI wetlands are found on the property (see attached GIS map). An ACOE determination is needed regarding whether or not the presence of NWI wetlands are concurrent with ACOE wetlands. The wetlands appear to be located on the lands proposed to remain as PO. Based on the information presented the viability of Lot #1 as a building lot is suspect. Given the overall project acreage, density does not appear to be an issue. A wetlands delineation would resolve these issues. Soils GIS mapping by staff (see attached) shows that there hydric soils on the site, which are very wet, and located on both sides of the stream, which runs in a north-south direction through proposed lots #1, #6 and #7. Hydric soils are poorly drained and have a high water table. The areas are wet part of the year. Transportation; Highways/Traffic/Circulation Access to 6 of the 7 lots appears to be from Bayberry Drive. Lot 6 would require access from Bay Road. Bay Rd. is classified as a regional arterial road. Lots fronting on arterial roads are to be discouraged [see §179-19-020]. The driveway spacing standard for this development that would apply is most likely 330 ft. between curb cuts along the same side of the road [see § 179-19-010 C.]. The spacing standard could be met for lot #6 from the Bayberry Rd. curb cut if that were the only curb cut to be considered. The applicant should confirm compliance with this standard. . Bay Rd. is an arterial road subject to the requirements of the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone (TCO). All buildings must be setback 75 ft. from the edge of the road right-of-way. No provisions have yet been made for pedestrian circulation or traffic for the PO lots. The PO zone lots would contribute additional traffic, depending on the exact type of professional office use ultimately built. Based on the uses allowed in a PO zone, morning peak hour traffic per 1,000 sq. ft. of building can range from an additional 2.3 trips for an office park; 5.3 trips for a medical office, to 33.2 trips for a bank (without a drive through). 8. How is the proposal compatible with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use Master Plan? The proposed project area is located in Neighborhood 9 in the 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). The CLUP notes that this area north of Quaker Rd. on Bay Rd. should be developed as a town center, with a mixture of commercial, office, cultural, and educational uses. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) Multi-family residential uses are not suitable for septic systems. The change to SFR-20 zoning is for single-family homes only. The CLUP also recommends development of a general plan to treat the area as a more unified entity. The adoption of design guidelines during the April 2002 townwide rezoning approval addresses this recommendation. The applicant notes that the residential character will be maintained to the rear of the professional office corridor. 9. How are the wider interests of the Community being served by this proposal? The applicant states that single-family homes should be allowed on previously approved lots. The three lots proposed to be rezoned do provide infill opportunities for single family homes in an existing neighborhood. The size of the proposed lots as compared to others in Brookview Acres are 1/3 acre versus ½ acre, but still meet the zoning requirement. A smaller lot reduces land costs, and may provide housing at a more affordable cost. The Town’s recent housing study completed in December 2003, indicates that infill housing on vacant lots in existing Affordable Housing Strategy neighborhoods is one way to meet the for the Town. Notes/Concerns: The Warren County Planning Board met April 14, 2004 and a recommendation is expected. The viability of lots #1, #6 and #7 for development is dependent on the exact location of the stream, delineation of wetlands, and soil suitability. Additional suitable land could be needed to meet density requirements. Proposed lot #1 has the least amount of land. If additional land were needed to meet density requirements, that land could come from the residential lot #2. Proposed residential lots #3 and #4 are not affected based on research and information provided to date. Recommendation: The Planning Board is to make a recommendation to the Town Board. The subdivision is subject to further review of the Planning Board.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-I’m going to go ahead and just give you a brief summary. MR. MAC EWAN-Summarize. MR. HILTON-Not having authored these notes, I’m aware of the application, and I’m just going to give you, like I said, my summary. This application proposes to rezone an area of land on Bay Road Professional Office to SFR-20, I believe is the zone they’re asking for, and you will recall this similar plan was presented to you at the Sketch Plan. Well, let’s just say previous to this application. The request is being made. There are two lots in the subdivision that was previously approved and we’ve included a copy of that map, which were approved as Single Family lots, and now, at the present time, are zoned PO. Part of the rezoning is to get those back to Single Family lots, as well as create one more Single Family parcel. The majority of the land, or, let me back up, the parcel to the south of Bayberry Drive, which is currently zoned Professional Office, as part of this rezoning, would remain Professional Office. The Staff comments do talk about some environmental concerns, as far as soils and the fact that there may be some hydric or wet soils out here or the potential setbacks from the stream. I guess, as far as the Board, at the time of Sketch Plan, had some concerns or questions, let’s say, as far as when you apply the 75 foot setback from Bay Road, the Travel Corridor Overlay, and you apply the stream setbacks, what usable land is there, within this proposed subdivision. I guess, as 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) well, this is the request which has been referred by the Town Board to the Planning Board, as well, the Planning Board is charged with being Lead Agency for SEQRA review, and before any recommendation, or as part of any recommendation to the Town Board, you would have to issue your SEQRA declaration, whatever that may be, and that’s really my summary at this point. Everything is in the notes. If you have any questions, I’d be happy to answer them, but that’s all I have at this time. MR. RINGER-Do you want to do that resolution first? MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want us to do the resolution seeking Lead Agency status first? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Move it. MOTION TO ACCEPT LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR THE PLANNING BOARD FOR PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE PZ 1-2004 JOHN HUGHES, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a petition for change of zone application to rezone approximately 1.54 acres of property currently zoned PO Professional Office to SFR- 20 Single Family Residential 20,000 sq. ft., and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the project to be a Unlisted action for the purposes of SEQRA review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the actions because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property, and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its acceptance of Lead Agency Status for SEQRA review of this action in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and authorizes and directs the Department of Community Development to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such acceptance. Duly adopted this 27th day of April, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Done. Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves representing John Hughes on this application. As Staff has stated, this is the existing Bayberry Drive. What was part of Brookview Acres subdivision. There’s two, was two residential lots in the Brookview subdivision that we have denoted as Lots Three and Four, from that original subdivision back in 1966. The line to the back of the existing (lost words) lot, should just before the (lost words) Bayberry Drive was completely rezoned Professional Office. What this rezoning request is for is for the three lots, Three and Four, on the north side of Bayberry Drive, to be residential. The two of them, as was stated before, were currently part of the approved subdivision previously. I’d just like to add one more to stay in character with the subdivision that is in the back of the property, to the east 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) of the property, and the remainder will remain Professional Office, and we gave you what would be a Sketch subdivision plan, the three lots along Bay Road, and the larger lot off Bayberry (lost words) the existing house and garage in the back. The concerns or questions that were brought up by the Board and Staff, as far as the location of the stream and potential wetlands on that stream, along the back of Lot Six and Seven on Bay Road, that’s a very narrow channel. Talking to Deb Roberts, that would be similar to what would be (lost words) to the Federal wetlands that would be on the property, either to the south of this, it would be a very narrow corridor. On Lot One, just the opposite. There is some wetlands that would be outside the narrow corridor because of the way the contours are in there, and they’ve got the flags out. We do realize that, and we would have to do further investigation. (lost words) coming in here with full subdivision review, engineering, to prove whether or not that would be a viable or, would it have to be merged with Lot Two of the residential lot. Until we have an idea what could be built in there, until we have a full wetland study, we cannot confirm that, but no proposed building is proposed at this time. So what we’re really looking for is two of the previous residential lots to be returned to residential nature, and one additional one being (lost words). MR. VOLLARO-So really this is all about Lot Two, Three, and Four. Is that correct? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I have some comments. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. MR. VOLLARO-I have some comments on Lots Six and Seven. There’s a 75 foot setback on the Bay Road right now, and I’ve drawn the 75 foot setback line in there, and on Lot Six, for example, there’s only 120 feet left to the stream, from that 75 foot line. So whatever’s got to be put in there, in the Professional Office, has got to fit in 120 feet. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-With the proper setbacks and all of that, just so you’re aware of the 75 foot setback. MR. STEVES-It’s almost identical in setback distance from the lot that was developed immediately to the south of this. There is ample room for the building and required parking. There is an existing driveway, as you may recall, to the existing house, which is centered on that lot line between Lot Six and Seven. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. STEVES-And we could put the build, parking in between the buildings to the end, so you don’t have parking behind, but like I said, that would be addressed at site plan, you know, for the specific design, but that’s what we would be envisioning is coming out that existing drive, basically centering that driveway one entrance off Bay Road, going north and south of the parking lot with the buildings on Lot Six being at the southerly end and the buildings on Lot Seven being at the northerly end. MR. VOLLARO-One thing that might help here, I don’t know, I’d just throw this out, both the Quaker Road Sewer District on Bay Road and the Hiland Park Sewer Districts are in close proximity to this. Given the soil conditions, the hydric soils, poorly drained, high water tables and so on, that suggests that a sewer district extension for this subdivision, as well as the remaining Brookview Acres, which are out in the back, would certainly help this whole situation. You wouldn’t need to put your septic tanks in there and all of that if you could get a sewer extension, do a map plan and report, get a sewer extension, and extend your sewer into these, they’re close. You’ve got one coming a couple of hundred feet south of you is a connection. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. STEVES-We’ll definitely look into it. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think it’s something to look into. That was all my notes. I’m in favor of this, of this particular zone change, because I think it’s minor. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments? MR. HUNSINGER-I just had a comment. I think the Staff did a great job in writing this up. MR. VOLLARO-Marilyn did an excellent job. She really did. I expressed that to Mr. Hilton a day or so ago that she did a great job of writing that up. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you wanted to add? MR. STEVES-Not at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask you to give up the table for a minute. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this proposed zone change? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MS. RADNER-Before you move it, it should be clear on the record. Your SEQRA should consider the proposed development, residential, but also any other development that would be allowed with a Change of Zone. MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA tonight, don’t we? MR. RINGER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s the Long Form, too. MR. MAC EWAN-Go for it. They submitted a Long Form. Do we have the prerogative to use the Short if we wanted to? MS. RADNER-For a zone change, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Use the Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. PZ 1-2004, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JOHN HUGHES, 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 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 27 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 make a recommendation. MOTION FOR PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE PZ 1-2004 FOR JOHN HUGHES TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD TO APPROVE THE ZONING REQUEST, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Petition for Change of Zone: PZ 1-2004 Applicant/Property Owner: JOHN HUGHES SEQR Type: Unlisted Agent: Van Dusen & Steves Current Zone: PO RECOMMENDATION Proposed Zone: SFR-20 Applicant proposes to re-zone approximately 1.54 acres of property currently zoned PO, Professional Office to SFR-20, Single Family Residential 20,000 sq. ft. The Town Board referred this application to the Planning Board for an advisory recommendation. The Planning Board, as lead agency, will also conduct an environmental review as required by the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The SEQRA review will address both the rezoning request as well as a proposed subdivision. Town Board referral: 3/15/04 Warren Co. Planning: 4/14/04 Tax Map No. 296.12-1-23 Lot size: 1.54 acres / Section: 179-15-020 Public Hearing: April 27, 2004 WHEREAS, the application was received on 2/2/04; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 4/23/04, and 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) 4/27 Staff Notes 4/23 GIS map 4/20 Notice of Public Hearing sent 4/14 Warren Co. Planning: NCI 4/7 Meeting Notice sent 3/30 Resolution seeking lead agency status 3/16 E-mail from S. Hemingway 3/15 TB resolution 174, 2004 consenting to LA designation and authorizing TC to forward petition to TB 3/11 Van Dusen & Steves from CB 3/11 Revised Map S-1 3/3 Transmittal of 2/24/04 memo by CB to TB 11/25/03 PB minutes: Sub. 17-2003 J. Hughes 2/25/03 TB from J. Hughes regarding rezoning by TB 2/25/03 TB from J. Hughes, note to drawings 1/27/03 TB from CR: Town rezoning applications 9/9/02 J. Hughes from CR: follow up to 9/3/02 conservation 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 27, 2004 and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The Planning Board approves recommendation to the Town Board to approve the zoning request in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 27th day of April, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck. PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE: PZ 2-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED RECOMMENDATION MICHELLE CLARK MAILLE AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES CURRENT ZONE: SR-1A PROPOSED ZONE: SR-20 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RE- ZONE APPROXIMATELY 22 ACRES OF PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED SR-1A, SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL ONE ACRE TO SR-20, SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL 20,000 SQ. FT. THE TOWN BOARDHAS REFERRED THIS APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR AN ADVISORY RECOMMENDATION. THE PLANNING BOARD, AS 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) LEAD AGENCY, WILL ALSO CONDUCT AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AS REQUIRED BY THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA). THE SEQRA REVIEW WILL ADDRESS BOTH THE REZONING REQUEST AS WELL AS A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/14/04 TAX MAP NO. 308.6-1-86 LOT SIZE: 22 ACRES SECTION: 179-15-020 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Petition for Change of Zone PZ 2-2004, Michelle Clark Maille, Meeting Date: April 27, 2004 “Applicant: Michelle Clark Maille Application No.: Petition for Zone Change PZ-2-2004 Location: North side of Luzerne Rd. east of Burch Rd. and west of Van Dusen Rd. Current Zone: SR-1A (Suburban Residential 1 Acre) Proposed Zone: SR-20 (Suburban Residential 20,000 sq. ft.) Project Area: 22.04 acres Affected Tax Parcels: Tax Parcel 308.6-1-86 SEQRA Type: Unlisted Meeting Date: Planning Board SEQRA Review and Recommendation April 27, 2004 Project Description: The applicant has applied for a Petition for Zone Change to rezone property located on the north side of Luzerne Rd. east of Burch Rd. and west of Van Dusen Rd. The rezone request is to change from SR-1 Acre to SR-20,000 ft.. The applicant is requesting the zone change to 2 develop a subdivision. A sketch subdivision plan showing a 33-lot layout has been submitted to support t he request. The proposed layout shows one curb cut for access for 32 lots, over 1,000 ft. of road with dead-end turn around areas at each end, and one undersized lot with direct access off of Luzerne Road. Refer to "Map made for Michelle Clark Maille, Sheet S-1, dated January 2004 at a scale of 1 in. = 100 ft., which was transmitted in March 2004 to the Town Board. SEQRA Review: A sketch subdivision plan was submitted with the Petition for Zone Change application, although a formal application has not been received. The Planning Board was granted Lead Agency status for SEQRA review purposes by the Town Board for the entire proposal. The SEQRA review is performed both the Petition for Zone Change and the subdivision plan. A long Environmental Assessment form (EAF) has been submitted with the application. Response to Application Criteria The Planning Board needs to address each one of the Petition for Zone Change questions when considering their recommendation to the Town Board. 1. What need is being met by the proposed change in zone or new zone? The applicant contends that SR-1A zoning does not allow adequate use of the property. Additional development densities would be granted if the change was issued 2. What existing zones, if any, can meet the stated need? All SR zones allow single-family housing as a permitted use and duplex/multi family residential uses as a site plan review use. Other allowed uses include agricultural uses (as per § 179-5-030), cemeteries, day care centers, places of worship, and schools. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) 3. How is the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones? Adjacent zones in all directions from the subject parcel are SR-1A. Of the 18 parcels immediately adjoining the site, just four (4) are close to ½ acre. All lots along both sides of Luzerne Road in the vicinity of this proposal are close to one (1) acre or greater with the exception of four (4) properties. 4. What physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone? The applicant notes that the irregular shape of the parcel is more suitable for smaller lots. The site is level. Although NYS DEC wetlands are not mapped for the property, NWI wetlands are found on the property (see attached GIS map). An ACOE determination is needed regarding whether or not the presence of NWI wetlands is concurrent with ACOE wetlands. A wetlands determination is needed to establish lot density. 5. How will the proposed zone affect public facilities? Public Utilities; Sewer/Water The parcels to be rezoned are located within the Clendon Brook Water District. On-site sewage is proposed. Transportation; Highways/Traffic/Circulation The sketch plan shows a single curb cut for 32 lots. A single curb cut is desirable for access management, however, the resulting internal road structure is a dead-end street greater than 1,000 ft. with a cul-de-sac at either end. There is potential to connect to Dean Rd. or to Michael Dr., which would result in a more cohesive residential street design. The goal of the subdivision regulations is to have residential streets connected to a residential collector street system. No provisions have been made for pedestrian circulation or traffic. One lot is located directly off of Luzerne Rd. The lot off of Luzerne Rd. is not allowable as per §A183-23, and would only be considered if in a 4 or fewer lot subdivision. When allowed, a double lot width is required, or a shared driveway. The proposed zoning of SR-20 requires a 100 ft. lot width; the existing frontage is 94 ft. A variance would be required. The Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual indicates that with 32 single family detached housing units, there would be an average of 320 weekday trip ends total. Schools/Emergency Services/Town Facilities Impacts on the school population are not known. The property is within the Queensbury School District. The Queensbury Schools have asked for notification of proposed subdivisions and duplex/multi-family housing so that they may assess school population and associated needs. A copy of these comments have been submitted to the Superintendent of Schools for the Queensbury School District. Impacts on emergency services are not known. 