The URL can be used to link to this page

2005-02-15 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 15, 2005 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, SECRETARY ROBERT VOLLARO RICHARD SANFORD THOMAS SEGULJIC GRETCHEN STEFFAN ANTHONY METIVIER GIS SPECIALIST-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. MAC EWAN-Just as a notice, Subdivision No. 3-2005 for Thomas Ross will not be heard tonight, as the appropriate public hearing signs were not posted in the 10 day time limit that’s required in the Ordinance. So the applicant will have to re-post those and re-advertise and be on at a future date. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 4-2004 GEIS GREAT ESCAPE AGENT: JOHN LEMERY, LEMERY GREISLER ZONE: HC-INTENSIVE MODIFICATION LOCATION: 1213 & 1227 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN RELATED TO THE HOTEL AND WATER PARK INCLUDING MODIFICATIONS TO THE APPROVED CLEARING/LANDSCAPING PLAN. NEW INFORMATION RECEIVED ON JANUARY 18, 2005. TAX MAP NO. 295.8-1-5, 4 JOHN LEMERY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-George? MR. HILTON-Really quickly, I guess. As a condition of the previous modification, there was a stipulation that the applicant return with a mitigation plan showing landscaping in the area of where the trees were removed along Route 9. The mitigation plan submitted proposes 32 white pines varying in heights, that I’ve mentioned in my notes. I guess the only comment I have is that as these trees grow up, them being white pines, I guess the potential exists that you could have some under story that would be, you know, clear, and not have some vegetation. I don’t know if that’s definitely going to happen, but consideration, I guess, could be given or should be given to including other evergreen species such as spruce or something that would be more full in the under story, and would make this provide more visual mitigation, I guess, visual screening. With that, that’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Lemery? MR. LEMERY-Mr. Chairman, my name is John Lemery, Lemery Greisler. Counselor to the HWP, the Hotel and Water Park project that is the owner of the property that is affected by this situation. We filed on January 14 with the Planning Board the mitigation plan, along with a th map that provides for the almost 30 white pine trees to replace the 10 that had to come out. This has cost the property about $25,000 to put these trees in, just so you know, and it’s an expensive proposition to replace a few trees that had to be taken out. So they’re in there. We 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) think this takes care of it, and at the last meeting where this was addressed, there was a question about how this happened. It happened because Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation told us we had to take the trees out. So, with that, we have provided the mitigation plan. The trees would be planted as soon as we’re able to get access to the soil and get them in. So I think that’s all we have to say about it, Mr. Chairman. We’re here to answer any questions anybody has about it, or discuss it to the extent that you require us to. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems pretty straightforward, and I think it’s a good response to what the Board requested The Great Escape try to do for us. Any questions from anybody? MR. VOLLARO-No. I think they satisfied everything we asked them to do. MRS. STEFFAN-I thought there’d be more of a mix of trees. I think Mr. Pittenger, when we talked the last time, I remember saying that maybe we could put some fast growing trees in there, poplars or something like that, that would grow more quickly. George mentioned that there should be some diversity, instead of just pines. That’s the only comment that I have. It’s not really important, but. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other comments? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I thought along those lines, too, Mr. Chairman, but I figured they replaced the trees that were there. So there’s a one for one replacement, and they replaced 32 out of 10, it looks like. So I thought that was more than adequate. MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to move it? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make the motion. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s been noticed for a public hearing, hasn’t it? MR. MAC EWAN-Modifications typically don’t have public hearings on them. MR. SCHACHNER-I believe, but I believe this was noticed for public hearing. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. If you’ll give up the table for a second. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. SCHACHNER-See how important a public hearing can be. MR. MAC EWAN-Now does somebody want to move it? MR. VOLLARO-I will do it again, Mr. Chairman. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 4-2004 GREAT ESCAPE, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 4-2004 Applicant/Property Owner: GREAT ESCAPE GEIS Agent: John Lemery, Lemery Greisler 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) Zone: HC-Intensive MODIFICATION Location: 1213 & 1227 State Route 9 Applicant proposes to modify a previously approved site plan related to the hotel and water park including modifications to the approved clearing / landscaping plan. New information received on January 15, 2005. Tax Map No. 295.8-1-5, 4 Public Hearing: 12/28/04, 2/15/05 WHEREAS, the application was received on 1/15/05; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 2/11/05, and 2/11/05 Staff Notes 2/9/05 Warren Co. PB recommendation: 1/12/05 Transmittal to PB, staff: 12/23/04 letter to CME from DOT 2/8/05 Notice of Public Hearing 1/28/05 Warren Co. PB referral 1/28/05 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 2/15/05; 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, 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby Approved for Modification specifically the Mitigation plan submitted 1/15/05 in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff with no further conditions. Duly adopted this 15th day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE Duly adopted this 15 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. LEMERY-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you, John. SUBDIVISION NO. 12-2004 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED HAYES CONSTRUCTION GROUP AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES, NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: 467 RIDGE ROAD, WEST SIDE RIDGE ROAD 300 YARDS NORTH OF MEADOW DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 15 +/- ACRE PROPERTY INTO NINE (9) RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1 TO 3 +/- ACRES. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW: 8/24/04 TAX MAP NO. 297.13-1-37 JON LAPPER, TOM NACE, & MICKEY HAYES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HUNSINGER-Before you get to Staff notes, Mr. Chairman, I will be abstaining from any consideration of this because the Hayes Group is my landlord. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. HILTON-And in response to the tabling motion, from the Planning Board for this application, the applicant has returned with a revised subdivision plat showing stone walls on the property, no cut buffers, and a note that the existing curb cut for Lot One will be relocated, as asked for in the tabling motion. Just a quick comment on the stone wall, some sections of the stone walls will have to be removed, in order to construct the improvements shown on the plan. Any of the areas that are to be preserved should be identified on the final subdivision plat. As far as the wetland delineation is shown, I guess our question is, has the applicant submitted the delineation to Army Corps for their verification or confirmation? And as I mentioned, the subdivision plat shows buffers, 30 foot no cut buffer on the eastern property line and on the southern property line I believe. On the eastern property line, they’re proposing 15 Norway Spruce trees within the buffer, five on each lot, Seven, Eight, and Nine, and we do have a letter from the New York State Department of Health from Jim Meachem concerning the test pits on this property, which were, I believe, performed on April 28, 2004, and with that, that’s all I have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Board. For the record, Jon Lapper, Tom Nace, and Mickey Hayes. I’m looking at the tabling resolution dated December 28 with six items. One, th the applicant to come back with a revised plan showing buffering. As George Hilton mentioned, we have that. Also to get verification on the test pits. That was something that Bob Vollaro was looking for, and we have a letter from Department of Health verifying that they were out on site with the project engineer at the time of the test pits. Three, we’re waiting for C.T. Male’s comments and C.T. Male’s signoff, and we now have that. Four, a new plan showing the stone fence, the stone wall that’s up, and George just discussed that, and on the stone fence, the portion of the fence that would have to be taken down can be added to the final plat when we submit for signature. Five, removal of driveway should be shown on the revised plan, and that was the driveway that was previously on Ridge Road, and would now come to the subdivision road to eliminate a curb cut, and that was shown on the plat, and, six, tabled. So we feel that we’ve addressed all of the issues that the Board was looking for, and we’re hopeful that the Board’s ready to grant final approval. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s pick up on Staff’s comments relative to the Army Corps of Engineers. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) MR. LAPPER-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you think that we should have a letter or something from them saying that they’re satisfied with the delineation that you’ve done, there’s no effects? MR. LAPPER-No, not in this case, Mr. Chairman. I don’t know that your attorney is an expert on this. The elevation which Tom Nace will show you, the wetlands here, this is a site on a slope, and the wetlands are all at the bottom of the slope, significantly away from any disturbance. So we had Charlie Maine, soil scientist, who’s one of the three approved by the Town to do wetland and soil testing, he flagged the wetland. It’s been verified by DEC, and there’s no disturbance whatsoever of Army Corps Wetlands. So it doesn’t require any Army Corps permit or delineation, and we’ve submitted all that data. That was something that wasn’t on the tabling resolution, but I’ll let Tom speak in a little more detail. MR. NACE-Sure. We did prepare, as Jon referenced, a section of the site, just to give you a better feel because some of the questions that have come up last time. The site slopes from up at Ridge Road, down through, this is the section taken. Let me show you generally where it’s taken. I drew a section, starting up here at Ridge Road, running down through Lot Eight, Lot Five, through the detention basin, and through the wetland, just to give an idea of what the site looks like in elevation view, and as you can see, it goes from Ridge Road up to a little higher back toward the property line about four feet higher than Ridge Road, then it slopes down significantly, all the way down to the wetland, and back up a hair to the other property line and back. If you can read the numbers here, the elevation at the upper lot, Number Eight, is 88.3 feet. Down at Lot Number Five, on the other side of the road, well the road itself is about 84 feet. The other side of the road, the house location on Lot Number Five is about 77 feet. The wetland is down here at about 52 feet. So there’s quite a bit of elevation difference as you go down the hill. It’s on a side slope. The wetland is a typical low area at the end of a long sloping site. It’s fairly well defined. Our detention basin is the only thing close to the wetland, as you can see from the plan, and at the closest area we’re at about a little over 20 feet with the edge of our fill on the outside of the detention basin to the delineation of the wetland. So we feel that there’s really little room for interpretation of the wetland boundary because of the side slope, and we’re far enough away that we’re certainly not concerned that we’re actually going to be disturbing any of the wetland. MR. VOLLARO-Tom, I think the last time we spoke, one of the things you said, that it was less than a tenth of an acre, if I remember right, and therefore, being that it was less than a tenth of an acre, you didn’t have to go into an ACOE. Is that correct? MR. NACE-We don’t. There is, if we were disturbing any of the wetlands, any significant wetland, even less than a tenth of an acre, we would probably want to verify with the Corps, just for our own protection, but we’re not disturbing any, and we’re 20 feet away from a fairly cleanly defined boundary. So we really don’t feel it’s necessary. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments from Board members? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I guess I do. With respect to the New York State Department of Health letter, in reading the minutes, starting on Page 35, and I’ll read some of it, I think in there we asked for verification of the test pits, and I had discussed this with Marilyn Ryba, and she said what they were really looking for in the files should be a field verification report from Department of Health, and she asked me to explain that clearly tonight. This is reading from the minutes, and I think, Tom, what you said in the end was in fact, if you want a log, I can give you Charlie Maine’s letter, which logs the soils. Now, just as a matter of reference, we have the next application coming up where we have our C.T. Male engineering do some verification on the Longhitano property, and there they supplied actual test logs, test data logs that you can see very clearly what the depth to seasonal groundwater is and the perc rates were and what the depth to actual water, if they found water at any depth and all, and when they did, and that’s what I was really looking for when I asked for this, and I thought that’s what you said in the 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) minutes on Page 36, that if you want the logs, we’ll get them, and that’s what I was expecting to see, and I didn’t see it. Now, this is, I don’t want to impugn anybody’s technical capability or integrity or anything like that, but I thought we were going to see a set of test logs, and what we really got is a letter from Jim Meachem, at the State Department. MR. NACE-You have seen the test logs. They’ve been on the drawing since we submitted the drawings. That’s the same test log that Charlie supplied us. If you would like to verify line by line, I’ll be glad to give you a copy of his letter. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s what I was expecting. I’m not going to make a cause celeb out of this. I would just, you know, because that property is a little bit wet, and I know it’s a little wet, we wanted to see something a little more than just the letter from DOH. That’s it, Mr. Chairman, that was my position on that. Other than that, I have no further comments on this application. I think the applicant has done everything we asked them to do in the motion, other than what I just described. MR. LAPPER-Perhaps we should read into the record what Tom just handed George, just so the record is complete, that Charlie Maine logged the test pits. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, I would certainly echo your concerns. Like with any application we review, there’s got to be a comfort level for us, and with the case with C.T. Male’s when we haven’t felt that comfort level, and test pit data, we’ve asked them to go out and observe, for their own, as an independent third party for us to confirm that the data is what the data is, and in this case, DOH, in their letter, went out and witnessed it, but their one paragraph letter is without any substance to it. I mean, it just tells us that they were there. MR. LAPPER-I think you need to look at the letter that Mark has. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t have it. I mean, I’d love to look at it, but we don’t have it in front of us. MR. NACE-It’s the same data that’s on the drawings, Craig. MR. SANFORD-I’ll just weigh in. I agree with you, Craig. I read the minutes before this meeting, and it was very clear in the reading of the minutes what we were looking for, and I can go through it page by page, if you would like, where we talk specifically that we were looking for verified test pits and then defined what we meant by verified test pits, which was basically DOH’s log information, and what I think, we never questioned that DOH was on the site. What we wanted to see was DOH’s log information, and I believe that that has not been provided to us at this particular point in time, and there was little doubt as to what we were looking for, based on a reading of these minutes, and now you have a letter, the guy saying what we already knew, that he was there, witnessed them and fine, but, you know, with all the controversy surrounding development in wetlands, I, for one, do not feel comfortable moving forward with an approval on an application unless we have certainty that septic systems can be supported in this development and until we get independent verification of test pit data, I don’t believe we can be within that comfort range. MR. NACE-Okay. I would respond two things. First, I think if you will go back and closely read your minutes, which you have been referring to, you will find that toward the end of it, it was Staff who the Planning Board wanted to verify with the Department of Health. There were several discussions in the minutes that, no, they didn’t necessarily want me to go to the Department of Health and get that verification, that Staff was going to do that. Okay. If you want to go directly, I would suggest you talk to Jim Meachem, explain to him what you want for each subdivision that’s done in the Town, and deal directly. Okay. I talked to him at length today about it. I don’t think he necessarily wants or appreciates additional work, but he will cooperate with whatever it is you want to see, but if you want something specific, and you guys set the parameters of what you want, go directly to the Health Department and make that a policy, okay, and then you’ll get what you want. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) MR. LAPPER-Just quoting Jim Meachem, Senior Sanitary Engineer of DOH, dated February 8, th addressed to Mr. Nace, and copied to Town of Queensbury. He said, I witnessed the test pit evaluations performed by Soil Scientist Charlie Maine. He witnessed the tests, and what Tom just stated is that those test results are on the plan. They’re on the map, and he just submitted to Mark and to George the letter from Charlie on Charlie’s letterhead which has those same numbers on it. So we have verification that DOH was at the site when Charlie performed the test. We have Charlie’s letter saying this is what the test said. Charlie’s a licensed Soil Scientist, and we have this on the plan. So I guess I just don’t see what the issue is, and why this should be treated any differently than any other subdivision in the Town. MR. SANFORD-Well, I think the issue is, Mr. Lapper, when we discussed it last time, we knew all of what you just said, and I think your comment, and I can’t find it right now in the minutes, but was that you were going to prove that you were not lying was I think how you put it. Do you recall that? MR. LAPPER-I don’t, but I’ll take your word for it. MR. SANFORD-I think that’s how you phrased it, and this letter tells us nothing more than what we knew before. What we were looking for, and it’s stated time and time again, in the minutes, was the log data from Department of Health. I don’t believe they have the log data. MR. NACE-Let me just, for your iteration, which I explained before at a previous meeting, when we were out in the field, and I was out in the field with the Health Department this morning on another subdivision. What happens is that Charlie Maine looks at the soils. The Health Department looks at them. They discuss them. Charlie dictates the soil log to Jim Meachem, okay. Jim Meachem writes it down in his pad, gives Charlie the information. Charlie types up his log, which I just gave a copy of to George. Charlie, when he’s done with that, sends that to me, and sends a copy to Jim Meachem, okay, at which point Jim Meachem can look at it and verify. He also will verify when he reviews the plans. Now these plans have not yet been submitted to Jim because the Health Department doesn’t like us to submit plans until we at least have preliminary approval, which we do not have yet from this Board. MR. SANFORD-Then why are you going for Final? You’re going for Final approval now. MR. NACE-Because we were told at the last meeting, if we satisfied all of the requirements of the Board, that we could submit Preliminary and, you know, continue the Preliminary and submit Final. MR. LAPPER-I think the question Dick is asking is, we don’t have to submit to DOH at Preliminary. You have to have at least Preliminary. We can’t start the subdivision, obviously, without outside agency approval. That’s a condition. We have to have DOH approval. So that just has to come next. MR. SANFORD-Yes, but if we were to go forward with your request for approval of Final submission, then we’re basically cutting out the verification step, according to how it was just described to me. MR. NACE-No, not at all, because once we have Preliminary, and/or Final from the Town, then we can go to the Department of Health and they do their review, okay. Even if you grant us Final, we can’t file the subdivision until it’s approved by the Health Department. MR. LAPPER-They have to sign it. MR. NACE-They have to sign off on it. MR. SANFORD-How are they to verify the information if they don’t have a log? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) MR. LAPPER-They have Charlie’s letter. MR. SANFORD-Charlie’s letter. MR. NACE-Plus the original notes, which Charlie sends back when he sends the letter. MR. SANFORD-Charlie’s notes or Mr. Meachem’s? MR. NACE-Jim Meachem’s notes. MR. SANFORD-Do you have a copy of Mr. Meachem’s notes? MR. NACE-No, Mr. Meachem has them now. MR. SANFORD-He didn’t have them before, though. MR. NACE-I don’t know what your discussion was with Mr. Meachem before. My discussions with him was that he had the logs, when he talked to Bob, okay. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess I’m kind of confused here. So when the Department of Health goes out to do a verification of test pits with whomever is assigned to do them, they’re basically taking that person’s notes and verifying them off of that person’s notes, instead of making their own notes and their own data? MR. NACE-There’s one set of data produced. Okay. That’s, I don’t know what you’re talking about with verification, okay. What happens is that Charlie Maine logs the soils. At that point, the Health Department visually verifies that what he’s logging, or what he’s dictating to them as the soil types and depths is accurate. Okay. The Health Department records that in a note pad, gives those notes either by copying them over in the field or giving the originals to Charlie. Charlie types up his log, submits the log to me, and to the Health Department, as well as sending the original notes back to the Health Department at that time. So the verification occurs in the field, when they’re observing the soils and taking the original notes. MR. SANFORD-Well, anyway, you know, what we were looking for at this meeting, and I’ll give you some, on Page 36, Mr. Vollaro’s comment. We would need field log verification, at least a letter in file from Mr. Meachem saying that he has witnessed these fields and following is the log information, and what I say on that same page is we were asking for the test pits to be done again, witnessed and verified and brought back to us. That’s what I feel is needed. Well, that’s not relevant to this, but we have a number of situations where we made it very clear that we were looking for the log data from the Department of Health, and on Page 37 Mr. Vollaro again, in the files should be a letter from Jim Meachem which shows his field log and information verifying what we have on these drawings. Mr. Ringer, can you provide that? Mr. Nace, sure. You haven’t provided that right now. MR. VOLLARO-I think what he’s saying is he has provided, what we haven’t seen yet. MR. SANFORD-Well, we haven’t seen it, so he hasn’t provided it. MR. LAPPER-It’s on the map. It is on the map that we submitted, and we have the letter from DOH. MR. VOLLARO-Let me try to reconstruct what I think I heard here. MR. LAPPER-This is no different than every other subdivision that’s ever been approved in the Town of Queensbury, but it seems that you’re asking for a different standard. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s not a different standard. We’re trying to elevate the standard a little bit here, because of the amount of wetlands that we feel, at least, are being developed in the 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) Town, and we want to get a better handle on that. Let me see if I can go ahead and come up with how this is done. You get to the field, Charlie Maine gets in the pit. Charlie Maine calls up, calls pit data up to DOH who writes it down. MR. NACE-Can I interrupt? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. NACE-DOH is in the pit with Charlie at that point, looking at the soils and verifying. MR. VOLLARO-They’re both in there. One’s got a pen and the other guys got a pair of eyes. MR. NACE-Both of them have eyes. One’s has a pen. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and they’re writing this stuff down. Okay. Now, Charlie then gets that, takes it back to his office, types it up, to make it look pretty, presentable, and essentially that’s what you have, what you just gave, he gives a copy to DOH and a copy to Mr. Nace. MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. NACE-And he returns the original notes to DOH. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and what we have here is a copy of what Charlie Maine gave to you? MR. NACE-That is correct. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I would probably accept that at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-What you guys are talking about here, this is a standard procedure for any subdivision? MR. NACE-This is what we’ve done for years, Craig. Okay. Recently it’s been Jim Meachem. Before that it was Glen Bruso and before that it was Brian Fearr. MR. MAC EWAN-So when you guys say that, you know, on such and such a day we plan on doing some test pits, can someone from DOH be there, to be there with us, someone usually makes those arrangements, DOH is there? MR. NACE-Yes, that’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Just to take a step back, this is a site that has a wetland at the bottom, and at the last meeting Mr. Sanford talked about walking in the wetland, but because it’s on a slope, this is not like a cornfield situation where you might have pockets of wetland. It’s very clear, and that’s why Tom presented his map showing what the elevations were, where houses would be, where the disturbance would be, a cross section, if you will. Because it’s a slope situation, it’s very well delineated, and it has to do with the wetland, and it has to do with the soil. So we don’t see that there’s any gray area here that there’s anything, we’re certainly not trying to fool anybody. We answered specifically what the Board asked for last time. We got a letter from DOH saying that they were out there. Charlie Maine is a respected Soil Scientist. We have his data. I think it’s clear. I don’t understand what the controversy is. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not so much controversy. I think what we said in the beginning is having that comfort level. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) MR. LAPPER-And this is the same thing, every other subdivision this is what you have is a letter from the Soil Scientist. MR. MAC EWAN-Right, but we have had, in the last year and a half or so, we’ve had some subdivisions that come back to haunt us because of soil data that was obviously not correct because they’ve either had to raise elevations of basements or footings or they’ve had water in the basements because of calculations that, for whatever reason, didn’t reflect what’s there on the site. MR. LAPPER-We have a C.T. Male signoff on this also. I mean, your engineer has looked this. DOH has looked at this, and obviously the approval that we’re asking you to grant is subject to DOH on the final signoff. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. See, here’s where the problem is. In most cases in the past, our Town consultant, C.T. Male, basically takes the data that’s submitted to them as part of the application. Based on the data that’s given to them, they either give a signoff or make recommendations that they normally do through their review. In these particular two instances that I can think of, in the last year or so, that was the procedure. I mean, as part of the packet review, the application went to C.T. Male, they reviewed it and signed off on it, based on the data that was supplied. During the building phase, shortly thereafter, the buildings were put up, that’s when the problems appeared, and they were due to high water tables. MR. LAPPER-I don’t know who did those, but I know that on this one we have Tom Nace, who’s a well respected engineer in the Town, has been appearing before the Town for decades. We just don’t see that this one is a close call. I know that Mr. Sanford lives near by and he was concerned about it, but I just don’t, I just don’t see what the controversy is here. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, my position here, as one member of this Board, I’ve been bitten a couple of times. I tend to be on the side of over cautiousness. MR. LAPPER-And that’s why we presented you with the DOH letter saying that they were out there. MR. MAC EWAN-Which raises another concern with me, because these two other subdivisions that I’m thinking about both were witnessed by DOH. MR. LAPPER-What are you suggesting, then, that there should be a new standard, this subdivision’s going to start a new standard for the Town? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know. Ultimately, the person who will be paying for this, one way or the other, will be the future homeowner. So if something doesn’t come up right, and if something doesn’t calculate out right, that they end up having flooded basements, cracked foundations, or whatever, because we didn’t do our jobs, I have a sense of guilt about that. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Well, the developer, Mickey Hayes, has to give a warranty, and this is a situation where he did a prior subdivision nearby where we went through this last time that they bought land from somebody else adjacent to this, where they’ve done another five or so houses on Ridge and Cronin. So there’s nothing unique about this. These are large lots. MR. SANFORD-Well, those properties were on considerably higher up elevations. I think I took a look at your elevation charts, and as you go down, especially as you go down closer to the Cronin Road area, you’re sloping downward. There’s no question about it. Closer to Ridge Road is higher ground than down further in that development. MR. NACE-There’s no question of that, but it’s still not down in the bottom where it’s wet. Okay. We’re still 20 feet in elevation, 20 plus feet up the hill with our lowest lots. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) MR. SANFORD-We tried to walk the property, Tom, and we did it in I think it might have been May, and we couldn’t walk it because there was too much groundwater that wasn’t moving into the ground. It was standing on top of the ground. MR. NACE-With all due respect, you were walking in from Cronin Road. I’ve walked in from Cronin Road, too, and it is, through this area, and that’s just up, it’s almost at the same elevation as the wetland down here. It is wet. There’s no question. MR. SANFORD-You know, but in going back to Mr. Lapper’s question, as to what we’re looking for, in this new era, I guess, is basically what we’ve been doing in the last few months, which is, and we actually have another application, I think, tonight, which is a perfect example of it. we’ve been asking C.T. Male to witness the pits. They’ve been doing that, and they’ve been providing us with test pit log information, in a diagram that’s very clear and the data is very understandable, and it provides that level of comfort that the Chairman was referencing. Right now we have a situation where I have to scratch my head and say, I believe when Mr. Vollaro spoke to Mr. Meachem, he didn’t really even recall the site. He had some confusion as to it. It was finally clarified that it was, in fact, previously owned by Mr. Bannon and he vaguely recalled it. I’m not so sure how he would be able to verify the report that he’s receiving if he can hardly remember actually being on the site. So, I think there’s, based on the public hearing and all the information and the minutes of the last meeting, it’s just not a comfort zone that’s been established that these pits are accurate and that this development can support septic systems for the future homeowners. MR. LAPPER-I think something serious is going on here and I don’t understand it. I know that you live within 500 feet and you received notice of this, and I think that a different standard is being applied to this than every other subdivision in the Town. We had five engineers on the site, including the Department of Health. We’ve provided everything on the list. As Tom just said, we’re 20 feet above the wetland here. Twenty feet’s pretty significant. There’s nothing different about this. The Chairman’s talking about two out of the hundreds of subdivisions where somebody did something wrong. That’s not a reason to say that we’re doing anything wrong here. MR. SANFORD-Jon, this is not a separate standard. When the first subdivision, which I still don’t really clearly understand why this wasn’t considered an extension of that, but we discussed that last time. MR. LAPPER-It was years apart. MR. SANFORD-Anyway, I believe if you read those minutes, there was incredible public comment from residents on Cronin Road who were talking about the excessive amount of water that they have in their basements and concerns that, by bringing Town water in without sewage bringing it out, it’ll only make the situation worse. I think that that whole area is problematic at best, and again, you know, you could try to take this into a situation where we’re being unduly harsh, but it’s just not the reality. The reality of it is we have concerns for good planning with any subdivision, and this one, based on our site visits and public comment and other information that we have, we want to be absolutely sure that we’re not going to be putting a stamp of approval on a project that really can’t support septic systems, and I think that, based on my understanding is, certainly you can have some of those homes in there, and they would be fine. I think others are probably going to be very difficult to support the proper drainage, and so I want to make sure that we have complete independent verification of septics. MR. LAPPER-Your engineers have said that it’s okay. Your engineers have signed off on this, on the drainage. MR. SANFORD-They signed off on the data that was provided to them, Jon. MR. VOLLARO-Jon, when we ask them to do log data, this is what we get back. That’s a clearly understandable piece of paper. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) MR. LAPPER-But at the last meeting when you gave us the list of the five things that you wanted, you didn’t ask C.T. Male to go out to the site. MR. SANFORD-Actually, wait a second. If you read the minutes, Jon, Mr. Vollaro was moving in that direction, and you cut him off and said we are not going to do additional test pits. You made a statement, which I thought was inappropriate, but it’s in the minutes. You said we’re not going to do additional test pits. MR. LAPPER-Well, if you’re going to treat the subdivision next door to your house different than everybody else, you better make a policy and treat everybody else differently. MR. SANFORD-Well, I said I’m not doing that, Jon. That’s your statement, not mine. MR. LAPPER-I’m not trying to fight with you. This is an absolutely vanilla subdivision. There’s nothing unusual about this. We’re just getting treated differently. We did everything we were asked by the Planning Board. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think that’s the case, Jon. I don’t think that’s the case at all. MR. LAPPER-DOH is okay with it, and the Soil Scientist and C.T. Male are okay with it. MR. MAC EWAN-So are you suggesting the next application we’ve got up, we treated them differently, too? MR. LAPPER-I don’t know anything about the next application. MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t we ask C.T. Male to go out and verify those test pits as well, because they were close to a wetlands. MR. LAPPER-We’re not disturbing the wetlands. MR. MAC EWAN-The situation that we are faced with in this Town now is that, and I’ve been saying this for probably a year and a half, for the past year and a half, is that the amount of land that’s left to be developed is less than adequate for complete, intense development. So therefore the applications get tougher to review. They get tougher for the developer to want to develop, which causes us to want to take a harder look and a closer look at the applications. We’re only doing our jobs. We’re not trying to stonewall you. We’re not trying to delay you. We’re not trying to deny you. We’re just trying to do our job so that we have that comfort level, if we approve this thing, that we know, years down the road, there aren’t going to be potential for problems. I’m trying to avoid it up front. MR. LAPPER-We have Tom Nace certifying this. We’re not jamming it in here. This is not maximum density. This is not a difficult lot to develop. If we were in the wetland it would be, but we’re not anywhere near the wetland. We’re not doing any disturbance. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you’ve got everything sloping toward the wetlands. MR. NACE-Which is what the land does right now, Craig, I don’t know what that comment’s supposed to mean. MRS. STEFFAN-I have a comment, but it’s different. As I was going through the plans and looking at the subdivision review criteria, my comment the last time we looked at this was that I thought that the density was too high, just too many units on the property, and I went through and you know I looked at the test pit information and the perc rates, and some of the Lot Two through Six, the perc rates are a little high, but certainly within acceptable criteria, and there’s a lot of remediation on the lot, but one of the things that I kept coming back to was the public comment that we got after that meeting. I think it was in December, when folks from the area 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) were talking about the standing water in their yards and things like that, and I started to think about the impact of this particular subdivision on the surrounding area, and everybody who’s lived here for any length of time knows Meadowbrook Road is fairly flat. It’s obviously at a different level than this, and so there is a lot of standing water there, and I started to think about this being uphill. It’s another subdivision. We’re looking at putting nine houses in here. They’ll probably have three or four bedrooms. They’ll require a 1250 gallon septic, and I thought, we’re bringing municipal water in, and I went and I checked some information on how much water a house generates in a day, and it can be anywhere from 150 gallons a day to, in the summertime it’s more than that, and so these houses could generate between up to 10,000 gallons of water a day, that has to go to into the soil, and so when I looked at this, I was looking at not just the impact on this land, because you know according to all the science, this works. C.T. Male says this works, but I’m looking at the impact of this particular subdivision on that area, and I have some concerns about that. MR. NACE-Okay. First of all, as far as the amount of water generated, we’ve got nine lots. There’s an existing, so we’ve got eight new lots. Even if you say 300 gallons a day per house, which is for domestic sewage, which is probably a little bit on the high side, that’s, what, 2400 gallons a day. When you start spreading that into the ground, over the amount of acreage that’s involved here. I don’t have a calculator right now, but it’s an infinitesimal depth of water per day. It’s probably not measurable, and we’re on a side slope that water does disperse itself. It’s very, I mean, if you compared to that, you know, annualized it and compared it to the annual amount of precipitation, it’s almost negligible. We’ve been through this time and again, and I don’t think you can find any authority which will speak to a mounding of the groundwater table from importing domestic water into a site acre or even half acre lots being at all significant. Maybe when you get down to small lots, townhouses or small areas where you’re really packing the density in, but with the density of, what do we have here, eight houses per 13 acres, it’s just not significant at all. MR. SANFORD-Well, you’re going to be clearing trees. Trees suck up a lot of water. They’re not going to be there any longer to suck up the water. I mean, again, and you’re right. I believe there was a recent application with the same applicant where we did have similar concerns about bringing water onto a site and wondering what’s going to happen when it doesn’t have a sewer to take it off, and these are concerns that we do have, Mr. Nace. MR. LAPPER-You’re raising engineering issues, and you’ve got your engineer that, you know, you’re concerned, but you’ve got your Town Engineer that’s looked at all the stuff, and they’re comfortable with it. So I just don’t see why the Board is raising engineering issues at this point. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, my issue was not an engineering concern on this lot, because C.T. Male said this would work, but my concern is what the impact that this will have on the area that these folks will live in. MR. LAPPER-And what Tom just put in the record is that it will be infinitesimal. I’d also like to enter into the record. MR. MAC EWAN-Before you go on, to respond to your comment about raising engineering issues at this point. What is this point? MR. LAPPER-After you have a signoff from the Town Engineer. MR. MAC EWAN-We can raise engineering issues at any time we want. It’s part of our purview to review things. MR. LAPPER-I’m only saying that C.T. Male’s looked at these issues and they’ve said that they’re comfortable from an engineering standpoint. MR. MAC EWAN-Like I told you in the beginning, and a couple of other members told you. It’s that comfort level we need to be adequate with. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) MR. LAPPER-I’d like to enter into the record a letter from the Town of Queensbury Water Department that addresses this issue about the impact of municipal water and which recommends municipal water, because this is a Town document, and I think that’s important for the full record that this be included, that Ralph Van Dusen did a memo addressing this issue. MRS. STEFFAN-I think we have it. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s in our packet. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. LAPPER-No, this is a letter. This is separate. This is addressing the general issue you’ve raised about whether it’s appropriate to have municipal water, and the impact on groundwater. I realize that we’re in this debate about the developability of the Town of Queensbury and residential development. I’m only suggesting that this is not a subdivision that these eight new lots, is a subdivision that is going to cause any problems, that whether or not there are other parts of the Town that have issues, this lot on a side slope with big lots, yes, there’s a wetland at the bottom of the hill, but. MR. SANFORD-Well, the whole drawing suggests it’s problematic. You’ve got, you’re creating berms, bringing in land to create this, so that when water comes off the roofs it’ll have a place to get absorbed and it won’t cause erosion problems. I mean, for you to say that this is a clean one, I’d hate to see a really problematic one. MR. NACE-Well, Richard, as far as addressing the stormwater from the lots, that’s something that Queensbury is headed toward for quite a while now, and they’ve adopted regulations around the lake, in the Lake George basin, that requires that, okay. We were being proactive here in proposing it on this site, not necessarily because the site’s severe, but because we felt that it could be addressed and should be addressed. Okay. It was good practice to do so. Okay. Your bringing that up in the light that you are is just argumentative. MR. SANFORD-I’m not argumentative. This is a pretty clean site then? I believe in last meeting’s minutes, Tom, you, by your own admission, state, it’s tight, it’s wet, and now you’re saying it’s clean, it’s not a problem. So you’re having this argument, to some degree, with yourself, and I can find that and give you the page if you’ll just give me a minute, if you don’t believe me. MR. LAPPER-It’s wet, but not where we’re developing it. MR. NACE-I’m not going to get into an argument with you. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments from Board members? MR. SEGULJIC-With regards to Lot Number One, where is the septic system for that house? MR. NACE-To the best of my knowledge, the septic system is right out in here, right behind the house. I’m pretty sure when we looked at it before, that we determined that it was right in back. MR. SEGULJIC-Any issues with the septic on that lot at all? MR. NACE-We have not looked at that in particular. It’s an existing house. MR. SEGULJIC-Have you heard of anything? 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) MR. SANFORD-Going back to Page 34, when Tom asked you, why would you want to use these eaves trench, or why wouldn’t you use eaves trenches, you go, the soils here are a little tighter, okay, they’re not our typical sands on the west side of the Northway. So it won’t drain as quickly. It still drains. It percolates, but it doesn’t, it’s not a two minute perc rate. It’s slower than that. MR. NACE-That’s just engineering judgment. MR. SANFORD-Right. That’s what I think the Chairman’s been saying and what we’re saying is we want to be absolutely sure because it’s a tight, somewhat wet. MR. NACE-And your reading said the soils were a little tighter than the sands we have on the Northway, or on the west side of the Northway. You’re taking things out of context, reading them the way you want. I’m not going to get into any more of an argument with you. MR. SANFORD-All right. MR. VOLLARO-I think that on this letter from the Town of Queensbury Water Department, it’s interesting, I’m just reading it here. It says the Department, I guess this is a question that you asked, Mr. Hayes. It says, does the Department support the contention that the incorporation of municipal water system may present a negative impact on physical conditions in the neighborhood or development by increasing the groundwater table. This Department does not have, nor has received any information that would either support or refute that contention. So he really gives you a non answer there, in a sense. MR. LAPPER-You have to finish the sentence. MR. HAYES-Can you finish the comment, please, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, if you make the following assumptions, the residents, 150 gallons of water a day. That’s probably high. I think, what are we talking, 110, 330 for a three bedroom house. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-If you make the following assumptions, the residence of a home using 150 gallons of water per day is situated in a 20,000 square foot. MR. LAPPER-And we have double that. MR. VOLLARO-And has a private septic system that disposes all the water the owner’s property, the water consumption will be equal to, okay, one thousandth of an inch of rain per day, contained on the same property. All right. MR. SANFORD-Well, you know, I think the easy solution for everybody, since, you know, if you don’t feel the site’s a problem, and we still are a little bit concerned. It’s almost spring. We do test pits again, we have them verified by C.T. Male and everybody’s happy. It’s a slam dunk. A little more time, a little more inconvenience, but I think what we’re doing is what’s appropriate for the concerns in the best interest of the Town. Taking that course of action. MR. VOLLARO-Let me ask a question. When were these pits done with Charlie Maine, what time of the year were they done? MR. NACE-The late part of April, in one of the wettest parts of the season, and you will note on the logs that there was no water in the bottom of the pit. MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to make a suggestion, Mr. Chairman, that probably as a Town policy or maybe in some of our meetings, in that what we ask for test pit logs very similar to what we got on the Longhitano property which is the next application up that C.T. Male made, but looking 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) at all of the data that’s in front of us, and the letter from Department of Health, and getting Mr. Nace’s description of how that data is collected and distributed, I would feel comfortable with going forward with this on that basis. MR. SANFORD-What basis? They had all that information, and you weren’t comfortable then. MR. VOLLARO-Well, no. I’m comfortable now because I don’t think that James Meachem would put a letter like this out. I don’t think Tom Nace would essentially, I don’t want to say perjure himself, but make misstatements of any kind to the Board. I’ve got enough information in front of me now that I think I would go along with this, but what I would like to see from now on. MR. SANFORD-Then why not see it now, Bob? Why from now on? MR. MAC EWAN-Rich, Bob’s got his position. Let him be on it. MR. SANFORD-That’s fine. I’m just asking him some questions. MR. SEGULJIC-And, Bob, I would agree with that, given the fact it’s 20 feet above the wetland area. If it were down on Cronin Road on the other side like we saw, that’s where the issues are. MR. VOLLARO-I still think it’s probably a, it’s a tough site to develop. I consider probably a lot of the sites that are going to come before us are going to come under the category of marginal site. MR. MAC EWAN-Gretchen, do you want to do the SEQRA? MRS. STEFFAN-We have to have a public hearing, don’t we? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I know. I’m getting ahead of the game. Anything else from Board members? Anything else you guys wanted to add? MR. SANFORD-On the stone fences, you marked them on the drawing, but you’re going to disturb them. Now in the past, we’ve basically asked that historic stone fences not be disturbed, and most of the times that request has been honored, in this case by having these stone fences on the drawings and then disturbing them in the construction process is a little bit concerning to me. Is there any way you can not disturb them? MR. HAYES-Part of the reason we bought the property is because of the stone walls, they add to the ambience of the property. You cannot create those stone walls to get the nice feel, the moss and stuff. We want to retain as many rock walls for our own value. So our contention is to leave as many as possible because of what the old world feel of that particular lot does with the aged trees, the stone walls. That’s why myself, I’m going to move there next to Mr. Sanford. Hopefully I’ll be your neighbor. The stone walls add a lot of ambience to the property. We’re going to try to retain as much as we can because they’re a tremendous asset to the property. MR. SEGULJIC-How can we put that in wording in a resolution? MR. LAPPER-Well, the Staff asked us to show what area had to be disturbed to create the roads and the houses and we’ll put that on the map, the final map, but most of it’s going to stay. MR. HAYES-A lot of the stone walls are partially there, and some aren’t, because the neighbors have poached some of the rocks to create stone walls, and it’s a very common trend where people actually take aged rocks. So there’s parts that are large and parts that are not. MR. SEGULJIC-One of my comments would be one of the berms would be one of the berms is proposed where a stone wall is, for example, and one of the houses, for example, too. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) MR. HAYES-As you can see, a lot of our subdivisions in our areas, we’ve actually created stone walls, if you’re familiar with our property. That’s one of our marquee things, because especially in the eastern side of Queensbury, that really is one of the things, and that’s one of the things, we actually add rock walls to, because we feel that they really add a lot of ambience to the properties. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you going to have deed restrictions, as far as disturbance of the stone walls, prohibiting disturbance of them? MR. HAYES-We could, yes. I never thought of that. MR. LAPPER-If the Board wants it. MR. SEGULJIC-I think that would be good. How about the buffer on the north side of the property, subdivision? If I’ve got my directions correct. MR. NACE-Was that one of Staff’s comments? I forget. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t believe so. MR. NACE-You’re talking about a buffer up here? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. NACE-I’d like not to have to, because I’d like to be able to put this septic system for this house up in this area, and we have a stone wall there. I may be able to move that house up a little closer to minimize the disturbance of the stone wall. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re saying you don’t want, you can’t put one there? MR. NACE-Well, I’d prefer not to, at least, we could on Lot Seven, but on Lot Six, in order to preserve more of the stone wall, I would be getting out into that buffer with either the septic system or the house. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So at least we can get it across Lot Seven. MR. NACE-I can definitely do it on Lot Seven, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And then along the western edge it’s irrelevant, because that’s the wetland, I assume? MR. NACE-Yes. There’s no, I mean, that will be buffer. Nobody’s going to. MR. VOLLARO-So, Tom, what you’re saying, you want to continue the buffer that’s around there now, up all the way up to Lot? MR. NACE-I will continue it along the north side of Lot Seven, yes. The same 30 foot buffer. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? I’d ask you to give up the table for a couple of minutes. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? JOE DI MATTIS MR. DI MATTIS-Hi. My name is Joe DiMattis, consultant forester. I border the development on the east side at address 485 Ridge Road, second lot in. I was concerned, initially, that in my opinion, when this was first reviewed for development, in the initial planning of any development of this property, they should have given, required the developer to retain the use of the primary ingress and egress from Cronin Road instead of Ridge Road. Ridge Road is 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) already over trafficked by far, especially from Cronin Road down, especially during morning and evening work, and coming to, from work. Further, the original plan called for 12 lots there, and they were all going to exit finally on Ridge Road, and right across the road from there is an old elderly couple that was here at the first meeting. They lived there for 50 years, and every entrance in the evening, or after dark, or egress from that is going to face right into their bedroom, and they objected to that. They made an objection, but they couldn’t wait because it was after The Great Escape deal, and that took so long, that they had to leave prior to making a comment, although he did stand up and object to their development as it was proposed, and originally it was proposed to go out on Ridge Road, a 12 lot development. I was not too enthused about the way the original Ridge Road development was, because, excepting for the entrance and egress from Cronin Road, which it still should have been. They should have been required to retain a right of way, even if they sold that separate lot, so that egress and entrance should have been from Cronin Road to alleviate the congestion on Ridge Road, and to spread out the final traffic to and from that with a 12 lot subdivision, all the houses they’ve built recently are three car garages. So that means at least two or three cars in and out of there all the time. Now it’s only the nine, what is it, nine lots left? Well, eight, all right because the other one was already sold, and it looks to me that these lots originally are all odd shaped lots on that original development. So I didn’t see that too logical to me anyway. I do agree that, and I am pleased to see that they took my considerations in for bordering my lot to put some additional buffer there, and the Planning Board requested it, and they confirmed with that, but they’re only placing five spruce trees along my property. I don’t think that’s adequate. I think they need an additional five pine trees at least. That’s 173 plus footage I’ve got to my property, and that isn’t going to provide any screening, other than the little hardwood brush that’s there existing now. An additional five pine trees, I do not recommend cedar. MR. MAC EWAN-Sir, could I ask you direct your comments into the microphone. MR. DI MATTIS-Excuse me. I do not recommend cedar because cedar is going to be eaten right up by the overpopulation of deer there now. My second comment is that, also along this initial consideration, it seems to me that there should have been given a greater consideration to the fact that this section right here, as you can see from your own planning description, is a major wildlife travel corridor between the Halfway Brook conservation preserve and the large Cedar Swamp conservation preserve, and we enjoyed seeing the wildlife here, and if the, as you can see from the picture, that’s my back yard there, now. The first thing that the Hayes subdivision does is remove most of the trees. That, again, can be beneficial or not beneficial, but it’s too bad that they didn’t consider saving, on the southerly border of this development, at least a minimal wildlife travel corridor of 100 