Loading...
2005-01-18 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 18, 2005 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT VOLLARO, ACTING CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, SECRETARY ANTHONY METIVIER RICHARD SANFORD THOMAS SEGULJIC GRETCHEN STEFFAN PLANNER-STUART BAKER GIS SPECIALIST-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. VOLLARO-We have a couple of changes for tonight. We’re putting Mr. Jeffrey Threw on second tonight, right after Cifone Construction. So, with that, I’ll start off with Cifone Construction Company. MR. SANFORD-I think we have minutes to approve, Bob, a whole bunch of them. Do you want to knock those off now? MR. VOLLARO-All right. Yes. CORRECTION OF MINUTES October 19, 2004: NONE October 26, 2004: NONE November 16, 2004: NONE November 23, 2004: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF 10/19, 10/26, 11/16, AND 11/23, 2004, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: Duly adopted this 18 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Metivier NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan EXTENSION REQUEST: SITE PLAN NO. 15-2004 JMC PROPERTIES/CIFONE CONSTRUCTION ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: SMOKE RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT IS SEEKING A ONE-YEAR 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) EXTENSION FROM 4/20/05 TO 4/20/06 OF A PREVIOUS SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR DUPLEXES ON SMOKE RIDGE ROAD. TAX MAP NO. 308.8-1-21.2, 21.3, 21.4, 21.5, 21.6 JOHN CIFONE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. CIFONE-John Cifone. MR. VOLLARO-This is an application for a one year extension of a previous Site Plan for duplexes, and there’s no changes to the Code. It looks like it’s, I have just one question on it, then I’ll see what the Board has to say. How does everybody feel about this? MR. SANFORD-I’m fine with it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It’s pretty much easy to do. The 4/20 resolution, however, it was done 4/20/2000. I noticed that there are three, this is basically a question for Staff. That there are three conditions that were listed there. A copy of the Notice Of Intent was to be submitted, a sign off by C.T. Male’s letter of 16 2004, and plantings of six three foot tall arborvitaes on each site within the mulch beds. Now this is being extended for a year. Does the current plat show that? Do you know? Can you, has anybody looked at that? We’re going to do an extension on this. MR. BAKER-Those conditions would still apply to the extension. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just wondered, because there’s, obviously a plat must have been signed on this already. MR. HILTON-This is a site plan, extension for a site plan approval, it’s not a subdivision. So there wouldn’t be a subdivision plat. There are conditions with the site plan, and as Stuart said, those conditions still apply. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HILTON-So if someone comes in and wants to pull a building permit, those conditions need to be met. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fine. Okay. I’d like to get a motion from somebody on the Board, please. MOTION TO APPROVE EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 15-2004 JMC PROPERTIES / CIFONE CONSTRUCTION, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: For a one year extension from 4/20/2005 to 4/20/2006. Duly adopted this 18 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. VOLLARO-That’s it. MR. CIFONE-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now we are going to move Jeffrey Threw up next. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 1-2005 SEQR TYPE II JEFFREY THREW PROPERTY OWNER: WILLIAM THREW AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: BIG BAY ROAD APPLICANT IS SEEKING SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO USE A PORTION OF AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING TO OPERATE A TRUCK RENTAL AND REPAIR BUSINESS. TRUCK REPAIR AND RENTAL USES IN THE LI ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 67- 89 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 1/12/05 TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-12 LOT SIZE: 2.22 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JEFF THREW, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-Before we get too deep into this, we have a memorandum here from Building and Codes, from Mr. Hatin, and, based on that memo, I don’t think we can go forward with this. I think you probably have two options. One, you can withdraw this application or, B, we can deny it without prejudice until such time as you satisfy Mr. Hatin’s requirement. MR. STEVES-Are you talking about us or the landowner, satisfying Mr. Hatin’s requirements? MR. VOLLARO-Well, did you get a copy of Mr. Hatin’s letter? MR. STEVES-No. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll read it to you. MR. STEVES-I’m sorry, yes, I have that copy. Bill Threw, the owner, is not here. No. MR. VOLLARO-He’s not here. MR. STEVES-The applicant’s here with me. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The applicant is trying to convert an existing building into a truck repair facility? MR. THREW-No, it already is. MR. STEVES-It already is. MR. VOLLARO-It’s running that way now? MR. STEVES-No. The building that is there, that is owned by Jeff’s father, William Threw, is a four bay repair shop for his excavation business. He’s only using two of the bays, and Jeff is looking to operate his own business, which is Adirondack Truck Repair, out of those two empty bays in his father’s garage, and reading this letter, if there’s some kind of an outstanding issue with the owner of the property, we understand, but it’s not really within our control, and I just want to let the Board know that this applicant is not the owner of the property. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The application, the actual application for this came through for William Threw. The applicant himself is Jeffrey Threw, and the owner is William Threw. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-So that’s who the application is made out to, and the applicant here is Jeffrey Threw. Based on the letter from Mr. Hatin to Mr. Threw, I don’t really think we can go forward with this. So, like I said in the beginning of this, we can either withdraw this or this Board would have the option to deny without prejudice. It’s up to the Board. I’ll poll the Board and see what they’d like to do now. Mr. Sanford? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) MR. SANFORD-Either one of those is fine with me. I agree. I think until the terms specified by Mr. Hatin are complied with, we shouldn’t move forward. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Seguljic? MR. SEGULJIC-I’ll agree with that. We have to deny without prejudice. MR. VOLLARO-Mrs. Steffan? MRS. STEFFAN-I agree as well. There’s also some outstanding items that were listed in Staff comments, and so I don’t think we can move forward. MR. VOLLARO-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I agree. MR. VOLLARO-Tony? MR. METIVIER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You’ve got two options, now. The option would be to withdraw it easily, or to get a denial from the Board without prejudice, either way. MR. STEVES-I’d rather withdraw, but as we do that, is there any questions on the site plan itself that we might be able to address before we come back to this Board? MR. VOLLARO-Well, you have to come back with a new application. Let me ask a question to Staff. I notice that in this application for Mr. Threw, I have a blank pre-application conference form. Did Mr. Threw come before the Board at all, before the Staff? I don’t have a filled out pre-application conference. It’s blank. MR. STEVES-Somebody from my office did attend that. MR. VOLLARO-They did? All right. MR. BAKER-I’ve got no record of a pre-app. MR. VOLLARO-No record of a pre-app. So I think the answer is you’re going to withdraw this application? That’s what you’ve stated, and you can come back. I think you’ve got to get on Mr. Threw to get the thing cleaned up and come on back with an application. Thanks very much. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 59-2004 ARLEN ASSOCIATES/G.R.J.H., INC. PROPERTY OWNER: KING FUEL CO. ZONE: HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION: INTERSECTION QUAKER ROAD & DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING KIOSK AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,930 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE AS WELL AS SITE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE ASSOCIATED GASOLINE ISLANDS. CONVENIENCE STORES AND GASOLINE STATIONS IN AN HC ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/13/04 TAX MAP NO. 303.19-1-61 LOT SIZE: 1.5 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 GENE BILODEAU & LLOYD HELM, PRESENT MR. BILODEAU-Mr. Bilodeau from Arlen Associates. This is Lloyd Helm from G.R. J.H. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just want to go over a couple of things for the Board themselves. Just a little quick history here. This application came to us on October 26, 2004. It had its second meeting with us on 12/21. This is its third appearance before us on 1/18. A new site plan dated 1/10/05 was received. In my looking at that site plan, it seemed to address all of C.T. Male’s questions in their 1/7/05 letter. However, that’s not for me to say. It’s for C.T. Male to say. The final signoff has not been received by Staff as of January 14, 2005. That’s what the record th shows? MR. HILTON-Yes. We have the most recent correspondence from C.T. Male dated January 7, 2005. Beyond that, we don’t have any responses or follow up letters from either the applicant or C.T. Male. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SANFORD-Mr. Vollaro, I would feel comfortable in moving this forward with conditioning it upon final signoff. Okay. I just wanted to go on record with that. MR. VOLLARO-I, myself, have looked at the new 1/10/05. Now let’s make sure that we’re both on the same page, drawing wise. MR. BILODEAU-It should say Rev. 5. MR. VOLLARO-It says Rev. 5. That is correct, revision number five, yes, 1/10/05, and it’s Rev. 5. I reviewed the drawing against C.T. Male’s requirements. I think it looks okay, but that’s not for me to say. A C.T. Male signoff is what we really need. However, having said that, when this application was tabled on 12/21, because we didn’t get a match up in drawings, if you remember, I have never had the opportunity to ask a couple of questions that I wanted to ask at that meeting. So I’m going to hold those in abeyance and see what the rest of the Board would like to do on this. We don’t have a C.T. Male signoff at the present time, but we do have the latest Rev. 5 drawing, which does look like it’s all in compliance, at least in my review. I could have easily missed something that C.T. Male wants to put in there. So let me not try to inject that as a signoff. How does everybody feel about moving forward with this? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. It looks like everything’s in order, and the C.T. Male letter doesn’t have that many issues to it. To me the only issue is the building renderings, the color of the building and that issue. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think that that was. MR. SEGULJIC-They had submitted that last time. MR. VOLLARO-They had submitted that last time. MR. SEGULJIC-We have to give them direction on that. MR. VOLLARO-On the renditions, and I don’t know that we discussed these in any kind of depth the last time. MR. SEGULJIC-No, we didn’t. MR. VOLLARO-I know I have a question on the drawing is the rendition of the canopy itself. I didn’t see one of those in your prior drawings, the gas canopy I’m talking about. MR. HELM-The addition of a gas canopy? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. HELM-I think it’s already existing. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) MR. BILODEAU-All part of the same drawing. The drawing shows. MR. VOLLARO-What I’m talking about is your rendition like this. MR. BILODEAU-That shows the canopy. The canopy is there. It’s part of the structure. It’s the front part of the structure. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and that’s the gas canopy? MR. BILODEAU-It’s the one that exists now. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The pumps are not there in this rendition, however. MR. BILODEAU-Perhaps not. There’s a change in the actual pumps based on what there is now from what they will be, to meet the Fire Marshal’s requirement for separation of the pumps from the front door. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think we had ever arrived at the, you’ve given us a lot of. MR. BILODEAU-I think there’s two basic choices, essentially. MR. VOLLARO-Pictures of stone, essentially, and also of color, a color chart. A color chart and a picture of stone. MR. BILODEAU-There are two basic choices that I present. MR. VOLLARO-I saw those. Yes. One is Sierra Stack Stone, I think, and the other one is Chocolate Brown. Those were the two things you had offered. MR. BILODEAU-There are, no, there are two facades that are at issue here. One has a stack stone, and I don’t have the copies in front of me, so I’m speaking from memory, and it is associated with the larger rendering, I believe, and then there’s the one that has a fieldstone wainscot that is associated with I believe it’s a clapboard siding. It’s the smaller rendering on the drawing, anyway. I wish I had it in front of me. So this one is associated with the stack stone, and this one is associated with the fieldstone. The upper drawing, the smaller one is associated with the stack stone, and the larger one is associated with the fieldstone. Those two stones are defined on that color list of stones. There’s a little arrow indicating that particular. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’ve got it. I see it. MR. BILODEAU-They’re both brown. MR. VOLLARO-One is Buck’s County. That goes with the lower drawing, and then the other one is the Sierra Stack Stone that goes with the upper drawing. MR. BILODEAU-And in both cases the building color is brown. MR. VOLLARO-Chocolate brown. MR. BILODEAU-I think there’s a roof, one copy of the roof shingle that I’ve selected, too. That’s in a, I think it’s in a book of roofing. MR. VOLLARO-In my packet this is all we got. I didn’t get anything in the grouping at all. MR. BILODEAU-Are you familiar with that, George? There was a kind of a hardcover shingle selection chart. Yes, I guess that’s it. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) MR. VOLLARO-That’s it. Yes. MR. HILTON-I can pass it around. MR. VOLLARO-Chris, you had opted for a green roof at one time. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that was on the other site, the one on Aviation. That was mostly to match, we had talked about matching the hotel across the street, and that had a dark green roof, and that was the main reason why. I think this site, you know, the surrounding architecture is a lot different. So I didn’t have as strong an opinion as I did before. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I happen to like, I think, of the two renditions, I happen to like the bottom one better, Number Two. MR. SEGULJIC-I would agree with that. MR. VOLLARO-It’s got a little more character than the stone. MR. SEGULJIC-The Buck’s County Rubble, with the brown building. MR. BILODEAU-I believe I selected one of those colors. It may say on the front on that yellow pad. Does it say? MR. VOLLARO-Sierra Gray. MR. BILODEAU-This is for the roofing. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-It looks good to me. MRS. STEFFAN-I thought either one of the options was very nice. MR. BILODEAU-I like the lower one myself. MR. VOLLARO-We’ll vote for Number Two, at least I do. Let’s see what the Board does. I think we’ll take a vote on this. Mr. Sanford, which of those two do you like? MR. SANFORD-Whatever one you like, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-I picked Number Two. MR. SANFORD-All right, Number Two. MR. VOLLARO-Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-It’s up to you guys. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We’ll take Number Two. It looks like we got a consensus for the Building Number Two. We’ll take the recommendations that you have given to us for those buildings. MR. HUNSINGER-I like the architectural shingles. I think those will look good. Good choice. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Now, Chris, do you want to, when we do the motion on this, do you want to write down what we’re picking up? Rendition Number Two of the supplied renditions. We’re going with the roof shingle called Sierra Gray, and that’s based on Owens Corning Sierra Gray, or the Oak Ridge Pro Series. Okay, and we’re going with, on Building Number Two, 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) we’re going with the Buck’s County Rubble on the bottom of the building, the stone portion right above the clapboard. Is that vinyl? MR. BILODEAU-No, it’s a. MR. VOLLARO-Not the stone. I’m talking about the horizontal, what looks like clapboard. MR. BILODEAU-I believe it’s vinyl, yes. I think I said that somewhere. MR. VOLLARO-I think I recall seeing that someplace along the line here. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And what color is the siding? MR. BILODEAU-It’s that Chocolate Brown. MR. HUNSINGER-Chocolate Brown, or whatever that vinyl comes in that’s close to that. That Chocolate Brown swatch is a Sherwin Williams paint, and the brown is, there’s 100,000 browns, but as close to that as we can get. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Good enough. MR. HUNSINGER-So I’ll just say, or equivalent. MR. VOLLARO-It talks about architecture of building panels on this. There’s a Kylar. MR. BILODEAU-That’s the surface. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the surface, and it’s, let’s see, I can’t identify this any better than architectural building plans from Atlas International, Inc., and the color we’re choosing is 04, Chocolate Brown. Okay. Now I’ve got a couple of questions that I’ve got to ask, because when our people come around to inspect, they’re going to be inspecting to this drawing, this basically ’05 drawing. Now, to go back, the wall mounts, if we look at those wall mounts, must be changed to the Seagull. If you look at the drawing, and I guess I’ve got to go do that, if you go down to Rev. 5, you’ve got, some of the things on Rev. 5 are not correct. I checked them last night, and we can do this as part of the motion, but I want to just get it across to you. If you get to your Sheet Three of Three, the wall mounts on that building are called WPM Series 12, that when you go to your definition of wall mounts, where you’ve got your photo metrics listed, your wall mount is a Seagull Mod A341-10, and the reason I’m doing that is when we get an inspector to come out and he looks at this and doesn’t see what he sees on the print, he’s going to call. MR. BILODEAU-Seagull is the right one, and that’s one that’s mounted in the eaves. That’s why we did it. I guess I just forgot to make that change. MR. HUNSINGER-So a change needs to be made on Sheet Three? MR. VOLLARO-It’s on Three of Three, where it says Stucco SL Series 18 inch wall mounts, 100 watt metal halide lamp. That has to be changed to Seagull Mod 8341-10 wall mounted. MR. BILODEAU-That’s an eaves mount. It goes in the eaves, that Seagull one. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, according to the drawing that’s correct. That’s where it does go. Now there’s one other that I looked at, and I, no, that’s it. That’s the only difference in the drawing. That’s the only one. You wouldn’t want to be halfway through your construction and have them taken down. MR. BILODEAU-That’s for sure. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) MR. VOLLARO-And that’s all I have for it, and do you have that one down, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to let the area ratio go. Actually you used .22. It should be .3 for this application, but it doesn’t skew things enough for us to even get involved with it, I don’t think. I think you used, instead of 22, you used .3. MR. BILODEAU-Regarding what? MR. VOLLARO-The area ratio. There’s a print in here on that. Okay. Now, I think, having done that, I think the public hearing on this was left open, and I’m going to just see if there’s anybody here that would like to speak to this application from the point of a public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-And I think we’re into a Short Form SEQRA here, Chris, on this one. MR. HUNSINGER-Don’t you want to go through our usual site plan? MR. VOLLARO-I think we’ve been through that once. We can if we want to, but I think we’ve been through it, because this is the third time around. I think on the 21 we got into that. st MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 59-2004, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ARLEN ASSOCIATES/G.R.J.H, INC., and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 18 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Before the motion is made, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I just want to go through, I guess, the latest C.T. Male comments, to make sure that we’re all, you understand exactly what has to happen. Part of the reason is because on their Comment One from their January 7 letter, they attached a marked up plan with comments to show the lateral that’s proposed, and I just wanted to make sure everyone was okay with items five and seven also. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think, in looking at the drawings, I just calculated that, one of the severe things that C.T. Male had in that letter was the fact that that lateral was projecting above the surface. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-They’ve changed the slope on that considerably, and my calculation says now that it’s down below that, but I need C.T. Male to say that, not me. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-But that’s the one thing I was really concerned about was that pipe wasn’t that close to the surface, and does everybody understand what we’re chatting about here? MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. This is obviously going to be based on a receipt of approval from C.T. Male to their 1/07 letter. What I did want to get into for just a minute here was the site development data. I think that I’m going to ask Staff about this. They were supposed to use .3 for their calculation in that, and I believe they used 22, if I can find it here somewhere. MR. BILODEAU-Are you referring to a paragraph, .2 and .3? MR. VOLLARO-No, it’s a 22% of. I’ll get it in a minute. I know I just had it here for a second. MR. HILTON-What he’s referring to is the floor area ratio, I believe, for this zone, which is .3, 30%. However, if you’ve calculated yours to be under 22, or comply with 22, either way, if you’re under 30, you’re okay. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. He is. The form just hasn’t got the right number on it. MR. HILTON-And that’s fine. You can stipulate that they revise the site development data. MR. VOLLARO-And I think that’s all we’ve got. We can go ahead and get a motion on this. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Maybe I could just quickly review conditions. I have four. The first one is all in reference to the Rendition Number of the proposed elevation view. The second one is on the wall mounts, that they should be changed to the Seagull Model 8341-10, as shown on the lighting plan. Obviously the last one would be the final signoff from C.T. Male, but I did want to add something to, relative to the C.T. Male letter. Again, that the drawing should be revised to include the comments in the marked up plan, as contained in the attachment to the January 7, 2005 letter from C.T. Male. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think those attachments are all of the 1/10. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Right. Yes. I’m comfortable with that. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 59-2004 ARLEN ASSOCIATES/G.R.J.H., INC., Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 59-2004 Applicant: ARLEN ASSOCIATES / G. R. J. H., INC. SEQR Type: Unlisted Property Owner: King Fuel Co. Zone: HC-Intensive Location: Intersection Quaker Road & Dix Avenue Applicant proposes demolition of the existing kiosk and construction of a 2,930 sq. ft. convenience store as well as site improvements for the associated gasoline islands. Convenience stores and gasoline stations in an HC zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Warren Co. Planning: 10/13/04 Tax Map No. 303.19-1-61 Lot size: 1.5 acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: 10/26/04 [tabled] WHEREAS, the application was received on 9/14/04; and WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and 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 10/26/04 and 12/21/04; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) 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. That the proposed building shall be built in accordance with rendition number two which is the bottom design of the supplied proposed elevation view provided by the applicant. Specifically, that the roof would be of Owens Corning Sierra Gray roof shingles, the Oak Ridge Pro Series. The lower portion of the building shall be Bucks County Rubble on the stone portion as shown, and that the siding shall be chocolate brown or equivalent. It’s actually Atlas International Architectural Building panels, as provided by the applicant. 2. The walls mounts referenced on Sheet Three of Three, should be changed to Seagull Model 8341-10 as shown on the Lighting Plan, which is Page Two of Three 3. The drawing shall be revised to include comments and marked up plan as provided in the January 7, 2005 letter from C.T. Male 4. The applicant obtain a final sign-off from C.T. Male. 5. All light fixtures to be inspected by Staff (for compliance) prior to installation. 6. Do Not Enter / Exit Signs shall be added at each one-way drive. Duly adopted this 18th day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. VOLLARO-Okay, you’re all set. Good luck to you. MR. BILODEAU-Thank you gentlemen, and ladies. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 65-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED PETER ROZELLE & PHIL WHITTEMORE PROPERTY OWNER: HELEN SLEIGHT AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER, ETHAN HALL ZONE: NC-10 LOCATION: 333 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH EXISTING GARAGE/SERVICE BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCT TWO (2) 9,000 SQ. FT. OFFICE BUILDINGS. OFFICE USES IN THE NC-10 ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/10/04 TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-31 LOT SIZE: 1.69 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030 MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, on the next application, the Rozelle/Whittemore, we do have a letter that we received in the afternoon this afternoon, requesting a tabling. They state that they would like to resubmit by the February deadline to appear before this Board in March. So, just to let you know. MR. METIVIER-Are they submitting new plans, or just coming back? MR. HILTON-I think they have to address some C.T. Male comments. MR. METIVIER-We should hold on to what we have? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) MR. HILTON-I would, yes. MR. METIVIER-Okay. MR. HILTON-Also, Mr. Chairman, I’m not sure if anyone here is here for the Queensbury Partners application. There have been some agendas prior to January 5 that listed that item th being on this evening’s agenda, but that, in fact, is on next week’s agenda, the 25. th MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That’s correct. MR. HILTON-So if there’s anyone here that came to hear or talk about the Queensbury Partner’s application, at the corner of Bay and Haviland, that will be on next week. MR. VOLLARO-Do we want to make a tabling motion for Whittemore, or it’s just a withdrawn? MR. HILTON-They’re requesting a tabling. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So I think we have to have a motion to table. MR. SANFORD-What was the reason again? I’m sorry. C.T. Male comments? MR. VOLLARO-Adequate time. MR. HILTON-It’s as a result of recent engineering comments, they want to address the C.T. Male comments. MR. SANFORD-That’s fine. I’m comfortable with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want a motion, Mr. Chairman? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, if you want to make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 65-2004 PETER ROZELLE & PHIL WHITTEMORE, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: Until one of the March meetings, at the request of the applicant, so that the applicant can have sufficient time to address the engineering concerns. Duly adopted this 18 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1978 PREVIOUS SEQR RAVEN INDUSTRIES PROPERTY OWNER: HAROLD RAVEN ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: VERANDA LANE APPLICANT SEEKS APPROVAL TO MODIFY A PREVIOUS SUBDIVISION BY ADJUSTIG A LOT LINE FOR LOT 1 OF THE BERKELEY SUBDIVISION ON WEST MOUNTAIN, LOCATED AT THE NW CORNER OF VERANDA LANE AND WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD. MODIFICATION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. TAX MAP NO. 295.17-1-10 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STEVES-Good evening. My name is Matt Steves with Van Dusen & Steves. I represent Raven Industries on this application. This is Lot One on the corner of West Mountain Road and 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) Veranda Lane of the Vista Subdivision, and they want to do a boundary line adjustment to that lot. The neighboring property on West Mountain Road directly to the north of Lot One, that’s basically where the yard and usage has been on that lot for years, and now that they’re ready to get a building permit on Lot One, in marking it out they’ve decided that that would be the best thing to do is an adjustment with the neighbor so that it keeps the peace with everybody there, and that’s the only reason for this application. The lot would still conform to the one acre zoning. Still has the required lot widths and dimension requirements for the zone. MR. VOLLARO-Have you had an opportunity to look at Staff’s? MR. STEVES-The comment on Lot Nine? MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s a lot of Staff comments here that, is this lot, when it gets done, referred to as Tax Map No. 295.17-1-11? Is that what this will be? MR. STEVES-I do believe that’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-I think that in Staff comments, and some of them are, I think, very apropos, it talks about, maybe the first one, the plat shall show the lots as subdivided as approved through February 2004. I think Staff is saying there that the whole subdivision should be identified. MR. STEVES-We identify the whole subdivision. Lot Nine was originally approved a few years ago for a three acre lot, and was proposed to be subdivided into two one and a half acre lots. Mr. Raven was building a house on Lot Nine, and then subsequently I think Mike O’Connor represented the owner of that, and they split that off. I didn’t represent that application, but I can easily dash that line in on this map for you. MR. VOLLARO-So Lot Nine is really now subdivided into two lots? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think the second comment is the limits of the subdivision shall be clearly noted. If you want me, I’ll go down through Staff’s notes, but have you read Staff’s comments? MR. STEVES-Yes. I have no problem with any of those. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STEVES-We can put the metes and bounds on every lot. I mean, the total configuration of the property and the subdivision as shown on the map, we only put the particular information on Lot One so you knew exactly what was changing on the subdivision. It’s a modification, the one lot in the subdivision. In other modifications we have submitted, we only submitted the one or two lots that we are modifying to you on a smaller map and don’t even show you the remaining subdivision, but if that’s what you want, we have no problem with that. MR. VOLLARO-I think, yes. I think that the comments that Staff had made I think are valid comments, and probably we haven’t done it before, but we have some an evolving situation here with some new Staff members here who bring to the table some considerable amount of knowledge. MR. STEVES-Exactly. I have no problem with any of the comments. I was just bringing you forward to what we have done historically for years. As far as identifying the boundaries of the entire subdivision, I’ll put the areas on all the lots, anything you would want so that the Mylar can be signed and filed, but the bottom line here is it’s a modification to one of the lots to adjust a lot line with a neighboring property. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) MR. SANFORD-I’m concerned about one thing, though, Bob. Curb cuts. Particularly on West Mountain Road, because what you’re doing by moving this and making the lot smaller, you’re creating. MR. STEVES-The road, the driveway will enter off Veranda Lane. MR. SANFORD-Okay, the one for Lot Number One? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. SANFORD-How about this other lot to be created? MR. STEVES-It’s an existing home lot. There’s a house on there. MR. SANFORD-On it or to the north of it? MR. VOLLARO-To the north. MR. STEVES-The existing lot line where it says original lot line is the lot line between Lot One and the existing polygon shaped lot. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So there’s a house on that now? MR. STEVES-There is a house on there now. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So there’s not going to be another curb cut on West Mountain Road? MR. STEVES-No, there is not. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-We didn’t realize that that house we looked at when we pulled up to there was on here. We were showing the house, in our minds, being over here. MR. STEVES-No. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not? Okay. So when we looked at it we thought it might be just a little bit north of the drawing. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So we’re not getting another lot then. MR. STEVES-No. There are no new tax parcels being created by this application. This is an adjustment between two current tax parcels, and both of them will remain compliant with the zone. MR. SANFORD-Yes, you know, if that’s the case, Bob, I’m not sure what we really need in addition to what we have here. MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t think so either. I don’t think there’s a SEQRA required. This is a lot line adjustment. So we’re not going to be doing a SEQRA tonight on that, for a lot line adjustment. MR. BAKER-Actually, we discussed that point with Counsel, and they recommended that it be treated as an Unlisted Action. MR. VOLLARO-That’s all right. Then we’ll do the SEQRA on it. There was no SEQRA supplied. Normally on something like this we don’t get a SEQRA document ever from Staff on a modification. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) MR. BAKER-In this case the SEQRA record for the original approval of the subdivision was unclear, and that’s why Counsel, Cathi Radner specifically recommended this be treated as Unlisted. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. So we have a previous SEQRA that wasn’t clear. That’s the reason for doing a SEQRA on this? Okay. Was it a Short Form or a Long one, do you remember? MR. BAKER-A Short Form. Did the Board receive copies of the Short Form? MR. VOLLARO-No. At least this Board member did not. What I’ve got here is what I have in my hand. MR. STEVES-I did not submit one. Like I say, historically we send the maps in with the letter. MR. BAKER-I took the liberty of filling one out. That will just need Mr. Raven’s signature. MR. VOLLARO-I think we might want to, for the record, go through the SEQRA, as we normally do. MR. HUNSINGER-It sounds good to me. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 4-1978, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: RAVEN INDUSTRIES, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) Duly adopted this 18 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: th MR. VOLLARO-I’d just like to qualify that this SEQRA is for the whole subdivision and not just this application. Is that correct? MR. BAKER-No, it’s for this application. MR. VOLLARO-It’s for this application. MR. BAKER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. VOLLARO-Anybody want to make a motion? MR. METIVIER-What are we going to do about the map? Are we going to require that he get the Lot Nine corrected, and if so, can we include that as part of the motion? MR. STEVES-I have no problem. MR. VOLLARO-You mean to show the two lots on Lot Nine were split and subdivided? MR. METIVIER-On Lot Nine. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I’m with Tony. I’d like to see those comments that Staff referenced shown on the new plat. MR. METIVIER-I just don’t know why, well, I guess this could supercede that technically. MR. STEVES-I’ll put it all on the further signature, no problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, just so the record’s clean. MR. STEVES-Not a problem. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1978 RAVEN INDUSTRIES, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: As per resolution prepared by Staff with one condition: That the six items referenced in Staff Notes, Staff comments, be added to the final drawing submitted to Staff. 1. The plat shall show the lots as subdivided and approved through February 2004. 2. The limits of the subdivision shall be clearly noted. 3. The property line labeled as “ORIGINAL LOT LINE” should read “ORIGINAL LOT LINE – TO BE DELETED. a. Notes should be placed on the plat as follows: b. Area size to be conveyed to owner of Tax Map No. 295.17-1-11. c. Total new area size of parcel known as Tax Map No. 295.17-1-11. d. No new lots are created or approved by this modification. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) 4. The area to be conveyed should be labeled “AREA TO BE COVEYED.” 5. The Metes & Bounds of both of the new lot lines for the revised parcel known as Tax Map No. 295.17-1-11 should be shown on the plat. Duly adopted this 18 day of January, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. STEVES-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2005 SKETCH PLAN J. MICHAEL BLACKBURN AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: RR-5A, LC-10A LOCATION: RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 32.45-ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 5.18 TO 22.10 ACRES. APA, CEA TAX MAP NO. 253.-1-18 LOT SIZE: 32.45 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT, J. MICHAEL BLACKBURN, PRESENT MR. STEVES-Good evening. Again, Matt Steves representing Mike Blackburn on this application, who is sitting to my right. This is a three lot subdivision that’s proposed on the east side of Ridge Road and Route 9L. It’s in two different zones, a 10 acre zone, LC-10 acre and an RR-5. Lot Two is the existing home of the Blackburns, and proposing two new residential lots, one of 22.10 acres and one of 5.17. They would, all the lots would utilize the existing driveway, and then branch off of that. So there’d be a common drive. No new curb cuts. We have sent this to the APA, and we do have a Nonjurisdictional letter issued from the Adirondack Park Agency. The wetlands that are depicted on the map were flagged by Mark Rooks of the Adirondack Park Agency, and it was verified by him. The copies of that are in your file as well. So, pretty straightforward. The area that we took on the westerly edge of the wetlands, it does have some upland on the back side but it is impossible to get to, crossing the wetlands. So what we did is we just took the entire area from the west line of the wetlands to the east edge of the property, and just took it out of the density calcs and we still are well within the density regulations of the two zones to allow the three lots. This is Sketch Plan, and if everything is suitable with the Town, we can move forward to the test pits in the Preliminary. We do realize that if we want to utilize the common driveway as it exists and branch off of that, that there may be the requirement for a variance to allow that. We just think it’s better suited to do that, instead of creating more curb cuts on Route 9L, and open it up to any questions that the Board may have. MR. SANFORD-How do you do the density calculations when you have a split zone like this? MR. STEVES-It depends on where the structure is going to be built, but we take the area in both zones and then subtract any wetlands that are in that zone to allow, there’s actually an allowing for an extra lot, but the configuration of the property just doesn’t lend itself to that. We took the house on Three and the best location for the house is in the 10 acre zone. So then we said that that lot has to have 10 acres. MR. SANFORD-I’ve got you. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) MR. STEVES-And then the Lot One, which would be in the five acre zone, has to have five acres. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. BAKER-And the Zoning Administrator did review the density calculations and approved of them. MR. SANFORD-Okay. No, I just didn’t know. MR. STEVES-Understood. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. In the strict sense of the word, this submission does not fully comply with A136-6, as covered by the Staff notes. Now this is, one of the things we’re trying to do here, in Sketch Plan, is get a little more detail information on it, so that when we come to Final, we had a much better look at the Sketch Plan, in terms of slopes, contours, things of this nature, that could come up in the Preliminary, and then we would be faced with a comment like, well, you didn’t say anything in Sketch, so what’s the problem. So we’re going to try to get a little more formal, I think, with our Sketch Plans as we move along here, and that’s attested to by some of the comments you see in the Staff notes. For example, I guess the scale on 183-6 calls for one inch to fifty. We’re getting one inch to one hundred here, on this one. There’s a lot of things, for example, I can’t tell here, on Lot Three, I can’t clearly determine the slope of grading, for example, on Lot Three. There’s no way I can tell how that’s flowing. However, I can take a look at the property that’s in Washington County and see which way it’s sort of heading toward the wetlands. That I can see. MR. STEVES-Yes. This is immediately north of the Dunham’s Bay Fish and Game Club, the shooting range there, and you know that’s very flat all the way back, and you don’t really get into any kind of a slope until you get to the other side of the wetlands, and it slopes towards the wetlands. That’s a little bit of a pocket low area there. MR. VOLLARO-To the uninitiated, who doesn’t know that, the contour lines would tell them that that’s a flat area. MR. STEVES-Understood. We’ve been in discussions with this before, and I understand, and knowing how you’re going to move forward in new applications, that’s fine. We’ll comply. It’s a very flat site. Before, to come in for Sketch Plan is to get an idea of what we have here. We’ll start putting the USGS topography on it. The 20 footers that are on USGS topography in this area, I think you’d have one contour on the site. We’ll just give you a lot of information, but before we get into that kind of a detail, as far as topography, it’s an awful lot of expense to go through before we find out from this Board whether they like the concept. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, you can see the 360 line right along Ridge Road, and then the 380 line is really almost off the property. MR. VOLLARO-Way back. MR. HUNSINGER-So that tells you it’s pretty flat. MR. SANFORD-Going back to the density calculation, Lot Number One you’re using five because it’s in the RR-5, and proposed house on Lot Number Three you’re using 10 because it’s in the LC-10A, but Lot Number Two, where the existing house is, is actually located in LC-10, and yet it looks like you’ve got 5.18 acres. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. You’re allowed to do that because we basically have doubled the density, you know, we have more than enough density on Lot Three. If you look at the total 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) density of the land outside of the wetland, then you divide that by the requirements in each zone, we have room in the zones to accommodate that, and I have more than 10 acres in the 5 acre zone. So I’d be allowed to have two lots. The existing house does sit back into the 10 acre zone, but complies with all the required setbacks, but as your Staff has just stated that it does meet all the zoning requirements of this Town. MR. SANFORD-Okay. I just wanted to make sure that what you said earlier, Lot Number Two doesn’t jive up with that. MR. STEVES-Well, we said because of where we placed the houses, you know, that was the logical scenario for the size of the lots, but as far as the density calc’s, if you take the entire area within the five acre zone, you have more than 10 acres. MR. SANFORD-Well, you’d have to exclude that wetland there. MR. STEVES-We did. MR. SANFORD-Okay. I’ve got you, and Lot Two and Lot One, absent the wetland, is a little over 10. So you can have two. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The last thing I have on here is a note that this application cannot be grandfathered under the LC-10 at this time, and I guess I’d like Counsel to explain that. I didn’t quite understand it myself, but we’re going through this potential rezoning thing here. Is that what this refers to, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-I doubt it. I’m not sure, but the fact that there’s potential rezoning doesn’t affect something sitting before us now. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I didn’t think so, so I didn’t understand the comment in the Staff note. That’s why I’m raising it. MR. SANFORD-Well, I’m not even sure grandfathering is legal. MR. METIVIER-I can see where they’re coming from with that comment, but I still don’t necessarily agree with it. MR. HUNSINGER-My interpretation is that Counsel was saying a Preliminary is not an application. MR. SCHACHNER-Sketch. MR. HUNSINGER-Sketch Plan is not an application, and until an application is filed, you don’t know. MR. METIVIER-But however, I mean, we’re in the midst of some speculation or rezoning that LC-10. MR. VOLLARO-LC-10 to LC-42. MR. METIVIER-So, I mean, we’re also staring at something that’s probably been in concept for quite some time. So there’s such a fine line here, as to, you know, where this could end up. MR. SANFORD-Tony, I mean, maybe Mark can clarify it, but I mean, this whole concept of grandfathering hasn’t been clarified enough for me to feel comfortable with it anyway. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) MR. METIVIER-Well, this whole concept of rezoning hasn’t been clarified enough either. MR. SCHACHNER-And I agree with both those comments. Remember that despite common misconception on this point, even, following up on Chris’s comment, even if this were an application filed, until and unless a zone change actually occurs, and until and unless the Town Board, as the legislative body, enacts a zone change, it’s not at all cast in stone whether something is grandfathered under the current zoning or not, which I think is essentially what Rich is saying as well, and that’s correct. So I think the only point anyone is trying to make is that, and I think the applicant’s well aware of this, is that there may or may not be a change of zone, and the mere appearance at Sketch Plan doesn’t guarantee that the change of zone wouldn’t necessarily affect this proposal. It might, it might not, and I think the applicant’s well aware of that. MR. STEVES-Completely understood. MR. VOLLARO-You understand that. Okay. MR. METIVIER-Are you planning on clear cutting these lots? MR. BLACKBURN-No. MR. METIVIER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, in terms of some feedback, personally I like the idea of the shared driveway. I think anything we can do to limit the curb cuts on, you know, Ridge Road, is a good thing. MR. STEVES-The driveway that’s there has been there. I think Mike built his house in ’84. MR. BLACKBURN-’84, yes. MR. STEVES-’84, and it’s the perfect location for sight distance, and instead of trying to, we could create the lots to conform to allow three driveways, but why? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think you could make it. I looked at that calculation. MR. STEVES-It would be real close. MR. VOLLARO-It would be real close. I said here the third driveway would be right over the wetland, and you’ve got that 330 foot separation requirement. You’d have to do a real zingo to get in there. MR. STEVES-Right, and we have, you’ve seen plans like that, it’s not realistic. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Even though you might have to go for a variance under, I guess we even said what that variance might be. MR. SANFORD-Is this the site plan where, when we drove in the driveway, we had a big sign that said smile, you’re on a surveillance camera? MR. BLACKBURN-That would be me. MR. SANFORD-Okay. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) MR. STEVES-But as far as the comments that Staff has made, we have no problems with any of that. Bob, one of the comments you made about the 50 scale plan to 100 scale plan, I understand that. It’s just sometimes when you have a one acre lot and you show it at a 100 scale, you can’t see it. You go to the 50 scale on this and I’ll need a map just about the size of one of the doors behind you, and we can do that. I don’t have a problem with that. If it was a large subdivision where you might have 50 lots and you could, you know, show a phase line, or show a match line, here, I wouldn’t ask for a waiver on that requirement, but I can gladly put it at 50 scale if the Board would like to see that. MR. SEGULJIC-Are these all the rock walls that are on the site? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s everything, and if I could just get a clarification with the APA letter. I don’t know who to direct that towards. Maybe Counsel. MR. SANFORD-The APA letter, it’s nonjurisdictional. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. He said he doesn’t require a permit. MR. SANFORD-That other stuff doesn’t apply. MR. SEGULJIC-Why doesn’t that other stuff apply? MR. SANFORD-Well, it says it later on. In Staff notes, I think it is, say that all that other information doesn’t apply to what we’re dealing with. MR. VOLLARO-It says discussion of a potential violation and possible enforcement action by the Agency in this letter is unrelated to this application. MR. STEVES-It has nothing to do with this particular parcel. MR. SANFORD-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it has to do with some subdivisions that took place before without a proper APA notification. MR. SEGULJIC-But wasn’t this part, this whole subdivision, this subdivided, so it can’t come back to affect it? MR. STEVES-No. That’s why they issued the nonjurisdictional, as far as what we were proposing on this parcel. MR. VOLLARO-The APA letter is pretty clear. It says there’s no permit required. MR. SANFORD-Well, the purpose of this Sketch Plan is so you get an idea what we’re looking for when you come back. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Now, we’re going to want, Bob, I mean, have you done any work on the pits? I mean, we’re going to want test pits done around where these proposed septic systems are and that kind of a thing. MR. STEVES-That, we have talked to Charlie Maine and talked to the Town Engineer, and we were waiting to schedule that. I believe it is the indication of this Board in the past, and I just want to reaffirm that, that you want the Town Engineer present at these test pits? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) MR. SANFORD-We would like that, because we drove on the site, and it’s a nice piece of property, but it looks like there’s a lot of frozen water on it. It’s obviously lowland, and so, yes, we would like to have good verification. MR. STEVES-Not a problem. I just wanted to make sure that we didn’t want to schedule that until we knew what we were doing. MR. SANFORD-Right. MR. STEVES-And the other matter, so you’re well aware, sometimes you can get that APA write off with the wetlands and everything in a few weeks, but in this instance, it didn’t happen. It took a few months. It took more than a few months. It took them three and a half months to get them there to flag the wetlands. We wanted to have that behind us before we came to this Board, otherwise it’s just another hurdle we have to deal with. MR. VOLLARO-I have a question, Matt. Did you submit to the APA the fact that you were going to be doing, in other words, did you let them know, was there a letter of submission to them, and that’s how you got this jurisdictional determination back? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. A letter, a map, a copy of this subdivision plan with the wetlands delineated on it and the density, and the layout was submitted to the Adirondack Park Agency by Attorney Dan Smith. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Because I see they get very specific in their reply letter about the prior action, and I was wondering how they came up with such detailed information on that. Okay. There’ll be no SEQRA on this since it’s a Sketch Plan. So we can go right into an approval here. MR. METIVIER-Well, we don’t do anything on this. MR. STEVES-I don’t think you have a formal approval. I just want to know if you have any other comments. MR. SANFORD-The only thing I see, I mean, are we okay with the driveway, the shared drive? MR. VOLLARO-I would rather have that then them trying to, they could get two driveways in on Lot Number One and Lot Number Two. MR. SANFORD-I agree, Bob. The only reason I’m bringing it up is because we’ve had some concerns about, on a couple of them, of prior unrelated to this site plans we were looking at or subdivisions where we were concerned about driveways serving more than one home, and prior safety issues if there was a situation where a car broke down and the road was too narrow and all that kind of stuff, and I just want to be consistent because we have, one of these applications is kind of still in front of us, and we’re wrestling with it. The other one could come back to us, and, you know, I’d like to be consistent. I’m not sure where we stand on it, to be honest with you. MR. METIVIER-But I think the one you’re referring to, that lot arrangement was much, much, much different than this one. Those lots were back to back to back, and that driveway drove throughout them. Right? Is that what you’re referring to, the castle? MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. METIVIER-I mean, this is, honestly, a complete different approach. I guess I do need clarification from somebody, though, why you’d need a variance on the driveway. Length, or? MR. STEVES-I believe that you’re supposed to, by Code, utilize your frontage for your access, and if you don’t, it requires a variance for that. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) MR. BAKER-That’s correct, and that’s what the Code states. MR. METIVIER-So what would you do to get around that, more curb cuts? MR. STEVES-How to get around that? I’d have to go to the Zoning Board and get, obtain a variance. MR. METIVIER-No, I know, but if you didn’t want to get a variance. MR. STEVES-Then I would have a common driveway for Lot One and Two and then Lot Three have its own driveway. MR. METIVIER-That’s what I was figuring, too. So that’s an option. MR. STEVES-That’s an option, but we look at disturbance. Using the existing driveway with the turnaround branching off, we have less disturbance that way. It’s in a prime location for sight distance, and if you drove down that, that’s a pretty substantial driveway. MR. METIVIER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-The other plus is you only have one curb cut on Ridge Road this way. MR. METIVIER-See, this way it’s a win/win for everybody, for us, for him, but he has an alternative, too, as opposed to some of the other applications that didn’t have an alternative. They were just, this is what we need to do. MR. STEVES-Well, I think every application has to stand on its own and look at it for its own. It might be good for some applications, and not for others. Just like anything, and that’s what we’re here for is your opinion, but that’s what we had proposed to do it that way. We thought it was the best scenario. MR. VOLLARO-Well, to recognize Mr. Sanford’s concern about, I think some of the other proposals we looked at that had shared driveways also had some slopes associated with them as well, and this looks pretty flat. So I don’t know. MR. SANFORD-In some cases it was just as simple as how narrow the road, the driveway was, and for an emergency vehicle to be able to negotiate around an existing vehicle. I mean, that same kind of concern would probably present itself here. If, for instance, there is an emergency at the existing wood frame house, but there is some kind of traffic congestion down the road, how, you know, I don’t know. I mean, again, I just want to make sure that what we’re doing here. MR. VOLLARO-Is consistent with what we’ve been looking at in the past. MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And I think that’s a valid point. MR. SANFORD-And in fact does the Town Code speak in terms of , I guess, when does a shared driveway become a private road and all that kind of stuff? MR. STEVES-You can’t have more than three lots on a common driveway without some type of a homeowners association, the fourth lot, or more than three, you have to have a homeowners association. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So there’s an answer. MR. VOLLARO-It certainly doesn’t answer the safety issue that you raised. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) MR. SANFORD-No, but. MR. SEGULJIC-They could also widen the neck of it. MR. VOLLARO-Well, or specify a little what the width of the road bed is. I mean, on this scale is, what, this is one to one hundred. So it’s a 20 foot drive. You certainly can get two vehicles around a 20 foot driveway. MR. BLACKBURN-Not up in the wooded part, but that first part of the driveway and that would be the area where you’d have the problem, because it splits off at the wide part, at the top of that little slope. MR. METIVIER-Where that sign is, is that pretty much where you’ve split it off? MR. BLACKBURN-The split would have to be right in front of that pole. MR. METIVIER-Yes, but that’s wide enough going in there. I mean, that’s 20 feet. That’s very wide. MR. STEVES-Like I say, it’s 20 feet up until, it doesn’t narrow until you get past where we’ve proposed the second branch off, then it narrows down to go around the loop near his home. MR. VOLLARO-Well, maybe we’d want to say that no portion of those driveways shall be less than 20 feet. MR. BAKER-Keep in mind as well that the Fire Marshal will be looking at this and will be looking at driveway width as well. MR. VOLLARO-I think his position in the past has been a 20 foot wide road. I’m not sure, though. I think that we’ve seen that before. I want to make sure that that’s consistent, but I think Mr. Sanford brings a good point up. Consistency is what we’ve been looking for here. MR. STEVES-And we’d rather work with you to establish a width that is suitable for you and still leave it a single driveway. MRS. STEFFAN-You might also look at criteria of your insurer. We have Zoning Codes. The Fire Marshal is also involved with the fire services, but what would the insurance companies of homeowners require. That would be another thing to look at. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So it’s really that, the driveway, and we’re also interested in test pit data on the subdivision lots. MR. STEVES-Tomorrow morning (lost words) will go in to schedule those. MR. SANFORD-Okay. I mean, I’m comfortable. Anything else that I’m missing? MR. METIVIER-Just let’s make sure that we have everything now that we can think of. MR. STEVES-Because if you’re comfortable with that, my next step, naturally, is to get that information gathered, come back here for Preliminary, but at the same time I’m also going to make an application for the driveway variance, knowing that this Board is in favor of the common drive. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I would go along with that. I think if you’re going to make an application to the ZBA, I think this Board, and let’s poll it and see, but does this Board feel that a common drive along Ridge Road is acceptable to this application? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) MR. METIVIER-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I do. So I think you can safely go before the ZBA and say that this Board concurs with the single drive. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-I also have a notation that you might want to, as you subdivide this property, you might want to have some kind of a notation in the deed that there’s an active rifle range right next to it. Because I know that’s been an issue with other subdivisions in the area, and so it might be something you want to consider putting in the deed. MR. VOLLARO-Good point. I think that’s it. MR. STEVES-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 2-2005 SEQR TYPE II KENNETH HEIN PROPERTY OWNER: J. & R. CANTZ, CAROLYN ACCARDI AGENT: JAMES MILLER, MILLER ASSOCIATES; MATT FULLER ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: 78 GLENWOOD AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATION AND CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENE TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. OFFICE USES IN THE MR-5 ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 1/12/05 TAX MAP NO. 296.19-1-19 LOT SIZE: 0.55 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 JIM MILLER & MATT FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-You are, for the record? MR. FULLER-Matt Fuller, Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker, Firth, the attorney for Mr. Hein. MR. MILLER-Jim Miller, Landscape Architect. MR. VOLLARO-Do you want to go over your project a little bit and tell us what you’re doing there. MR. MILLER-Yes. The property is on the north side of Glenwood Avenue. Here’s the driveway, back to Westwood. The property to the west is vacant. It’s part of the Wiswall property. Right now there is an existing residence. It’s two story with some one story additions to the rear. Mr. Hein, the applicant, is going to purchase property. He’s looking to renovate the building, for a professional office. He’s in the insurance business and it’s going to be an All State office. The driveway is going to stay in approximately the same direction, to meet the Code requirements. It’s going to be widen and shifted slightly away from the existing building. There’ll be a single driveway. They’ll come in, there’ll be three parking spaces provided for customers, to the west side of the building. One of those will be handicap, and the staff parking is in the rear. There’ll be four spaces, two in the garage and two on the pavement. The existing, actually, I will show a copy of the building elevation I received today. One of the things I’d like to clarify, the note shows the removal of that front porch. Because of the existing from the building and access to the upstairs where the stairs are right in that corner, we’d like to change that to remain, but would be a secondary exit. To the west side will be a new stairway and covered porch to provide access into the new lobby area, and also to provide the required handicap access ramp off the north side of the property. The existing grades on the site, for the most part, the front portion drains westerly into a low area and into the field to the west. We’re going to maintain that same pattern. The driveway will be, the drainage will be improved where a more defined swale will be provided along the property line and there’ll be a stone trench. The existing roof, the roof drainage, there’ll be some gutters installed on the building, and will also be directed in that area. There was some minor comments from C.T. Male, which 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) we received a signoff on. There’ll be one freestanding sign on the west side of the driveway. There was a comment from Staff that we had not provided a sign on that. We’ll be well within the Sign Ordinance. I think we’re only looking at about a 25 foot, a 20 square foot two face, two sided sign, and typically it’s going to have a blue and white All State logo that’s required, and then underneath it will have the name of the branch office, and it will have Ken Hein’s name on that, but we meet the setback. It will be a freestanding sign, and it will be well within the required square footage. Typically we haven’t submitted anything in the past on a sign detail like that, since the sign permit’s required, and then what we’ve also proposed is the existing landscaping along the front would be removed. There’s been a couple of questions about the, there’s two existing crabapples in the front, about removing those, and we went back and we looked at it again. A couple of reasons. One of the crabapples is kind of large and spreading, and it’s directly in front of the building, and it’s against the building. We’d like to open that up to create a little more light into the offices and a little more visibility. The other crabapple is off to the side where we’re proposing a sign, and we won’t be able to keep that one. One of the things, if you look at the grading plan, we’ve had to raise the grade of that driveway in order to get the grade closer to the elevation of the floor of the building, to accommodate the handicap ramp. The existing grade that’s there now is about a foot and a half lower, and we wouldn’t have enough room for the ramp at the required slope, if we maintain that grade the same. So we propose removing those trees. The evergreens and the trees on the east side along the driveway and the hedge row along the east and north and the west will remain, and if you look at the landscape plan, the entire front and the new entry will be landscaped. There’ll be landscaping around the sign, and the landscaping will continue around the side of the parking area to provide some buffering of those parking spaces, and we’re replacing, in addition to the shrubs, we’re replacing five trees. We have to replace the two we propose removing. The other thing is the lighting. They don’t operate late into the night, pretty much. They close very early. So the only thing we’re concerned about is lighting during the twilight hours this time of years. There’ll be lights, building mounted lights, at the garage door, at the new stairway, and that, the other doorways on the north and the east. The only freestanding light is located in the back corner to provide some general illumination of the pavement, and of the ramp, and most of the lighting will be off at night, with the exception maybe of a couple of them at the doors for security, and other than that. MR. SEGULJIC-What kind of lighting levels are we looking at? MR. MILLER-The landscape plan shows some photo metrics. It’s fairly low level. MR. SEGULJIC-So what I’m asking, there’s going to be two foot candles? MR. MILLER-Well, probably right underneath the lights you might get four to five, but the building mounted lights were a 70 watt high pressure sodium, and I think the freestanding was 100 watt high pressure sodium. MR. VOLLARO-If you look at this thing, the outside number on these lights are .05 foot candles, a half a foot candle, and the inside one is two. MR. MILLER-The intent was to keep the light levels and everything compatible with the residential character of the property and the surroundings. MR. VOLLARO-What I’d like to do here is to go through, we have a regular checklist for the Board on site plan review criteria. I have some comments that I’ll make later on, but I thought we’d go through our regular site plan review criteria on this. Make sure everybody’s happy with it. Does anybody have any comments on design standards? Conformance with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and conformance with the design corridor standards? Building design, layout or signage? MR. SEGULJIC-The only question is the signage. The sign out front is going to be lit up? 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) MR. MILLER-Yes. I’ll take that note off, the up lighting. I was informed that that’s not allowed. So it will be lighted, but compatible with the Code. MR. SEGULJIC-What do you mean by lighted? MR. MILLER-Well, down lighted or back lighted, one or the other. MR. SEGULJIC-So there’ll be light shining on it. MR. MILLER-Well, it won’t be mounted on the ground shining up. My understanding is that’s what’s not allowed. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So how’s it going to be lit, then? MR. MILLER-It’ll either be back lit or lit with like gooseneck from the top. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Site development design, soil conditions. I think this is an existing site. So pedestrian access, parking field design, emergency access. MR. SANFORD-It all looks good, I think. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Stormwater and sewage. I think I have a comment on that. You don’t show the connection for water and sewer on there. MR. MILLER-That was a C.T. Male comment. We added that on to the plan. There’s an existing sewer/water lateral serving the property, and they’d be maintained for the office. It would be adequate for the office. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I know that. In connection with that, though, I have a note here. It says, essentially the Planning Board is not in possession of the final revised drawings. There is a set of revised drawings. So we’re working with one set and you’re working with the new set. MR. MILLER-Well, there’s very little that changed. We added, you know, if you looked at the C.T. Male comments, we added, they wanted, where we ran the roof drain into the stone trench, they wanted a yard drain added to that, which we did, and then they wanted me to show the sewer and water laterals and their approximate location on the plan, which we did. So they’re fairly minor, the comments. MR. VOLLARO-That’s true, but we’ve had this problem in the past of us reviewing one set of drawings and the applicant coming before the Board with a new set, which we don’t have. So we don’t have a one to one equation going there, you know. MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, if I may. You’re correct in that we don’t have the revised set as per the C.T. Male comments. Nor do we have in our files a copy of the response letter the applicant sent to C.T. Male. They were communicating directly with C.T. Male. MR. MILLER-Wait a minute, I beg to differ. Anything that I send to C.T. Male, I send to the attention of Craig Brown. They’re faxed simultaneously. So they have, you know, I’m not going to carry on a negotiation with C.T. Male without copying the Town. So, if it’s not in the file, there seems to be a problem downstairs. Things are disappearing out of files, because we’ve had a couple of instances where things have shown up missing, but the Staff had all the comments that we sent to C.T. Male. Typically what I do is I revised the drawings and then I’ll copy the sections and mark where the changes were, and I fax those down, and I have a cover letter that itemizes each one of the comments, and how we responded. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) MR. SANFORD-Okay. Mr. Miller, I don’t know if you’re aware. We had a recent workshop, and one of the topics of discussions was communications that takes place between applicants and C.T. Male, and I don’t know if Staff’s had the time or the opportunity to get that word out, but moving forward, we prefer to see all correspondence go through Staff and then Staff will then serve as the conduit, rather than direct communications, and I don’t know if George and/or anybody has had a chance to talk to the applicants at this point. The workshop was just last week. MR. MILLER-We’d be happy to do that. The one problem I had pointed out, that a lot of times this particular application, we had our comments early last week, which is, you know, quite timely, because a lot of times we don’t get the comments until the day before the meeting or sometimes the day of the meeting, and my only concern would be, we try our best to get a signoff, you know, if we have to submit to Staff and Staff has to submit to C.T. Male it goes back and forth, you know, we need a little bit more lead time to do that. Our intent always is to get the signoffs by the meeting, whenever possible. MR. SANFORD-That’s going to have to change, according to our new policy, unfortunately, but I appreciate your concerns. MR. VOLLARO-It’s going to add a little length to the process, but I think it’s going to take a lot of confusion out of it as well. The Board gets confused when it sits here with a certain set of criteria that it’s operated on, on its own, each individual Board member doing its own homework, if you want to call it that, and then you get here and you find out that what you’ve done is on the wrong set of drawings, and I, for one, find that very difficult to deal with. MR. MILLER-Much of the big projects that I submit I find a lot of comments are fairly minor, and the changes are not very substantial. I could understand your concern, though, if comments were more substantial. MR. VOLLARO-But then how do you draw that, where do you draw that gray line? It’s hard to draw it. We’re either operating with the same data or we’re not, and I think that’s what Mr. Sanford’s trying to get across here. So, incidentally, how is that going to work? Is the Staff going to notify the applicants or the people that normally come before this Board, the operatives in the Town, as to how this workshop’s turned out or? MR. HILTON-Yes. I believe once we put the notes or the minutes, if you will, from that meeting together, we are going to sit down and get some kind of correspondence to the applicants and agents throughout the community. MR. MILLER-Here’s a copy of my response to C.T. Male, and I had two fax cover letters, one to Craig and one to Jim Houston, and I faxed them out at the same time, the same comments. That’s how we always do it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HILTON-I guess, I’m not finding it in the file. MR. VOLLARO-It might have been just, whatever. Okay. Let’s go on to lighting design, conformance with design standards and accessory lighting. How does everybody feel about the lights? Looking at the lights, they all look to me, and what they’ve supplied with the lighting, like it’s pretty much a downcast and they really only have, what is it, one pole light and three wall mounts. So it’s a pretty low level lighting situation on that, unless anybody’s got trouble with lighting on it. How about landscape design? MR. HUNSINGER-I just want to make a comment on the landscaping. I really liked it, and I like the variety of different species that you used. I thought the landscaping plan looked really good. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) MR. MILLER-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-I did, too, and I can see the reason why you want to take those crabs out of there. MR. MILLER-Okay. Good. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any problem with that. Environmental, I don’t think there should be any on that. Wetlands, noise, air quality, aesthetics, historical factors and wildlife. Who is the neighbor to the west? MR. MILLER-That’s part of Doc Wiswall’s property. I don’t know if it’s still in the Wiswall family, but he owned all that on the corner, and that’s still part of it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Neighborhood character. Involved agencies or other criteria not reviewed, and I think we’re not getting a whole lot of comments from our Board on those, so I think we’ve gone through that pretty well. MRS. STEFFAN-I think the neighborhood character’s changed. Most of those buildings are commercial at this point. So it’s kind of fitting in with what’s going on on the rest of the road. MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s a nice addition to the corridor there. We have to do a SEQRA on this, but before we do that, I want to open the public hearing. Does anybody have any comments on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GEORGE WALTON, JR. MR. WALTON-I’m George T. Walton, Jr. I live at 60 Crane Court in Westwood. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the community to the east of this? MR. WALTON-Yes, sir. The presenter for Mr. Hein indicated that the hedges east and north of the above property would remain, basically would remain. Those hedges do not belong to that property. They belong to Westwood Homeowners Association. They were planted and owned by them. So I don’t know if that was an oversight on their plans. MR. VOLLARO-As soon as he comes back up, we’ll find out. Now, just for the record, those are the ones to the north? MR. SANFORD-They’re the ones to the east. MR. WALTON-Right there. MR. VOLLARO-They’re in there. So those belong to the Westwood Homeowners Association? MR. WALTON-Yes, sir. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It’s noted. We’ll get an answer for you on that when the applicant comes back up. MR. WALTON-Thank you. We have just a few comments regarding the property. We wonder what the exterior siding will be, that is color of the building. Is the color going to be altered from what it is now, and if so, could it be matched with the Westwood Homes which are gray, and also the office buildings across the, to the right hand side of our entrance are also gray and compliment the whole area. So that basically is a question. If they were considering or not sure 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) what they were going to put as a color for the building, we would like to have them consider the gray, and we are doing a complete paint job on our buildings, starting in May, and they will be that gray. MR. VOLLARO-Use the same color? MR. WALTON-Yes, sir. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SANFORD-Right now it’s white, right? MR. WALTON-Yes, sir. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the photograph that we got shows a white building. MR. WALTON-That’s right. Yes. We wonder about the architectural design of the garage that is basically the siding that it will have. Will it match the house, and along with that, could the shed that is on the property be eliminated or consolidated into the garage? MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. WALTON-Other than answers to those, I’m really happy we’re going to have a new neighbor. MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s a nice addition to the street itself. It’s a well known insurance agency. MR. WALTON-Right. MR. VOLLARO-But we’ll get answers on the planting, the color, the garage siding and the shed for you. MR. WALTON-Right. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-You’re very welcome. We’ll go over the first thing. What about the plantings there? MR. FULLER-I think they were identified to remain because they were off site, I’m not expressing any ownership. MR. VOLLARO-No ownership. MR. MILLER-It’s a good thing I didn’t say I was going to take them down. MR. FULLER-They’re off site. MR. MILLER-To be honest, I wasn’t sure. They’re along the property line, but I wanted to indicate that. They do a very good job screening, and we were going to keep it there. This is a basic design of the building. Essentially, what it is, this is the new side entrance. You’re looking at the side view, but basically it’s a two story farmhouse with a couple of additions on it, and the plan is to basically re-side it, re-shingle it, some new shutters. There’ll be some new windows, windows would be replaced, and this is a new entrance, and the ramp, so it’s essentially the same. The applicant intent was to keep the colors the same as what’s there, because the design of the building is a white farmhouse structure, and his intent was to re-side it in white, similar to what’s there, basically not change the character of it very much. MR. VOLLARO-The building that’s just to the other side of that, I think there’s a. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) MR. SANFORD-It’s a law office. MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s a law office. MR. MILLER-Yes, I think it is. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that looks a lot like what the Westwood community looks like. They kind of match that. MR. FULLER-I think they’re largely different structures. MR. VOLLARO-Well, they’re a different architectural structure, yes. One is a typical farmhouse structure. MR. MILLER-Quite honestly, I think having some variation is probably a good idea. I mean, I’m not sure that I would want everybody in the neighborhood to have a gray house, to be honest with you. I have nothing against gray, but the applicant’s intent was to do white. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MILLER-And the shed, there’s an existing shed there, and we may or may not need it. Our intent was to show it to remain because it’s out behind and not very visible, and with the new garage, if it wasn’t required, he could probably remove it, but since it was remaining there, you know, we just showed it staying. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-How about the siding treatment on the garage? Would it match the house? MR. MILLER-It would match, and also the garage would have windows on the side and shutters. So, you know, it would blend with the existing building. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-And it would be white as well? MR. MILLER-Yes, it would be the same. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I don’t really see anything. MRS. STEFFAN-In essence the side of the building will now be the front of the building? MR. MILLER-Yes, that will be the entrance, now, accessing off of the new parking spaces. MR. HUNSINGER-So I presume, you say you’re going to put on new siding. Would it be a vinyl siding? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s going to be a nice addition. MR. FULLER-There was one last Staff comment on here about the question about whether there was any envisioned future residential use, and there isn’t. The property really isn’t going to be compatible with that. So it would be the office, for now. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) MR. MILLER-The second floor is going to be used for storage of files and things like that. MR. VOLLARO-I guess one of my questions is, does Staff have a faxed info stated in C.T. Male’s letter of 1/11/05? Do you have that? MR. BAKER-Yes, we do. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that’s in your file. Okay. MR. BAKER-Yes. We don’t have the revised drawings that are referenced in that letter, however. Again, we don’t have them in this file here this evening. MR. VOLLARO-What is that you’re looking at, Jim? MR. MILLER-This is what I had sent out. MR. VOLLARO-There were some attachments to it? MR. MILLER-Yes. Typically, where a comment is made, we indicate it on the plan, and then it’s identified in that cover letter as to what we did. In this particular case, he was talking about adding some additional setback dimensions, and that’s what was sent to Jim Houston and copied to Craig Brown. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. FULLER-You do have C.T. Male’s 1/11/05 response, right? MR. BAKER-Yes. Actually, it’s incorrectly dated, but, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-In fact, we got that. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know that we have it. 1/11/05 is the C.T. Male letter. I do have it, January 11, 2005. It says provided the information included in the fax is incorporated in the final documents, the revision addresses our previous comments. I think we can make that a condition of our approval, that the information included in the fax dated, do we have a fax date number on that? MR. MILLER-Yes, I do. The 10, January 10. thth MR. VOLLARO-January 10. th MR. HUNSINGER-Do we need a SEQRA? MR. VOLLARO-I have to close the public hearing first. I don’t think anybody else is going to speak. So I’ll close the public hearing. MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, we do have one letter that was received. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. BAKER-For the record. Rather than read it in its entirety, I’ll just summarize. It’s received from Michael Borgos and Michael DelSignore, and they wish to express to the Board their full support and endorsement of the project. MR. VOLLARO-They’re the next door neighbor, I believe. MR. BAKER-The letter was dated today and received today. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So noted, and with that, I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-And we need to do a SEQRA with a Short Form. MR. HILTON-Actually, it’s a Type II. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, Type II doesn’t require SEQRA. Right? MR. VOLLARO-No SEQRA required on that? Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I had a couple of conditions from the discussion, and some may or may not be worth mentioning. The first one is relative to the lighted sign, that the lighting on the sign shall be in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. I mean, it’s kind of redundant, but since the current drawing shows an up lit sign. MR. VOLLARO-That’s a good point. Your new drawing has removed that up lit? MR. MILLER-Yes, and we’ll add that condition to the plan also. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know if we want to say anything regarding the siding treatment or color of either the house or the garage. I mean, do we want to say in the motion that the siding treatment and color of the garage should match house? MR. VOLLARO-I would. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we want to specify the color? I mean, the applicant said he intends to keep it white. Do we want to say that in the motion? MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t think so. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FULLER-That’s what we propose. MR. VOLLARO-If it’s going to stay white, and that’s their proposition, then I would leave it out. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and then the only other comment is that the applicant should provide copies of all correspondence provided to C.T. Male, and the applicant should update the drawings accordingly. MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 2-2005 KENNETH HEIN, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 2-2005 Applicant: Kenneth Hein SEQR Type II Property Owner: J. & R. Cantz, Carolyn Accardi Agent: James Miller, Miller Associates; Matt Fuller Zone: MR-5 Location: 78 Glenwood Avenue 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) Applicant proposes renovation and conversion of an existing single-family residence to professional office. Office uses in the MR-5 zone require site plan review and approval from the Planning Board. Warren Co. Planning: 1/12/05 Tax Map No. 296.19-1-19 Lot size: 0.55 acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: 1/18/05 WHEREAS, the application was received on 12/15/04 and WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and 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 1/18/05; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby APPROVED in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. That the lighting on the sign shall be in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the siding treatment and color of the garage will match the main house. 3. The applicant shall provide copies of all correspondence previously provided to C.T. Male. 4. The applicant will update the drawings accordingly. 5. All lights to be downcast/cutoff fixtures. All fixtures shall be inspected by Planning Staff for compliance prior to installation. Duly adopted this 18th day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. MILLER-Thank you very much. MR. FULLER-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-You’re all set. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2005 SKETCH PLAN JEFFREY CLARK PROPERTY OWNER: JOHN LICCARDO AGENT: JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS ZONE: LC-10, RR-5A APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 45.3 ACRE PARCEL INTO FOUR RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 5.4 TO 13.4 ACRES. APA CROSS REFERENCE: SB 18-04 TAX MAP NO. 240.-1-49 LOT SIZE: 45.3 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS JON LAPPER & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-Gentlemen, for the record, you are? MR. LAPPER-Jon Lapper and Tom Jarrett. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. I want to, just before we start on this, I just want to ask the applicant if they’ve made application to the Adirondack Park Agency on this? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. JARRETT-We have, and it is jurisdictional. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, because I’m going to read from a prior letter that we had to Mr. Blackburn, and that letter reads, pursuant to Paragraph 810 of Adirondack Park Agency, and Part 578.3 of the Agency regulations, the subdivision involving wetlands constitutes a Class A regional project and a regulated wetland activity respectively, and requires an Agency permit as such. MR. LAPPER-And we thank you for informing us of the law. MR. VOLLARO-No, I wanted to do that because it caught my eye on this particular application. MR. LAPPER-Yes, we are well aware of that, that when you do any project in the APA, you always know if you’re subdividing a wetland that, in and of itself, makes it jurisdictional. So we’re working with the APA. MR. VOLLARO-Well, my concern on that is the definition of what they call a Class A Regional project, and that’s defined in our Subdivision Reg’s. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-That’s why I wanted to tie those two together. MR. LAPPER-We will need APA approval, and the wetlands, in this case, were flagged by APA. MR. VOLLARO-So you’re still waiting for a jurisdictional letter? MR. JARRETT-We have a jurisdictional letter, and it’s asking for additional information including Town approval before they grant a permit, but we have a jurisdictional letter. MR. VOLLARO-Is there any further action from you on that jurisdictional letter before, in other words, before the Town gets to looking at, the Planning Board gets to look at the application, do you still have to go through some back and forth with the APA? MR. JARRETT-No, actually they’re waiting for Town approval, but we will provide the additional information to them concurrently with the information to this Board. So that both parties have all the information, and then they will grant their final approval once the Town takes action. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, we should get a copy of the APA jurisdictional letter as well for our file. MR. VOLLARO-Definitely. I’m just looking through the Blackburn letter to see, because this is the first time I’ve come across a Class A Jurisdictional regional project, and I just want to make sure that we’re on solid ground here with respect to hearing this application before we get a final jurisdictional letter from the APA. MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, I’m not sure if you’re confused in terminology or in substance, but when you say until you get a final jurisdictional letter from APA. APA has issued its jurisdictional determination. There’s no additional jurisdictional determination that’s going to come from APA. APA’s jurisdictional determination has been made in final, and that is that there is APA jurisdiction, and this project does require an APA permit. That’s not going to be superceded. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fine. So we can go forward with reviewing this project in anticipation of a permit? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, yes, except that while the applicant optimistically states that the APA will then issue a permit, there’s no guarantees, but the first part of what you said is you can go forward and review the application is correct. If APA, for some reason, doesn’t issue a permit, the applicant can’t do the subdivision, but that’s the applicant’s issue, not this Board’s issue. MR. METIVIER-But didn’t the applicant just state, also, that they can’t get a permit until they have approval from the Town, or is that not correct either? MR. SCHACHNER-What the applicant I believe stated, not to put words in their mouth, that APA would rather see this Board’s decision before they continue. MR. METIVIER-But it has no bearing on us whether we approve it or not, if they don’t get APA, so be it. MR. SCHACHNER-Precisely, just what I said. MR. SANFORD-I mean, again, in terms of defining the wetland, I see on the drawing it has approximate. When does it become definitive? MR. JARRETT-Well, interestingly, we had site visits three times from Mark Rooks of the APA, and he did GPS surveys of the wetland, and during the last visit, which was prior to our submission to this Board, but my discussion with him was subsequent to this submission to this Board. He told us that he was satisfied with the delineation, and he does not expect to do any further delineation for us. He’s satisfied with his GPS location, and we’ve shown that conservatively on this plan, and we’ve calculated based on the margin of error for GPS survey, and that data was 30 feet. So the APA is satisfied with the delineation. MR. LAPPER-When it’s a project in the APA, we always ask them to come out and do the flagging, and that’s what we rely on. Our intention, with respect to the Town of Queensbury, was to do a conforming four lot subdivision, with shared driveways. MR. VOLLARO-I think there’s something in the Staff notes that I have here that says the Sketch Plan based on a survey. Now that comes out of 183-6. I believe it’s 183-6 of the Subdivision Regs, and in 183-6 they talk about, it says the Sketch Plan shall be laid out on a survey prepared by a licensed professional land surveyor, and it looks to me like rather than a GPS, which is probably as accurate as one can get, this came out long before the GPS capability came about. MR. JARRETT-The boundaries have to be by a licensed land surveyor and an instrument survey. The wetland delineation is up to this Board. We’re presenting it as a GPS survey, and we feel that’s accurate and satisfactory for this Board, and we hope you’ll concur, but there are 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) two different types of surveys at play here. We have yet to do a formal property survey for you, and we anticipated doing that following the Sketch Plan discussion with the Board. MR. SANFORD-I don’t see, unless I’m missing it, did you do your, there’s some density calculations here. On Lot Number Four, the gray area is wetlands, and you’re saying if, you’re not netting that out of that particular lot, I guess. You’re dealing with the whole subdivision or something? I mean, it looks like there’s not a lot of land left over after you net out that wetland on Lot Four. MR. JARRETT-On that particular lot? MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. JARRETT-That’s correct, and we’ve shown that on purpose because of the seller’s wishes, and so, in effect, we’ve shown you a type of clustered subdivision. We could modify that line if we have to. MR. LAPPER-What Tom is trying to explain is that the way the contract was written, the seller is going to retain Lot Four, and they wanted a five acre lot, but if the Board decides they want that lot or need that lot to be bigger for density, we could continue that. There’s wetland and then there’s upland behind it, as you can see on the map. So we can make Lot Four bigger and include more upland if that’s what the Board wants to see. MR. SANFORD-You mean move it into Lot Three, is that what you’re saying? MR. LAPPER-Yes, right behind it. MR. SEGULJIC-So how were the wetlands mapped, then, via GPS, from what map, then? MR. LAPPER-The APA sent Mark Rooks out, APA employee who does the field determination, field delineation, and he walked the site, and he then gave us the GPS coordinates. MR. JARRETT-He gave us coordinates that we then plotted on a USGS map. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So he more or less flagged the site with GPS, and then gave you coordinates, and then you created this map? MR. JARRETT-When we do go out and do the boundary survey, we’ll pick up whatever stakes were set, and so we’ll have at least partial instrument survey delineation and the rest will be GPS. MR. SEGULJIC-Because you said this is within plus or minus 30 feet, these lines. MR. JARRETT-Yes. We’ve shown the calculations based on the worst, the largest wetland. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. JARRETT-Usually a GPS unit will show you the error in readings that particular day, depending on the number of satellites that it’s able to. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve been able to use my GPS and drive right into my driveway consistently with it. So it’s pretty good. MR. JARRETT-Some days it’s good. Other days we’ve seen them a little worse than even 30 feet, but on that particular day, Mark was getting 30 foot plus or minus accuracy. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) MR. SANFORD-Have any test pits been done on where these proposed houses are going to be? MR. JARRETT-We’ve done some shallow test pits in general, not specifically where these houses are. We have decent soils. I’m not going to call them great soils, in the front of the lot. Essentially, near where the five acre zone boundary is, and I’m expecting that may be partially why that zone is delineated there. To the rear of the site, we do not have good conditions. MR. LAPPER-And that’s why the houses are all under five acres. MR. SANFORD-Yes, again, you know, as, I think the same criteria would apply to this application, as it did to the one before, which is we would want to see test pit data in the approximate location where the septic systems would be, and we’d like to have them. MR. JARRETT-Absolutely. That’s part of our standard and designs. MR. SANFORD-Witnessed by our Town Engineer as well. Okay. MR. LAPPER-Another thing we should mention, the Staff notes talked about some recent logging on the site. That was not done by the owner or our client, the purchaser. That was done illegally, and we’ve been told that there’s some criminal action against somebody. So that was not, that was unfortunate, but it wasn’t any doing by the owner or the purchaser. MR. SANFORD-This Washington County, Town of Fort Ann property line, that doesn’t have anything to do with what you’re doing. Right? MR. LAPPER-Right. We’re only subdividing in the Town of Queensbury. MR. SANFORD-Okay. I’m just wondering why it looks like it’s part of the same. MR. LAPPER-Because it’s in the same deed, that it was all in the same ownership, even though it crosses the County line. MR. JARRETT-It’s certainly not subject to this action. MR. SANFORD-All right. MR. LAPPER-We’re not using that for any kind of density calculation. That’s just there. MR. SANFORD-Yes, it does raise the question, though. I mean, to some degree, if you can. I remember we had one up on the mountain where we weren’t sure how to deal with that. MR. LAPPER-Same issue, different side of Town. MR. JARRETT-And of course we’re dealing with APA and they want to see both parcels. They want to see the whole thing. So we’re dealing with two issues here. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-How about the sight distances from the driveways? MR. JARRETT-I saw that comment in Staff notes, and we looked at it in a preliminary fashion and we felt sight distance was pretty good, but we’re going to look at it more definitively and be able to report to you on that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-If we have to adjust the driveway locations, we’ll either adjust the lot lines accordingly or go for a variance to, we want to keep the common driveways. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I would encourage that. MR. JARRETT-And we’d have to go for a variance, but we’re going to try to keep those locations. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It’s kind of tricky where I currently live. There’s great sight distance, but there’s a slight curve, and if you start to pull out, while there’s a car in that curve, all of a sudden that car is on top of you, and there’s been several times when there’s been near accidents, even though if you were to take a dimensional, you know, a measurement, it would read fine, but the reality is a little different than the actual reading. MR. JARRETT-And as Jon just stated to me, that we have the ability to clear some brush in the frontage, to get better sight distance on that curve if we need to, but we’ll look at it more definitively and see what we’re dealing with. MR. LAPPER-Because here it’s all within the ownership of the (lost words). MR. HUNSINGER-Right, yes. MR. JARRETT-Trim branches. MR. VOLLARO-Do we have anything else we want to tell the applicant about this particular application? MR. SANFORD-Does anybody have any concerns about the shape of Lot Four? I mean, you know, it’s the runt of the lots and it has a lot of wetland to it and it truncates off, and they said they could somehow, I guess, make it more rectangular to the rear. I assume, but I don’t know, again, in terms of, I’m confused in terms of the density calculations. I haven’t worked through, and it’s one of these split zones that says, well, I guess you’re using, are you using the same criteria that the prior applicant did where the houses are located would be the primary calculation that you’re using? MR. JARRETT-I’m not familiar with what that applicant did. We have a net of 36.2 acres that, outside of wetlands, and we’re asking for four lots, split between the five and ten acre zone. We’re allowed two lots in the five acre zone because we have 11.6 acres, and we’re allowed two lots in the LC-10 zone, because we have 24.6 acres. MR. LAPPER-Which would be four lots. MR. JARRETT-Four lots total is what we’re asking for. MR. SANFORD-It seems like there’s a number of different approaches you could take. Does this all make sense to you guys? MR. BAKER-Again, this was reviewed by the Zoning Administrator. MR. VOLLARO-They’re very, very close to that 100 foot setback from APA wetlands. MR. SANFORD-Where, on Lot Four, you mean? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Yes, well, it looks like they’re the other side of it, though. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, they are, just about. Pretty close. MR. SANFORD-I think test pits will be interesting to see. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, if they’re off by 30 feet, though, you’re into the. MR. JARRETT-Well, that’s the more conservative boundary there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, just to pick up on your question, Richard, I have, you know, general concerns about the shape of the lots, but I don’t know what else you would do, seeing how it’s such an irregular shaped lot anyway. I mean, I don’t see any way that Lot One and Four would not have some sort of flag shape to them. MR. METIVIER-But we’re also dealing with six and twelve acres, versus a half acre. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I understand. MR. LAPPER-Staff made a good comment that this is 200 scale rather than 50 scale. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. LAPPER-So that was just done so it would be easy to see this all on one piece of paper, but these are really massive lots, and when you look at it, it looks like a little subdivision based upon what you’re used to seeing, but these are really big. MR. SANFORD-Well, you can take Lot Four and you could take the line and make it rectangular back to the Warren County piece, and that would shrink Lot Three, to make it probably an acre or more, maybe two acres. Lot Three could be two acres smaller and Lot Four could be two acres larger. If you carried it to the end, and, I mean, I don’t see where there’s a whole lot of benefit to it, except down the road you’d have more consistent lot size in the whole subdivision. I’m not sure how important that is, and again. MR. JARRETT-From a raw configuration standpoint, I agree with you. I think that could make sense. The buyer and the seller have asked for this kind of configuration. The buyer is planning on retaining Lot Three and the seller is planning on retaining Lot Four. MR. SANFORD-He wants, the buyer wants the bigger lot. Yes. MR. JARRETT-He wants the bigger lot. I mean, if you tell us that it’s not going to work otherwise, we’ll talk with the two parties. MR. SANFORD-Yes, well, I mean, it’s not going to change where the house is in relationship to the wetland and as Bob said the 100 foot setback. MR. LAPPER-That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-It’s really not much of a material change, Rich, I don’t think. It might help Lot Four a little bit, but, because you’ve got 16.4 and 6.2. MR. JARRETT-The acreage in the rear really won’t be functional for him. MR. SANFORD-How wet is this wetland? MR. JARRETT-Toward the very rear, and all the wetland on the Washington County side is extremely wet. That is high quality wetland. MR. LAPPER-The big wetland that goes along the County border is a good, significant wetland. MR. JARRETT-In fact Mark Rooks was quite impressed with the wetland on the Washington County side. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) MR. VOLLARO-The last APA meeting that Rich and I, I think Rich and I went to, I don’t know, were you up at the APA meeting? MR. SANFORD-Up at Warrensburg? Bolton? MR. VOLLARO-At Bolton Landing. MR. SANFORD-No, I didn’t go. MR. VOLLARO-We asked the APA fellow who was making the presentation what constitutes a wetland in the APA’s view, and he said if you put your foot on the ground and it goes squish, he said, that’s a wetland. MR. JARRETT-Well, using that technical definition, that’s closer to what we have in the Queensbury side. The Washington County side, your boots would be full. MR. LAPPER-We wish the Army Corps used that definition. It would be a lot simpler. MR. VOLLARO-But I see under that digging test pits right where those, what kind of septic field do you plan to use there? MR. JARRETT-Don’t know yet. MR. VOLLARO-Raised beds? MR. JARRETT-I imagine at least one of them will be, and possibly more than one. We know we have good soils enough to be able to do that, on these lots. I don’t think we can build conventional systems. MR. VOLLARO-So you don’t think you’re going to have two foot between? MR. JARRETT-I’m not going to have four feet. I’ll probably have two feet. I don’t have four feet. MR. VOLLARO-You don’t have four feet. MR. JARRETT-No. That’s my expectation, based on what we’ve dug so far. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, we’ll look at that when it comes into Preliminary. That’s going to be something we’ve really got to take a close look at, at the Preliminary Stage. MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. SANFORD-I just want to point out, if this is the site, this now solves our confusion. A while back we spent probably 25 minutes driving around looking for Old Church Road, and I think what they meant to say is just across the street from the old North Church. We couldn’t find any Church Road no matter where we went. We knew the church. MR. VOLLARO-We don’t have anything to do on this. There’s no. MR. SANFORD-This is Sketch Plan. MR. VOLLARO-This is Sketch, yes, and I think the applicant’s got a pretty good feeling for where we’re going to be coming from on Preliminary. MR. JARRETT-One thing we’d request, and that is, when we come back to Preliminary, we will give you the 50 scale mapping, based on a survey of the property. I would like to ask for a waiver for the detailed topographic survey in the rear of the lot, back in the areas where the 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) wetlands are that we’re not going to develop. We would give you the topographic survey in the front where the development will occur. MR. SEGULJIC-You mean on the Washington County side? MR. JARRETT-No. Essentially the land within the five acre zone, we’ll topo that. To the east of that, we request a waiver not to do the topographic survey, or at least maybe a very broad topographic survey. MR. SANFORD-That makes sense. I mean, they’re not building back there. MR. JARRETT-And we’d be glad to limit that in any way the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it makes sense to me. MR. VOLLARO-You’re saying that you don’t want to do it east of the LC-10A zone line. Is that what you’re saying? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Great. Yes, they want to do the five acre topo on that. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think that makes sense. I think Counsel here has made a point that based on the scale we’re looking at here, if you bring this down to one to fifty, this looks a heck of a lot larger. MR. JARRETT-That line is roughly 500 feet back or so. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. LAPPER-It looks like it’s about 100 on this map. MR. BAKER-I’d just remind the Board and the applicant that any waivers should be submitted in writing with Preliminary. MR. JARRETT-We would submit it officially, but obviously we’re just trying to get a feel, at this point, whether you would entertain that or not. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. So the applicant knows, and I guess we can let Staff chime in on this, we are thinking about removing the waiver request, I believe. There was some discussion during the workshop about that. MR. BAKER-We’re not removing the waiver request. What the Board discussed doing was just removing the waiver sheet, the sheet in the current application, so any future requests for waivers will need to be submitted in a letter provided by the applicant, rather than just having a sheet to check off. MR. SANFORD-Anything else that we want to? MR. VOLLARO-We’ve pretty much covered it. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. JARRETT-Thank you much. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think that’s it for tonight. I’ll make a motion to adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourn. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/18/05) RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Vollaro, Acting Chairman 44