6. Why is the current zone classification not appropriate for the property in question? The applicant states that the current zone classification is not appropriate since the shape of the parcel does not lend itself to 1acre lots. It is possible to have 1acre lots on this property, with fewer than the maximum number the zone would allow due to environmental and other considerations. The applicant notes that 18 lots would be the maximum potential number of lots under the current zoning. 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) 7. What are the environmental impacts of the proposed change? Potential impacts on the transportation system (traffic), the School District, are noted above. Letters documenting inquiries to and responses from the NYS DEC regarding wetlands and threatened or endangered habitat/species were not included as part of the application. Environmental impacts cannot be fully assessed without this information. 9. How is the proposal compatible with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use Master Plan? The proposed project area is located in Neighborhood 11 in the 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) [see the attached map]. The CLUP does not contain any recommendation to increase densities in this neighborhood. The zoning has been SR-1A since the 1988 zoning amendments. 9. How are the wider interests of the Community being served by this proposal? The applicant states that by having smaller lots, the lots proposed will conform more closely to the surrounding lots. As shown on the sketch plan, proposed lots are not consistent in size with surrounding lots. Notes/Concerns: The Warren County Planning Board reviewed this item at their April 14, 2004 meeting. Zoning Ordinance During the 2002 rezoning for the Town, densities were increased for the area between Sherman and Luzerne Roads, extending from West Mt. Road to the Northway. The area was rezoned to address the existing character of the area, and that area is now zoned SR-20. This change added over 750 acres to the SR-20 zone. The 2002 rezoning considered all areas within the Town. Recommendation: The Planning Board is to make a recommendation to the Town Board. The subdivision is subject to further review of the Planning Board. Staff has concerns about the increase in density and the resultant impact on traffic and the school district population. Additionally, the subdivision plan may be affected by wetlands and a highway layout reconfiguration.” MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Background. MR. HILTON-Again, just a quick summary, here, of the project. Similar situation. The Town Board has, is seeking a recommendation for this proposed rezoning which proposes to change the zoning of the property from SR-1A to SR-20. There is a subdivision plan, along with this rezoning, a Sketch subdivision plan has been submitted, and although a formal application has not been received, the applicant, as far as what need is being met, the applicant contends that the SR-1A zoning doesn’t allow adequate use of the property. As it says here, additional development densities would be granted if the Change was issued. What existing zones can meet the stated need? All SR zones allow single family housing as a permitted use. Single Family such as the Single Family that’s proposed as part of this subdivision. How is the proposed zone compatible with adjacent uses. Adjacent zones in all directions are zoned SR-1A and of the 18 parcels immediately adjoining the site, only four are close to half an acre. Physical characteristics, the applicant notes the irregular shape is more suitable for smaller lots. This, based on the GIS map that we have included in the notes, there are no New York State DEC wetlands mapped on the property. A portion of the property appears to be within the 100 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) foot buffer. There are indications of NWI wetlands which are indicative of Army Corps of Engineers wetlands. However, a determination from the Army Corps is needed, and wetlands delineations are also needed to establish density. As far as public utilities, these lots will be connected to the municipal water system, and will have on-site sewage removal. The Sketch Plan, as far as transportation impacts, the Sketch Plan shows a single curb cut for 32 lots, and this is a desirable situation by itself. However, as proposed, the internal road, the roads are proposed result in a dead end street greater than 1,000 feet, with a cul de sac at either end. There is the potential to connect to Dean Road, or to Michael Drive. That would be in keeping with the goal of having a residential interconnection as part of subdivisions, and as the notes state, no provisions have been made for pedestrian circulation or traffic. Quickly going ahead, the question is why is the current zone classification not appropriate, and the applicant states that the current zone is not appropriate since the shape of the parcel doesn’t lend itself to one acre lots. It is possible to have one acre lots. However, fewer than the maximum number the zone would allow it could only be developed, potentially, due to the environmental and other considerations. As far as environmental impacts. There will be impacts to the transportation system and potentially the School district. However, those impacts are unknown. I’ve discussed the wetlands, and, you know, at this point we haven’t seen any delineations or any comments on threatened or endangered species. Also, as far as the Master Plan, this is in Neighborhood Eleven. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan does not contain any recommendation to increase densities in this neighborhood. The zoning has been SR-1A since the 1988 amendments, and how are the wider interests of the community being served by this proposal, the applicant states that by having smaller lots, the lots will conform more closely to the surrounding lots. However, as shown on the Sketch Plan, the proposed lots are not consistent in size with surrounding lots, immediately surrounding this parcel. Warren County Planning Board reviewed this item on April 14, and I don’t have their recommendation in th front of me. I can get that for you. Again, the Planning Board, this evening, is charged with making a recommendation and conducting their SEQRA review, before this is forwarded on to the Town Board for any action by them, and that’s all I have at this time. MR. VOLLARO-George, in that recitation, you mentioned two roads that I can’t find on my S-1 at all. There were two roads mentioned. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, on the little drawing, the colored print. The one going north/south is Michael, and the one going east/west is Dean. It’s in your Staff notes. MR. O’CONNOR-Good evening. Do you need to do your SEQRA resolution first? MR. MAC EWAN-Lead Agency status you mean? Do we have a Lead Agency status resolution? MR. HILTON-No. My understanding is you’ve already sought and accepted, let me double check that, though. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead, Mike, and we’ll catch up on it if we have to do it. MR. O'CONNOR-Basically, under the present zoning, you have 18 one acre lots on there. What we’re seeking is a rezoning which will permit us to add up to 32 lots. I’m not saying here tonight that we would have 32 lots. We have submitted a Sketch Plan to the Town, that is our best case scenario (lost words) not happy with this, that is the worst case scenario. We’re talking about an additional 14 lots. We are making the proposal because we think it makes good planning sense. If you take a look at the size of this, or the shape of this lot, as much as anything, it would be very hard to develop as one acre lots. If you had smaller lots it accommodates this much better. I think it also is an opportunity, and everybody in Town is talking about having affordable housing. To have an area where you have small lots and some affordable housing. In our subdivision application, which we would bring back to you, we would have full engineering. We would show the wetlands and show whether that impacts us or doesn’t impact us. We have superimposed on the map that we did submit S-1, the wetlands that are on the adjoining parcel and the 100 foot buffer from that. We have not gone out and 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) flagged it, but we would flag it. We would take it into consideration in our design. We also have looked at this and there’s a lot of comments by Staff about the 1,000, or maybe a dead end in excess of 1,000 feet, and also comments about a single entrance. We think that we can accommodate a double entrance to the property. We will not be asking for any variances from the regulations. The road, as it is constructed, we hope, if it’s approved, and that’s another reason for asking for the smaller lots. If you take a look at the map, and I have various versions of it, Staff’s made comment about this parcel of land having 94 feet of frontage on Luzerne Road that is not being in compliance with the regulations as far as frontage and the Subdivision Regulations or zoning regulations. Our thought would be, from a planning point of view, if we can get a number of lots to justify it, we can bring an entrance through this property here, into the main road that would serve the subdivision, then come back out as a U-shape right here. Now that’s 450 feet, and that’s probably $45,000. We can justify that by increasing the number of lots and spreading it over 32 lots, or up to 32 lots, as opposed to 18 lots. That makes, I think, the best planning sense. The Staff talks about perhaps potentially connecting to either Dean Road or Michael Drive. If you take a look at Dean Road, and I don’t know the area that you have, but the end of Michael Drive is at a cul de sac, and as it connects to our parcel is where the DEC flagged wetland is. There’s no way of physical connecting from Michael Drive to this parcel. MR. VOLLARO-Point to Michael Drive. I still don’t. MR. MAC EWAN-He’s talking about the top, that cul de sac right there. MR. VOLLARO-It’s off the map. MR. STEVES-Michael Drive, it’s right about here. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s right there, the cul de sac right there. Right there, and this is our property, and there’s the wetland right there. MR. O'CONNOR-We did a composite of the whole area. That’s what I passed before. This is Michael Drive here, and I think on its subdivision it was shown as having a cul de sac at the end. I don’t know if the cul de sac was ever formally constructed. This is the area that they talk about connecting through to us, and the back end of this area is where the wetlands are. There’s no way that you would be able to physically connect through there. I also think, I’ve tried that once before, where you have an established subdivision, and all of a sudden we go through their back door to hook up to another part, or another subdivision where it wasn’t shown on their maps. Those people would not probably want to be connected through us, and I would understand that. We tried it once, up off of Aviation Road. This is the piece that they’re talking about. This is Dean Road, the other road that they said possibly we could use as a secondary entrance. Again, it does not physically connect to us. There’s a house right here, and I think it would not add much to it. I think the better way, if we can get this back to you, and we have the number of lots that justify it, we would come in this way, and come out this way, and then have two cul de sacs. MR. VOLLARO-You’d come in on the 94 piece. MR. O'CONNOR-Come in the 94 foot. MR. VOLLARO-In this way, and come out here. MR. O'CONNOR-And come out that way. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m getting concerned about having this repartee up here, I guess. So, the public can understand what’s going on. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. On the Sketch Plan, there’s a parcel that has 94 feet of frontage on Luzerne Road. It was not a lot. Staff seemed to think it was a lot. The intention, when this was 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) first submitted, is that we would try to convey that to one of the adjoining property owners. We recognize that it wouldn’t be a lot, but it wasn’t spelled out any place saying that’s what we were going to do. The better way of doing it would be to try and make that a cul de sac, or make that a U road going in there, with right angles as it connected to the road that run across the back of the subdivision, and it would certainly then make each end of the cul de sac a lot less than 1,000 feet away from a double road connection. So, we think that we’ve answered a good number of the Staff comments as to that, and maybe I’ll go through the comments. I think on transportation, we talked about we don’t think Dean Road, or a connection to Dean Road, is a possibility. We also don’t think that we can connect to Michael Drive and don’t think people would want us to because it’s a wetland. The whole comment about the lot off Luzerne Road, I think we answered by saying it is not the intention to develop it as a single family lot. It would either be conveyed to an adjoining owner, or incorporated into a U-shaped road that would service and give better planning for the whole subdivision. I’m not sure about the comment about 320 week day trips on a total. I’ve never seen a traffic study in the sense of how many trips you’d have for the period of a week. My understanding is, again, we’re talking about potentially 14 extra lots, and at a peak, the peak time on a residence appears to be the evening hours, and you’re talking about 1.02 trips per residence. So you’d be talking about a potential of 14 extra trips during the peak hour on Luzerne Road, some of which would go east. Some of which would go west, and I think would hardly be an adverse impact to the traffic that’s on that road. I think, and that’s the weekdays. During Saturdays and Sundays, it’s .94 per house. Sunday’s, I guess, it’s .86. The question, I guess is the current zoning not appropriate for the property. I think you have to look at that composite map that we submitted. There are some lots right in the front of this parcel that are on Luzerne Road that are one acre parcels, but if you look across the street, or look any place to the east or any place to the west, the lots that are developed on the composite are half acre lots. Herald Square is directly across from the property, and I think they’ve got 40 lots in there that are all a half acre. MR. MAC EWAN-Herald Square is not directly across from the parcel. I mean, you’ve got all the Luzerne Road parcels. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Here’s the property. Here’s Herald Square. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but what’s in between Herald Square and. MR. O'CONNOR-You’ve got some houses on the front. You do, okay. You’ve got Clendon Ridge, which is up in this end, and this end behind here. Behind this property is a mobile home overlay zone which has a 5,000 square foot lot qualification. If you take, and I think beyond just square footage, and I don’t mean this in a negative sense, but if you take a look at the actual development of the property, even on Luzerne Road, that’s in front of this, I took a look at the assessment cards, and tax map parcel 85 has the highest assessment, and it’s $104,100. Tax Map Parcel Two has $93,500. Tax Map Number 3 has $42,300. That has a mobile home on it. Tax Map Four has $52,300. Tax Map Twenty-Nine has, and that’s one of the smaller lots, has $92,800, and Tax Map Thirty has $85,900. The piece immediately behind it, which is a larger piece, has a small house on it, and that’s $58,400. That’s Tax Map Parcel Number Seventy-Eight. The mobile home that is directly behind the westerly cul de sac has an assessment of $38,800. The piece next to it is vacant. There’s a church that’s at the west end of the property, and then there’s a mobile home at the corner of Warren Lane and Luzerne Road. There’s a very small house, on Burch Lane. There’s a very small house on Tax Map Parcel Number Eight-Two. If you take a look at this rendition, or what not, of the neighborhood, one acre, $300,000 houses aren’t going to be very compatible. What we’re talking about trying to do on this property, and that’s where I talked about affordable housing, is build houses that would be 1300 to 1400 square foot, and probably more compatible with a smaller lot than a large lot, and also allow you to pass out or spread the infrastructure cost on a better basis. Houses at that, with lots, if we had 32 lots, and we were building houses of 1300 to 1400, you could begin selling at $160,000. Some of them are going to be more than that, but we could begin at $160,000. If you look at, and there was a version of the Code that actually gave a density bonus to people who were building affordable housing, and they said affordable housing in that definition of the Code was at 80% of the average median price. This is a booklet that Chris Round sent me 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) today, and it was on your study that was done on affordable housing in the Town. They were talking about construction costs, in the first six months, of 2003 of $203,138 dollars for Single Family detached houses, and they added 10% to those houses for land costs, which would be $223,450 per unit. Eighty percent of those is $178,800. We think that we will be in the range of affordable housing. Now, Marilyn wasn’t available today, and I didn’t really speak to her. She’s worked quite a bit on affordable housing. I did talk to Pat Tatich, who is the County Planner, on affordable housing, and you can get into a long, long discussion, and maybe some of you have sat on the committee, about whether you determine affordable housing by a range of sale prices or by qualification of income purchasers. I’m not saying that we are building an affordable housing project, because I think that that in itself is poor planning. I think we’ve seen what happens when you stigmatize a particular subdivision with that type of thing, but I can tell you the range that we can start off at, and it’s going to be much more affordable than other single family homes. I think the character of the neighborhood lends itself to the smaller lots. The size, or the size and shape of this parcel lends itself to smaller lots, and the opportunity here, to maybe have a subdivision where you will have less expensive housing, I think is of importance. I did look at the Master Plan. The Master Plan really doesn’t say much at all to contradict what I’ve said. It doesn’t say anything to support it either. I kind of wonder why this neighborhood is included in Neighborhood Eleven. For the most part, it’s the area that’s up on the mountain. It’s not the area that’s down on the east side of West Mountain Road. I think a map was attached that shows you that. The map that came through to me was not the best in print. It looks like this parcel is almost at the very east end of Neighborhood Eleven, and Neighborhood Eleven comments and what not really have to talk about the West Mountain subdivision losing its PUD status and should be rezoned to its prior density. It doesn’t say or doesn’t recommend anything particular as to this particular parcel or this particular neighborhood. So, the other comment that Staff made which I didn’t understand, if you look at the bottom of Page, or the bottom of the paragraph on Nine, and I think she just misstated. She said that during 2002, rezoning for the Town densities were increased for the area between Sherman and Luzerne Roads extending from West Mountain to the Northway, and the area was rezoned to address the existing character of the area, and that area is now zoned SR-20. I don’t think it happened. I think that that’s what we’re asking you to do is to zone a portion of that SR-20. I think she probably was referring to between Peggy Ann Road and Sherman, but, I mean, the rest of the sentence I would take, which says that what we’re asking for is in character, and even that change in 2002, which was for the area above Sherman Avenue, up to Peggy Ann Road, it really didn’t add 750 acres to the inventory of the Town for development as SR-20, because probably, 95% of that area had already been developed. If it added 40 acres to SR-20, that’s probably a conservative, very general statement. There is not a great deal of SR-20 available in the Town where somebody can go in and develop small lots for single family homes, and perhaps have affordable homes. MR. VOLLARO-What size house is on Lot One, Mr. O’Connor, the 1.77 acres? Is that developed as a, because it cuts right into the property. MR. O'CONNOR-It presently is for sale for $125,000. It’s an old house. I think that was the farm house. I may be wrong. I may have the card. MR. VOLLARO-And you’ve tried to lay these lots out as one acre in the past? You’ve looked at that one acre layout and it, primarily, what, you couldn’t put $230,000 house in here? That’s the bottom line? MR. STEVES-That’s correct, and the fact that you’re basically taking every other lot and doubling them up. So that the length of road to accommodate the size of the lot, the expense that you have and the infrastructure costs on top of the lot would try to dictate a $250,000 to $350,000 home, and as Mr. O’Connor just stated, he doesn’t think that that would be in character or would allow itself. MR. MAC EWAN-Who says you have to put that size of a house on a one acre parcel? 