feet, something like that, would have been adequate for wildlife to travel back and forth undisturbed. As far as I can see, there was no consideration for that, and I don’t see much consideration for the impact by the, as I understand it Ridge Road is a State highway, and it seems like they should have had more impact as to the on flow and off flow of traffic in that particular area. Often people there exceed the speed limit, which is 45 miles an hour, and they frequently have to put up, the Sheriff’s patrol, has to put up signs there, lit up signs, indicating people to slow down. A number of the neighbors have complained about the heavy traffic areas, especially, as I say, morning and evening. I do feel that the current plan is much more logical as far as lot layouts go, and more rectangular. Can I put this map up? All right with you folks? At least these lots are more rectangular in shape, at least these lots are not unlike these lots here, these are all these are all odd shaped lots. It didn’t make much sense at all. At least these lots here are somewhat rectangular in shape and they do make it easier for anybody building on them or using the land afterwards to do it in a reasonable fashion. One thing I do see, though, is this lot on the end. That three, and the other three and a third acres there, and the only access these people have here is to this little corner here. The same with this lot right here. That’s a poor layout, as I can see it. In my opinion, that’s a poor layout for Lot Five. The building that was stated on there is not going to give them much of anything there, and the main highway is traveling right in through there. I would like to make one more suggestion, and I know it’s probably not too appropriate now at this stage, but this is all just a plan now, is to move this primary highway another 75 to 100 feet to the west. I understand your concerns for the wetland areas there, but with their mitigation measures that they’ve incorporated here, I don’t see any problems with the berms that they’ve 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) proposed, this wetland area also, in my opinion, out of 30 years of working with wetlands, is very marginal is considered to be in a technical wetland area. They do have already a major road all laid out through here, right straight down through there. It’s all rough graded, and if you’ve been on the property, you’ve seen it or walked on it, apparently, from Cronin Road, and it’s too bad that they didn’t maintain that road for major egress and entrance to that lot, those lots that are going to be developed, but in any case, this is apparently the way it’s going to go now, even though I feel that that may have been their original plan anyway because they tried to buy my adjoining landowner’s property who would not sell. I’m thankful for that. At least we have a little cushion there, but then they bought Doc Bannon’s property paying what some would consider maybe an exorbitant price for it to get access to Ridge Road. They may or may not have had that to begin with in their planning here, because the original lots, there were two lots there to be developed, and they could have actually developed more lots. They lack one lot now from what they could have developed and that would have left only one house going out onto Ridge Road, not all these others, and that would have been a better traffic flow pattern now and also in the future. The land does slope, but it doesn’t slope much. If you can see here, on their last map that you gave me, it didn’t show their slope elevations here, but as you can see, there’s not much of a slope from here down to there, and from here down, along the, from this stone wall here, which has already been disturbed, by the way, that road runs right through that. They’ve taken that stone wall out, probably out in this section. I don’t see that, any problem with that, but by moving this main road, by moving this main road another 75 feet to the west, which is just a matter of extending that a little farther, and the cul de sac coming here, it gives us a little greater cushion for these people to build, not right in my back yard, but a little bit away from there. As I look now, I’m looking right straight across lawn area. From my lawn, right straight across this lawn, to this lot. I don’t care to see the houses. That’s why we bought where we did. We had wooded area all around us. I have had problems with them on the lots, the previous six subdivision lots on my north side of my property, flooding and everything else that they didn’t conform to their original plan, and it caused me a lot of aggravation to have it rectified. I’ve got photographs there that show how they flooded my parking lot and everything once they removed all the trees, and as part of your long resource plans there is to retain specimen trees. That’s the first thing they did was cut every tree there, any specimen tree on that six lot division. They left just a few specimen spruce that were Christmas trees that somebody planted there first. Well, we were wooded entirely before that. The land sloped my way, and they weren’t, according to their plan, they weren’t supposed to allow that, but they did. They removed all the trees, and the minute that happened, my land was all flooded, and it remained flooded until Bruce Frank came down and his boss, and we finally got them to at least put up a berm to prevent this water from running on to my property. That doesn’t solve my next door neighbor’s property who was aggravated, because he still has a pond there that he has no use for that land because of the removal of all those trees. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. DiMattis, could I ask you to summarize, please, because we do limit four minutes per speaker. MR. DI MATTIS-Yes. Well, that’s my consideration. I am pleased that at least there’s some buffer here. I do think additional trees, pine trees, should be planted in a staggered fashion, in between those (lost words) trees you’ve got for each lot there. Those lots are approximately all similar distance, and five spruce trees is not enough, and they should be at least eight foot high. Pine trees will grow faster, so they will attain a height to somewhat screen these buildings from my property. I have a recreation trail there that I want maintained and used, and I don’t want to be looking in their backyard and I don’t want to hear their noise. There should be nothing much more than moving these lots another 75 to 100 feet to the west, and the cul de sac coming down in here, rather than right here next to ours. That allows more equal acreage. Here you’ve got pretty near two acres, three and a half, three and a third acres, two acres here, along this lot. That’s not usable, much of that’s not usable for anybody that lives there, that has a home there. Most of the lot is unusable. This would allow more acreage for these three lots, a little less acreage for these three, even up the lot acreages and make it much more feasible for development in my opinion. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) TOM SMITH MR. SMITH-Good evening. My name’s Tom Smith, I live at 457 Ridge or 17 Kitchell, which is actually just south of where the development is going in. I spoke before the Board at the last meeting. I apologize for missing the first couple of minutes of this. I guess I still have concerns as to the impact of the size of the scale of this development, in that what’s called marginal land. Beyond the engineering parts of it, I just think that the long term effects, in terms of the wetlands there certainly could be impacted by this. There is significant water problems in that area. In terms of the road movement, which was previously suggested, I don’t know if have much comment about that, but it probably, you don’t want to put neighbor against neighbor, but I would rather not have it come any further down because that’s going to begin to have a visual impact on where we live. So I guess, you know, looking at it, you stick something in. It’s in some manner or form going to affect everyone around it. So, I don’t know if the Board’s considered, you know, if there’s any reduction in the size of this development. Certainly I have a lot of concern about where all that water’s going to go that comes off there. It’s got to go someplace. If it goes into that swale that’s now on the bottom there, it’s got to go off from there somewhere. So it’s either going to impact somewhere below there, and as last time I had mentioned that noise is always a concern. We’ve been faced with noise in terms of the previous development that was going in there. I don’t know what can be done about that, in terms of this future development. Certainly there’s going to be a core amount, you know, in terms of its reduction in that. Lastly, I’m sure I still have issues with houses going up behind other people that are established in this area. It’s not, you know, the most optimal location for this, and I don’t know if it was what was discussed prior, but I still have a concern about the Hayes previous development, in terms of the number of houses that they’ve put in, and if that’s been taken into consideration of the overall impact, in aggregate, on this. I mean, maybe it’s not the legal issue that they were faced with before, since it’s a separate purchase, but I clearly think it should be looked at as an aggregate type of development, and considerations for what impacts those homes had and what impact these homes will have, and should be taken into consideration as the size and the scale of this development. So I thank the Board for their time. Have a good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? MICHAEL CANTIELLO MR. CANTIELLO-Mr. Chairman, Board members, my name is Michael Cantiello, and I live at 463 Ridge Road. It’s the property right next door to this new development. A couple of things. First of all, about people living behind people. Mr. Smith bought my development. So he’s behind my house. I live on the corner, own five acres that go out to the horse farm. The bottom part was wet. I was not able to develop on it. Okay. So this new development that the Hayes boys are going to put in is no different than that. It’s going to be the same idea. They’re going to come in. They’re keeping it up high. It’s going to benefit me. I live in a moderate house. My house is going to be worth a lot more money. That area is zoned single acre lots. All the lots are more than one acre. It’s only going to enhance the neighborhood. So I’m 100% for it. The facts are the facts are. It’s going to increase the value of my property. That’s basically what it’s going to do. There’s no ifs, ands or buts about it. I mean, it is what it is, basically. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? I’ll give you two minutes. MR. SMITH-Two minutes. In terms of Mr. Cantiello, when we purchased that property and purchased that house, ours was the existing property, and I should add, Mr. Cantiello works with the Hayes Group. So I would take what comments he made under consideration. In addition, you know, once we put our house up, there was a secondary house that was built next to us. Both houses were a fiasco and a disaster in terms of the development of that land, not to mention the construction of the properties in themselves, and in addition, Mr. Cantiello has now put up a huge fence which runs all the way back to the end of his property in order to block out the viewing of the neighbors who live next to us. So I think what that ends up 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) creating is certainly he has concerns about people building behind him. We’re somewhat more cushioned from the view because we do have some trees that we retained, but there was actually no buffer zone whatsoever left between our house and the house next door, which should have been, and they ended up moving the house up further and actually purchased more land from Mr. Cantiello because they couldn’t put the house into the location that it was previously, I think probably approved through here to go. So this just ends up creating a nightmare of, you know, problems between houses being built, fences going up, etc. So I’d just like to add those comments. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. Anyone else? MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, we have some letters to read into the record. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. HILTON-First of all I have a letter from Sonja Deckert, dated February 10. It says, “Dear th Mr. Chairman: I felt compelled to write another letter concerning the Hayes Group subdivision on Ridge Road. I wrote a letter of support of this subdivision. I did this so I could avoid speaking my opinion in front of the public. However, I did attend this meeting and to my horror and shock, Mr. Sanford mocked and sneered at my letter. Mr. Chairman, I cannot blame you for a Board member acting in such an unprofessional and obviously biased manner because you weren’t there to control this meeting. I certainly hope you will be at this meeting to remind Mr. Sanford that he has the responsibility to hear all opinions and arguments without letting his personal agendas and opinions override this Board’s level of fairness and civility. Mr. Chairman, once again, I would like to express myself one more time. I live right next to this proposed subdivision and I believe this project will increase my home’s value. It’s that simple. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I certainly hope you are here to hear this letter. Sincerely, Sonja Deckert” Another letter dated February 14 from Justin Brown. “My name is Justin Brown and th I am anxiously awaiting the approval of this subdivision. My desire is to construct a home for my family in this proposed subdivision. Please take my wishes in account when considering this subdivision. Thank you. Sincerely, Justin Brown” Another letter from Susan Sweet, dated February 11. “Dear Esteemed Board Members: Hello, my name is Susan Sweet. This is my th second letter in support of the proposed project. I reside at 467 Ridge Road in Queensbury. My driveway is directly on Ridge. Let me tell you, it is scary and dangerous. This proposed subdivision would change my driveway location, which will allow me to safely enter and leave my driveway without taking my life and my family’s lives in our hands. This classic dead end road will be a tremendous and safe place for my children to learn to ride their bikes and play without fear of traffic. Please, members of the Board, approve this subdivision. You may have your slice of heaven, but please allow me to pursue mine. Sincerely, Susan Sweet” Another letter dated February 12 from Cathy Cantiello. “Dear Mr. Chairman: My name is Cathy th Cantiello and I live at 463 Ridge Road, Queensbury. My home is next door to the proposed neighborhood. First of all, I think the neighborhood will help my property value tremendously, Real Estate 101 says more expensive homes lift values of neighboring homes of more modest value. Secondly, I find it interesting that some people who recently built in the area are opposed to the subdivision. This opposition seems hypocritical since they think it is ok for them but not for others, WOW, that takes nerve! Thirdly, the obvious bias of some of the board members is appalling. My understanding of the function of the Planning Board is; members are supposed to hear evidence and facts and then make intelligent decisions according to town law, not based on secret political agendas and personal reasons. I have done my research well, and to my horror and shock, I found that Mr. Sanford lives within the “500 feet affected party zone”. Yet he did not divulge this and acted with obvious bias. I call for Mr. Sanford to resign his position on the planning board immediately. I will certainly forward this request to the Town Board with much haste. How far can we drift from fair and impartial without the whole system collapsing? What about ethics? What about property rights? Mr. Chairman, thank you for your time and I hope you can help reign in some of these personal agendas and culture some professional ones. Sincerely, Cathy Cantiello” Lastly, a letter from Wayne Dickinson dated February 14. “I attended the last meeting concerning the proposed Hayes Group subdivision. th I attended this meeting because I intend to purchase a home in this proposed neighborhood. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) What I came away with from this meeting was; I must be an evil man to want a new home in American Dream Queensbury on a two-acre lot. I thought a large part of the is the dream of American Dream home ownership. It now seems that the for some is to control other peoples’ property for their own benefit. It’s an ugly and scary trend in this town. Please let the law and the code prevail, not a code of special interest, but the legally approved code. Yours truly, Wayne Dickinson” And that’s all we have. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? All right. We’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to do it? MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you, Tony. MR. MAC EWAN-They submitted a Long Form with this. Before we start doing that, just one quick question. The New York State DOT? MR. NACE-As far as the road entrance? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. NACE-They will be, they have not been contacted yet. They will be. MR. SANFORD-George, can I have a copy of those letters? MR. HILTON-Yes. You’d probably have to fill out a FOIL request. They’re public record. MR. SANFORD-Well, aren’t they part of this application? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Doesn’t the Planning Board have a right to the record? MR. HILTON-I’m not denying you any right. MR. SANFORD-No, no. I’m asking Mr. Schachner if I have to go through FOIL to get those letters. MR. SCHACHNER-This is obviously unrehearsed, but it would be my opinion that any document that’s submitted as part of any application is not only available to the public, perhaps through Freedom Of Information Law, but available carte blanch to any Planning Board member. MR. HILTON-Okay. That’s fine. I have no problem with that. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Thank you. MR. SCHACHNER-By the way, that’s not just available, that should be reviewed by the Planning Board. MR. SANFORD-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-The buffer on the south side of the site, can we increase that to like 60 feet, 100 feet? MR. NACE-Yes, I think we could. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) MR. MAC EWAN-He threw out 60 and 100. MR. NACE-I’m sorry. I just heard 60 in there. I was turned away when you said 100. One hundred feet’s going to be a problem. I think 60 feet’s doable. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-All right, Tony, begin. MR. METIVIER-“Impact on Land Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?” MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. METIVIER-Will it be small to moderate? Potentially large? And can it be mitigated by a project change? Examples are, any construction on slopes of 50% or greater. Which is no. Construction on land where the depth to water table is less than three feet? MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-In one place it’s 18 inches, I believe. MR. METIVIER-And is this a small to moderate or potentially large? MR. SANFORD-Potentially large. We don’t know. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the whole Board’s consensus here? MR. METIVIER-I believe it to be small to moderate. MR. MAC EWAN-Re-read the first part of the question, Tony. MR. METIVIER-Construction on land where the depth to water table is less than three feet? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, is mottling considered a water table? MR. VOLLARO-They’re talking about the seasonally high groundwater. That’s what they’re referring to when they talk about the level of the water, I believe, seasonally high groundwater, determined by mottling. MR. SEGULJIC-So the answer is yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. METIVIER-Small to moderate. MR. SEGULJIC-Small to moderate. MR. MAC EWAN-Small to moderate is the consensus. MR. METIVIER-Okay. Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. No. MR. VOLLARO-No. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) MR. METIVIER-Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within three feet of existing ground surface. No. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-No. Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e. rock or soil) per year. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. METIVIER-Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. METIVIER-Construction in a designated floodway. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. STEFFAN-No. MR. METIVIER-Any other impacts on land? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. METIVIER-Okay. “Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual landforms found on the site? (i.e. cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)” MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. VOLLARO-There will be for the stone wall. I think it’s small to moderate, but I think you have to put that in. MR. METIVIER-That’s not. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not a natural landform. MR. METIVIER-That’s not a natural landform. MR. VOLLARO-That’s not a natural. Okay. That’ll come later on then. Go ahead. MR. METIVIER-“Impact on Water Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL)” MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-“Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water?” Examples. A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. No. MR. MAC EWAN-No. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) MR. METIVIER-Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. No. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s no on all of them, Tony. MR. METIVIER-All right. “Will the Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?” Examples that would apply. Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. METIVIER-Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project) action. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-Proposed Action requires supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. METIVIER-Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. METIVIER-Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. METIVIER-No. Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. METIVIER-Proposed action would likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. SCHACHNER-There’s municipal water. MR. METIVIER-Are we all set? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. METIVIER-Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. No. “Will the Proposed Action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff?” MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. METIVIER-Examples that would apply. Proposed Action would change floodwater flows. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. METIVIER-Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. MR. VOLLARO-I would say no. MR. METIVIER-Are we in agreement? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. METIVIER-Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-“Impact On Air Will proposed action affect air quality?” MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. METIVIER-“Impact on Plants and Animals Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species?” MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. METIVIER-No. “Will Proposed Action affect any non-threatened or non-endangered species?” MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. SANFORD-It certainly will, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t think it’s threatening them. We’re not doing something that’s going to. MR. SANFORD-You’re destroying the habitat. That’s not threatening an animal? MR. METIVIER-Let me give you examples. Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. MR. SEGULJIC-No. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) MR. MAC EWAN-The answer is no. MR. METIVIER-Okay. “Impact on Agriculture Land Resources Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources?” MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. METIVIER-“Impact on Aesthetic Resources Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources?” MR. VOLLARO-I think the fence comes under that, Tony. MR. METIVIER-Okay. Proposed land uses or project components obviously different or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. No. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. METIVIER-Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. METIVIER-Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. METIVIER-All right. So that’s no. MR. MAC EWAN-Is there a spot for an other? MR. METIVIER-I’m sorry. Other. MR. MAC EWAN-Disturbance of historical stone walls. Which could be mitigated through the project’s development. MR. METIVIER-Are we all set with that? Is it going to be small to moderate? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. METIVIER-Okay. “Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance?” MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe we ought to move that to that column. MR. METIVIER-Yes, actually, that’s what I’m thinking. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we probably ought to move that answer to that column. MR. METIVIER-And again, small to moderate? MR. MAC EWAN-Small to moderate. Mitigated through the project’s development. MR. SCHACHNER-You jumped a little quickly there. Which bullet item in Number 12 are you referring to the stone wall in? You answered the question, but I don’t think you identified a bullet item. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) MR. METIVIER-Other impacts. MR. MAC EWAN-Under other. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine. So instead of 11 other impacts, put what you said about the stone wall under other in 12 under other impacts. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. METIVIER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-And characterized as small to moderate. MR. METIVIER-My apologies. MR. SCHACHNER-No, I’m asking. MR. METIVIER-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what we’re doing. MR. METIVIER-Again, my apologies. Are we all set with 12? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. METIVIER-Thirteen. “Impact on Open Space and Recreation Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. METIVIER-Fourteen. “Impact on Critical Environmental Areas Will Proposed Action impact the exception or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14(g)?” MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. METIVIER-Okay. Fifteen. “Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?” MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. METIVIER-Sixteen “Impact on Energy Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply?” MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. METIVIER-Seventeen. “Noise and Odor Impacts Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action?” MR. VOLLARO-There probably will be construction noise, but I don’t think it’s a continuous thing. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) MR. METIVIER-Shall I give you some examples? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, the bullet items are manufacturing of some kind, aren’t they? MR. METIVIER-Blasting within 1500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures, and Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-Any other? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. METIVIER-Okay. “Impact on Public Health Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety?” MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. METIVIER-Nineteen. “Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community?” MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. METIVIER-“Is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Well. MR. VOLLARO-There’s been considerable public comment on this, though. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I think we have to take that into consideration. MR. MAC EWAN-From an environmental standpoint? MR. VOLLARO-Well, one of them was the gentleman who talked about a wildlife corridor, for example. That’s an environmental concern. MRS. STEFFAN-And there was another person who. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I was the only one answering. I didn’t hear anybody else say anything. MRS. STEFFAN-We just chimed in. MR. MAC EWAN-Come on, there’s six of us up here. MRS. STEFFAN-There was somebody on Cronin Road who was at the public hearing the last time and talked about the impacts of water in his back yard, the cumulative effect of all the building in the area. MR. SEGULJIC-But that was a different location. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) MRS. STEFFAN-But he talked about it in relationship to this application. MR. SCHACHNER-I have two questions, not about Question Twenty, and Question Twenty, remember, is the only question that you don’t have to characterize the magnitude of the impact. It’s more or less a survey type question. If people have made objections based on potential environmental impacts, my general recommendation is to say, yes, there has been some public controversy, if they haven’t, say no, but you don’t, it’s the easiest question, in my opinion, because you don’t have to classify or characterize the magnitude of the impact. MR. MAC EWAN-Change that answer to yes, then. MRS. STEFFAN-I think so, based on the comment we’ve gotten. MR. SCHACHNER-But I do, when it’s appropriate, Mr. Chairman, I do have two factual questions about two of the other questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead right now. MR. SCHACHNER-Just for the sake of accuracy, we’ve come this far. I was a little confused about, when I interjected my question back on Item Five, “Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?” The tenth bullet item asks about when the proposed action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer service, and I thought my understanding was this proposed action would have municipal water but not municipal sewer. If that’s not right, then when I asked that you said, no, it has both. MR. VOLLARO-No, it has municipal water, not municipal sewer. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Then I’m not understanding your no answer. I’m not suggesting any major impact. That’s entirely up to you, but I’m not understanding your factual answer no. I’m not understanding it. MR. VOLLARO-I thought it had to include both, and that’s why I said no. MR. SCHACHNER-If it’s both, then clearly the answer is no. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-And I’m understanding that this application doesn’t have both. MR. VOLLARO-Does not have both. It only has one. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. So typically, from a factual standpoint, that would trigger a positive answer, and then you would classify or characterize the magnitude. That’s where I’m not understanding your answer. My other question is, just for clarification sake, I thought I heard, in Question Nine, well, let’s not leave Five. Is Five staying the way it is, or are you changing? MR. VOLLARO-We can make it a yes with the fact it’s mitigated by the fact that there’s only one of those. MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t think you need to reach mitigation until you first characterize whether it’s small to moderate or potentially large. MR. METIVIER-I believe it’s small to moderate. MR. VOLLARO-Small to moderate. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and if that’s the consensus of the Board, then you don’t need to discuss mitigation. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Yes, and small to moderate is the answer. MR. METIVIER-For Number Five. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Then my other question is, on Question Nine, Will the Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species, I think the Chairman asked a question about whether the fish, shellfish or wildlife species question was limited to migratory? Is that what you asked? And it’s not. It’s resident or migratory. MR. METIVIER-I thought he was asking me if it said migratory fish. That’s why I said yes to that. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and what I’m saying is it’s resident or migratory, fish, shellfish, or wildlife species. MR. METIVIER-Right, I understand what you’re saying. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m not suggesting that changes your answer. I thought that was worthy of clarification because I think there was a little confusion about how that question reads. If that’s your answer, that’s your answer. MR. METIVIER-Shall I read it again? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, Tony. MR. METIVIER-Number Nine, “Will the Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species?” Examples that would apply. Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. MR. VOLLARO-It will. I think it will disturb traffic patterns for deer, for example. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s a deer corridor, according to the comment. MR. VOLLARO-If the gentleman is right, they use that as a standard corridor, we are changing that. MR. NACE-They’ll just have more food along the way with all the bushes. MR. METIVIER-And would it be small to moderate or potentially large? MR. VOLLARO-Small to moderate, Tony. MR. MAC EWAN-I would tend to agree with that. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s a small to moderate. I mean, it’s not like a caribou migration or anything like that. MR. METIVIER-And we do have to go back to Number Twenty and decide what we’d need to do with that. MR. VOLLARO-What is Twenty? MR. METIVIER-That would be the last question. “Is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts.” 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Changing that to yes. MR. METIVIER-Okay. Well, and we don’t have anything else to do there. MR. MAC EWAN-Just noting there’s public comment to that aspect. Based on our responses. I will make a motion for a negative SEQRA dec. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 12-2004, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: HAYES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 15 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. METIVIER-Before I make any motions, I’d like to discuss the issue of clear cutting that’s been going on with some of the subdivisions around Town, especially on Ridge Road. It does appear that lately everybody goes in with bulldozers, backhoes, and everything they can and takes every tree down, and it’s obvious, especially with the Cronin Road/Ridge Road subdivision that you just recently did across the road on Ridge Road where that beautiful house that you did, you know, can we stop this? Can you stop the clear cutting and really be very selective with the amount of trees that you take down? I understand the buffers. They’ll be deeded in. You have to stay with them, but the fact remains, and if you go up Sherman, and I 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) know you’re not doing anything on Sherman road, the same thing. They go in, they cut every tree down, and I know it’s easier to build on, but this could really make a big difference, especially through there, and I would think that you guys wouldn’t want to have to clear all those trees. MR. HAYES-Basically the Ridge and Cronin one, that was pretty much a field, the one we did before. There was very selective trees, but this lot is heavily treed with mature trees, which is, we’re going to try and retain as many as possible with the construction, because you have to grade and such, but that’s really, the salability is because of the beauty of the trees on this site is exceptional, as far as that’s concerned. So we’re going to do everything in our power to save the trees for our own reasons as well, because we like trees, but also the fact I think it’s going to make the neighborhood look a lot nicer because the trees, you’ve been there, so the trees are beautiful. So we’ll do everything we can to limit that, besides the no cut zones. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I come up with, during our discussions tonight, six items that I heard comments about and I just jotted them down as we talked about a couple might drop, a couple might increase or whatever. Number One was more trees on buffer, ten spruces, a minimum of three inch diameter caliper per lot on Lot Seven, Eight, and Nine. That was a comment we talked about earlier. Maybe just to jump ahead here, to the last comment we were talking about a 60 foot no cut barrier. MR. LAPPER-He wanted pine. MR. MAC EWAN-Sixty foot no cut barrier along Lot Seven, Eight and Nine. So does that remove the concept of having trees as a buffer because we’re considering more of a deeper buffer? MR. NACE-I thought the 60 foot was to the south? MR. VOLLARO-The 60 foot is the other one, on the south side. It’s 60 foot on the south side, and that would be adding to the existing buffer, making it 60 feet. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s currently 30. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You’re talking a 30 foot no cut buffer on Lot Seven, on the north property line? MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-On Lot Seven, right? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, extending it up. MR. MAC EWAN-Deed restrictions on stone wall removal modifications to the structure, etc. Lot Six is relocate the house footprint away from the stone wall to lessen the disturbance impact, and New York State Department of Transportation Highway Permit acceptance, and moving the berm also away on Lot Four. MRS. STEFFAN-Four. MR. MAC EWAN-On Lot Five? MR. VOLLARO-Lot Five, the house intersects the wall, it could be moved down a smidgen so that, Lot Five and Six. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. STEFFAN-In that situation, can’t they move the wall? 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) MR. MAC EWAN-No. So let’s go back to the trees. Pine trees is what was said? MR. LAPPER-That’s what the neighbor asked for. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m getting confused here. This additional 30 foot you’re going to add to make a 60 foot buffer, on Lots Nine, Eight, and Seven, right? MRS. STEFFAN-No, Craig. MR. VOLLARO-They’re on Lots Two and Lot Three, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-Lot Two and Three is where you want them? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I thought it was in response to the gentleman who lives behind it that you guys were looking to increase the buffer, Mr. DiMattis. MRS. STEFFAN-He wants more trees. MR. VOLLARO-He wanted more trees. He didn’t say anything about a larger buffer. MR. LAPPER-He’s on the east side. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. That’s what was causing me to think that’s what we were talking about. MR. LAPPER-He wanted the pine, the 15 pine, in addition to the spruce. MR. MAC EWAN-Fifteen pine in addition to spruce. MR. NACE-A total of fifteen, an extra five on each lot. MR. LAPPER-And also wrap the buffer along the north side of Lot Seven. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Does somebody want to move it? MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 12-2004 HAYES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 12-2004 Applicant/Property Owner: HAYES CONSTRUCTION GRP. PRELIMINARY STAGE Agent: Van Dusen & Steves, Nace Engineering FINAL STAGE Zone: SFR-1A SEQR Type: Unlisted Location: 467 Ridge Road, West side Ridge Road 300 yards north of Meadow Drive Applicant proposes to subdivide a 15 +/- acre property into nine (9) residential lots ranging in size from 1 to 3 +/- acres. Sketch Plan review: 8/24/04 Tax Map No. 297.13-1-37 Lot size: 15.06 acres / Section: Subdivision Regulations Public Hearing: 12/28/04 [Tabled] WHEREAS, the application was received in 11/15/04, and 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 2/11/05, and 12/28/04 PB resolution: Tabled to 2/15/05 12/28/04 PB minutes 2/11/05 T. Nace from J. Meacham, DOH 2/10/05 G. Hilton from Nace Eng: 2/8/05 letter from DOH 2/9/05 CTM engineering comments 1/31/05 Bruce Ostrander Dep. Superintendent of Water Dept. comments 1/14/05 CTM sign-off 12/28/04 E-mail rec’d. at meeting: e-mail from J. Houston to T. Nace 12/27/04 PB from S. Sweet 12/27/04 PB from M/M Hubert 12/27/04 PB from M. Cantiello 12/23/04 Nace Eng. response to CTM comments 12/23/04 CTM engineering comments 12/22/04 Staff Notes 11/30/04 Meeting Notice 11/24/04 Water Dept. comments 11/17/04 M. Hayes from Maine Enterprises WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 12/28/04; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Preliminary Stage is hereby Approved as per resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 15th day of February, 2005, by the following vote: MR. SANFORD-It’s not on the agenda for tonight. MR. METIVIER-No, it’s not. So we don’t have a resolution. MR. SANFORD-I don’t know how we can approve Preliminary when it wasn’t on the agenda. MR. HILTON-Yes. Both of them are on the agenda. They were both advertised. That’s a typo. They were both advertised tonight, for Preliminary and Final. MR. SANFORD-I have the official agenda. It’s not listed. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) MR. METIVIER-Yes, it is listed, for Preliminary and Final. MR. SCHACHNER-There is a Staff prepared resolution. You all have that. MR. METIVIER-Yes, there is. MR. MAC EWAN-He’s talking about the agenda. The agenda says it’s just for Final tonight. AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 12-2004 HAYES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 12-2004 Applicant/Property Owner: HAYES CONSTRUCTION GRP. PRELIMINARY STAGE Agent: Van Dusen & Steves, Nace Engineering FINAL STAGE Zone: SFR-1A SEQR Type: Unlisted Location: 467 Ridge Road, West side Ridge Road 300 yards north of Meadow Drive Applicant proposes to subdivide a 15 +/- acre property into nine (9) residential lots ranging in size from 1 to 3 +/- acres. Sketch Plan review: 8/24/04 Tax Map No. 297.13-1-37 Lot size: 15.06 acres / Section: Subdivision Regulations Public Hearing: 12/28/04 [Tabled] WHEREAS, the application was received in 11/15/04, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 2/11/05, and 12/28/04 PB resolution: Tabled to 2/15/05 12/28/04 PB minutes 2/11/05 T. Nace from J. Meacham, DOH 2/10/05 G. Hilton from Nace Eng: 2/8/05 letter from DOH 2/9/05 CTM engineering comments 1/31/05 Bruce Ostrander Dep. Superintendent of Water Dept. comments 1/14/05 CTM sign-off 12/28/04 E-mail rec’d. at meeting: e-mail from J. Houston to T. Nace 12/27/04 PB from S. Sweet 12/27/04 PB from M/M Hubert 12/27/04 PB from M. Cantiello 12/23/04 Nace Eng. response to CTM comments 12/23/04 CTM engineering comments 12/22/04 Staff Notes 11/30/04 Meeting Notice 11/24/04 Water Dept. comments 11/17/04 M. Hayes from Maine Enterprises 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 12/28/04; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Final Stage is hereby Approved as per the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plat submitted for Planning Board Chairman’s signature and filing: 1. Deed restrictions prohibiting stone wall removals, modifications or destruction, 2. Thirty foot No Cut buffer on Lot 7, on the Lot 7 north property line, 3. Lots 5 & 6 relocate house footprint away from stone wall to lessen disturbance impact, 4. Obtain NYS Dept. of Transportation Highway permit acceptance, 5. A 60 foot No Cut buffer along the southern property lines of Lots 2, 3 & 4, 6. Move the berm away from the stone wall on Lot 4, 7. More trees buffering on Lots 7, 8 & 9 with five (5) pine and five (5) spruce, each with three inch caliper per lot on Lot 7, 8 & 9, 8. Recreation Fees in the amount of $500.00 per lot are applicable to this subdivision and shall be paid with submission of Building Permit application, 9. Waiver request(s) are granted: Sketch plan, Stormwater, Grading and Landscaping Plan, 10. Applicant shall submit a copy of the required NOI prior to final signature by the Planning Board Chairman, 11. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days, 12. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. Duly adopted this 15th day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2004 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED RINO LONGHITANO PROPERTY OWNER: H. RUSSELL HARRIS ESTATE AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: RAINBOW TRAIL APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 7.63 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 4.1 AND 3.4 ACRES CROSS REFERENCE: AV 94-91, SB 3-92, SB 18-91 TAX MAP NO. 279.15- 1-61 LOT SIZE: 7.63 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes, George. MR. HILTON-The applicant has submitted revised plans from subdivision plat, actually, in response to the tabling from the Planning Board. Test pits were witnessed by C.T. Male, were dug on January 10. A memo and test pit logs have been provided by C.T. Male. As this th property proposes a shared driveway off Rainbow Trail, it appears that easements will probably be, access easements will be required, and they should be included in both deeds in order to allow the shared access, and consideration could be given or should be given to providing proof that these easements have been filed prior to the issuance of a building permit for either lot. With that, it looks like what the Board asked for has been supplied. I spoke with the Highway Superintendent this morning, and as far as the location of the curb cut in relation to the culvert, he didn’t really see a problem with it at all, and, beyond that, that’s all I have at this time. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves representing Rino Longhitano on this application. Staff has stated, we’ve addressed all the comments from C.T. Male from the Board, with the revised plan. If you want, I can go through the bullet items from C.T. Male, but they have all been addressed. It was basically the reviewing of the test pits and the perc tests that were done, witnessed the test pits by your review engineer and Charlie Maine. I did also talk with Rick Missita this afternoon after George had talked to him. I went through it again. He has no problem with it at all, as far as the drive location, and his comment to me was that he’d much rather see it as a shared driveway than two. So he had no problem with it at all. I told him we were going to put the culvert in there at the beginning of the driveway, and he, again, had no problem. We have submitted the septic details that are required, and reviewed by C.T. Male on the basis of their test pit data, and I’d just leave it open to any questions the Board may have. MR. SEGULJIC-Percolation tests. MR. STEVES-Percolation tests. There were two percolation tests done at each. MR. SEGULJIC-They were done? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. STEVES-And they are on the plans. MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, just to bring it to your attention, we did receive today. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I’m concerned about. I’m looking at the wrong drawings here. MR. STEVES-The Staff, because of the fact that we got the letter faxed to us on February 9, th from C.T. Male, we went out, we performed the perc test. We had Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering, do the detail for the shall absorption trench which they wanted added to the plan, which we have, and perc test data, next to the new test pits that were done, and we performed all that and have placed them on the revised plan that Staff has. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) MR. HUNSINGER-That’s in addition to the test pits from 1/10/05? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STEVES-And in their letter they asked that if possible, because the Department of Health I believe says the suggestion is to have two perc tests done in the approximate area of your septic system. So they put that note on there. So therefore we went out and performed two perc tests at the area of the proposed septic system. MR. VOLLARO-May I ask a question? Do you feel that that’s a standard practice now for DOH to ask that? MR. STEVES-It depends on the size of the lot. If you have smaller lots, the standard practice that I have seen, on smaller lots, you know, one acre, half acre in sandy soils is usually one every other lot, but it depends on the size of the lot and the soil characteristics, to prove that the area in there is pretty consistent, and the test pit data, we have two new test pits on each lot, and the test pit data on the surrounding lots from the previous subdivision also is very consistent soil types. MR. VOLLARO-I guess I’m a little bit confused, and maybe Staff can help me out. I have a letter here February 8, 2005. MR. HILTON-And as I was going to say, I just want to make this statement. MR. VOLLARO-This is what I reviewed. MR. HILTON-That’s what you reviewed, and today we received, which we haven’t distributed to the Board, revised plans and a cover letter in response to that C.T. Male letter of February 8. th So we have this, and we will distribute it to you with your next packets. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the Board’s prerogative? Do you want to table this thing so you can review the new drawings? MR. STEVES-I can go through the bullet items for you so you understand what each one is and then you can make your decision after that, Mr. Chairman, if you don’t mind. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the consensus is we’re going to table it, Matt, but if you want to go through it and brief us on it. MR. STEVES-I think I should. Okay. Regarding Number One on C.T. Male’s letter, again, I do apologize, but at the same time I had four businesses days to accomplish all of the information on this letter that I go, so, bear with me, okay. I did get it in as fast as I possibly could. The results indicate a shallow depth to seasonal high groundwater. The depth to groundwater is noted as 36 inches and 28 inches. This condition will require that the wastewater disposal system be constructed as shallow systems. Details for a shallow system should be designed and shown on the plans. We have accomplished that, and you have a second sheet with all the details for a shallow absorption system. Number Two, test pit for the septic system on Lot 10B is located approximately 120 feet from the proposed wastewater disposal system. Either a new pit should be dug or the system relocated. We relocated the system to be right over the test pit. Three, the soil information presented does not include percolation tests for these new lots. At least two percolation tests should be run for each disposal system. We had done those. We put those and the results on the plan. Number Four, drainage from the north flowing from Azure Drive flows across the lots before reaching the drainage ditch as shown on the plan. The wastewater disposal system on Lot 10A should be protected from runoff that drainage may flow into this area. That’s a shallow system. We have a designed swale around it, and that 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) shallow system has some fill placed around the edges of it so that nothing can pond on the system, and that is also provided on the plan. Number Five, proposed grading and system design information should be added. That’s redundant. We have the design information and we just discussed the grading on the previous question. Number Six, it appears that two culverts under the proposed driveway will be required and should be added to the plan. I show those two locations, and have discussed that with the Highway Superintendent and he has no problems with that. The last one was just an oversight on my part. The installation of the well on Lot 10B will require a Letter of Permission from the New York State DEC. We had the proposed well location within the 100 foot buffer of the wetland on a 4.17 acre lot. It wasn’t a problem to move the well outside of the 100 foot buffer, and those were their comments and all those have been addressed. MR. VOLLARO-I knew when I saw that you didn’t mean to do that. MR. STEVES-No. MR. METIVIER-Do you have sign off at this point? MR. STEVES-No. MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the slope of the driveway? MR. STEVES-The slope of the driveway is about one percent. Flat, very flat. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? MR. METIVIER-I know you’re going to disagree with me, but is there any way we can move forward on this tonight? I mean, we were just talking, and we’ve sent this away so many times, we have the plans. They’re very simple. Everything’s updated. I don’t foresee it being any major difference from what they could possibly give us tonight to what we have right now. MR. STEVES-We could do it with the condition that the mylar isn’t signed until such time as you have that sign off letter from C.T. Male. I would be agreeable to that. MR. METIVIER-Well, on occasion, in the past, we have done a conditional approval, based on a signoff from C.T. Male, and I just feel this might be one of those cases that we could get away with it. Unless I’m alone, which is fine. I have no problem with that, but it just seems we’re sending him back week, after week, after week after week on this one. Let’s get this thing over with, one way or another. Approve or deny, but let’s just do it. MR. MAC EWAN-The rest of the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-I tend to concur with Tony. MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry? MR. MAC EWAN-He wants to know if we can move forward and do a conditional approval on this thing, provided we get a C.T. Male signoff on this thing as part of conditional approval. MR. SEGULJIC-My problem is that we haven’t seen the perc test results, and even in the last application, I think we’re not being. MR. MAC EWAN-We have them right here. MR. METIVIER-Yes, we do have the perc test results. MR. SEGULJIC-Those aren’t perc tests. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) MR. METIVIER-Yes, they are. MR. STEVES-We have test pit and perc test results. MR. SEGULJIC-You do have perc tests? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I can see a test pit log. I don’t see a perc test. MR. VOLLARO-There’s no perc tests on the test pit log. There’s mottling in one case and there’s depth to groundwater on the other. MR. STEVES-On your septic design, Perc Test Number One, four minutes and thirty seconds per inch, stabilized. The other one, on the other lot, was five minutes and forty seconds per inch stabilized. That’s on the upper right hand corner under the percolation test results on the septic design page, which is also with the test pit data. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s on the new drawing. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s on the plans we don’t have. MR. STEVES-Which is the plans. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the new drawings. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m polling the Board. MR. VOLLARO-I want to look at the new drawing. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-I don’t care. MR. METIVIER-Come on, you do care. MR. SANFORD-I don’t care. MR. STEVES-I just think if it’s a large project, I understand. If they come back and they say it’s fine, you’re going to put me back on another meeting. I’m going to sit up here. You’re going to say, fine. If they come back and the results aren’t what you wanted them to be, I have to come back again anyway, but this way at least I don’t have to come back in front of you. Unless you like seeing me so much. MR. METIVIER-We do enjoy seeing you. MR. STEVES-It’s up to you. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll have you come back. I mean, being consistent in the way the Board’s established the policies and things we’ve been talking about for the last year or so that we’ll table this application, put them on for our first meeting of March. MR. STEVES-Do you know that date? MR. HILTON-The 15, I believe. th 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) MR. METIVIER-How about next week? Can we throw him on next week? MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve got a pretty full agenda next week. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE & FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2004 RINO LONGHITANO, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Giving the Planning Board the opportunity to review the newly submitted drawings received in the Town offices today. Duly adopted this 15th day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Sorry. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 7-2005 SEQR TYPE II MORTT DISTRIBUTORS DBA DUNHAM FOOTWEAR PROPERTY OWNER: LAKE GEORGE ASSOCIATES ZONE: HC INTENSIVE LOCATION: 1500 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ERECT A 20’ X 40’ TENT AS PART OF A SEASONAL OUTDOOR SALES USE AT DUNHAM FOOTWEAR STORE ON ROUTE 9. RETAIL USES IN THE HC-INTENSIVE ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 22-04, SV 1371, 1395, 23-1993, & 90-1996 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/9/05 TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-15 LOT SIZE: 1.61 ACRES 1.61 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 GEOFFREY HOLCZER & JOE REICHMAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes, George. MR. HILTON-Really quickly, this is essentially the same application as one that was previously reviewed as part of Site Plan 22-2004. I’ve noted the waivers that the applicant is requesting. My comment at the bottom is, should the Planning Board choose to approve this application, the timeframe should be specified in which the tent and seasonal sales event will occur. Understanding that there have been previous concerns by this Board about such sales, I guess, regardless of how this Board votes, an option could be for the Planning Board to refer this to the Planning Ordinance Review Committee for their review or recommendation on seasonal sales throughout the Town. Having said that, that’s all I have a this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. HOLCZER-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, I’m Geoffrey Holczer. This is Joe Reichman, and we are the owners of Mortt Distributors. George said we’ve had the seasonal tent in use for the past 15 years. It’s an integral part of our summer business. Due to the summer tourist business being a substantial increase in demand, and the tent enables us to stock more merchandise to meet that demand. The tent meets all fire and safety requirements and the required parking exists within the footprint of the building. The Town’s existing regulations permit the use of tents for 180 day period each year. We’re requesting the use Memorial Day to the middle of October. We received the Town’s permission last year, and the only issue the Board raised was how many tents would be erected along Route 9. Only one other business used a tent last year, 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) and from what we can understand, only two others expressed an interest in using a tent. Therefore, we feel the Board’s concerns about an excessive amount of tents are not likely to occur this year either. The extra sales generated from the tent are significant and supply a significant amount of sales tax revenue. Our landlord, Jeff Gordon, of Gordon Development, completely supports the use of the tent and once again has confirmed the 15 year history of use. Early resolution of the issue is very important to us. We have a three to six month lead time in order to receive merchandise for sale and therefore starting the approval process much earlier this year to avoid any timing problems. We purchase goods from vendors specifically for the tent sale and they will not fit into the existing store and cannot be returned to the vendors. The cost of marking them down for a quick sale or shipping them to another location is excessive and not practical. Therefore, we’re here tonight to seek your approval to have the tent from Memorial Day to the middle of October. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. As you know, our Board has been looking very carefully at the tent situation up in what is commonly known as the Million Dollar Half Mile for the last year or so, and the last couple of applications, I think we’ve had two previous to your application tonight, we’ve denied it, and we’ve denied it for a couple of reasons. Number One, and probably most important, is the safety aspect. We have had reports. We are understanding that there have been instances in the past where you get the typical rubbernecking thing to see who’s got the sale on what side of the street and people don’t pay attention where they’re driving. So far we’ve been fortunate that no one’s actually gotten hit, I don’t think, up there, that we’re aware of, or accidents directly related to the tents up there. But the other thing is is that what we’ve seen over the years, when we first started reviewing these tent applications, probably, what, five, seven years ago is that what started out being as being a couple week tent sale becoming an entire tourist season tent sale, and we just don’t think that’s in the best interest of the Town. We don’t think it’s in the best interest of the Million Dollar Half Mile, what it has to offer up there. Obviously from a public safety standpoint, it become problematic, and we’ve taken the position, with the last couple of applications, I’m guessing we’ll probably take the same position tonight, is that we’re just not interested in doing long term tent sale type things anymore. As with anybody in the retail business, I mean, when you rented your retail space, it wasn’t conducive to you always having a tent outside to augment your sales floor space area with the seasonal out by the road. So, I find it difficult for me to, for my position anyway, to want to support an application where they’re looking at this to augment their display area, and that’s basically what you’re doing. You’re just taking your indoor stuff and you’re moving it outdoors. You’re creating a larger display area outdoors, so that it’s more readily available by the car traffic, pedestrian traffic that’s going up and down Route 9, and I just think it becomes very problematic, and it’s, in so many words, an accident waiting to happen, and that’s why we denied the previous two. That’s my two cents worth. Anybody else? MR. VOLLARO-I just have a question for Staff. I couldn’t find this in our, where is this listed? This is called the Code requirements for tents and canopies. MR. HILTON-I believe that’s a fire code. It’s not contained in this. MR. VOLLARO-It says business owners and transient merchants. It’s got a Queensbury stamp logo on the front of it. MR. HILTON-Yes, and I think it’s a summary of the fire code requirements. MR. VOLLARO-It says maximum use periods. It talks about the detailed site plan and the floor plan. This doesn’t sound too much like. MR. HILTON-Yes, I don’t know. Without seeing it. MR. HUNSINGER-I had a question on that, too, George. The third bullet, if everyone on the Board knows what Bob was referring to, it was part of the application that was made by the applicant. The third bullet says that fire apparatus access to all sides of the tent must be provided and maintained. The required width is 12 feet on all sides. The drawing that was 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) submitted by the applicant has no required width on the one side where the tent is closest to the building, unless I misunderstood your drawing. MR. REICHMAN-Well, I’m the one who drew it, and I don’t think, to be an architect, by any stretch of the imagination. When we had it inspected by the fire commissioner last year, which his comments are attached, it says exits aisle widths approved as is. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. REICHMAN-So I would assume that he would have measured that and will do exactly the same thing this time. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m just looking at this on paper, and I’ve been there. I mean, personally I don’t have a problem with the way your tent has been laid out. I think some of the ones that we denied were for different reasons. I think where yours is located, I personally don’t think that there’s a problem with vehicular or pedestrian conflict in traffic, I think the way its location works, but if this is Town Code, that we have to follow, we couldn’t approve it as drawn anyway, and that’s really why I asked the question. MR. HILTON-You’re referring to this document, bullet item number three? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HILTON-Again, in looking at this, it appears to me, first of all, that it was drafted by the Fire Marshal’s Office, and a lot of what is in here appears to be New York State Fire Code or other Codes that they follow in reviewing tent sales, transient merchants. I don’t think you’re going to find this in our Town Code, Zoning Code. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I didn’t think I would. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. I don’t think it’s tent sales. I think it’s the tent, the canopy. I think you’re going to find all these bullet items are from the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-I just want to make sure Bob and other members know. There is, that the Transient Merchant Law of the Town of Queensbury is not part of the Zoning law. It’s Chapter 160 in your Code Books, 160. So that is a separate law, but one of the things it says in that law is that applications come to the Planning Board for site plan review. That’s why these applications come here, and there is some cross referencing in Chapter 160, the Transient Merchant Law. For example, your Planning Board site plan review criteria are cross referenced, as I recall, to the zoning law, but in specific reference to Bob and Chris’ questions, these bullet items that were prepared by the Fire Marshal look to me to be from the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code, not from our Zoning law or our Transient Merchant Law. MR. VOLLARO-So, to try to come up with what Chris has come up with there, can we approve that based on the drawing? In other words, it’s not a Zoning Code that we’re looking at. It has to do with fire prevention. MR. SCHACHNER-You’re looking at two things actually. You’re looking at compliance with the Town of Queensbury Transient Merchant Law, which if you look at it, it’s not that much different than the stuff in your zoning law, and this stuff is New York State Uniform, we believe, I’m quite confident this is true, the requirements of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code. Most of this stuff you’ll find is not Planning Board discretionary type stuff. New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code stuff are criteria that 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) any applicant has to meet, and I think you’ll find, I’d be surprised if you find discretion in any of these. MR. METIVIER-And actually they have to get an inspection done from the Fire Marshal anyway. MR. HILTON-Absolutely. MR. SCHACHNER-And this is what, presumably, would be inspected. MR. METIVIER-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. HOLCZER-Which, as I said, he did last year. We would have him do the same thing again this year. MR. METIVIER-I mean, I’m just wondering, unless their inspection criteria has changed, this doesn’t conform to what the thing there states, but in the same sense you got your Temporary CO last year, I guess you would call it, Certificate of Occupancy for last year. MR. HOLCZER-Right, which you should have in the packet. MR. METIVIER-So really this would be, it wouldn’t even be conditional on that. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think Chris raises a good point. Can we approve something in there, if there’s no any discretionary, any latitude, I’d like to use that word better than discretionary, but there’s not much latitude in that document. If they’ve given us a drawing that doesn’t conform to that. MR. METIVIER-But, no, see, the fact of the matter is that we can’t. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re hanging your hat on one thing, Bob. I mean, you’ve still got the entire Zoning Ordinances that you have at your disposal to work from. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. I’m not saying you don’t have any discretionary authority at all. I’m saying these items. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I understand that, but that’s the only thing that was part of the package on which I thought a lot of this rested. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess on the short answer, if you’re going to use part of the Fire Marshal’s bullet items of the fire code and things that they need to do when tents or awnings are put up, and based on the drawing that was submitted to us, no, I guess you could say that is criteria to deny it because it doesn’t meet the fire code that the Fire Marshal recommends. MR. VOLLARO-But there’s the larger question. It’s the one that you raised. Whether we do or don’t want tents up there at all. In other words, to me, those tents look a little like a carnival after a while. I just don’t like that. Especially up there. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, if you go back to when we did Mitchell Cohen, for his tent, and our two things that we based that denial on was it was not in keeping with the neighborhood or the Town, and, two, the location of the tents where they’re shown on the property have an adverse effect on safety and a safety hazard, and potentially any one of those tents by any one of those retailers that’s along that Route 9 corridor, the Million Dollar Half Mile, could pose as a safety hazard for vehicles. You’re going to get the rubbernecking. I’ve seen it up there myself. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) MR. VOLLARO-I guess if I owned a place up there and I saw everybody else putting tents up, I would come to this Board and ask for my tent as well, and you would get an equivalent to tent city after a while, and that’s a concern that I have, is the escalation of these tents over time. MR. MAC EWAN-And that’s where it was heading. MR. VOLLARO-And so that’s my big concern. MR. MAC EWAN-The other side of the coin is, and I just don’t know how you work it into the Codes to be responsive to it. As a retailer I understand their position. They’re trying to make money. The biggest time of year they make money is during the tourist season. So in order, if you have, you increase your floor space, your retail floor space, and your display area, by moving it outside, that the public could see it easier as they’re driving by, I mean, to me, that’s not a bonafide reason to approve something, because I don’t see where that falls into our Codes. I mean, there’s no mention in our Codes about the economic impact a business would or wouldn’t have by an approved or not approved site plan, or special use permit, or whatever the case may be. To me, every retailer up there, no matter what outlet mall they’re in up there, they all, when they rented their space, all knew that they were renting and all knew the size of the floor space they were getting, and it seems like a majority of them now are still trying to creep outside in expanding that retail space they have seasonally. MR. HOLCZER-When we purchased the business three years ago, we knew that we had a 12 year history of having a tent. So we expected to have the tent continue. MR. MAC EWAN-No guarantee that was going to happen. MR. HOLCZER-I understand that, but when you, just your point about whenever a retailer does something, when we, as a retailer, purchased the business three years ago, we had had a 12 year history of having a tent out there. So we expected that to continue. MR. MAC EWAN-And the point is a lot of stuff, for years, has gotten very problematic up there. MR. SEGULJIC-This particular tent I don’t have a problem with. The one across the street, if I recall correctly, that was out closer to the road, next to the sidewalk, I believe. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think we can discriminate. We’re in a position now. MR. MAC EWAN-This Board needs to be very consistent about what they’re doing. Very consistent. MR. SEGULJIC-But it’s application by application. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s true, but you also have the same neighborhood character up there. Even though they’re different applications, you’re dealing with the same neighborhood, the same type of scenarios with retail businesses looking to expand a retail display area outside of the confines of the building. That, in itself, is generic. MR. SEGULJIC-The tent and the carnival atmosphere, I think that’s good, personally. MR. MAC EWAN-I hope you’re alone on that one. MR. SEGULJIC-I was pretty much last time, too, I think. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I live up that way, and, you know, I go by the tents all the time, and one of the things that offends me visually is that you have this white tent, which folks use for parties all the time, but then to stake around it there’s usually cinder blocks on every corner. There’s usually a couple of pieces of steel that have danger tape wrapped around them, and then they 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) go around the whole perimeter of the tent, and so even though you have a nice white tent, everything around it is hokey. MR. HOLCZER-On ours? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. Actually you had orange tent, you had, it was danger tape. It was yellow with black letters. You’re on the corner of 149 and Route 9. MR. HOLCZER-Yes. That wasn’t ours. We didn’t have danger on it. The Fire Marshal or the Fire Chief, he blocked off a couple of parking spaces which, by that Code, but there was no danger tape on it. MRS. STEFFAN-There was tape of some sort, and it had cinder blocks, and there’s steel posts around it, because I go by there all the time. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments from Board members? MRS. STEFFAN-I just find it visually unappealing. MR. VOLLARO-That’s where I’m from, too. If I could be guaranteed one or two tents up there, I’d say fine, but I think this would go to escalation after a while. I mean, I know if I was a retailer and I saw. MR. MAC EWAN-It was well heading in that direction anyway. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and that’s what I’m really concerned about, and I want to be fair to everybody up on the road and not, Tom’s position is, well, this is an application by application situation, but I think, in this instance, we’ve got to look at that whole corridor, as to what this would do if it tends to escalate up. I think it’s more of an integrated approach than on a one, taking a look at every application on its own merit. That’s where I’m coming from on that. MR. HOLCZER-Well, excuse me if I may. Last year, when we were discussing this, I left here believing that you were going to come up with some sort of criteria to propose to us this year and at your insistence, we’re coming back and going through this process again, and we haven’t seen anything except for the package that we received from the Town, as well as the fire, but that’s how we left it, and that you were going to talk about it, possibly even getting revenue from it, I think was one of your ideas, that, you know, do a percentage of the sales. So all that was talked about. MR. MAC EWAN-Was I at that meeting? MR. HOLCZER-No, you were not. MR. SANFORD-Your recollection is correct. What the idea was, was that the Planning Ordinance Review Committee was going to embrace this and look at it and come up with something. To my knowledge, they have not done that. MR. HOLCZER-Right, and we have no problem with criteria, if you want to set up a criteria for this coming season and then come up with something that you have in a booklet, that’s not a problem. We follow the Code. We do all of that. I don’t understand the danger tape, but if that was an issue, because I don’t live up here. I do come up here fairly often, but I don’t recall that, but certainly that would be an eyesore. That’s why I was a little taken aback, but I believe you, and that would be eliminated, unless it comes under the fire chief’s. MRS. STEFFAN-Then it has to be, I understand. MR. HOLCZER-See, that I don’t know, but other than that, we’re open for any criteria. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) MRS. STEFFAN-And I believe the other comment that I made, I think when this application came around, I was an alternate, but I was on the Board, and I said that if we’re going to, as a community, if we’re going to allow these tents to be there, and if they’re going to be up for six months in duration and we’re adding 800 square feet of selling space, or whatever it happens to be, then folks should be assessed and taxed accordingly, because we’re really increasing their footprint. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess that’s where I start having the biggest issue with the tents, because what started out as a Labor Day sale or a Memorial Day sale has slowly, over the years, crept up to be a complete seasonal sale, and it’s become not just a sporadic thing for a week or 10 days or even two weeks, it’s come up where it’s been for an entire summer, an entire season, and to me that’s just nothing more than an opportunity to expand your retail display area. It’s not a special promotional thing. It’s not a short term event. It is a long term extension of your display area, and I just don’t see it’s right. MR. HOLCZER-Can I add one more thing? In our case, it really is not an extension. We buy even deeper discounts than we normally. MR. MAC EWAN-You can slice it any way you want, and you can try to explain it to me any way you want, it’s exactly what it is. MR. HOLCZER-But it’s not, as you said earlier, we’re not just taking stuff from the inside and moving it out. MR. MAC EWAN-But you’re expanding your store operations outdoors. MR. HOLCZER-No question. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s my point. MR. HOLCZER-But the store still remains intact, and we buy extra promotional goods, as well as empty all of our. MR. MAC EWAN-It doesn’t matter. You’re still expanding your store area. MR. HOLCZER-I’m not denying that. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the point I’m trying to make. It’s not like you’ve got an overstock of merchandise you want to push over Memorial Day weekend. MR. HOLCZER-Absolutely not. MR. MAC EWAN-You specifically buy for this, for this extra square footage that you’ve added on to your retail enterprise, and I have problems with that. MR. HOLCZER-And that’s why, Gretchen, your idea was (lost word) and the landlord certainly makes out on it because it’s additional sales. So he gets a percentage. MR. HUNSINGER-I think what’s needed is some sort of open air market. I understand what you’re saying, Mr. Chairman. I somewhat respectfully disagree a little bit. We do live in a tourist area that has a very short season, and I think some of them can be tacky. One of the tent sales that we denied last year, they just put all their merchandise out on the lawn. Totally defeated the intent of what we were trying to accomplish. I do think it is a case by case analysis, and I felt very comfortable in the decision we made on the one that we denied because I didn’t think that it met safety and pedestrian vehicular traffic issues. This one I always felt was tastefully done in a good location that was safe. So I personally don’t have a problem with this one. I do have problems with some of the others, but I guess it comes down to personal opinion when you talk about what the goal is. I mean, we do live in a tourist area. I think it helps to 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) add to some of the excitement and some of the appeal. Lots of people come to vacation so they can go to the outlet stores. So that’s just my own personal feeling. MR. METIVIER-I actually have to echo a lot of what Chris just said. I, too, personally don’t have any issues with it. I am thinking maybe we should take the approach, instead of having this be a seasonal thing, perhaps we should limit it on a case by case basis for 30, 45 days maybe at the most, as opposed to an open-ended, Memorial Day through Columbus Day type thing, and that way, you know, you pick and choose what you, or when you want to put these up. I don’t know if that would be economically feasible for the applicant, but, you know, give it a try. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think what Staff suggested was that this may be something that would want to be put before the PORC Committee. There are four members sitting here who are on that PORC Committee, as much as a I hate to use that word, there are four of us here, and I think that was a good suggestion, and we ought to really look at, one of the things we ought to look at, in terms of where we want to go, where would we place this? How do we want to do this? Do we want these tents or don’t we want them, and let’s see what the PORC Committee. MR. METIVIER-Maybe we could even take it a step further and have a tent standard, size, color. MR. VOLLARO-We would try to implement that kind of thing, as far as the Committee is concerned. MR. METIVIER-I don’t necessarily think it’s a dangerous situation. I mean, I know, Craig, you said that you’ve seen rubbernecking, and, you know, I accept that, but anything up there could cause that. I mean, there was, a few summers ago, a big, bad boat up there that almost caused me to take out a half a crowd of Chinese people, but it was on the side of the road, and I understand exactly what you’re saying, in that, you know, anything can distract you up there. The scooters are the worst right now. Those scooters that are parked out front. What’s the difference with what they’re doing versus what some of these tents are doing? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think the tent just looks a little more, has a little more carnival atmosphere. MR. METIVIER-But you have to keep in mind. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me just address the issue of the scooters for a second. What’s going on there with that particular enterprise is that they’re in within the State highway right of way. So that’s an enforcement action. So someone from the Town needs to investigate that, or the State, whoever. MR. METIVIER-And I think that they should, because I think, overall, I think that’s a disgrace up there, the way they’ve done that. I mean, that’s more carnival than anything else you have going on, but you have to realize what you’re dealing with. The Million Dollar Half Mile is a shopping center area. MR. VOLLARO-You’re right, Tony, but they’re not in front of us now. That’s part of the problem. MR. METIVIER-No, no. I understand that, and I think Craig just did a great job with what he said, that it’s an enforcement action and it needs to be looked into. On the record, period, done, but the fact remains is that what you’re dealing with up there is a shopping area. It attracts tourists. People do go up there for shopping, they truly do, and we need to be able to invite people up there and have sales and do things out of the ordinary. MR. VOLLARO-You think they wouldn’t come there if there wasn’t a tent? 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) MR. MAC EWAN-I’m kind of curious as to an answer. I mean, I’ve not been down in the Manchester area in a while. Do they put up tents during the summer during their tourist season? MR. METIVIER-Honestly, I’ve only been in Manchester in the fall. So I don’t know. MR. MAC EWAN-Do they do it in Saratoga Springs during the tourist season? MR. METIVIER-They do it at Christmas time. MR. MAC EWAN-Put tents up? MR. METIVIER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-For how long? MR. METIVIER-I would say probably Thanksgiving through Christmas. MR. MAC EWAN-Really? That actually surprises me in historic Saratoga. It really does, but what happens in other communities doesn’t really, what we can do here. MR. METIVIER-I totally understand and respect your point. I truly do, but, you know, I think there’s two sides to this, and I look at it from the economic side. MR. MAC EWAN-Show me economics in our Zoning Ordinance. Show me where that’s considered for our review. MR. METIVIER-It’s not. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. So you can’t consider that. MR. METIVIER-No. I can’t consider that, but I guess I’m looking at it from the aspect that it’s been done for so long, do we really have a big problem with it? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, it’s got where the Board has the feeling that it’s becoming a big problem. MR. SANFORD-Actually, you can consider economics in your criteria for making a decision on a Planning Board. That’s not a correct statement, I don’t believe, Mr. MacEwan. We tend not to do that, but apparently we’re not bound by parameters. Certainly the financial well being of the Town is a something that is totally appropriate for the Planning Board to consider, based on what I was reading in some of these Town documents. I can’t tell you exactly where, but you can. MR. MAC EWAN-As far as I know, the Zoning Ordinance and our review criteria as Planning Board members, economics do not play a role in it, to my knowledge. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ve read some of the same stuff that Rich has, and I think. MR. SCHACHNER-I was going to ask Mr. Sanford what documents he was reading, because I’m very concerned about that. There are general, there are any number of general policy documents and general policy statements that talk about all sorts of aspects of health and welfare of the community, and in a very general sense, health and welfare of the community includes character of neighborhood, public safety, economic vitality if you will, and what not. MR. SANFORD-That’s the kind of stuff that I was reading. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, but let me finish, but when it comes time to make decisions on applications, the criteria that you have, whether you’re reviewing, I mean, basically your authority is to review subdivisions and site plan review application, and also other specific limited things, but this, for example, is a site plan review issue, not a subdivision, obviously, and if you look in your subdivision criteria and you’re all very familiar with those, I don’t think you’re going to find anything about economic impacts in those, and I will tell you that there are a number of cases in New York in which planning boards have made decisions on applications grounded on economic impact scenarios and those decisions are typically overturned by courts. MR. SANFORD-So it’s just a theoretical, not that this is too applicable to this application. If someone wanted to come up with a Levit Town approach to development in Queensbury, would it be within our area of responsibility or evaluation to consider the impact that might have on school systems within the Town of Queensbury? MR. SCHACHNER-It might be, but not in the context of economic impacts on the Town or the cost of the housing or what not. Remember that one of your site plan, well subdivision, it would probably be a subdivision, one of your subdivision criteria is the capability of local resources to deal with the subdivision. So you’re allowed to look at, can the fire department handle the new subdivision? Can the Warren County Sheriff’s Department handle the new subdivision? Can the school system handle the new subdivision? That’s not really specifically an economic issue. That’s more of a capacity issue. MR. SANFORD-They’re related, Mark. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m not saying they’re unrelated, and we can quarrel about this, or debate this until the cows come home. MR. SANFORD-It’s not the time. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s what I was going to say. This is a very esoteric, philosophical issue, but what I’m telling you is that, what I’m telling you in a nutshell is, don’t make decisions based on economic factors because they’re not in your site plan or subdivision review criteria. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. METIVIER-And that’s fine. Can I suggest maybe that we open a public hearing, close it and maybe make a motion either way, since we’re going to dwell on this for another half an hour and get nowhere. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Did you want to comment, ma’am? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED LAURIE BURNETT MS. BURNETT-My name is Laurie Burnett. I’m the Store Manager at Dunham Footwear, and I just wanted to comment on a few things. We try to provide a fun atmosphere for the shoppers, Million Dollar Half Mile. It’s a very short season, even if you characterize it from Memorial Day to Labor Day or the Fourth of July to Labor Day, it’s very short. The customers coming through that are tourists see the tent with fresh eyes every week. You get a new group of people. We’ve always worked very closely with Steve Smith, the Fire Marshal. He is a great guy, and we do everything to get everything in standard and up to Code for him, and it’s always a good time for us and the customers. We have a lot of people that look forward to it every year, come back year after year, and it’s been done well over the years, and I think that it’s a very benign thing that we enjoy doing, and that’s all. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? I’ll close it. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you gentlemen wanted to add? MR. HOLCZER-The only comment I really wanted to make is obviously this discussion is very similar to the one last year whereas Joe said, we had thought this Board or some other Board would promulgate some sort of criteria that we could follow. We still hope that would be the case, and we would be more than happy to follow that, but without anything promulgated, it would seem to me that we would like to rely on the precedent of 15 years, and we’d be happy to work with you if that’s necessary to promulgate these things, but we’d like to be able to be not caught in the middle. That’s why we come in early and try to get your approval for the tent for this year. We’ll be happy to talk about dates if that becomes an issue, but we’d like to be able to go forward. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you own or rent the tent that you use? MR. HOLCZER-We rent the tent. MR. HUNSINGER-You rent it. So do you have a choice of like colors and things like that? MR. HOLCZER-We might. This particular tent company I’m not sure if they have colors, but I certainly could look around. MR. HUNSINGER-Because I’ve noticed your tent on a number of occasions, but I haven’t noticed, from year to year, if it’s the same design and color and that kind of thing. MR. HOLCZER-It’s been white for the last two years, three years since we’ve had the company. It’s been a white tent and it has the sides, and it does not have an open look and a carnival look to it. Years past, from what I understand, it was an opening, and it might have caused the rubbernecking because it was open on all sides. This way it’s closed, whatever the criteria says, and we have the openings that are small and shouldn’t create too, too much of a commotion. MR. METIVIER-Would you be up to specific dates or times or do you really want it to be an open? MR. HOLCZER-We’re at your disposal. That’s why we’re here. MR. METIVIER-I’m just thinking that might be able to limit some of the tents, if you put a timeframe of 30 day, 15, 45 or something at least, they may overlap each other and you may have four at one time, but they’re not up for the whole summer, and depending on when they want to do their sales, maybe you won’t have the three, four or five going up. MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to introduce a motion one way or the other, please. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make a stab at it. MOTION TO DENY SITE PLAN NO. 7-2005 MORTT DISTRIBUTORS DBA DUNHAM FOOTWEAR, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: As a part of this denial, that the Planning Board will submit this to the Planning/Ordinance Review Committee for further consideration. The reason for denial would be that I think that it’s an adverse impact on the neighborhood in terms of possibly showing a carnival type of atmosphere up in the area of the Million Dollar Half Mile. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) Duly adopted this 15th day of February, 2005, by the following vote: MR. SANFORD-It’s not carnival looking now? MR. VOLLARO-Well, it doesn’t mean we have to perpetuate that to an additional degree. I think this has to be looked at and see whether or not we want these things up there or not. We’ve got to be fair to everybody who comes in. Once you agree to have this tent situation going on up there, you’ve opened the gates to everybody to come in. Just imagine what it would look like with ten or fifteen tents up there. AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. Steffan Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic MR. MAC EWAN-I do agree with you, Bob. Let’s make sure this gets on the Planning/Ordinance Review Committee’s agenda and take a good hard look at this and see if there’s something we can’t do to maybe help out some of the retailers up there, but I’ll tell you, I’m one guy who would not want to see them up there for an entire tourist season. I just don’t think it’s appropriate. MRS. STEFFAN-I did have it on my list to talk about on Thursday night. It was on my list. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. MR. VOLLARO-If we come to some sort of a decision on Thursday night, which is this Thursday night, we’ll get to Staff and see if we can’t notify. MRS. STEFFAN-George, are those meeting minutes on the Internet, from the Ordinance Review Committee? MR. HILTON-I believe they are. I can’t say for sure, but I believe they are. MRS. STEFFAN-We’ll bring it up for discussion on Thursday night and so you’ll be able to see the minutes on line, or contact the Community Development Department. MR. HOLCZER-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Sorry, folks. Any other business? MR. HUNSINGER-I had something I wanted to bring up. I don’t know if anyone on the Board has been up to the Wal-Mart store recently, the way that they have blocked off most of the parking lot. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, they’ve been in talking to the Town a few times. MR. HUNSINGER-I imagine they have, and I was up there last weekend and of course my first thought was, there was never any discussion of temporary traffic and vehicular access during construction, and I think there’s some potential real problems there. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, maybe I can fill you in a little bit of what I’m aware of what’s going on here. What the problem is, I guess, is the contractor said, starting in different areas, they ended up just carte blanch going across the entire parcel, and when they did, they cut off power to several of the lights up there, obviously light poles. So they came in to the Town. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that was the other issue. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/15/04) MR. MAC EWAN-They’ve got a temporary approval for some temporary lighting that’s going to be very much watched by the Town Code Enforcement Officer to make sure they’re not going to deflect to the apartment complex to the back or over into the neighborhood behind Ray Supply, but I guess ultimately what happened is that, I think internally what they were trying to do was phase it themselves, and whoever the contractor they’ve got just started going here, there and everywhere and has created quite a problem for them up there. Word is on street I heard is their business if off 50%. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not surprised. MRS. STEFFAN-You just can’t park. You can’t find a place. MR. HUNSINGER-You just can’t get in and out. MR. MAC EWAN-So that’s something they’ll need to work on. Hopefully this temporary lighting is going to help with some of the problems. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess my thought was sort of a heads up for all of us to pay attention to construction issues, which we really didn’t consider at all when we were doing that site plan review. MR. MAC EWAN-I asked Marilyn on Saturday when I spoke with her to make sure that Bruce stays right on top of this thing. I get to the point, as one member of this Board, the amount of time we take doing reviews, especially for commercial applications, and we go through a lengthy review process with a lot of conditions of approval, is we get the sites looking the way we think will work best for the Town, and after the fact, contractors, owners, whatever, seem to come in and ask for modifications because they decide not to build it the way they approve it, and this is one application I want to see through the bitter end that it’s built the way it was approved, no ifs, ands or buts, no modifications. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess I just think the other thing we need to do, maybe, is just add to our site plan review criteria is, you know, conditions during construction, and clearly some mitigation should have been planned that wasn’t, because I think it’s a real problem. MR. MAC EWAN-It is up there. It really is. MR. METIVIER-The Northway Plaza was the same thing. What a disaster that was when they were doing that construction, how dangerous that whole situation was there, for so long, and you have employees there working at the Travelers and per se, and, my gosh, I don’t know how they got through that. The same thing. MR. MAC EWAN-The Mall was the same way, too. MR. METIVIER-The Mall was a disaster, absolutely, although they did a great job at the end, but I think Chris has a very valid point. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. We’ll add it to the list. I’ll revise the list and bring it next week. Anything else? We’re done. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 54