Loading...
2004-02-24 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 2004 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, SECRETARY ANTHONY METIVIER ROBERT VOLLARO RICHARD SANFORD THOMAS SEGULJIC MEMBERS ABSENT LARRY RINGER PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. MAC EWAN-First item on the agenda is resolution for Lead Agency status. MOTION TO REQUEST LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2003 JAMES NEWBURY, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: Duly adopted this 24 day of February, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer EXPEDITED REVIEW: SITE PLAN NO. 5-2004 SEQR TYPE II DOCK & DESIGN CONSULTING/STEVE MOFFITT PROPERTY OWNER: PAUL LOTTERS ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: LAKE PARKWAY ON ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,152 SQ. FT. BOATHOUSE. BOATHOUSES IN THE WR-1A ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 03-621, 02-946, 02-942, 93-050 LGPC, CEA WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 2/11/04 TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-9 LOT SIZE: 0.41 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 STEVE MOFFITT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes? MR. HILTON-As mentioned, this is an Expedited Review item. The applicant proposes to construct an open walled boathouse, 1,152 square feet. The applicant’s requested waivers from stormwater management, grading, lighting, and landscaping plans. The boathouse appears to meet the requirements listed in the Zoning Ordinance, and that’s all we have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. For the record, you are? 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) MR. MOFFITT-Steve Moffitt. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems relatively simple here. It’s under Expedited Review. Anybody got any comments, questions relative to it? MR. VOLLARO-Just a couple, but they’re housekeeping kind of things. Who is the property owner? MR. MOFFITT-Paul Lotters. MR. VOLLARO-Paul Lotters, and who’s Mike Garguilio? MR. MOFFITT-Mike Garguilo is the owner before him. MR. VOLLARO-Now, I know a site development sheet is not probably applicable to a boathouse, but just for housekeeping purposes, George, on the percent non-permeable, for the rest of the property, should be 18.7, just so that the record shows that correct. Now, the SEQRA says the permits are pending from the Lake George Park Commission. However, drawings indicate the permits, there’s two of them, 52342602 and 52342707 were issued on May 16, 2002. Are they still valid? MR. MOFFITT-That’s for the dock. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but are they currently? In other words, those were the drawings that were issued by the Lake George Park Commission in 2002. Are they still applicable? MR. MOFFITT-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Other than that, sir, I don’t have anything. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? I’ll open up the public hearing. Anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-I had a question. Did the County have to approve this project? The reason why I ask is because it showed a land bridge, and I know they always take issue with that. I don’t have a particular feeling about it one way or another, but I wanted to put it out there. MR. VOLLARO-It says Warren County Planning 2/11/04. They must have made a response. Is that correct, George? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Did they say anything about the land bridge? MR. HILTON-They said No County Impact with a stipulation. The stipulation being that there be no land bridge. MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to move it, now? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ll make a motion. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 5-2004 DOCK & DESIGN CONSULTING/STEVE MOFFITT, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Site Plan No. 5-2004 Applicant: Dock & Design Consulting / Steve Moffitt SEQR Type II Property Owner: Paul Lotters Zone: WR-1A Location: Lake Parkway on Assembly Point Applicant proposes the construction of a 1,152 sq. ft. boathouse. Boathouses in the WR-1A zone require Site Plan review and approval from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: BP 03-621, 02-946, 02-942, 93-050 LGPC, CEA Warren County Planning: 2/11/04 Tax Map No. 226.15-1-9 Lot size: 0.41 acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: February 17, 2004 WHEREAS, the application was received 1/15/04, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 2/13/04, and 2/17 Staff Notes 2/11 Warren Co. Planning Bd. recommendation 2/10 Notice of Public Hearing sent 2/2 Meeting Notice w/project ID marker WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has identified this application as eligible for inclusion in the expedited review process and has placed the same on this Planning Board agenda as such and, WHEREAS, The Planning Board hereby confirms that this project is acceptable for expedited review and, WHEREAS, a public hearing has been conducted and the public in attendance and the Board members in attendance have been polled regarding this matter and, -1- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. Checking with the Warren County Planning Board reply that no land bridge shall be applicable to this application. 2. Waiver requests granted: Stormwater, Grading, Lighting and Landscaping. Duly adopted this 24th day of February, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. HILTON-Just to be clear, I’m sorry, I don’t know if I understood, were you including the stipulation that no land bridge be? MR. VOLLARO-I did it in my motion. MR. MAC EWAN-He did it in his motion. MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. MOFFITT-So no land bridge. MR. MAC EWAN-No land bridge. OLD BUSINESS [SUBDIVISION]: SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED JEFFREY INGLEE AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: RR-5A LOCATION: TUTHILL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 8.62 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 5.09 AND 3.53 ACRES CROSS REFERENCE: SB 13- 2001 AV 53-2003 TAX MAP NO. 300.00-1-39 LOT SIZE: 8.62 +/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS STEFANIE BITTER & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff comments. MR. HILTON-Okay. Just a couple of comments. In our agenda listing of this item, we’ve listed previous SEQRA. This is an Unlisted Action. The applicant has submitted a Long Form. So SEQRA has not been done for this particular project. We also have listed that the public hearing was open, left open. It’s my understanding, and I recall, that the public hearing was closed. Correct me if I’m wrong. MR. MAC EWAN-No. The public hearing is not closed. It was left open. MR. HILTON-It was left open. Okay. Beyond that, I think we have no additional comments at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MRS. BITTER-Good evening. My name’s Stefanie Bitter. I’m here together with Matt Steves and Jeff Inglee. As the Board is aware, we’re proposing a subdivision of an 8.62 acre lot into two single family lots, one being for 5.09 acres. The other as a 3.53 acre lot. Back in June of 2003, we did obtain the variance allowing the 3.53 acre lot to be in compliance with the five acre minimum zoning. This 3.53 acre, we are of the opinion that it should not have a negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, due to the fact that there are nonconforming lots that exist around it, and are not the five acre minimum, as well as the fact that the 3.5 acre lot, although it won’t be able to meet the acreage which we’ve obtained the variance for, it still does meet the front setback and side setback reliefs, once the placement of the house that’s being proposed is placed. I’ll turn it over to Matt for some further comments or questions. MR. STEVES-Good evening, Matt Steves with Van Dusen and Steves. Again, this is property on the east side of Tuthill Road, being the existing house of Mr. Inglee’s. The proposed new lot to accommodate a new house, and once that house was built, we had stated before, that the existing house on Lot Five, eventually it would be removed and a new one would be built in 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) compliance with the setback requirements of that zone, and leave it open to any comments from the Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. STEVES-Mr. Inglee has something to say. JEFF INGLEE MR. INGLEE-Jeff Inglee. I’m the applicant here this evening. I’ve said so much pertaining to what my plans are here, and I guess the only thing I would like to say this evening is that I did submit some photographs to you folks last time we had a meeting, showing some of the new constructed homes in regards to that, with a picture of the old house as well, and I guess, you know, we’ve listened to so many of the neighbors say what I’m proposing to do here is going to deface the character of the neighborhood. I would like to think that if we were to look at the photograph of the old house that I’m living in now, if anything is out of character with the neighborhood, it’s that old shack of a house that I’ve been living in for the last 27 years, and again, our intentions are very honorable here, are to give each one of my children a place to build their homes, in exchange for tearing down this old house, which will do nothing but increase the value of not only our lands but the surrounding lands as well. So I really fail to see where taking that old house down, as part of this proposition, is out of character with the neighborhood. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? I’ll open it up for questions. MR. SANFORD-Yes. A question regarding timelines that we are, that we live by. If someone could explain to me when the clock starts to tick, in terms of when we have to do certain things like the SEQRA and what have you. Is it like 45 days from the day the public hearing is closed? MR. HILTON-Our Ordinance states 45 days from when the public hearing is closed. MR. MAC EWAN-I do stand corrected, though. We did close the public hearing. Didn’t we? MR. HILTON-That’s my recollection. MR. STEVES-That is what I have, Mr. Chairman. MR. SANFORD-Basically, my feeling is, and as much as there may be some other agencies involved here, that if the public hearing has not been closed, we may not, it may not be timely to conduct the SEQRA at this point. Do you follow me? MR. MAC EWAN-I closed the public hearing. MR. HILTON-I think so, but. MR. SANFORD-So this is a mistake? MR. MAC EWAN-No, it’s correct. I mean, on January 15, which was our last meeting, I closed th the public hearing. MR. SANFORD-Yes, but on the agenda it says “PH Opened”. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not open. MRS. BITTER-It doesn’t indicate the January 15 meeting. th MR. SANFORD-Okay. So January 15, February. Okay, March. I see. Okay. So we really are th compelled to deal with the SEQRA before, like March 1. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) MS. RADNER-There is some case law, though, suggesting that the SEQRA process, if you begin the process but are unable to complete it, then, if the continuation of that process takes you beyond the 45 days, there’s case law indicating that that’s acceptable, as long as it’s part of the SEQRA decision making process. You have to have everything you need in order to complete that SEQRA review. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So we just need to initiate the SEQRA process before the 45 days? MS. RADNER-Yes. I’d say a little bit more than initiate. You should be well into it and gathering material and performing your SEQRA review. MR. VOLLARO-How did we get from the 60 day to the 45? Is that a Queensbury? MS. RADNER-State Statute is 60 days, but our Town Code is shorter. Our Town Code is 45. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SANFORD-Now, one other question, not that we want to go in this direction, but is it possible to reopen a public hearing and then not be subject to time constraints? MS. RADNER-It’s possible if a few things happen. Either the applicant agrees or asks that the public hearing be reopened, or that there’s some fundamental problem with what lead to it being closed, misrepresentation, something of that nature, that you then need to correct and reopen the public hearing to do. You can’t just, at will, reopen it, though. MR. SANFORD-Okay. That’s all I had, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I have some. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to refer to your Part I application that proceeds our Part II. MS. RADNER-You’re referring to the SEQRA? MR. VOLLARO-I’m referring to SEQRA Part I, which the applicant fills out, normally. Beginning on Page Three of Twenty-One, there are two items in there, one is the depth to bedrock, and you’ve got eight feet, but there’s no supporting data for that that I know of, that’s been submitted to this Board, and that you’ve got the depth to water table at 10 feet, and again, I don’t have any backup data for that, to substantiate those two, and I don’t know how you’re going to do the water table at this time of year. I think their specified uses for the water table, March, April, May, or June. MR. STEVES-To answer your questions, we did test pits on the property when we were looking at the entire property and subdivided it on the west side of the road, at the same elevation down near the existing cabin on the west side. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but that’s the other side of the road from this lot. Is that right? MR. STEVES-That’s correct, and we did perc tests on the east side as well, and hand augured down to about four and a half, five feet. MR. VOLLARO-And how did you get to 10 with the water, if that went down, the hand augur at five, how does the water depth get instituted on Part I as 10 feet? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) MR. STEVES-We used the information we had from the test pits on both sides of the road, and the water elevation from that test pit and interpolated it across to the elevation on the east side of the road. MR. VOLLARO-So you looked at the water table based on elevations, of the old water table versus what you suspected this would be? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-You used the test pits on the opposite side of the road to calculate your depth to water table and bedrock for this side of the road? MR. VOLLARO-That’s what he said. MR. STEVES-A little bit of both, Mr. Chairman. We did a test, hand augur, on the east side of the road as well as a perc test on the east side of the road, and we had test pits on the west side of the road. Actual backhoe test pits. MR. MAC EWAN-How come they’re not indicated on the plat, or referred to on the plat? MR. STEVES-I can certainly do it. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll continue, Mr. Chairman, if it’s okay. On Page Six of Twenty-One, now, in conversation that we had with you on previous appearances before this Board, we talked about the timeline, about the project. Now, on Page Six of Twenty-One, it says of single phase project, anticipate period of construction you have four months, but I think that Mr. Metivier had asked the question, how long was it going to be for you to complete this, and you said, well, I can’t take the old house down until the new house is built, and we went on, and you said something like, it may be a year or better before this is done. So I don’t know how you got four months, on Page Six of Twenty-One of Part I. Is this a two phase project or a single phase project? It sounds like it was two phase the last time I heard this application. MR. STEVES-Okay. When the SEQRA was performed, we were looking at it as a two lot subdivision, and the construction of one new home, because the one on the existing, or the 3.53 acre lot, the house existed. During the conversations with this Board, the applicant had then agreed to tear down that house and build a new one down the road. MR. VOLLARO-At some time. MR. STEVES-At some time. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but you’re going to see, when we go into Part II, it starts to talk about greater than one year, and we’ll get there when we get to Part II. We’re going to need to, in order to mitigate Part II, if we have to answer that question as a yes, we’re going to have to get an agreement in there that this project is completed in less than one year, both, the tear down and build up of the new house. That’s just one Board member’s opinion of where we’re going to go on Part II. Mr. Chairman, I’ll ask this in open session here. We’ve all gotten the memorandum concerning the Adirondack Park. I notice in Page Eight of Twenty-One, the State agencies that were named here is the Adirondack Park, and the date submitted was 7/15/03. I think we have confirmation from the Park, now, George, is that correct, that they received the information on the 9 of February? So that gives them a 30 day run on their clock? th MR. HILTON-Yes. Correct. They’ve received. They have the 30 days, as of this moment, I haven’t seen any response, any final decision. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I see some, they called for information on this particular application. They want all the ZBA, all the testimony from the ZBA, all the testimony from the Planning Board session, etc., etc. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) MARTIN AUFFREDOU MR. AUFFREDOU-So, excuse me, Martin Auffredou on behalf of the applicant. They’re taking the position that they’re 30 day clock runs from the time that they receive all the information that they’ve requested? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-It was a Return Receipt Requested. MR. AUFFREDOU-And you typically send them the decision of the ZBA? MR. VOLLARO-They asked for it. MR. AUFFREDOU-If it’s in the Park, you send the decision of the ZBA when it’s made, and then they ask for additional information? MR. HILTON-It’s my understanding that we have been sending our agendas to notify the Park of actions within the Park. I didn’t have a conversation with, I believe his name is Mr. Connelly, but Mr. Connelly indicated that they now are requiring all applications, all decisions for variances to be sent, from this moment on. MR. VOLLARO-And when they say all the information, my understanding is they want a copy of the ZBA determination? MR. MAC EWAN-They have received a complete packet, a complete packet of this entire review. MR. SANFORD-Let me follow up on my, if I could, Bob, interrupt you for just a minute. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. MR. SANFORD-My initial reason for questioning the timeline is I would feel more comfortable if we could agree upon, if we have to, reopen the public hearing, so that, when we get together the next time, we have the results of the APA review. Because I find it problematic to successfully complete the SEQRA with that as an outstanding item, and so I guess it’s a pretty straightforward question, based on our Counsel’s comments to me, it would require your agreement to do this. Are you agreeable to this or not? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I think we’re putting the cart in front of the horse right at the moment, Rich. Because I see a bigger problem, that when get into us completing our analysis of the SEQRA form, I see a potential problem with Question Five and Question Six, and Question Five is will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity, and Question Six says, will the proposed action alter drainage flows or patterns or surface water runoff, and without having information to backup the validity of his test pits, depth to groundwater and depth to water table, I would instantaneously see us not being able to get through that part of the SEQRA form, not having the information to evaluate. MR. SANFORD-Yes, I know, and the question is, do we want to go through the exercise and come up with what you’re logically stating would be conclusions, or would the applicant just prefer to wait and, by opening up the public hearing, we could have the time to wait to get that information. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, with just the issue on Questions Five and Six, I mean, it’s not a matter of we take a stab in the dark, so to speak, and say it’s a small to moderate impact or it’s a potentially large impact, because if you don’t have the information to evaluate, you can’t come up with an answer one way or the other. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) MR. SANFORD-Right. In the absence of that, it’s a yes answer. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. In Number One, Impact on Land, I think right there we have a yes, because if you look up under the instructions, it says maybe answers should be considered yes answers. When we get down to, will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site, now it says construction on land where the depth of the water table is less than three feet. I have a maybe, because I don’t know. Again, construction on land where bedrock is exposed generally within three feet. I have a maybe, which turns out to be a yes because I still don’t know. I have two areas there, and then I have another one that says construction will continue for more than one year, involve more than one phase or stage. So there’s three hits, really, on the impact on land that I would have to come up with a yes on. MR. MAC EWAN-Matt, do you have those calculations readily available? MR. STEVES-For? MR. MAC EWAN-For your test pits that you did? MR. STEVES-The perc tests we did and the hand augur, yes. If you want an actual test pit done right on the middle of that proposed lot, or on both lots, I will gladly have a backhoe there to do that. MR. MAC EWAN-How soon can you get it done? MR. STEVES-Tomorrow. Within the next few days. I’m confident that the information I’ve supplied is correct, but I have no problems with the Board’s concern with verifying with an actual backhoe. MR. MAC EWAN-It would also mean revising the map as well, the site plan map, or the subdivision plat. MR. STEVES-To reflect the locations of those? MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. STEVES-Not to revise it for any other reason. MR. MAC EWAN-In my mind, I think that would be the most appropriate way for us to go. I mean, considering the depth of review we’ve done on this thing already, I think in all fairness to give the applicant an opportunity to provide the information we’re looking for. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have a problem with that. Unless you wanted to go through the entire Part II. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t see a need to do that tonight. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MS. RADNER-You’re going to need the consent of the applicant to keep the public hearing open beyond the 45 days. MR. SANFORD-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-I will ask for that consent. MR. AUFFREDOU-Mr. Vollaro, if Matt provides that information, do you think that you’ll have the answers to the questions that you have this evening? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) MR. VOLLARO-Yes. If he can confirm, you know, he has a statement on here, that, I guess the short answer is yes, to my questions, except that, under Part I, he uses very definitive numbers, ten feet to a water table, and eight feet to bedrock. They may have to be changed, based on his actual look see. MR. MAC EWAN-So it would be a matter of revising your Environmental Assessment Form as well. MR. STEVES-If necessary, correct. MR. MAC EWAN-If it’s less than, more than, whatever. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. AUFFREDOU-If I could just beg you for permission to talk to the applicant for just a minute, and you can give you an answer on the extension of the public hearing. MR. MAC EWAN-If we don’t get the extension of the public hearing, then we’re forced into doing the SEQRA tonight. MR. AUFFREDOU-We understand. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. AUFFREDOU-I just want an opportunity to speak with him. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. What we can do is let you guys recess for a minute. We’ll do the next application and come back to you. MR. AUFFREDOU-We’re on the next application, too. MR. MAC EWAN-I suppose you’re on the one after that, too? MR. AUFFREDOU-I think we’re on the one after that, too. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll take a five minute recess. How’s that? MR. AUFFREDOU-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll reconvene. MR. AUFFREDOU-Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity. I appreciate that. After our meeting, we can state for the record that we would consent to the, essentially, I guess, the reopening of the public hearing, continuation of this matter for your next regular meeting. It would be my understanding that, although we would be consenting to the reopening of the public hearing, we’re not going to be hearing public comments tonight. Those public comments, whatever they may be, would be considered at your next regular meeting, not this evening? MR. MAC EWAN-That would be my intention, yes. MS. RADNER-What you could do, instead of reopening the public hearing, just agree that we’re not going to be timed out by the 45 days, and have consent that we can continue the review beyond the 45 day period. I think that would be adequate. MR. AUFFREDOU-Either way is fine with us. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Laundry list of what you’re actually looking for is you want, just so we’re clear on this, we want the test pits indicated, test pits done. MR. VOLLARO-Now, where you want the test pits done, that’s Number One, and I think we want some clarification, I guess, as to the timeline on this thing. On Page Six of Twenty-One, and it’s Question Number Six, it says, if a single phase project anticipated period of construction, it has four months. You’ll notice that, under Part I, it says construction will continue for more than one year or more, involving more than one phase or stage, and then there is a section in Part II that talks to that. So I think we’ve got to clear up the timeline as to exactly how long this is going to be. MR. AUFFREDOU-I probably won’t be here next time. I think Mr. Lapper will be back next time, but my understanding, I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the intent of SEQRA with respect to that provision is for, they’re talking about large scale commercial or industrial projects. I just want to state for the record that I don’t know that that necessarily is intended to apply to what I believe to be small scale residential projects, such as this, but again, I just wanted to point that out. MR. VOLLARO-There’s no delineation in the question. MR. AUFFREDOU-I understand. MR. VOLLARO-This is something that you’ve experienced in the past, and the question that goes on later on in the SEQRA also talks to this, in Part II. MR. AUFFREDOU-It’s fine, academic for this purpose. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathi, some guidance on how we should word that in our resolution, regarding extending the review process. MS. RADNER-The applicant consents to extend the review period beyond the 45 days set forth in Town Code. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce the resolution, please? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ll introduce the resolution. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2003 JEFFREY INGLEE, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved its adoption seconded by Richard Sanford: Until the second meeting of March, and that the applicant agrees to having us go past our designated 45 days past the closing of the previous public hearing in accordance with the requirements of the State and Town Code. In addition to that, we’re going to be referencing Part I of the application, and we want to know, under Part I, on Question No. 4 and Question No. 8 on Page 3 of 21 referencing the depth to bedrock and the depth to water table. Those have to be substantiated by test pits. On the depth to water table, we’re going to use test pits. On the depth to bedrock we’re just going to have to backhoe until you see that you don’t have any bedrock past the eight-foot level. We’re talking about two separate lots here, and I’d like to have them on both, and then also clarifying the question whether we’re going to take more than one year to do this, whether it’s a two-phase project or not. The resubmitted plat will reflect the test pit locations on it and the information be supplied reflecting the test pit analysis, and the EAF form will be revised as well, if necessary. Information is to be submitted by close of business on March 5, 2004. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) Duly adopted this 24 day of February, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. AUFFREDOU-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get there. NEW BUSINESS [SUBDIVISION]: SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2004 SKETCH PLAN SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED DIX AVENUE PROPERTIES, LLC AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: LI/HC-I LOCATION: DIX AVENUE, ACROSS FROM MC DONALD’S APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 15.48 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF 1.23 ACRES AND 13.35 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ 3-2000, SUB. 23-1989, SUB. 4-1991 TAX MAP NO. 303.16-1-1 LOT SIZE: 14.58 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MARTIN AUFFREDOU & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-Just a quick summary here. The applicant has submitted a Sketch Plan and has submitted waivers from stormwater management and grading plans. There’s been some recent discussion about a proposed Dunkin Donuts on Lot Two of this subdivision, and during this review there have been comments. Most of the comments have focused on vehicular access and access management. The subdivision as proposed appears to meet the area and dimensional requirements of the zone. However, driveway locations off this site in the vicinity of utility poles and other information such as grading aren’t provided at this time. Certainly they’ll be required at Preliminary. Because of that, though, without that information, it’s hard for us to provide some kind of detailed comment or analysis at this point. As I’ve said, they’ve requested waivers, and should this go to Preliminary, that information will be provided and we’ll be able to comment at that point. That’s all I have at this time. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves representing Dix Avenue Properties. I’ll start off real quick. A two lot subdivision on the north side of Dix Avenue. This is directly across from the existing McDonalds, right next to the Binley Florist. I can’t remember the exact name of their operations over there, on the corner of Dix. MR. MAC EWAN-Quaker Farms. MR. STEVES-Quaker Farms, thank you, sir. Two lots, Number One consisting of 13.35 acres, and Lot Two of 1.23 acres, that all comply with the current zoning. It’s in a split zone, Highway Commercial Intensive in the front, and Light Industrial One Acre in the rear of the property, but both lots do conform completely with the required setbacks, width, depth, areas. Two foot contours are shown on the property. As far as to Staff’s comments for the requesting of waivers for grading and stormwater plan, the actual subdivision itself doesn’t create any changes in the property. No new roadways need to be graded in, anything like that. Everything is off the existing Dix Avenue, and knowing that these lots will be sold and that any use within these two zones requires site plan review, that the stormwater, the grading plan and all those would be in front of you during site plan, for the subdivision itself there wouldn’t be any changes to the property proposed, and I’ll leave it up to questions from the Board. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’ll open up for questions. Anybody. MR. SANFORD-Yes. I have a question. If I recall, this was the site that was discussed some time ago where Dunkin Donuts was thinking of putting a store location. Is that correct? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-This is still Dunkin Donuts. MR. SANFORD-Well, I don’t know if it’s named. They’re looking for a subdivide here. It’s not clear. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, you’ve got to be able to read through the, you know, you’ve got to go through the middle lines here and figure it out. It’s Dunkin Donuts. MR. AUFFREDOU-Dunkin Donuts is going to go on Lot Two, as I understand it, and I think, George, correct me if I’m wrong, there was a site plan materials submitted for that in your office. MR. HILTON-We have received materials for both Preliminary and I believe Final subdivision and definitely the site plan for the March meetings. MR. AUFFREDOU-For Dunkin Donuts. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Well, just going back to my memory, I mean, when it came in here the first time, they asked for Board input, and I think we all felt very strongly that there be one entrance into this property to mitigate traffic concerns, and we made it very clear to the applicant that we did not want to see a separate entrance for the Dunkin Donuts, and I think that’s what’s being contemplated here. So, you haven’t really come around to our way of thinking at all, if I understand this subdivision. MR. STEVES-From the subdivision, I have no information, as far as the actual site plan for Dunkin Donuts, and we’re not trying to say we’re not in line with you, your thinking or reasoning. The subdivision is merely placing the lines on the property. When you get to the fact of, like I say, each lot is dependent upon site plan review. So you can stipulate that during the site plan review on either/or lot, the first lot that comes in. This is just to, you know, allow the sale of that property for the design and the site plan for the Dunkin Donuts store. Now when that comes in, you’re certainly well within your right. I’m not saying anything on this lot. If you wanted to stipulate that at the time of site plan, I can gladly add that to the Preliminary or Final plat. MR. MAC EWAN-Why create a problem down the road? MR. SANFORD-Well, Mr. Steves, that compromises our ability to, on site plan review, to cause that to happen, simply because you’re creating the argument through the subdivision that, well, this piece of property is owned by a separate party, and therefore we can’t necessarily dictate where there might be common roads. MR. STEVES-I did not say that. What I’m saying is I do not know what the site plan looks like, and I wholeheartedly understand your concerns, and if you do propose that, and stipulate that within the site plan, then I can add it to this plat. Not knowing what that site plan looks like, because I am only hired to do the subdivision for the current owner, I will gladly implement that, but that’s something that I will implement at the Preliminary or Final Stage. I have no idea where that is happening, and I will be glad to incorporate into this subdivision, once that site plan comes in front of you, so you have an idea of where that entrance is going to be. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) MR. SANFORD-Well, if it’s coming in front of us next month, I’d like to deal with them all at the same time. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I mean, for the public’s benefit, I think maybe we ought to go back in the history of this idea somewhat, because this is the third time it’s been in front of us, and this is the third time I’m going to get the feeling here tonight that the Board is going to tell you that they’re looking for a common drive to feed this parcel. I mean, that’s what our position has been ever since Rich Schermerhorn and Jon Lapper first came through the door on this thing about a year ago, and our concerns are over the traffic congestion on Dix Avenue, which pretty much echoes Dunkin Donuts’ position as to why they want a store there because of the high traffic volume, and going back even farther than that, two years ago, we had an application that was a little bit more eastward on Dix Avenue, closer to the bend, that they wanted to develop the back portion of it as an assisted living home and the front portion of it being a commercial endeavor with a strip mall, a strip mall type thing there, and our position was at that time we thought that that kind of proposal was way too close to that intersection, would really create a traffic problem. When this application came in here, the first time it came in here about a year ago, it was the consensus of this Board, and it’s been two times already, that this is an opportunity to actually do some planning, where you’ve got a parcel of land here that you would like to develop, and we’ve kind of given our position on this thing, the best way to this thing is show us a subdivision for the whole thing with a common drive feeding all the parcels in there to eliminate any potential traffic problems and safety issues that you would have because it’s so close to both intersections and sight distances, and I know that when Dunkin Donuts was in here probably about, I don’t know when the last time they were here, four months ago, five months ago, we echoed that same position. I don’t see this new plan as being a change from the first two old plans. MR. STEVES-Okay. I wasn’t aware of the first two. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s why I wanted to get the history of it. MR. STEVES-I understand. My response to you is I will gladly, once you see the site plan and then you say, okay, here’s where we would like this common. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve already seen a mock site plan that he’s shown us. MR. STEVES-All right. Next month, or when you start to review the actual site plan, and you come up with, this is the one we’re going to approve, and here’s where the common driveway is going to be, then I can actually place it on this lot. Not knowing what the site plan looks like, I will gladly say. MR. MAC EWAN-Isn’t this a great opportunity to do some planning? MR. STEVES-Absolutely. I don’t disagree with you at all. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I have a suggestion that might help the situation, if the applicant is willing to listen to it. MR. MAC EWAN-This is what Sketch Plan’s all about, the exchange of ideas. MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to move this around so you can look at it, because it’s not going to reflect exactly what your site plan looks like. I picked up another 13,620 square feet here, which means that your client has to purchase another piece of acreage, which takes it from 1.23 to 1.53. So now you would have a lot that looks like that. You would have to get together with Mr. Schermerhorn and build your road about in the center of that property, so it’s got one drive, have the curb cut into Dunkin Donuts, and have it understood that that’s going o be the road that goes into the rest of the subdivision, right here, but it’s going to take the purchase of additional property to do that. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, either that or turn the lot. You don’t necessarily have to buy more land. You can pull the other boundary down. MR. STEVES-Understood. MR. VOLLARO-Well, yes, there’s a number of ways of doing it. I just thought that this was. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I think what you’re saying is great. It’s just, you don’t necessarily have to buy more land. You pull that eastern boundary down. MR. VOLLARO-You’d have the nicest looking Dunkin Donuts around, but anyway, that’s a position. That’s just one Board member saying how you might get around this single entry. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess my problem is, though, not knowing what the other parcels are going to be used for. We have a road there. What happens if it doesn’t work out down the road? MR. MAC EWAN-This is an opportunity to plan, have some vision for the parcel. MR. VOLLARO-What we can do, we can build that entrance into his parcel this way. If this never happens, he now has a private entrance into Dunkin Donuts, if this never happens. I don’t know, you know, I think somebody ought to sit down with Mr. Schermerhorn and decide exactly how this is going to happen. I think you’ve got one party sitting out here that doesn’t know anything about, he said, you want to buy a piece of property? Okay. I’ll sell you this, but he doesn’t know anything beyond that, and I think the parties have to kind of get together and talk a little bit, particularly where we’re talking about a single entrance. MR. SANFORD-Yes. I encourage that, Bob, but I think it’s pretty clear. We’ve made it clear to the applicant and Dunkin Donuts isn’t being represented here directly, okay, but they’ve made it clear that they did not feel comfortable with the common road, and we made it clear that we did not feel comfortable with them having a direct entrance and exit right on to Dix, and as far as I’m concerned, at least, they haven’t changed their position. So Mr. Vollaro’s suggestion is great, but I’d like to hear from the applicant. MR. AUFFREDOU-So you weren’t comfortable, under any circumstances, with the Dunkin Donuts parcel lot two having direct access to this. MR. SANFORD-We don’t feel comfortable entertaining that. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think it would, in my mind, it wouldn’t matter if it was Dunkin Donuts, an Ace Hardware, or whatever. What I would like to see is that parcel, my position is to see that parcel fed by a common drive, and all the traffic circulated within that common drive. MR. AUFFREDOU-And before you see that on paper, you’re not willing to move forward with Sketch to Preliminary. Is that what I’m hearing? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s my position. I mean, this is the third time we’ve looked at it, and this is the same thing. Nothing’s changed in over a year. MR. VOLLARO-This is not sort of an arbitrary decision on this single entrance. MR. AUFFREDOU-I would certainly hope not. MR. VOLLARO-The idea behind it is if you look down Dix Road, to where this property ends, this site distance is tremendously poor. It gets real bad, there’s a curve there. So that if you put another curb cut, in closer to that, I think you’ve got a problem, and that’s one of the, the site distance is a concern there. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) MR. MAC EWAN-And our previous records certainly indicate, when Dunkin Donuts was here discussing this proposed site plan, that the reason they want to locate there is because of the high traffic counts, and that, in and of itself, is a problem. MS. RADNER-I just want to make sure we’re all clear, here, on the record, too. Sketch Plan Stage doesn’t result in any approval or disapproval. There’s no getting beyond Sketch Plan. It’s just an exchange of ideas today. MR. AUFFREDOU-But you do have to get through this process to get scheduled for Preliminary. MR. MAC EWAN-No. Sometimes people can just by step the whole Sketch Plan idea and just go straight to a Preliminary review. MR. STEVES-That’s what we’re here for is the input. I think we’re all leading to the same means. The subdivision, what we’re asking for and what you see in front of you, is a two lot. Yes, the configuration may change slightly depending on how the outcome, when they come in with their site plan review, and you start looking at that in depth, and you say, okay, we need to widen it or narrow it, because this is where we want a common driveway, then the subdivision will ebb and flow to accommodate the requirements of your site plan so there is a center drive, then I can incorporate that into the Preliminary Stage, so you know exactly where it’s. MR. MAC EWAN-Show us it can be done. MR. STEVES-That’s what I’m saying. My hands are kind of tied, as well as yours, until I know what’s going on with the site plan. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things that would be really helpful, in terms of, you know, looking at that, is to know where the driveways are on the other side of the road as well. MR. SANFORD-Well, let me just clarify one thing with Mr. Steves. I guess what I’m wondering, in terms of sequencing, I’m not comfortable in approving a subdivision and then, down the road, looking at what’s going to happen on that Lot Number Two. I’d like to know how the roads are going to run, as a part of the subdivision process. Is that, are we on the same page? MR. STEVES-Yes, understood. I wish I knew what was going to happen with the rest of the property. MR. MAC EWAN-Throw it out for what it’s worth. Under SEQRA you’ve got to look at cumulative impacts as well. MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes, but I mean, presumably it’s going to be developed in accordance with zoning, and I think I’m a little reluctant to go along the lines of saying, here’s where your road is going to be in perpetuity here, and I just don’t think that’s fair to an applicant who has 13.35 acres of available land here. Some zoned industrial, some zoned Highway Commercial, and you’re saying this is where the road is going to be for future development when the applicant doesn’t necessarily have any idea what that future development is going to be. MR. MAC EWAN-This goes all the way back to a year ago when we sat down with Mr. Lapper and Mr. Schermerhorn regarding this parcel when he brought it in here at that time. We suggested to him at that time, you know, feed this thing with a common drive, figure out how you want to subdivide this. My concern is that, if we’re to move forward on this as it is now, and we grant the subdivision approval, then the site plan comes in with a curb cut directly on Dix Avenue. Six months, a year down the road, you come in to subdivide the remaining portions of it, and maybe create two more lots in the front of that, which you’ve got two more curb cuts on Dix Avenue, do you see the potential for the traffic problems, safety issues? We do, I mean, that’s why we’re really encouraging the applicant and Mr. Schermerhorn, who’s the 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) property owner, is to come up with a concept to develop this site that can feed all the parcels with a common drive that’s going to be a good design. MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, I was just going to say, and I think it’s already been said, under SEQRA certainly you have to look at the cumulative impacts, and the site plan cannot be reviewed by this Board until the land is subdivided. You do have the two applications that are coming in in March, but certainly the subdivision goes first. So, as part of the cumulative impacts under SEQRA, if you have any concerns, I think it’s appropriate, and correct me if I’m wrong, under subdivision, to address the drives. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments? Anything you wanted to add? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think so. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I don’t think so. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you know where we’re coming from? MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Can we get there? MR. VOLLARO-Matt will make it happen. MR. MAC EWAN-Have some faith in Martin, too, and Stefanie. MR. VOLLARO-I know. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. HILTON-Just to clarify on this. Now, we’ve gone through Sketch Plan. The applicant has filed an application for next month. Is it this Board’s intent to review the Preliminary & Final Subdivision next month with the Sketch Plan waiver, or what’s your direction here? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I guess, you’ve looked at next month’s plans, and so have I, and it looks like next month’s plans do not reflect what we spoke about tonight. MR. HILTON-Correct. So it’s your, I guess it’s your call, if you’re going to grant such a Sketch Plan waiver, or what direction you’d like. MR. VOLLARO-We looked at them at completion review, Craig, and we saw that they’re the same thing as we see here. MR. MAC EWAN-My position is I’d like to see a subdivision application that reflects what this Board would like to see on that parcel. That’s my position. MR. AUFFREDOU-At a Sketch conference. MR. STEVES-Can I just ask one thing? If we have a two lot subdivision, because we don’t know what the intentions are for the rest of the property, and I understand the Board’s position, but if you have a two lot subdivision that shows a common access for both of those lots and any future lots within the 13 acres, so in other words only one curb cut on Dix Avenue, does that suffice, or do you want to see a subdivision plan what may happen with the rest of the property, and I can’t tell you if somebody’s going to buy one lot or a 13 acre lot, or two one acre lots, but I’m trying to back into the main reason that this Board, you know, the main concern that they have is this one single access for whatever happens on that. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) MR. SANFORD-I think you can show a truncated road that was the main entrance, but because you’re uncertain as to what the full build out will be, you don’t have extended in detail, but you do have it extended to service the Dunkin Donuts, that that would probably be satisfactory for the Board. Is that correct? MR. STEVES-That’s what I’m asking. MR. SANFORD-That would be fine. MR. HUNSINGER-I’d be okay with that. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess we’d be receptive to it. I mean, what we’re trying to avoid is numerous curb cuts on Dix Avenue, and this Board has told the Dunkin Donuts site plan specifically that we did not want a sole curb cut coming out onto Dix Avenue for that. we wanted all those parcels fed off a connector road or collector road that services that subdivision. So that traffic could be skewed and move in and out of there sufficiently and safely. MR. STEVES-Okay. One more question on that, then, wholeheartedly understood. If the road is in, is it the feeling of this Board that they would rather have it a public or a private road, or is that, doesn’t make any difference as long as it’s the only one entrance? MR. VOLLARO-It doesn’t make any difference. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think it matters. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think it matters, but I think, for the benefit of the applicant, I would certainly contact Mr. Schermerhorn and try to have a legal meeting of the minds there, as to what he thinks as well. MR. STEVES-That’s definitely my next step, but I want to be able to answer all his questions. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, just to try to think ahead here. I mean, if you’re talking putting water lines and stuff like that, utilities on the road, I would think you’d be more inclined to want to have it a public road, versus a private road. MR. STEVES-Understood, but I’m just trying to foresee questions that I’m going to get asked. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. HILTON-Again, I just want to clarify, what’s the direction of the Board, because they have filed the application. MR. MAC EWAN-The sense I’ve gotten from the Board is we don’t want to move forward on this until we see a revised plan that shows a common drive or dedicated road servicing the subdivision. MR. HILTON-If that’s the case, then, I just want to be clear. MR. VOLLARO-That means that it will not be on for the month of March. MR. HILTON-Based on what you’re telling me, correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2004 SKETCH PLAN STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED HAYES & HAYES AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: RIDGE ROAD 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 16.76 ACRE PROPERTY INTO 12 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1 ACRE TO 1.92 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 297.13-1-37, 33 LOT SIZE: 11.46 ACRES, 4.81 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MATT STEVES & MARTIN AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-It’s Sketch Plan subdivision for a residential subdivision of 16.76 acres, subdividing, creating 12 residential lots, ranging in size for 1 to 1.92 acres. The applicant has requested waivers from stormwater management, grading and landscaping. The proposed lots appear to meet the area requirements for the zone. However, Lot Four, it appears that it may not meet the width requirements, and Lot 12 will require an area variance, should this lot not share a driveway, due to the fact that it doesn’t appear to have double the lot width, and it’s fronting on an arterial. General comment, the current Sketch Plan doesn’t contain information on stormwater, grading, drainage and other environmental information, or other site information for us to make a, I guess provide any comment, detailed comment, at this time. Certainly at the time of Preliminary these items are required, and if they are submitted, which they I assume will be at Preliminary, we will have more comment at that time, and that’s all I have at this time. MR. SANFORD-I have one clarifying point on it. Based on what I’m reading, in order for this to be in front of us for appropriate Sketch Plan review, you have a checklist of seven boxes under Survey that need to sort of be provided for us. They’ve provided only one of those seven. So if the purpose of Sketch Plan is for us to have a true appreciation for the issues, and to provide feedback to the applicant, we don’t have jack here. We really don’t have anything to deal with. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, Sketch Plan’s an opportunity for anybody to come in the door and talk about something conceptually, without having to spend a lot of money on engineering costs, etc., etc., etc. MR. SANFORD-That’s not how the Code reads. MR. HILTON-However, just for your clarification, the Code does have certain requirements under Sketch Plan, stormwater, grading. MR. SANFORD-That’s right. MR. HILTON-Drainage and things like that. MR. SANFORD-We have none of that. MR. STEVES-Or waiver requests from. MR. HILTON-Waiver requests, absolutely. MR. STEVES-Is what we have submitted. MR. HILTON-Yes, and I’m simply saying that, you know, under Sketch Plan, I can’t give you any kind of comment because they’ve asked for the waivers. If you feel that you want to wait until Preliminary and review it then. MR. SANFORD-I was just wondering, when Staff gets this, what do you need to feel comfortable enough for this Board to deal with it and have a meaningful dialogue? Because this is as lean as can be. There’s a picture that doesn’t even show adjacent properties on this. We have no idea about any of the drainage issues or anything here. MR. HILTON-Absolutely. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) MR. STEVES-I would beg to differ, but we did ask for waivers. So we didn’t go through the engineering of the grading, the drainage, the stormwater reports. Conceptually, I think the bar has been raised by your requirements for conceptual, above what they really should be, that’s my opinion, but what you have here is you have a full perimeter survey. You don’t have a sketch from a tax map. I can guarantee you of that. You have actual two foot contours, or one foot contours on the entire property. You’ve got the exact dimensions of every lot. The setbacks are shown on the lots, and that’s, I think more than sufficient enough to get some input as far as a conceptual plan. So you have an idea of what we’re proposing, 12 lots and size of the parcel, and we’re not guessing on the size of the parcel. MR. SANFORD-Well, you gave us the boundaries of the subdivision. There’s no topo features. I don’t see where there’s well, okay, there’s no existing water courses, regarding any of the wetlands. There’s no information regarding vegetations, wood lots. There’s no drainage or information on that. At any rate, you know, again, I don’t see a problem with having some kind of a preliminary discussion on this, but, to me, I’m just wondering where do we draw the line here, because what I wouldn’t want is I wouldn’t this Board, based on such little information, to give you a sense of what direction to go in, when we don’t have enough, really, to deal with this, as I see it. Now this is also, I mean, I might as well go into it. It wasn’t too long ago before this same applicant was in front of us for like a five house subdivision, right next to this property, and at that time there was a lot of neighborhood concerns about the cumulative impacts, and we dealt with it under the context that this was a five house development, and now we’re coming in with an additional twelve houses, and so there’s an incredible amount of questions I guess we’ll get into on what the scope of this development is, but I just wanted to raise with Staff, when they get this kind of stuff, when do they say to the applicant, you don’t have enough to come in front of the Board, and that was my question. MR. HILTON-Yes, and I guess, you know, they’ve requested the waivers. So we look at it as they’ve at least requested the waivers. Whether or not the Board feels comfortable in granting those waivers, or you feel that you have enough information to go forward. MR. SANFORD-Well, don’t you recall the controversy with the neighborhood on Cronin Road with the water issues and the cumulative impacts? MR. HILTON-Absolutely. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So you didn’t feel comfortable saying, hey, you know, we’re not comfortable with these, you know? MR. HILTON-Well, I mean, there’s nothing there for me to comment on, in terms of test pits. MR. MAC EWAN-In all fairness to Staff, I mean, they’re there to provide a service not only to the community, but to our Board as well, with advice and guidance, but anybody can come in and request to be put on an agenda to talk about a conceptual subdivision plan they have, and anybody can come in here and ask relief, and ask for waivers for relief from requirements providing an application is being complete. It’s not Staff’s position to say, no, this isn’t enough to take in front of the Board, or not. I mean, it’s our call as a Board. They try to chime in whenever possible, and give an applicant some guidance and say, you know, maybe you ought to have a little bit more with this, but ultimately that decision is upon the applicant as to how much waiver request they’re going to try to obtain or hopefully get granted. MR. SANFORD-That’s a fair point. I just thought I would put my questions out there. MR. MAC EWAN-No, I agree with you, Rich. I’m just trying to, procedurally, just give an insight as to how the system really works. MR. SANFORD-Okay. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) MR. MAC EWAN-With that, back to you. MR. STEVES-Back to me. Okay. This is located on the south side of Cronin Road, and on the west side of Ridge Road. It is a cul de sac that we are proposing to enter off of Cronin Road, to access the eleven new lots, the twelfth lot is the home, the existing home that exists on the entire property that fronts on Ridge Road with the driveway currently fronting on Ridge Road. A couple of the comments that the Staff had had, as far as all the lots seem to conform with the width and the size requirements, except for possibly Lot Four. We realize that, and we can adjust the lot lines between lots two, four and six to accommodate Lot Four to meet all your requirements. As far as the comment, the double the lot width on Lot Twelve, we look at that in a little different light. That that’s the current existing home that sits on that 1.20 acres that currently accesses that house from Ridge Road, and so we’re just leaving it the way it is, and not proposing any new curb cuts on Ridge Road, and all new driveways will be off the proposed cul de sac, and no new driveways will be proposed along Cronin Road. So it’s kind of hard to get double the lot width on a lot that currently only has 232.97 feet on Ridge Road. That’s all there is. MR. MAC EWAN-It already has a residence on it. MR. STEVES-You’ve got it. MR. HILTON-I understand where you’re coming from, Matt. MR. STEVES-I understand where you’re coming from. You’re looking at the true sense of the zoning, and I don’t disagree with that. I’m just letting you know what exists. MR. HILTON-Sure, absolutely, and based on a conversation with the Zoning Administrator, it was his opinion that this is going to be a new lot, or a lot within this subdivision, and as such it would require relief. Certainly, if you have any questions, you can contact him. MR. STEVES-Understood, and, you know, if that requires relief from the Zoning Board, and you, you know, we go in to the Zoning Board and we’re saying that we’re breaking 1.2 acres off with the existing house. We’re not changing the driveway. We’re not minimizing the road frontage. So we’re not making it any less conforming than it is now. I should say less nonconforming than it is now. MR. MAC EWAN-Are there any wetlands on this parcel? MR. STEVES-I have no State wetlands listed on this property. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have either DEC or Army Corp jurisdictional determination? MR. STEVES-I can get the DEC, that’s correct. As far as Army Corp, Army Corp hasn’t had anything on adjacent properties. MR. SEGULJIC-Do you have any idea the depth to groundwater there? MICKIE HAYES MR. HAYES-We have some test pits on the top, some information test pits. So we were scheduled to have our, to just try to get an idea exactly where the water levels, we did some informal ones. We had it scheduled with Mr. Bruso. Unfortunately he passed away, and they’re not going to be able to let, we bring the Department of Health in. They have to supervise all test pits for septic systems and such. So it’s kind of getting rearranged here. We’re going to be doing that in the spring. MR. SEGULJIC-So you don’t have any depth to groundwater information at this time? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) MR. HAYES-We do have it. It’s not formal. MR. SEGULJIC-What do you have? MR. HAYES-On the top level, on the top courses we dug down as far as the backhoe would come, we didn’t find any signs up there. On the lower portion, we haven’t done anything on the lower portion. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re saying it’s like at least eight feet to groundwater there? MR. HAYES-On the top part, but we don’t know, we never went down to the bottom course. MR. SEGULJIC-Now, when you say the top part, you mean like Lot One? MR. HAYES-Up near the house. MR. STEVES-Up near lots ten, eleven, and twelve. MR. SEGULJC-Ten, eleven, and twelve. Really, that deep? MR. HAYES-Basically when we do a backhoe, then they’ll have an engineer and the Department of Health, but we do the formal, we have to do 20 or 30 test pits throughout the property. MR. SEGULJIC-Also, Lot Four, that’s kind of a weird shape. You said you could reconfigure that? MR. STEVES-Absolutely. The Sketch Plan, you know, we’re trying to show you the number of units we’re looking for, and the general configuration. MR. SANFORD-Who owns the land west of the proposed subdivision? MR. HAYES-I believe Steve Britton. No, we wrap around Steve Britton. The other, I believe, is the farm. MR. SANFORD-Who owns that? MR. HAYES-I don’t know. MR. SANFORD-Do you own it? MR. HAYES-No. MR. SANFORD-It was for sale. MR. HAYES-I think it still is. MR. SANFORD-I didn’t see the for sale sign. MR. HAYES-I don’t know. It’s been listed for a while. MR. SANFORD-What I’m wondering is, you came in for a modest development, a while back, and now you’re expanding into a much more major one, with property that is adjacent to the property you developed for the five house development. What I’m wondering is, is your intention to keep moving west with this? MR. HAYES-My intention, I have looked at the farm in the past, and it doesn’t interest me, to be honest with you. This piece was approached to us by the neighbors, Dr. Bannon and Mrs. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) Bannon, to sell this property to us because they saw our development. They thought we’d be interest in purchasing their properties. So that was a result of the other development. MR. SANFORD-Would you say that the land you’re developing, that you purchased from the Bannon’s, is similar, in terms, as the horse farm property? MR. HAYES-No. The horse farm is much lower. Most of it is down on more of a plain. This is kind of rolling it up on the higher level. MR. SANFORD-Because I’m very familiar with the property west of this, and I know it sort of has high elevation and there’s tremendous rocks. There’s rock caves. Ledge rock, all throughout the property, and when there isn’t rock, it’s very wet, and I’m wondering, there’s not much of a difference, I wouldn’t think, with these adjacent properties. MR. HAYES-Well, actually, I looked at the farm property, and we get the DEC maps. There are quite a bit of wetlands on the very westerly side of the farmhouse, and that’s, to be honest with you, because the elevation drops off on that side, that’s why I have no interest in that property. MR. SANFORD-Okay. All right. So you don’t plan on developing any more in this Cronin, what I would I would call Cronin Road/Ridge Road area, other than what you’re proposing here? MR. HAYES-As far as right now, but I can’t answer in the future what I intend, if an opportunity comes across somewhere on the east side on Ridge Road, I certainly will look at anything if it’s zoned for legal uses. MR. SANFORD-I’m not saying that. I’m saying within the ground that that’s housed, between Cronin Road and Ridge Road, this is the extent of what you’re looking to do? MR. HAYES-As of right now, yes. I have no interest, at the moment, for any other pieces, but I’m not going to box myself into doing something it would be my right to do. MR. SANFORD-Well, after you did this, the only other piece of property that would exist is the horse farm. MR. STEVES-Which I, I believe, owned by O’Brien. MR. SANFORD-All right, but I guess I’m confused. I mean, if you take the horse farm out of it, you’ve done development between Cronin and Ridge, and so are you saying you don’t plan on developing on the horse farm? MR. HAYES-Yes. I already looked at it. MR. SANFORD-Okay. All right. That’s all I have for now. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, when I first looked at it, in light of the neighbor concerns from the prior project, I was just wondering if maybe we’re trying to do too much here. I mean, I know all the lots meet the one acre requirements and everything else, but just thinking sort of out of the box a little bit, trying to think through how it might be a little bit better, and one of the sort of obvious thoughts that I had was, you have a whole line of back property boundaries on Cronin Road that are the same depth, until you get to Lot One, and all of a sudden that one jogs up more towards Cronin. Do you see what I mean? If you look at Lot Four and Six, the way that they make a straight line, all the properties on Cronin Road, and then all of a sudden Lot One has a, you know, it’s 40 or 50 feet shorter. So if you move that property line back, and then of course you’d have to move, you know, all the other property lines back, but you’d probably lose maybe one lot, but you’d have a more uniform development along Cronin Road, and it 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) might make for better cohesion in the neighborhood as well. I mean, I drew it in in yellow, you know, just to extend this line here, back across, then of course you have to adjust all these property lines all the way around the cul de sac, and that might be one way to solve the issues with Lot Four, but then you’d only have eleven lots instead of twelve. MR. STEVES-That’s something we could look in to. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. MR. STEVES-We look at Lot One, at this point, having 280 feet of frontage, basically. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, I know it’s a big lot. MR. STEVES-We understand, but I’m just saying why we put the line where we did. That’s all. We have no objections to looking into adjusting that lot. MR. MAC EWAN-Roughly the cul de sac is about 620 to 650 feet? MR. VOLLARO-Eight seventy-six, as I looked at it. The length of the cul de sac. MR. STEVES-You go to the throat of the cul de sac. MR. VOLLARO-Curve, 876. MR. MAC EWAN-Between 620 and 650. MR. VOLLARO-All right. You don’t go around to the other end of the cul de sac. MR. MAC EWAN-No, just to the throat. MR. STEVES-Just to the beginning of the actual. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-No, that was it. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I just think you should do something with Lot Four. That’s all. I drew something on here to shift Lot Four as a line so it’s not a triangle (lost words) the property owners on Cronin Road with two and three homes, just one over there, and if you shift that line, so it’s not a triangle, it’s straight, you actually shift Six over, which will give it less road frontage, but we’re (lost words) frontage from Lot Eight, which is one of your smallest. In turn will increase the road frontage to Lot 10, and you’re actually achieving everything that you should be by doing that. That’s all, but my only concern is on Cronin Road (lost words) that you recently put up, you know, you’re affecting all those backyards, with two and three homes, where you could actually only affect it with one, and really you have the same outcome. You still actually, I think, and this is where I have to come in and work on the computer, you can still get your eleven lots, with the twelfth being the one that’s already there. MR. STEVES-Understood. We’ll take that into consideration. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Robert? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m just looking at the elevations here. First of all, who’s building on the adjacent parcel here? What stage of development is that? There’s some lines boxed out for property lines, but what stage of development is that? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Those are all existing homes. MR. VOLLARO-They’re all existing houses? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HAYES-And Britton Explosives is right there, too. Britton Explosives is right on the corner. MR. MAC EWAN-Actually, if you look along Cronin Road and you look along Ridge Road to those lightly drawn property lines, you can see where the common drives go in to most of those parcels. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now that brings me to the next question. The flow is going to be in a northerly direction on this, sort of northwest, and we’ve got about 40 foot of elevation between Lot Number One and as you get back here into 360 down to 320, you’ve got about a 40 foot elevation here of water running. So the general water flow on this lot is going to be to the northwest. It’s going to cross this property. It seem to me that it is, in any event, and I’m trying to, in looking at getting the depth to groundwater and the depth to bedrock, that’s got to be seasonally high groundwater. So it’s got to be done somewhere around March, April, May or June I guess. You intimated that you’ve got to do that in the spring. Do you see yourself, with what you know about the property today, and about its drainage capability, do you think you’d have to use fill systems to do some of these septics, or do you think you’re going to use a standard in-ground septic system, a typical leach line? MR. HAYES-Well, Mr. Nace seems to believe, because we just built, we built the four or five houses right on the edge of this property, surrounding this property, and we used all just regular systems. We’re pretty sure that we can use just regular systems, but we can’t answer that until we actually, the Health Department will determine that for us. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. See, I want to, in taking a look at a fill system design, I was just, there must be at least two foot of natural occurring soil over impervious land or seasonally high groundwater, and it’s something that would interest me is wanting to make sure that we don’t have a groundwater problem here, because I’ve looked at that property a couple of times. That just looks wet to me, but maybe I’m wrong. MR. HAYES-Down here would be definitely the consideration which has to be looked at, because obviously with the farm on the other side, there are wetland issues. Up on the upper, for the most, two-thirds or three quarters of the property is very rolling, and the vegetation is all hardwoods, maples, oaks. MR. SANFORD-But I mean, what we haven’t factored in here is the cumulative effect, and I’m sure the neighbors are going to be very concerned because, as Bob said, you have a bit of a westerly flow, basically to Meadowbrook, and, you know, all these houses are going to add to the water table, and now you’re looking at a big concentration, I’m wondering where all this water is going to go, because it isn’t dry land there, I mean, and there was a lot of controversy about whether or not, where you built your other five houses, whether or not that had water problems, and whether or not that was going to cause problems, in terms of displacing water over to adjacent landowners. So I think that, I guess what I’m wondering is if we’re here to talk to some of your waiver requests, that’s the purpose, one of the main purposes here, I’m clearly not comfortable in not taking a good hard look at things like the stormwater, the drainage, the rock formations, the wetlands, and all of that. I mean, I think we have to take a real heavy, comprehensive look at this. MR. STEVES-And you will. We will gladly supply all that information for the preliminary subdivision, which we have to do. We’re not asking for a waiver on those requirements throughout the whole process. Only at the Sketch Plan. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) MR. SANFORD-Okay, and I would also just like to go on record, because this has been a controversial discussion that we’ve had from time to time, but I’m seeing it now under, and here it is on the signature page of the Sketch Plan, Page 13, we apparently, the Planning Board and/or the Zoning Board, can have engineering review services performed and charged directly to the applicant, provided that they don’t exceed $1,000 without notification, and this is a typical project with cumulative effects and density issues that we may very well wish to have some independent analysis done on it. I just would like to let you know that, because we are concerned about it, not with this, just this application, but increasingly, there’s more and more applications coming in front of us where the land is marginal, because all the promising, or all the good land has already been built upon, and I think that there’s a reason why this land off of Cronin Road hasn’t been developed for the some 30 years that I’ve been here is because it is marginal land, and it is wet, and it does have a lot of rock in it. So we are going to want to take a good hard look at, and maybe an independent look. MR. HAYES-The answer that, you do whatever you feel you have to for the engineering. That’s your choice. I would dispute the fact that it’s marginal land. I think it’s more dictated by the fact that the same people owned it that lived on the land, in the house for 50 years, and they determined if the land was developed, if they didn’t feel like developing it, and I plan on building my own house here. I don’t know if we’ve offended you in any way, Rich, about anything we’ve done. I don’t know if there’s personal issues here or not, but I plan on living here, and I actually intend to build my own house on one of these lots, and my brother’s considering it as well, and I think the Bannon’s determined, when they sold the property, the development, not about marginal land. I think that’s stepping out of bounds. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think it’s a personal issue with him. As a matter of fact, I share the same philosophy he does. In the past five or six years, we’ve seen more intense development on property that, in some cases is questionable. I guess you’re asking us, in one form or another tonight, to give a conceptual blessing to this thing, with so little information that’s provided to us that we can make some kind of, you know, consensus one way or the other. My position is that, you know, I can’t offer you an opinion one way or the other because it’s just lacking in so much information. While, yes, you have the opportunity to ask for waiver requests, typically, through the normal scheme of things, you know, if you’re doing a two lot subdivision or a three lot subdivision, yes, we’ll grant the waivers to it. It’s not really that crucial of an item, but when you’re talking a 12 lot subdivision, which we know, at least from our site visits, borders potentially problematic land, through your own admission, you don’t know if you’ve got really wetlands on any portion of this. So I don’t know how that fits in to your density calculations, and how that may change your plans on this thing. It’s just difficult, in my mind, to give a consensus one way or the other, when so much information is lacking to give an informed decision. I mean, you’re showing a 12 lot subdivision with 10 foot contour lines. You said that really falls off in the back. How much does it fall off, how steep is it in the back? MR. STEVES-Understood. Since we’ve submitted for Sketch Plan, we have completed the entire topography on the site with one foot contours, and we understand, we are progressing along, and even though you say you don’t have enough information, yet the comments you make let us know what we need to do for the next step at Preliminary. So that we can have the wetland determinations, if any. We can have the test pit data. We can have the deep test data. We can have the engineering report for the stormwater and the grading plan, and we’ll continue on with every aspect of what we’d be required at Preliminary, and we are all prepared to do that and have that in front of this Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-There is public water to this site, I believe. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Is the site all wooded now? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) MR. STEVES-Except for some areas around the house on Lot Twelve. That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Does it make sense to leave a buffer along the property lines with the existing homes and along Cronin Road? MR. HAYES-Absolutely, for the benefit of the neighbors and for the new homes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So that’s one of the things that’ll show on the? MR. HAYES-Yes, that’s definitely a good idea. MR. STEVES-We’ll show any proposed buffers. MR. MAC EWAN-When did you plan on being able to do your test pits and stuff? MR. HAYES-Basically we could do some of our own independent thumbnail stuff, but the Health Department thing is really, you probably are aware of the situation with the Health Department. So now they want to wait to the spring, so you can actually check the actual groundwater. We were scheduled for December, but unfortunately he passed away a couple of days before that happened. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re looking, at this point, at, what, April/May? MR. HAYES-I guess late March, April, May, or the very first part of June. Those are when they would like to see the actual physical evidence of the groundwater. MR. STEVES-The answer to the question is, as soon as the Department of Health will schedule us, we will be there with them. The indications that we are getting from them is some time from late March through to mid-May, and, you know, we wish we could give you the exact date, but we can’t at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions or comments? All right. Good luck. MR. STEVES-Just one quick question. Does the Board have any problems or concerns with Lot 12? The way it? MR. MAC EWAN-The existing lot? I don’t really have an issue with it, no. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. HAYES-Thank you very much. NEW BUSINESS [SITE PLAN]: SITE PLAN NO. 7-2004 SEQR TYPE II DR. KEITH CAVAYERO & DR. ELYSA BARON AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER, CURT DYBAS LOCATION: 87 MASON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BOATHOUSE ALONG WITH AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RESIDENCE. BOATHOUSES IN THE WR-1A ZONE AND EXPANSION OF NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 69-2003 CEA, APA, LGPC WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/11/04 TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-21, 226.12-1- 39 LOT SIZE: 0.21 AC., 0.04 AC. SECTION: 179-4-020 STEFANIE BITTER & CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 7-2004, Dr. Keith Cavayero & Dr. Elysa Baron, Meeting Date: February 24, 2004 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 7-2004 APPLICANT: Dr. Keith Cavayero and Dr. Elysa Baron are the applicants for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes the construction of an addition to an existing boathouse, along with an expansion of an existing residential structure. LOCATION: The subject property is located at 87 Mason Rd., Cleverdale. 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: Area Variance 69-2003 was approved by the ZBA on September 17, 2003, granting side setback and height relief for the proposed boathouse, and Floor Area Ratio relief for this property. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to construct an addition on the north side of an existing residence, along with an addition to an existing boathouse on this property. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has requested the following waivers: Stormwater Management Plan - Grading Plan - Lighting Plan - Landscaping Plan - For clarification, the applicant states that side setback relief was granted by the ZBA for the proposed residence. The ZBA did not grant side setback relief for the residence, and relief is not required for the proposed residence. As previously mentioned, the ZBA did grant relief for the setback and height of the boathouse, as well as FAR for this site.” MRS. BITTER-Stefanie Bitter, here on behalf of the applicant, and I’m also here with Keith Cavayero as well as Curt Dybas. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-Really quickly, the applicant proposes an addition to an existing residence, and an addition to an existing boathouse. The ZBA granted relief for floor area ratio and height and side setback relief for the proposed boathouse. My note indicates, my last note indicates that side setback relief was granted, and that the ZBA didn’t grant setback relief for the residence. It appears that it’s not required. Floor Area Ratio relief was granted. The addition to the residence meets the height requirements and setback requirements of the zone, and the applicant has requested waivers from stormwater management grading, lighting, and landscaping plan, and that’s all I have. MRS. BITTER-I apologize for that confusion. It was actually my misstatement. Due to the fact that this is in the critical environmental area, site plan is required. As George just mentioned, we had obtained Area Variances back in September. The applicant is proposing to renovate the existing structure as well as the boathouse. The lot in which we’re talking about is a small, small lot, and the age of the structure is in need of immediate repair. The variances that were required was for the side setback of the boathouse as well as the height of the railing of the boathouse. So that we could bring the railing to code, bringing it up a few inches, as well as the 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) fact that, due to the small size of the lot, floor area ratio relief was also needed for that, for the proposed renovation. The specific renovations to the house are only going to be on the north side of the existing structure. I believe it’s approximately 413 square feet that’s being renovated, specifically with regard to a screened in porch on the first floor, and a master bedroom on the top floor, but I’m going to actually have Curt give more specifics as to the renovations. MR. DYBAS-For the record, my name is Curt Dybas. As Stefanie mentioned, the existing residence, the south side is outside of the zoning setback, but the additions to the residence are on the north side, and all fall within the zoning setbacks for this zone. She also mentioned the additions to this structure are 413 square feet on two levels. The existing structure itself is 2,040 square feet on two floors. The expansion accounts for 20.2% of the original building. The floor area ratio is one of the variances that was granted in September, and the other two that she has already mentioned were setbacks in heights on the existing boathouse. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. DYBAS-That’s it, and the existing building will be renovated. The entire structure will be renovated. MRS. BITTER-And the one major issue we forgot to identify was, there’s currently a nonconforming septic system they’re going to be rebuilding and placing it in conformity, 100 feet away from the lake. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anybody have any questions regarding design? MR. SEGULJIC-I guess just a general question. Is this going to be a year round residence, or just seasonal residence? KEITH CAVAYERO DR. CAVAYERO-It’s going to be used all year round. MR. SEGULJIC-So year round. Okay. Back to you. MR. MAC EWAN-Back to me. Any questions regarding design standards. Site development? Stormwater? MR. VOLLARO-I think I have one site development question that I can throw out real quick. On the plans it says no parking on the site, and I can understand why, because you have the Elgin system sitting back there, but I have a note on the plan that says parking where. MR. DYBAS-There is the garage on the property, and also they own a lot across Mason Road that is so noted on the site plan, which is currently used for the parking for this parcel. If you visited the site, you’ll note that here is a large hedge along Mason Road that screens the parcel from the road which the client has wished to retain for privacy reasons, and there’s also a large maple tree that they wish to retain. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So if you’re going to park cars in the existing garage, there probably ought to be a sign, for your own benefit to stay off the top of the Elgin system when you drive onto it. MR. DYBAS-You can’t get to the Elgin system unless you drive through the hedge. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s a hedgerow between the, along the property line, along the roadway. MR. DYBAS-There’s a large, like an eight foot high hedgerow that. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I see where the garage is. It’s right up next to the road, when we visited the site. What are you planning to do with that garage, just storage? DR. CAVAYERO-Park a car, or storage, you know, not exactly sure yet. MR. VOLLARO-So you can get into this existing garage? DR. CAVAYERO-Yes, right off the road. Yes, you can. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. That’s the question, Mr. Chairman, concerning development criteria. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions relative to stormwater/sewage design? MR. HUNSINGER-Stormwater. There’s no indication the plans, unless I missed them, about how stormwater would be contained on the site, so that it doesn’t flow into the lake. MR. DYBAS-It’s really two-fold. Number One, we’re reducing the amount of hard surface on the site by doing this renovation, walks and stuff. The actual addition is approximately 200 square feet of roof area that’s added to the building, and basically we feel that the runoff created would be mitigated by the removal of the hard surfaces. If the Board so desires, I mean, we can add gutters to the building and drain it into drywells. I’d just as soon not try to do the entire building, because my experience, in 30 years of living in this area, gutters don’t work. They just freeze up and overflow in the winter, and it’s not something that functions properly. I’d rather have it come off, and deal with it on the site, directly, but one thing that we are doing is the existing septic system is down along the north property line, and we’ll be tearing, taking all that out, which will free up area if we wish to do some subsurface remediation of water. MR. HUNSINGER-If you don’t gutter the roof, how are you going to maintain runoff from the roof onto the property and away from the lake? MR. DYBAS-You can do runoff at grade with like a modified French drain. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I guess that’s really more of what I was looking for, you know, what the plan was. I don’t have a personal preference. I mean, my gutter’s all frozen up right now. It’s not doing anything. MR. DYBAS-Yes, so are mine. MR. HUNSINGER-But typically we do require that any stormwater runoff from a hard surface be somehow captured and not allowed to run into the lake. MR. DYBAS-I realize that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-On your site plan drawing you have a sediment barrier. Is that during construction? On your site plan, you note a sediment barrier. MR. DYBAS-No, I don’t have one shown. The environmental fencing and barriers? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, it says environmental fencing barrier, sediment basin. MR. DYBAS-We realize that we have to do the. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s just during construction? MR. DYBAS-Yes. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, you had questions? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do. The septic tank that’s shown here, there’s 1250 gallon septic tank, is the location of the renovated septic. Is that correct? MR. DYBAS-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, if you go to 136, which is the Code that talks, the Town Code, that talks to septic, it talks about 10 feet away. Now I see you’ve got a 10 foot, my assumption is that you’re saying it’s 10 feet away from the foundation wall. MR. DYBAS-That is correct. MR. VOLLARO-Now, if you go to 136, it says dwelling. It doesn’t say foundation wall. It says 10 foot from the dwelling. I’m looking at 136, and I looked at the words in it, and that’s what it says. Are you familiar with the 136 Code? MR. DYBAS-Yes, I am. MR. VOLLARO-Now, a couple of things that I’m looking at concerning the location of the septic, and it gets into the water situation as well. 136, Appendix G, talks to, requires provision for collecting water from roof runoff, make sure that it drains away from the sewage disposal system. Now looking at your drawings and plans, that roof shed right there is going right on to the septic system, whether it’s frozen or not frozen. There’s got to be some method of ensuring that the water drains away from that system. MR. DYBAS-That is not the drainage field. MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry? MR. DYBAS-That’s not the drainage field that you’re looking at. MR. VOLLARO-I can quote to you from 136G exactly what it says. I mean, it doesn’t talk, it says septic system. It says all roof cellar and footing drainings and surface water must be excluded from the system. It doesn’t say from the Elgin system. It says from the system. This drainage water can be discharged to the ground surface without treatment, make sure it drains away from your sewage disposal system. I mean, the septic tank and the pump and the Elgin system in the back are all part of a sewage disposal system, in the way I view it, and 136 says that you really shouldn’t be pouring water over the top of that septic design. So there’s got to be some way of trying to collect that runoff and make sure that it, because it’s right adjacent, I mean, there’s, what, two feet in plan view from the end of the roof itself onto the septic. Now, again, if you look at 136, it doesn’t say, and I know the rationale about it being away from the basement, I can understand that, but the 136 Code doesn’t say, by the way, it should be 10 feet away from the foundation, and I can understand the rationale for what you’re saying, because I see you put the foundation walls in there, and you’ve got about four blocking systems along the side essentially holding up that part of the house. MR. DYBAS-I have no problem guttering it, or whatever we have to do to meet your requirement, but it’s a seamless, sealed septic tank, and a pump tank. I mean, water is not going to permeate into the structure. MR. VOLLARO-Look, I understand the infiltration of septic systems and having to pump surface water. I mean, I understand all that. MR. DYBAS-Well, we can’t pump surface water. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) MR. VOLLARO-No. I’m saying surface water that may infiltrate into the septic tank. Now you’re saying we’ve got a sealed tank, and I understand that. MR. DYBAS-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-But I’m trying to tell you what the Code says. MR. DYBAS-That’s true, what the Code says, but also if that is the fear, I would be more concerned of septic leaching out of the septic tank, because if water can’t get in, or water can get in to the septic tank, sewage can get out. So, you know, it’s a technical, semantics discussion. If we have to gutter it to drain away from it. MR. VOLLARO-They may not be looking for infiltration just from into the septic tank, the 1250 gallon tank, but there’s connecting pipe to the pre-cast pump tank, the pump itself, and then there’s the lines, there’s two inch force main. Now, if that’s a continuous piece you might not get infiltration, but if you’ve got connections in that force main, that’s what they’re looking at as well, and you’re going to get drainage onto that force main from this roof. MR. MAC EWAN-I think that would be a stretch. MR. VOLLARO-It may, but I’m just saying what 136G says, and it says make sure it drains away from the sewage disposal system. Maybe it’s nothing more than a grading situation. MR. SANFORD-Bob, don’t you think we have to factor in the kind of system and if this is a sealed system. MR. VOLLARO-They’re all sealed. I mean, all septic tanks are sealed, and all pumps are sealed. The gentleman made the point, if they leak, externally, they’ll leak internally, and so neither of those things are going to, you know, I think they’re just wanting to make sure that the septic system doesn’t get continually infiltrated with water. I think that’s the intent of G. MR. MAC EWAN-So noted. MR. VOLLARO-There’s a little arrow on your drawing. You want to get your setback line to be 1,000 feet and not 100 feet. This is your 1,000 foot setback from the lake. It says 100 feet. It should be 1,000. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s supposed to be 100. MR. SANFORD-If he has 1,000 feet, we’re all set here. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a 100 foot setback, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Is it 100? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. DYBAS-It better be. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Maybe I missed that. MR. DYBAS-Cleverdale is not 1,000 feet wide, I don’t think. MR. VOLLARO-My next question is, where does the water enter the building, the lake supply? MR. DYBAS-I do believe it comes in the southwest corner of the basement. The line goes out of the seawall on the southwest corner, down where you see the 60 feet note along shore. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking at the plan view of the drawing here. Have you got another drawing that shows that, the house itself? MR. DYBAS-There’s this particular drawing right here, sir. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It’s the same one I’m looking at. All I see on here is lake domestic water supply, and it doesn’t show me anything. It doesn’t show a line going into the building. MR. DYBAS-No, it does not. It’s not indicated. MR. VOLLARO-And, but you’re saying it’s in that corner? MR. DYBAS-It is in that southwest corner of the basement. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. DYBAS-Where it enters. MR. VOLLARO-I guess I’m going to ask the rest of the Board to weigh in on this. If you take a look at the 136 Code, it talks about 10 feet from the dwelling. Are we willing to agree that the foundation is the dwelling? MR. MAC EWAN-For purposes of our review, the foundation is the dwelling, and that’s been done before because, I’ll give you an instance where we were dealing with setback issue in the corridor overlay zone for the office complex on Bay Road, and where the eaves actually hung out two feet over the foundation, it’s the foundation they use as the measuring device. MR. VOLLARO-Just as a note to Staff, you might want to, 136 ought to say foundation and not dwelling. Because when I look at a plan view of a dwelling, I look at the outside of it. I agree, but I want to make sure that 136 reflects the foundation. It should. Now, one other question that I had. I noticed that where you’re putting the septic tank is right on the 50 foot setback like, the corner of it sits right on the line. I would like to make sure that when that tank goes in, George, that Building and Codes does a little, because it’s right smack on the line, that Building and Codes surveys that in to make sure that that corner is back of the 50 foot line. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-No, I think that’s it for me. MR. SEGULJIC-One other septic question. When is the septic system going to be upgraded? DR. CAVAYERO-At the construction of the house. When we begin the renovations, we’ll upgrade the septic immediately, because we can’t, once we start construction, we can’t utilize the facility until we have, obviously, a septic system. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So before you move in it will be upgraded? DR. CAVAYERO-Before we move in. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. DR. CAVAYERO-And part of our CO will be. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions regarding stormwater/sewage design? 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) MR. SANFORD-Not of that. Just a quick question for Staff, and I think we’re fine on this, but we had a workshop, George, not too long ago, where, before, on situations like this, where we would be reviewing them, as well as the Zoning Board, we would get them first. Now, does this predate that? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-The Zoning Board’s going to start this coordinated review with us looking things prior to going to them beginning in April. MR. SANFORD-Okay, because I see this does go back to September, which is well before our workshop. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. HILTON-Yes. I mean, we have applicants and applications that we received that are in the process right now, we can’t necessarily change the rules on them, so to speak. Yes, April 1 st we’re shooting for. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Questions regarding lighting, landscaping, environmental issues? MR. METIVIER-I have one comment on landscaping. You have some nice hemlocks on the water. Are you aware that you can’t move any trees that are alive within 35 feet of the shoreline? DR. CAVAYERO-I wasn’t aware, but we don’t plan on moving them. MR. METIVIER-Okay. Just warning you, because, you know, they’re not on the plot plan, or on the site plan, excuse me. So, you know, but they are noted that they exist. So, prior to going and cutting any down, you have to make sure that you have permission to do so, and just so you don’t get yourself into trouble. DR. CAVAYERO-Thank you. MR. METIVIER-Trust me. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions relative to environmental? Neighborhood character? Involved agencies? Tell me about Warren County. I’m seeing a ramp, I’m picking up on Mr. Hunsinger’s review. A ramp is not actually shown on the boathouse. What’s the deal with the ramp? It’s existing. MR. METIVIER-Is that a ramp or a step? MR. HILTON-If you can give me just a second here, I’ll. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. DYBAS-There’s both. There’s a ramp that goes down to the boathouse deck, and then stairs that continue down from the top of that ramp all the way down to the dock level. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) MR. METIVIER-I didn’t think there was enough elevation on that side to get? MR. DYBAS-There’s a huge elevation change. MR. METIVIER-Really? MR. DYBAS-Huge. You can stand in front of this house, and you can’t even see the boathouse. You’re looking right over the top of everything. You have to stand right up at the front of the rooms to look down at the boathouse. There’s probably about a 16 foot elevation change at this point. MR. METIVIER-So if it’s existing, well. MR. MAC EWAN-If it’s existing, then it is a question. MR. METIVIER-All right. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other criteria I overlooked? Anything you wanted to add? I’ll 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 MR. MAC EWAN-A letter? MR. HILTON-Yes. Just a letter. A letter from John and Lee Tabner, and it just expresses their support for the application, and that’s all it says. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Brief discussion. MR. VOLLARO-I’d just like a clarification from Staff on something, if I could get it, from George. George, I’m into 136 again, and just go over this paragraph with me. Do you have 136 with you? MR. HILTON-Yes, which section are you looking at? MR. VOLLARO-Just go to 136-8, General Standards, and then jump down to 136-9, Special Standards, that’s the next one. I’m reading this paragraph here that says, “The natural ground intended for the leaching facility must have a minimum depth of three feet of usable soil above bedrock, impervious material or maximum high seasonal groundwater within 1,000 feet of the shoreline of Lake George.” How do you view that? MR. HILTON-I read that that there must be three feet to bedrock or to groundwater, if you’re within 1,000 feet of the lake. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, this is within 1,000 feet of the lake. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And do we have any information concerning the maximum high seasonal groundwater or impervious, or above bedrock at three feet? MR. HILTON-As a part of this application, to my knowledge, no. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) MR. VOLLARO-Should we? I mean, that’s just a question. MR. HILTON-You can certainly ask for it. I guess, well I know it was stipulated as part of the Area Variance that the applicant receive a building code signoff for the septic, and that it be conforming. Building and Codes will look at this. MR. VOLLARO-I’m just trying to, in my own mind, trying to understand 136-9, which are Special Standards concerning Lake George itself, making sure that we haven’t missed anything there, and that’s why I’ve asked you to comment on it. MR. HILTON-Yes. Absolutely. MR. VOLLARO-If there’s a variance, Mr. Chairman, if Building and Codes, or the ZBA has granted a variance on the septic tank, I’m just asking Staff for some definition underneath the Special Standards of 136, where it says, “The natural ground intended for the leaching facility must have a minimum depth of three feet of usable soil above bedrock, impervious material or maximum high seasonal groundwater within 1,000 feet of the shoreline of Lake George.” Is that, are we okay with that? MR. METIVIER-Yes, but you have to keep in mind that they wouldn’t be able to get a building permit if that didn’t exist, and Dave Hatin or John O’Brien goes up and either will test the area or they’ll have to get something from a Charlie Main indicating that that exists, or they wouldn’t be able to get a permit for it. MR. VOLLARO-I see. All right, because they actually look at that when they go out? MR. METIVIER-Yes. MR. SANFORD-They could bring fill in, but they’ve got to wait about a year after they bring fill in to meet them, don’t they? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it’s sixty days. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Boor is saying a year. MR. VOLLARO-One year. MR. DYBAS-May I make a comment? There’s no need for fill on this site. I mean, we don’t have to do a fill system at all. There’s another item that I’d like to mention that we wouldn’t do, but we have an existing four bedroom year round residence existing on this site. With an approved working septic system, which doesn’t meet the Code, but under the existing Code, we could leave that system. Dr. Cavayero has decided that they want to upgrade it. We have the opportunity to upgrade it, and that’s the thing that we’re doing. MR. VOLLARO-I’m just trying to make sure that we understand what our own Code says and what our Building Inspector is supposed to do, and I think Mr. Metivier’s cleared that up for me, that when Building and Codes go out, they actually do this investigation. MR. METIVIER-They do. MR. MAC EWAN-They have to, no matter where you are, whether it’s the lake or anywhere else. MR. METIVIER-And they check the trees at the same time. MR. VOLLARO-Do they? MR. METIVIER-Yes. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) MR. DYBAS-If anyone visited the site, and I’m sure that everyone did, there is a large, magnificent maple in the back yard. This thing is huge, and one of the things that we’re attempting to do is not disturb this tree, and your mention about parking on the site, and the septic, nothing, it wouldn’t all jive on there, and we’re trying our best to save this tree. It’s absolutely a magnificent tree on Cleverdale. I don’t know how it even got there. MR. VOLLARO-Where is the tree with respect to the planned Elgin system? MR. DYBAS-It’s on the north property line. MR. VOLLARO-So it’s far enough away from that system where you won’t have a root infiltration problem. MR. DYBAS-It’s not a root infiltration problem. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-George? MR. HILTON-Just to let you know, this application did appear at the Warren County Planning Board on the 11 of February. I’m not finding the resolution in my file. Do you have a copy at th all, of the Warren County decision? MRS. BITTER-No. MR. DYBAS-I don’t have a copy of the resolution. MR. MAC EWAN-Just curious. MR. HILTON-Yes. I don’t. MR. MAC EWAN-My question was going regarding the ramp, but they’re telling us the ramp was pre-existing. So I was just curious as to how that fit into the scheme with Warren County’s approval, who typically doesn’t approve land bridges, or whatever. That’s been their philosophy for probably the last, what, five years or so, six years. Longer than that. All right. Does somebody want to move it? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 7-2004 DR. KEITH CAVAYERO & DR. ELYSA BARON, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 7-2004 Applicant/Property Owner: Dr. Keith Cavayero & SEQR Type II Dr. Elysa Baron Agent: Jonathan Lapper, Curt Dybas Location: 87 Mason Road Applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing boathouse along with an addition to an existing residence. Boathouses in the WR-1A zone and expansion of non-conforming structures in a Critical Environmental Area require Site Plan review and approval from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: AV 69-2003 CEA, APA, LGPC Warren Co. Planning: 2/11/04 Tax Map No. 226.12-1-21, 226.12-1-39 Lot size: 0.21 ac., 0.04 ac. / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: February 24, 2004 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) WHEREAS, the application was received on 1/15/04; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 2/20/04, and 2/24 Staff Notes 2/17 Notice of Public Hearing 2/11 Warren Co. Planning 2/2 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on February 24, 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. The applicant will employ French drains or roof gutters to maintain the stormwater on the site and to direct any roof runoff away from the lake. 2. That the drain won’t impinge on the sewage disposal system. Duly adopted this 24th day of February, 2004, by the following vote: MR. VOLLARO-Could you add to that also that the drain won’t impinge on the sewage disposal system. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, that would be fine. DR. CAVAYERO-Do we have to? I’m just saying, I mean, we’re going to do it, but it’s already a site, again, leave the septic what’s there already, and I don’t want to add more to my, I mean, we’re going to do it the right way. MR. DYBAS-Yes, you’re talking about water, you’re talking about stormwater. MR. MAC EWAN-Does the Board feel comfortable with that? MR. VOLLARO-The French drain. MR. MAC EWAN-I understand your point. I’m polling the Board? MR. METIVIER-That’s good. MR. MAC EWAN-So noted. Add that second condition. Tony, did you second that? 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) MR. METIVIER-I did. AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MRS. BITTER-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck. MRS. BITTER-Have a good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. HILTON-One more thing. MR. MAC EWAN-What have you got? MR. HILTON-I think you have a letter in front of you from Craig Brown to Michael O’Connor regarding Hayes & Hayes subdivision up at Dixon Road. MR. MAC EWAN-Correct. MR. HILTON-There was some correspondence. As you’ll see with the attached tabling motion, it was tabled to a specific date in February, the first meeting in February, and obviously, the time has come and gone, and they haven’t provided the additional information on this. So I guess what we’re looking for, it’s my understanding that we’re looking for the Board to extend or, extend the tabling resolution to a later date. MR. MAC EWAN-My concern with that particular application, the Hayes and Hayes Dixon Road application, is so much time has evolved on that thing right now, is I would like to see it re-advertised for the benefit of the neighborhood who had many concerns regarding that subdivision. So, if we table it, extend the tabling, I mean, we gave a specific date on that, right? MR. HILTON-You did. The first meeting in February. MR. MAC EWAN-And they already are missing. MR. HILTON-March. MR. MAC EWAN-The March deadline. They will miss the March deadline. Counsel, what do you think we should do? While she’s reviewing that, the only thing I wanted to ask you was two quick questions relative to Wal-Mart, how the easement’s coming along for Ray Supply and Valente’s. MRS. BITTER-We are in discussions with them. We just received a copy of the easement today from them, or revised easement. MR. MAC EWAN-Something that will be able to be pulled together by Friday of this week? MRS. BITTER-It looks very good. MR. MAC EWAN-Very good. Thank you very much. MRS. BITTER-You’re welcome. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) MR. SANFORD-Can we assume that this is a withdrawn application, because of inactivity? MR. MAC EWAN-No, no. It’s not necessarily that it’s a withdrawn application. My concern with Staff is that this thing has been looming out there for so many months now, and there was a lot of neighborhood concerns regarding this, and I just don’t want a situation where it comes back in May or June and the neighbors aren’t aware of it. MS. RADNER-You can certainly require re-advertising of the review. You could also require that the applicant resubmit at this point. It’s been a long time. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d go along the lines of asking them to resubmit. MR. SANFORD-What is the timeline? Bob used to bring it up when we were dealing with the Valente application on when a resubmission is, after so much time goes by. MR. VOLLARO-It’s one year, I think. MS. RADNER-Well, that’s what I was trying to remember. I wasn’t prepared for this question. I know there had been some discussions in the past and some changes regarding how long you were going to allow an application to be sort of out there, before you required a new application, or how much change, and I’m not quite sure where the Board stands on that issue right now, but I think it’s within the Chairman’s discretion. Either’d be appropriate. MR. VOLLARO-Weren’t we at a year, if somebody didn’t? MR. MAC EWAN-No, it was nowhere near that. I mean, it’s kind of like, yes, it is kind of like at the Board’s discretion as to whether we want someone to re-advertise. I mean, the last time these people were in front of us was, what, October/November? MR. HILTON-November 25. th MR. MAC EWAN-November. We’ve had three months past by. We’re looking at at least two more before they come back in front of us. You’re looking at five months that have elapsed here. I would ask them to resubmit the whole thing. Do we need to do a formal motion on that, a formal resolution? We tabled it to a date. They didn’t make the date. So therefore to me it would seem to me that they’re deficient and the application croaked, for all practical purposes. MS. RADNER-Yes. I think that the Staff could call them and tell them they’re going to need to resubmit, and if they protest that, then they can show up at the next meeting to have their application denied, in which case they’re back at the same place. Because they failed to present sufficient information to grant their application. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SANFORD-All right. That’s what we want to do, I guess. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. SANFORD-Do we need to vote on that? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. HILTON-I don’t think so. I just want to alert you to a lighting article I placed on your table tonight. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I saw that. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) MR. HILTON-A very good article. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do you guys want to talk about something? ROGER BOOR MR. BOOR-I did have one question. Roger Boor, Queensbury. One of the applications that you entertained tonight, you requested test pits to be done relatively soon, and I was curious as to what it was like to do the test pits in January or February or March, and what you would learn from that type of information. MR. VOLLARO-We would learn nothing. The 136 Code says they’ve got to do it between March, April, May, or June. I think what the applicant said is they were going to play with it now, but I don’t know what he was going to gather out of that. In order for him to get good data before this Board, he’s got to do it somewhere, March, April, May or June, or when the frost is out of the ground. MR. BOOR-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the 136 Code. That’s what it says. MR. BOOR-Okay. MR. METIVIER-I mean, they’ll come back and say that, you know, you can read the soils, but I’m thoroughly not convinced that that’s the truth. MR. SANFORD-I think it’s inappropriate for Mr. Boor to be making these comments, because we agreed with the applicant that would not take public hearing tonight. And they’re certainly not present. And we’re discussing a particular applicant, application. MR. BOOR-Good point. Thank you. MS. RADNER-Let’s just discuss it generically, though, in terms of, which I think is what Mr. Boor was doing. MR. SANFORD-Well, we did. I mean, they did say they didn’t want to have hearing. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me just throw out one question, and this is very generic. MS. RADNER-No particular property. MR. MAC EWAN-No. It’s relative to, the question is very simple. If the Board didn’t feel comfortable with certain information that was provided to us, for review purposes, could we, indeed, ask someone of our own choosing to provide that information for us? If we felt uncomfortable? MS. RADNER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-If there was a pattern that we may see over the years, whatever, that questioned the capabilities of a particular firm or individual. MS. RADNER-There’s provisions in your Code that allow you to request an expert, be it an engineer review. If you have a, you know, specific reason to believe, you know, this applicant is telling me that this piece of property has no water to 22 feet, and yet you know that all the adjoining properties, you know, are having water problems, then by all means you could refer that. You don’t want to fall into the trap, though, of doing that on every property. Because there’s no need for it, and as Rich pointed out earlier, there’s even things in there that allow you to shift those costs to the applicant to a certain degree, but, yes, certainly, you need to know that 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/24/04) you’ve got accurate data, and if it turns out that there has been a misrepresentation, you know, an actual signed misrepresentation, that’s grounds for turning aside a decision or re-reviewing it, if you base some sort of approval or a permit on a misrepresentation. For example, let’s say you had a property that had gotten a ZBA variance in reliance on, the setback is, you know, met this 150 feet, and as you’re looking at it, you say, wait a minute. This doesn’t make sense. This doesn’t match what we saw. We want a survey. Let’s hire a surveyor. A surveyor goes out, finds out, you know, it’s only 25 feet where you were told it’s 150, that’s a material misrepresentation, you know, they’ve signed their name to that. You can go back, then, and undo the ZBA approval in that case. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-That, incidentally, is the $1,000 limit that you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’re adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 42