69 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. STEVES-We’re saying with the infrastructure costs associated with developing one acre lots, the return for doing houses under $200,000 just aren’t there. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask the $64,000 question then. How long have these people owned this property? MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know if I can tell you that. MR. MAC EWAN-I would be very helpful to me. MR. RINGER-What if you clustered it, went with 18 homes in a cluster? Then you wouldn’t have the infrastructure so expensive and you could afford to. MR. O'CONNOR-What do you then say qualifies as the common open space? That’s the problem. It’s hard to do a homeowners association for 18 lots, and make sense, and I don’t know of any land, it’s kind of a wooded land. I had some conversation with John about that, John Strough about that. It’s not something that maybe is like an open space adjoining a power line that the Town might take over for some of their thoughts on the blue lupine and, you know, trying to have something of that area. There’s nothing that I think that the Town would be interested in taking over. MR. RINGER-But you haven’t looked into that? MR. O'CONNOR-I know that, I’ve driven all the way around the property. It’s heavily wooded property. There does not appear to be any area where you would likely have blue lupine, or that you would attract Karner blue. Let me see if I have that answer for you. I didn’t bring that portion. My recollection is that it’s been in the family for some time. MR. MAC EWAN-Prior to the 1998 revision of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan do you think? MR. O'CONNOR-I believe so. MR. MAC EWAN-So at that time, when the Town was doing its Townwide rezoning, had they owned the property at that time, they could have come forward to the Town and said, hey, could you consider our parcel. We don’t think it’s developable, or whatever. MR. O'CONNOR-Like many people, not everybody follows that, Craig, and I don’t think that’s necessarily a real weathervane to hold up. I mean, a lot of people had their zoning changed one way or another, and didn’t pay a lot of attention to it. MR. MAC EWAN-And the other concern I would have, if they had bought it in recent years, post 1998, on a speculation, land speculation, figuring that they could get a zone change on it, you know. MR. O'CONNOR-My recollection is they had it before, and I go back into, I’m confident that they had it before. I don’t have anything here as a deed. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions by Board members? MR. VOLLARO-Well, as it’s laid out in the light print, it really looks like an awful lot of houses, two pounds in a one pound bag, as my compatriot over here likes to say, but I would like to see a little different layout. That might change my mind. Right now, I’m really not predisposed to agree to a zone change here, unless I saw a little more innovation in the way things are laid out here. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Can I comment, though, that you’re not, we’re not asking you to approve this. 70 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. VOLLARO-Making a recommendation only to the Town Board. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and that’s a recommendation, and we have to go through the process with the Town Board, and then we come back and talk about layout with you, the same as if this were originally SR-2, and if you don’t like our layout then, at that point, which I think will be better than what is here, then you can ask us to change it and what not. I don’t know if it’s, the idea is to try and get it, before we make the investment that we have to make, to do the wetland study, to do the engineering, and everything else, to know that we’re going to get a density that we can afford to do that with. This is a darker print, Bob. I don’t know if it makes any difference to you, as far as. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I can see what we’re doing here. This is dark enough for me to get the concept of what’s on paper, but I just have a. MR. SANFORD-Actually, the rezoning is problematic if we don’t feel comfortable with the design, because it puts us at a bit of a disadvantage if you came back with an undesirable footprint for the development, once you’ve had the zone change, because the argument that would most likely be made is the zoning permits it. MR. O'CONNOR-It doesn’t permit a footprint. MR. SANFORD-All right. Well, I unfortunately didn’t carry that argument at the last application. MS. RADNER-When you do the rezoning, you appropriately consider the maximum build out that you would then be allowing, and when they then come back and you say, I don’t like the maximum build out, then the argument will be, but the zoning allows it, and that’s exactly why the SEQRA has to contemplate the maximum build out. MR. O'CONNOR-All right, but isn’t it true that in a subdivision you’re talking about a road structure, or infrastructure that’s taken over by the Town, and that’s what gives the Planning Board the right to accept that road configuration or not accept it. MS. RADNER-Absolutely. That’s a separate issue. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, okay, but the road configuration determines the layout. It’s a little different than what you spoke of, but if I can stipulate to the fact that we understand that your recommendation that we are receiving tonight, or hopefully will receive tonight, is only as to the rezoning, and not as to the configuration, I have no problem with that. I also will tell you up front, as I said when I started, we may lose a couple of lots when we actually do the on-site study, as to the existence of the wetland. MR. SANFORD-One of the problems I have, I mean, other than what we’ve just discussed about the zone change and what that might mean in terms of a site plan. My other concern is, again, you know, affordable housing is a controversial topic, and while I think it’s almost being, it almost sounds like you’re against motherhood and apple pie if you say you don’t want to have some affordable housing in the Town, and of course we all want to see people have their dream and own their own house, but, if you got this rezoned, again, my school taxes are high enough, and I can see this contributing to, again, looking at this, a couple more classrooms at Queensbury, and, again, with probably inadequate tax revenue to fully support that, and so I think there are fiscal issues associated with density that we need to incorporate in whether or not we feel the rezoning is prudent, and in my case, as in the application before, I think we have to stop and think about this before we react too quickly, because there’s a big downside to increasing the density. MR. O'CONNOR-Part of the issue, even with the application that you had before, is that people can’t find affordable housing in the Town, and that’s what’s building the demand for 71 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) apartments. Your return on an apartment is a lot less than your return is on this. You’re not eliminating the people. So you’re maybe coming up with part of the revenue that you need by allowing the same people to live in single family homes as opposed to simply living in apartments. I mean, that’s a vicious circle that goes both ways. I don’t necessarily have an answer. I’ll tell you, I’m very totally surprised to sit here and think that I’m talking housing $160,000 to $180,000 being affordable housing. MR. SANFORD-Right. I hear you. MR. O'CONNOR-My first house cost me $32,000. My last house cost me $62,000. Because I bought it a while ago. You talk about, you know, $152,000 mortgage, people have to have a household income of $56,400, generally, to qualify for it. MR. MAC EWAN-It doesn’t seem like affordable housing to me. MR. O'CONNOR-You take a look at the study the Town did, talk to other people and what not. So I understand what you’re saying. I don’t necessarily agree with it. I think the School, for years, went around and begged for students, and now all of a sudden the last year we’ve got a crunch, which is kind of amazing after they just spent $38 million expanding their present facilities, but that’s a side issue. I think, from a good planning point of view, you get a much better plan with small lots in this parcel, and given the surrounding neighborhood, you really don’t have a lot of other choices as to the type of housing you’re going to put in there. I don’t know if the Town Board will agree or not, but, you know, that’s the pitch that. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions of Board members? MR. VOLLARO-Well, it was interesting, what Cathi had to say from the SEQRA point of view. You’ve got to look at your maximum. Now that I look at it, this drawing as presented to us shows maximum density. This is the worst case scenario, right here. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And it looks like if you wanted to get an in and an out using the 94 front footage of that one lot, and the other curb cut which you were going to use anyway, and bring that around, and then having to look at wetland issues and so on, you might lose five or six houses there. See, I’m just having a problem because of the way the surrounding area looks. I mean, it’s all one acre. Everything is SR-1A all around it, and we’re going to dump 20,000 square feet right in the middle of it. MR. O'CONNOR-Have you been out to look at it? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we have. We spent quite a bit of time looking at it, actually. I guess one of the comments I made, I don’t know whether it was myself or Mr. Ringer, one of us made the comment that said, you know, you’ll never sell a one acre lot house in there. MR. O'CONNOR-If you go back one road beyond that, you run into mobile home parks. If you take a look at the overlay. That’s why I said you couldn’t come up Warren Lane. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, you know, with that kind of surrounding, frankly, for a developer to go in and put a home anything less than about $200,000 on a one acre plot, he just couldn’t make a play. I don’t think. So, you know, I’m caught between a rock and a hard place. I don’t like the idea of rezoning this in the middle of SR-1A. MR. SANFORD-Bob, you’re stuck between a rock and a hard place because of almost a philosophy, and the philosophy is that somehow it’s our obligation, on the Planning Board, to empathize and to be concerned about the fiscal concerns of a developer with a piece of property that’s zoned in a certain way, and again, I’m not going to necessarily try and be the heavy here, 72 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) but I’m not so sure that’s our issue. I think that’s an issue to the landowner, a problem perhaps, but I don’t think it’s something that we dwell upon. MR. VOLLARO-You’re right. Fiscal conditions are not something that we’re supposed to deal with. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s not my argument, though. My argument is to the ultimate purchasers. I know that if these are smaller lots, the ultimate purchasers package is going to be less expensive. MR. SANFORD-No, I understand that. MR. O'CONNOR-I’m not saying the developer is entitled to make five dollars or ten dollars, and that’s not the argument. I think from a planning point of view, this allows smaller lots which will have smaller houses on it, which will be more affordable. They may not be affordable in the sense of the HUD definition of the 28% of income, mean income of $49,000, but they will be more affordable. MR. SANFORD-What I would almost suggest that developer or the landowner consider, is that we don’t do a zone change, and they sit down and they try to come up with a situation where they look at this whole parcel and they dedicate some green space, and they try to come up with a way in which they could put in a cluster, between 12, 15 homes, in a way that makes sense, and not develop a lot of the space, simply because of the infrastructure costs, and I think we do allow that concept now of having clustering with single family one acre. So, there is a potential solution here for everybody, without rezoning, but, if we change the zone to Suburban Residential 20,000, we don’t allow clustering, and then you’ve got to have this highly undesirable type of postage stamp, postage stamp, postage stamp and roads with cul de sacs and what have you. So we would actually be putting the developer at a disadvantage in the rezone, because right now we can entertain with single residential one acre clustered. MR. MAC EWAN-And the real picture, what you have here in front of you, in an ideal world it would be 32 lots. That’s maxed out what he could do if he was given the zone change. The reality is, you’re dealing with a cul de sac in excess of 1,000 feet, which I don’t think this Board would support. You’re dealing with the unknown, to the extent of wetlands and how much of the density calculations that would take away from this property being fully developed. There are unknowns. A lot of them. MR. STEVES-Correct, and when we draw up a plan, as I believe Bob had already stated, what we have to do, when it comes to rezoning, is show you what the maximum potential would be under the new zone. That doesn’t mean that it’s achievable, and that’s the reason for your so called cookie cutter, it would be a different layout, a loop road, two smaller cul de sacs, some curves involved in it. It would break it up, but if I come in here, on the other side of the coin, and say I’m going to rezone this, and I show 18 lots with all this fancy stuff, you’re going to be saying, well, you’re not showing the maximum potential under the SR-20. So I’m under a double edged sword, too. I have to be able to show you what the maximum potential would be. That’s not saying it’s going to happen. MR. O'CONNOR-In your rezoning, it doesn’t mean that you’re going to waive any of your statutory requirements. MR. MAC EWAN-I realize that. MR. O'CONNOR-We understand that you can’t, you would not accept a cul de sac in excess of 1,000 feet. So, back to Richard’s, Mr. Sanford’s question. If you had 15 lots on here, you’d be talking about a raw land cost of $21,000, and that’s just not going to fly. 73 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions from this side of the Board? I’d ask you to give up the table for a minute. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JIM WILLIG MR. WILLIG-My name is Jim Willig, and I own the five acres on the corner of Herald Square and the Luzerne Road, which, as Mr. MacEwan pointed out, is not directly across, but just a little bit west of this proposed action here. Let me, first of all, commend you folks for your service. I didn’t know you guys worked this late, and I’m proud that you’re on my Planning Board. God bless you. My wife and I, my wife Susan and I, moved back to Queensbury in 2001. We had lived in Tuscan, Arizona for 25 years after being residents here. We bought a parcel of land in Tuscan, Arizona on four acres, on a cul de sac that was everything we wanted it to be, and through rezoning, we saw 3500 homes built in the immediate area around our house. That meant we gave up a couple of riding horses that we could ride for miles prior to that. It meant that it changed the flow of the washes during the rainy season, so that we had flood problems that we never had before. It made flood insurance impossible to buy. The crime rate went up. The number of people in the area, of course, increased tremendously. When you have more people, you have more traffic. You have more social problems. You have more tax base, but you’ve got more social problems. So in 2001, we decided we’d come back to this area, and we came back to the Town of Queensbury because we felt it was the only place that we wanted to live anywhere around here in Warren County. We bought this home on Herald Square. It is on the corner. It is five acres, and I’ll tell you my assessment’s a lot more than some of them that have been mentioned today. There’s not a month that goes by that somebody doesn’t knock on our door, or leave me a note saying would you sell us some of your property. My house doesn’t sit anywhere near the corner of the lot. So there’s room for maybe two or three one acre lots the way it’s zoned, to the east of me, if I wanted to sell it, but I don’t want to sell it. Because we moved there for what the area is. The area that we’re talking about, or these gentlemen are talking about here, to me is a pretty pristine area. I mean, it belongs to these folks and they can do anything they want with it, but why you tear down a forest of pine trees that’s there, why you’d interfere with the wetlands that are there, and why you’d try to jam 32 lots in there, is beyond me. I think that would devalue my property. I don’t have any doubt of that, and some other properties that are there. The properties that were mentioned to you tonight are the lower end of the scale. Not everybody out there lives in a $50, $60, $70,000 house. There’s some pretty nice homes out there, and we’re pretty proud of them. So I don’t want to see anything like that developed over there. I don’t say it can’t be developed. It’s certainly going to be, if that’s what the people want to do, but why does it have to be 32 lots? Why can’t you stick with the one acre zoning that we have in place? I’m sure the Town of Queensbury didn’t put that in place arbitrarily. There had to be a reason that it was zoned that way, one house per acre, and I think they ought to stick to it. As I say, I know these folks have a right to develop their property, and I don’t dispute that at all, but I think we need to stay within the guidelines that we have in place, and keep the property values as close to what they are now as we can. That’s all I’ve got to say, and I, again, thank you folks for being here this late in the day. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? CINDY RATHBUN MRS. RATHBUN-My name is Cindy Rathbun. I live on Dean Drive, which keeps being referred to as Dean Road. I live in one of the smaller end dollar amount lots that have been listed. I border the back of the property. It’s going to go from one home that’s on that big beautiful land that’s right there into what they are trying to do, into 32 small lots, at houses of $160,000. That is just such a high price range for that neighborhood. The other thing I have concern about is the School system. Queensbury is at a maximum. They are building on, but they’re not building on adequate enough to hold the kids they have now. It’s going to lose the 74 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) neighborhood feel that we have now with the woods and the animals. There’s a lot of horse farms in that area, and I just feel that if they put in 32 lots or 16 lots or whatever it is, that people are going to complain about the people that live around there now that have had the horses that have been there for years. Those are my concerns. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MRS. RATHBUN-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Sir? BOB BOWMAN MR. BOWMAN-Hi. My name’s Bob Bowman. I live on Luzerne Road. I’ve been there for 27 years, and I border the property that I think they’re talking about making maybe an entrance way, something that didn’t come up, it’s right in the middle of a hill, and it’s very, very difficult to get out of there. I live at the bottom of the hill, and the traffic is really bad. You pull out. You look both ways, and you haven’t gone 100 feet before you’ve got somebody right on your bumper. The land back in there is very, very wet. It seems to stay that way most of the year. We just lost 20 some acres to timber that borders Michaels Drive. Most of that was just cut out. So it’s always been very wet, and I don’t know what would happen when they cut out, you know, so many more trees. I think just concern about septic systems and maybe community leach fields or whatever, if they go to real small lots, just doesn’t seem like a very good idea to me. There’s a few other neighbors here who feel the same way, had a lot of questions and concerns about this happening. However, kind of late, and they did have to go home. They get up early, but if anyone did come over and take a real close look, I think they would, they’d realize how wet it is, and, you know, I’m concerned. I know we used to have a terrible water problem. They put in the drain alongside the Luzerne Road, like a drain sewer type deal there, and it took care of a lot of it, but with all the trees gone already, from the acreage that borders Michaels Drive and goes way out back, cut a lot more, I have no idea what that’s going to do, but it could mean some real problems. I know one question that came up, people have owned the land for approximately 10 years. I thought I had more to say, and now I get the chance and don’t know what everything is, four notes. That house that’s there, the old yellow farmhouse, was built in the 1850’s. It was an old stagecoach stop. So it does have a little historical value. As a matter of fact, I’m told there’s a picture of it up at the Adirondack Museum in Blue Mountain Lake. It’s not as it seems. It’s, you know, a pretty nice area. I think the reason for wanting it divided into smaller lots, more houses, more money for the builder it seems, and we’ve got enough congestion as it is now. It’s going to add a lot to the traffic which is already bad. You’re talking the Exit 18 corridor problem, and there’s a new, whatever they’re doing on Veterans Road at the end of Luzerne Road, and that’s going to make for more problems. There’s the deal that Mickey Hayes is doing, I guess apartments or whatever up on West Mountain Road. A lot of that traffic’s going to be coming that direction, and I work for the Town of Queensbury. So I drive around the Town an awful lot. I see what’s going on, and if you get behind a school bus now, forget it. What’s, you know, more people in one area right there going to do to that? It’s going to be incredible. So I think it should be left as it is. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? No? Do you gentlemen want to come back up? Correspondence? MR. HILTON-Yes. We actually have a letter, and I apologize, I’m not going to be able to read it. It was faxed in today, from a Helen Knickerbocker I believe the name is. It’s 527 Luzerne Road. It’s very, the quality is just such that I can’t read it. What I can get out of it, her concerns are traffic, the blind spot, the hill on Luzerne Road is mentioned in here. Just opposed to the project based on the additional, for the most part, based on additional traffic that would result from this proposal. Again, that’s a summary. I’m sorry I can’t read the whole thing. 75 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. O'CONNOR-Let me ask you this, or not, I guess, kind of ask you, but we don’t have a problem with you tabling your recommendation or the matter before you tonight and coming back and actually showing you what we’re talking about for this loop road, as opposed to a single entrance type thing, and actually having that wetland flagged, because as I said, I think 32 lots is the worst case scenario, and if that number is something that’s bothering you, the increase from 18 to 32, and we aren’t actually going to utilize that, I would like to minimize my exposure, and I think it’s, I’ve listened to your comments, that part of your concern is the unknown. If I can make or answer some of those questions, I’m comfortable making that investment to do that. Is that a better way of handling it, or do you want proceed? I honestly think that all those things would be handled at subdivision approval time, as opposed to the rezoning issue, but if those are concerns that are driving your determination, I would be willing to answer those now, without a commitment as to how you’re going. MR. SANFORD-The problem with that, I mean, it’s my understanding with Counsel, not at just this hearing, but at so many other hearings, is that we really have to consider a maximum build out when we do SEQRA review on something like this. So even if you came back with a beautiful plan that only showed four houses built on the whole thing, we have to look at all possible scenarios when we do an evaluation. MR. O'CONNOR-But you determine, Mr. Sanford, you determine your density by deducting the road systems, and if we increase the road system, we have to take that out of the acreage mix. You decrease it by the wetlands, and if we show wetlands or find wetlands, we take that out of the mix. We’re not, we would still be showing you worst case scenario, but we would be showing you maybe a more realistic worst case scenario than what we presently have right here. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask a question of Counsel. If they came back with a plan that showed X number of lots, and the Board was so inclined to want to make a positive recommendation to the Town Board, based on that conceptual plan, could the Planning Board make a recommendation and say that we would agree to this rezoning application, provided it doesn’t go beyond X number of lots? MS. RADNER-No, you can’t. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-We could stipulate to that, couldn’t we? MS. RADNER-No. When you rezone it, you are making a determination that based on the different categories of zoning that are available in your Zoning Ordinance, this is the most appropriate zoning, and you can’t, in effect, create a new zone that has different requirements and different limitations than the existing zones. So the determination you have to make is whether the rezoning to what is proposed makes sense for the Town or not. This applicant can say, yes, we’re only going to build 16 lots, but then they can turn around and roll it over to another applicant who comes forward, and it’s not appropriate, and there’s sufficient cases showing it, to say that rezoned, but, we’ll only use it this way. MR. O'CONNOR-The density calculations, though, wouldn’t change. MS. RADNER-That’s correct. If you identify wetlands, steep slopes, etc., that change the maximum build out, that would be reasonable for you to consider. That is correct. MR. O'CONNOR-I would still present to you the worst case scenario, based upon the density calculations of the Zoning Ordinance. MR. MAC EWAN-How does the Board feel? MR. HUNSINGER-I think getting more information is always worth it. 76 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. RINGER-I’d like to see three things, though. I’d like to see a map showing how it would look with one acre, show us what’s it’s going to look like with one acre. Show us your proposal with changing the zone with the wetlands and the roads in there, and then also show us a cluster development. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think it’s, to be honest with you, from what little bit I can talk about, I don’t think it’s developable as a one acre thing. It would have to be cluster. So we probably would show you cluster, or the smaller lots. MR. RINGER-Well, then show us the cluster. A cluster would be something that I would be, you know, I realize you’re only going to get 18 lots out of it, perhaps. MR. SANFORD-But, Larry, if they do a cluster, they don’t need to rezone. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what he wants them to show. MR. O'CONNOR-He would like to see it to balance it. MR. SANFORD-But that has nothing to do with what’s in front of us here. MR. RINGER-No, but it could help us make a decision. If the cluster didn’t look good, then perhaps we should consider, we may want to consider a rezoning. MR. MAC EWAN-Their argument is that the way the property is currently zone, it’s not feasible for them or economical for them to develop it based on one acre lots because they can’t get the “return” on them. MR. RINGER-And I think I agree with that. MR. MAC EWAN-And that, in and of itself, to my understanding, is not reason for us to consider the rezoning application. MR. RINGER-But a clustering might be a way that we could look at the. MR. SANFORD-Again, I think that issue has to be set aside. The economic implications to the zoning to the applicant are of paramount importance to this Board. I think everybody agrees with that. MR. MAC EWAN-And conversely, I think, in the spirit of giving here, every applicant (lost words) an opportunity in front of this Board to try to obtain approval for their project (lost words). MR. SANFORD-What the lawyer has said, Cathi has said time and time again, is no matter how sweet that design looks, that’s suspect in terms of us factoring into our decision making criteria. MR. MAC EWAN-We all understand that. We all understand that any rezoning application we have to consider the maximum build out. MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-While we consider the maximum build out for any proposed rezoning, for this particular case, and this particular application, we know that what they have shown us, even though it’s a maximum build out on that parcel, is not totally doable through engineering and natural restrictions. So give them the opportunity to lay it out the way they’re going to. MR. SANFORD-Fine. Far be it from me to be out on a limb on anything. 77 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. MAC EWAN-All right. So what we’re going to do is we’ll leave the public hearing open. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. When would you need to have it submitted? MR. MAC EWAN-We’re looking at June, honestly, the way our agenda is booked already for May. We bumped nine off the agenda for May. MR. O'CONNOR-I understand you did. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re overloaded. MR. STEVES-Plus we have some constraints, timing wise, to get people in the field. So we’ll see what we can do. MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t we table this to our first meeting of June, which is June 15. th MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The submittal date? MR. MAC EWAN-Would be May 15. th MR. O'CONNOR-That’s doable. MR. STEVES-We’ve got to have DEC to flag it. I don’t know what their timing is. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Who flags it, usually, for them? MR. STEVES-Their new guy, John O’Connor. They’re now on their third wetlands guy in the last six months. MR. MAC EWAN-Too much flagging in the last couple of years. They just move on down the road to a community with a little less wetlands in it. So, if we table this, then, to our, what did you say, June 15 meeting? th MR. STEVES-And I’ll let you know, in advance. MR. MAC EWAN-And the tabling motion is going to say that you’re going to provide us with a conventional clustered one acre zoning subdivision layout, and what you’re proposing for the zone change. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. STEVES-Would somebody please move it. MR. HILTON-Actually, Mr. Chairman, before you begin, I just want to clarify the issue of the Lead Agency. This Board passed a resolution on March 30 seeking Lead Agency. However, th you haven’t, at this point, accepted. So you may want to do that first, accept the Lead Agency. MR. MAC EWAN-We asked, in the very beginning, whether there was a resolution for that or not. MR. HILTON-And there is no resolution in there, and that’s why I went back and I looked, and there’s no resolution in there. However, you probably should just. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tom, will you move that one, please. 78 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD BE LEAD AGENCY FOR PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE PZ 2-2004 MICHELLE CLARK MAILLE, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a petition for change of zone application to rezone approximately 22 acres of property currently zoned SR –1A Suburban Residential One Acre to SR-20 Suburban Residential 20,000 sq. ft., and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the project to be a Unlisted action for the purposes of SEQRA review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the actions because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property, and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its acceptance of Lead Agency Status for SEQRA review of this action in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and authorizes and directs the Department of Community Development to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such acceptance. Duly adopted this 27th day of April, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MOTION TO TABLE PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE PZ 2-2004 MICHELLE CLARK MAILLE, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Until the June 15 meeting, awaiting a conventional plan with clustering one acre, and a revised th plan that delineates wetlands. Duly adopted this 27 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. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-For the public’s benefit, I left the public hearing open. So when we reconvene on June 15, you’re more than welcome to comment again. th MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we, it’s twenty after eleven. Are you going to impose an eleven o’clock rule or will we hear this next application? MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll poll my Board and see what they want to do. 79 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. SANFORD-I think I would rather more alert dealing with an 80 unit apartment complex. MR. RINGER-I would suggest that we open it and then table it. Because we have a public hearing, so we start it, open it and table it, and get out of here. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll buy that. SITE PLAN NO. 21-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDING, LP AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: PO LOCATION: LOT 8 WILLOW BROOK DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN 80 UNIT ADULT LIVING FACILITY ON A 12.88 +/- ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED ON WILLOW BROOK DRIVE (EAST OF BAY RD.). MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD IN PO ZONES. CROSS REFERENCE: MANY TAX MAP NO. 296.12-1-27.3 LOT SIZE: 12.88 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; R. SCHERMERHORN, PRESENT MR. LAPPER-If you’re going to table it, you should have sent us home an hour ago. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we didn’t expect that we were going to spend an hour on that very short Petition for Zone Change application. I’m trying to think of a game plan here. We have, next month, we have two regularly scheduled meetings. We have the Rock It Paintball park, which we anticipate we’ll see on the 16? th MR. HILTON-The 18. th MR. MAC EWAN-Eighteenth, and we will also be entertaining The Great Escape. MR. HILTON-We may not be. It may not be next month. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not according to the paperwork I have here in front of me tonight. MR. HILTON-Well. MR. MAC EWAN-May the 10 is the date. It was a memorandum given to us tonight by Chris th Round, relative to The Great Escape SEQRA Findings, and adopting them. Scheduling them for May 10, I do believe. th MR. RINGER-I would suggest since we tabled this through no fault of the applicant, that we set a special meeting, at a very early date, take this application, and we’re going to have to notify the public. Because the public was here for, and they left. Several of them left about 10, 15 minutes ago, but I think we owe it to the applicant to give them a special meeting early. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m thinking May the 10, because the thing that they’re looking for us to do th with The Great Escape is to acceptance of the Final GEIS. MR. HILTON-I stand corrected, yes. Based on this memo, which went out tonight, May 10. th MR. MAC EWAN-Which is on May 10. So that, in and of itself, is no more than a 15 minute th item. MR. LAPPER-What day of the week is that? MR. MAC EWAN-A Monday, a rare Monday convening of the Board. MR. LAPPER-That sounds okay. MR. RINGER-How are we going to notify the public of the change, though? 80 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. HILTON-Well, if you open the public hearing. MR. RINGER-Yes, but the public has already left, unfortunately. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Jarvis lives in the neighborhood. He’ll get the word out. MR. RINGER-All right. That’ll work for me. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. May 10. th MR. RINGER-That will be the first item on the agenda? MR. LAPPER-That would be nice if we didn’t have to sit through the whole Great Escape thing. MR. MAC EWAN-No, it will be the second item on the agenda. The Great Escape thing is going to take not even 15 minutes. We’re just accepting them. MR. LAPPER-Is it a public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-We’re just accepting the SEQRA Findings. MR. RINGER-Yes, but the public hearing is still open. MR. MAC EWAN-No, because 10 days after we accept that, it still has to be left open. It’s a procedural thing for us, really. MR. LAPPER-You’re accepting the Findings Statement? MR. MAC EWAN-Accepting the Findings Statement. It’s a procedural issue. MR. LAPPER-So you’re not going to take public comment. MR. MAC EWAN-It starts another time clock is what it does, really, is what it’s doing. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-This is the quickest we can accommodate you. MR. LAPPER-That’s okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m going to open up the public hearing on this application, which is Site Plan No. 21-2004, and leave it open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-And we’re going to reconvene, not hearing anything, any comment tonight or anything about the application, to May the 10, 7:00 p.m., here. All right. We have the room. th MR. LAPPER-We have one question. We’ve got Wendy here on the traffic report, and is that something that we should bring her for? Can you give us some insight? MR. MAC EWAN-I would think that would be a very good idea. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Considering the comments relative to Walker Lane, and this close proximity that this application has. 81 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. LAPPER-The difference is it’s not in too many people’s backyards. So we don’t think we’re going to get the level of. MR. MAC EWAN-No, but it’s more traffic funneling out onto Bay Road. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-It all has to do with this cumulative comprehensive look I talked about. MR. LAPPER-When we did the subdivision for this project, which Wendy’s firm did, we included all the full build out on that side of the road, but anyway, she’ll be here. MR. VOLLARO-Maybe we ought to, I’ll talk to the members of the Town Board about a project that I think ought to go out of this Town, and maybe what Tom said maybe is going to help that. Somebody’s going to already look at that. MR. LAPPER-Talk to Bill Remington at the County. MR. VOLLARO-We’ve got to take a hard look at that. It’s getting to be a difficult road to drive on. MR. LAPPER-No, people just have to expect to wait a little longer. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll see you on the 10. th MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Sorry, Rich. MR. SCHERMERHORN-That’s okay. MR. MAC EWAN-One more item. Relative to our huge backlog of applications and things, right now we have set up for May two regular meetings, this Great Escape meeting now with the Schermerhorn application, and the Paintball, which we anticipate we’ll see around the 18. th Are you, as a Board, interested in June of having a third meeting added on, just to help clear up the backlog? We’ve bounced, for May, nine items off the agenda. We’re way over the limit, and now those nine items we’ve bounced off in May, they’re appearing back on here in continuations, as well as some that we’ve already put off into June now. MR. SANFORD-Do we have to have a seven o’clock meeting? I think we do, don’t we? We can’t go earlier. MR. MAC EWAN-No. Our policy and procedures say that we meet at seven o’clock, the third and fourth Tuesday of each month, the regular meeting. So we can’t deviate from that, and it’s also helpful, as one guy who used to work in Albany, and knows that this guy’s on the road, that guy’s on the road, this guy’s on the road, and to get people here earlier than that. MR. SANFORD-No, I understand. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, I look at the Town of Bolton Planning Board meets at six o’clock. I don’t know how they do it. MR. SANFORD-All right. MR. MAC EWAN-So, if I talk to Staff, then we can add another meeting to June, to help clear up some of the backlog? 82 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/27/04) MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-You know, we can clean up the backlog, but I’ve got to tell you, and I’ve been talking to people about trying to get some sort of a moratorium. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not for us to do, though. That’s a Town Board function. MR. VOLLARO-It is for us, because it’s impacting this Board’s ability to react on every one of these. MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t have the authority to impose a moratorium. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we might not have the authority, but we can still talk about it. MR. SANFORD-What we could do, Bob, what this Board does have, if we recommend it, then it could be an official recommendation to the Town Board. That we can do if we so desire. I mean, that’s subject to a vote, I guess, of everybody here. MR. RINGER-I think it would take a workshop, though, to figure out what we wanted in the moratorium, and that’s another meeting on top of all the meetings that we’ve got already. MR. SANFORD-Well, (lost words) I don’t think Bob’s necessarily complaining about the meetings. I think what he’s complaining about is whether or not there should be a change in policy directive at the Town level regarding all of this residential housing. MR. VOLLARO-What happens is the zoning we have now puts us in a tough spot every time we sit down at this table. It’s very difficult to weave around that, because in my mind I say, you know, if you decide to reject an application, on what basis do we have, in the courts, to win? MR. RINGER-We don’t have any. MR. VOLLARO-We don’t have any. That’s the problem. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 83